Ms. Mikulsi: Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Levin amendment in terms of determining our action in Iraq.
As a graduate of West Point, the Presiding Officer knows how great a decision it is for the U.S. Congress to decide about war. Now this Senate is considering the gravest decision we will ever be called upon to make, which is to give the President unlimited authority to go to war, to make a decision to send American military men and women in harm's way. I say to my constituents, to the people of this country, and to the military, I take this responsibility very seriously.
I have listened to the President and his advisers make their case. I have consulted with experts and wise heads. I have participated in hearings and briefings as a Member of the Senate, and particularly as a member of the Intelligence Committee. I have listened very intently to my own constituents. I know that the decision we are about to make will affect the lives of America's sons and daughters, and the future of the United States of America.
But first, let me say a word about our troops. Each and every member of our military is part of the American family. Their service is a tremendous sacrifice and also a great risk. These are ordinary men and women, often called upon to act in a very extraordinary way, and they have never failed us. Whatever the Nation asks them to do, I know they will do it with bravery, fortitude, and gallantry.
Therefore we, all Americans, owe them a debt of gratitude. But we owe them even more. The Congress owes it to them to choose the wisest, most prudent course in this matter. As Senators, we must keep in mind the men and women of our military.
That is why I support Senator Levin's resolution on Iraq. I support that because it meets my principles. Have all diplomatic and other nonmilitary means been exhausted? The Levin resolution turns to the United Nations and its Security Council to make a decision in terms of the enforcement of its own resolutions. It calls for international legitimacy, international cooperation, international support, and, I might add, international resources. It urges the Security Council to fill President Bush's request to demand Iraqi disarmament and to authorize the use of a multinational military force if Iraq refuses to comply. If the U.N. refuses to act under the Levin amendment, Congress would then promptly consider whether America should act alone.
Senator Levin's is not the only resolution before the Senate. As I have looked at all of them, I asked questions. First, what really is Saddam Hussein's intent?
Second, does he have the means to accomplish this intent? Does he have weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological, and nuclear?
Third, how grave and imminent is the threat? Is the Iraqi threat best met by a unilateral approach or a vigorous international response?
Finally, what are the consequences of our action? What will our military face in Iraq? What will be the impact on Iraq and the Middle East? What does this mean to the war on terrorism?
These are the kinds of questions I am asking myself so I can make a wise decision.
But make no mistake, I firmly believe that Saddam Hussein is duplicitous, deceptive, and dangerous. I despise him. Saddam is a brutal, totalitarian dictator and history shows us how dangerous Iraq is under his rule. He invaded Kuwait and used chemical weapons against his own people. I do believe he has developed chemical and biological weapons, and I also believe he is pursuing nuclear weapons, defying the will of the international community and also denying the agreement that he made at the end of the gulf war.
I also really do not believe Saddam is going to change. The question then is, what does this mean for the future? I think Iraq does have the grim and ghoulish means to carry out its evil plans. I think if we look at declassified CIA reports and the British white paper, we can see that Iraq does continue to develop and produce and stockpile chemical and biological weapons, and is trying to get the technology and materials to produce nuclear weapons. So these threats cannot and must not be ignored.
Therefore, what is the best way to proceed? My analysis further indicates that Saddam Hussein just doesn't threaten the United States or our assets or our people abroad. He threatens the entire region. He also threatens treasured allies. And because the threat is greater than ourselves, we must bring the international community with us, to share the responsibility and the burden of stopping these threats.
This is why I support the Levin amendment. It is our best chance to forge a vigorous international response, and to also have the backing of a multinational military response.
The Levin amendment requires four things. It urges the U.N. Security Council to promptly adopt a resolution demanding access to U.N. inspectors to destroy Iraq's missiles and weapons of mass destruction. We know that works. When the inspectors were in Iraq, they destroyed more weapons of mass destruction than we did during the gulf war.
The Levin amendment authorizes member states to use necessary and appropriate force if Iraq refuses to comply. I understand the use of force might be necessary. It also very clearly asserts and affirms the U.S. right to self-defense.
It authorizes the President to use armed force to fulfill the U.N. Security Council resolution, provided the President determines that diplomacy was tried and exhausted first. It also tells us not to adjourn so Congress can further consider action if the U.N. fails.
That is what we are looking at. The consequences of committing American troops to war in Iraq are very serious and they must be carefully reviewed.
The question is, will our American troops be welcomed with flags or will they be welcomed with land mines? Our troops could face an Iraqi military entrenched in cities instead of the open desert warfare of the gulf war. Iraq could use chemical and biological weapons right on our troops as we are engaged in battle. They could also do this against their own Iraqi civilians.
This is why I believe America should not face these threats alone. If we go in, we should not go in by ourselves. If the threat is so real, the world should take it seriously and then vote to be able to come with us.
Mr. Allard: Will the Senator yield?
Ms. Mikulsi: When I finish, yes.
America cannot face this situation alone. The support and cooperation of allies would enable us to share the risks and the cost. We need international legitimacy, international support, and international manpower.
What happens when we win the war? Military victory is only the start of U.S. engagement in Iraq. Fostering a new regime could take decades. Most people don't realize that Iraq is an artificial construct, formed in 1920 by a League of Nations mandate after the first World War. Iraq has no unifying history or culture or religion or language: Its population is deeply divided on ethnic and religious lines.
The end of Saddam Hussein could mean the start of a civil war. Fostering the creation of new government in Iraq will not be easy. There is no real opposition group ready to take over because Saddam's totalitarian regime does not tolerate opposition.
If Saddam is overthrown--we have to be prepared for what happens next. Will American troops become an army of occupation or will Iraq fall into chaos and civil war?
America cannot face this situation alone. The support and cooperation of allies would enable us to share the risks and the costs.
War on Iraq could also have unintended consequences for the Middle East. Some optimists see war in Iraq leading to democratization and peace in the Middle East. They predict the overthrow of undemocratic regimes in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria and other countries. But there is a real risk that attacking Iraq would unify Arab countries and the wider Muslim world against us. We are already seeing signs of cooperation between Sunni and Shi'ite extremists and terrorist groups.
A mandate from the United Nations would mean the international community against Saddam instead of the United States against Iraq. Other countries in the region would join our coalition, rather than obstructing or opposing us.
I also worry that unilateral action could undermine the war on terrorism. Some special forces are already being withdrawn from the efforts to hunt al-Qaida in Afghanistan. Intelligence resources would be re-directed to cover Iraq, reducing our focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan. Arab and Muslim states may reduce their intelligence cooperation against al-Qaida and other terrorist groups. The focus of our top military and civilian leaders could shift away from bin Laden and al-Qaida. There are other issues.
An international coalition helps address the impact of war in Iraq on the war on terrorism. By sharing the burden during and after a war, more of our troops and resources can pursue the war on terrorism by keeping together the global coalition against terrorist groups.
I want to conclude by thanking President Bush for engaging in intensive diplomacy at the U.N. I know the Bush administration is being aggressive at the U.N. and in the key states, including Russia, China, and France. I applaud the President for this.
President Bush also made it clear that the U.N. has a responsibility to address Iraq's threat to international peace and security. I absolutely agree with him on this. But also I agree we have to get the United Nations Security Council authorization to form an international coalition.
We cannot fail to act if action is necessary, but we must take the time to see if we can minimize the danger and also build a coalition to share the risk. An international coalition would do that.
The Senate faces difficult decisions on how to address the Iraqi threat. I believe the Levin amendment is by far the strongest option. It endorses the President's speech to the United Nations, strengthening the U.S. position in multilateral diplomacy and authorizing the use of force only if authorized by the U.N. Security Council without ruling out the possibility that Congress will authorize the unilateral use of force if that decision becomes necessary. Most importantly, the Levin resolution presents the best hope for the United States to achieve international support and a multinational military coalition to address the Iraqi threat to peace and security.
Therefore, I look forward to voting for the Levin amendment. I urge my colleagues to join me in doing that because I believe the way to deal with this issue is international support and a multinational military coalition, should force be necessary.
Before I yield the floor, I turn to the Senator from Colorado, who had a question.
Mr. Allard: I say to the Senator from Maryland, I did have a question. I just finished a bipartisan press conference with the Secretary of State. He said the diplomats, our negotiators at the United Nations, felt they needed the strongest position possible in order to make their negotiations end in a successful way. I was struck by your comments and your support for the Levin amendment. I wonder if you could respond to his comments that we just had, about 12:30 or so.
Ms. Mikulsi: I say to the Senator, I did not hear his comments at the press conference.
I applaud Secretary Powell. I think his is a vigorous effort to try to resolve the situation through diplomatic means, to send a message to Saddam that he should voluntarily disarm and let the inspectors in.
That might not work. But it is then up to the U.N., as the President said when he spoke to them, to take responsibility; to therefore authorize action to enforce their own resolutions so the United States of America is not doing this all by ourselves. It is not America versus Saddam. It should be the international community against Saddam because, I think you would agree, he is a despicable cad.
Mr. Allard: I would agree with that. But I think the point was being made, if we have a strong resolution, it would be less likely we would be out there by ourselves. If we had some weaker position, and we went in----
Ms. Mikulsi: Going where, sir? Going to the U.N. or going back to Saddam? I am sorry, who is negotiating with whom? Are you talking about the U.N. negotiating with Saddam or Secretary Powell negotiating within the U.N.?
Mr. Allard: I am talking about Secretary Powell and our diplomats negotiating within the United Nations, negotiating with members of the Security Council. The feeling is we need to have a strong resolution in order to make those negotiations successful.
Ms. Mikulsi: I see. I thought you were talking about sending a message to Saddam. No. I understand. I believe the Levin amendment is a pretty muscular amendment, saying back to the U.N., you passed those resolutions, you should really step up to those resolutions, and putting the pressure back on them; and also saying, we are not going to adjourn until we hear what you are going to do. And we will be ready to respond promptly.
So I think the Levin amendment is a fairly muscular amendment.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. Allard: Mr. President, I will now yield to the Senator from New Hampshire, a good friend, and somebody who does a great job. I yield to him 20 minutes.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from New Hampshire.
Mr. Gregg: Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Colorado. I appreciate his courtesy, and I appreciate his leadership on the most important resolution. His leadership has had an integral impact on how this resolution was designed, and he has been a leader on addressing what is obviously the major national security issue which we confront as a Nation today.
I--like many Americans, hopefully--have followed the debate in this Chamber. I have been interested in the tenor and tempo of the debate. I believe it has obviously been serious and substantive in its approach to how we address the question of this resolution, which will authorize the President to take such action as is necessary in order to protect our Nation relative to Iraq, and to work with the United Nations in that undertaking.
One of the things, however, I have also noted is there is almost a sophistry being presented here. For example, I heard one presentation, talking about whether or not we were pursuing preventive war versus preemptive war, in which there was almost a rather nice dissertation of what I would call political science 101 on the difference between preemptive war and preventive war, and whether or not we, as a Nation, had a right to pursue a preventive war versus a preemptive war.
I would simply point out we are at war. We are not initiating war. We are not in the process of striking an enemy by whom we have not been struck. Two Embassies in Africa were attacked. Hundreds of people died. An American ship in Yemen was attacked. Many sailors died. And, of course, on September 11, thousands of Americans died in America as a result of an attack.
We are at war. We did not ask for it. We did not initiate it, but we have no choice but to respond to it. In responding to it, we must have our eyes open. We are a Nation which inherently believes in the better nature of people. We inevitably give people the benefit of the doubt. It is our culture, and it is one of our strengths. Regrettably, in this war, giving people the benefit of the doubt--people who have a track record of either hating us, attacking us, or confronting us militarily--may end up costing us even more lives.
I think we need to review the enemy's purpose. Let's begin with al- Qaida and bin Laden, and use his own words.
bin Laden, in an interview that was published in January 1999--it originally appeared in Time--made the following statement:
Hostility toward America is religious duty.
He went on to say, in February 1998:
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies, civilians and military, is an individual duty of every Moslem, who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it.
"Civilians and military."
He went on to say:
We, with Allah's help, call on every Moslem, who believes in Allah and wishes to be rewarded, to comply with Allah's order to kill Americans and plunder their money.
And most recently, in a tape recently released just a week ago:
The youth of Islam are preparing something to strike fear in your hearts----
Referring to America----
and will target the vital sections of your economy until you renounce your injustice and hostility.
This is an enemy who has called to arms the people who believe in him and follow him for the purposes of killing Americans as defined by his own language: "civilian and military." That is the enemy we confront in al-Qaida.
And what is the relationship to Iraq?
First off, we must look at the history of our relationship and of Iraq's relationship in the area of military activity. Saddam Hussein has attacked his neighbors, neighboring nations twice. He has mercilessly--mercilessly--suppressed his own people, especially the Kurdish minority within Iraq. He has invaded Iran and Kuwait.
He has also developed and used weapons of mass destruction. "Weapons of mass destruction" is a terribly antiseptic term. But what it means is, he is essentially willing to spread disease which will kill thousands--tens of thousands--of people in order to obtain his purpose. And he has done it. He has used biological weapons. He has used chemical weapons against the Iranians and against the Kurdish people in his own country, killing literally thousands of people.
Of course, we went to war with Iraq in the early 1990s. So our history with Iraq is significant, as we recognize they are governed by an outlaw and, as a result, have been a nation functioning outside of the civil discourse of organized nations.
But why is it important we confront them at this time and in this context? It is important because of the weapons of mass destruction which they have. If this were the world prior to 1980, let us say, when weapons of mass destruction were not so readily available, or nations which had them were governed by governments which had at least some modicum of responsibility, then you might not look at a tyrant such as Hussein and say you needed to do anything: Let him, regrettably, do his harm to his neighbors and his nation. It is not affecting us.
The problem is, after September 11, we, as a country, cannot take such an isolationist view, for we know there is an enemy out there called al-Qaida that has stated, unequivocally, their purpose is to kill Americans and destroy our society and culture. And we have seen them take action to do that on September 11, and in Africa at our Embassies, and at the USS Cole.
We also know there is another nation out there, run by a tyrant, who is a murderous individual, who has weapons which are capable of exacting massive--massive--amounts of damage and loss of life, if used.
The threat, obviously, is that the two should be joined or that the tyrant should just unilaterally use these weapons. Why is that threat legitimate? It is legitimate because there is significant common sense which tells us that it may be joined.
There have been reports not by American news media or by American intelligence services but by Arab sources which have made it clear that there is a cross-fertilization between the Hussein government and al- Qaida. Reports appearing in a Karachi newspaper, the Ummat, on November 22 carried an article saying that Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to the top Taliban and al-Qaida leadership, including Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar. In this regard, a delegation led by a senior official in the Iraqi Government, Taha Hussein, met with Mavlana Jalal ud-Din Haqqani--I hope I pronounced that correctly, but considering his purposes, I don't really care--in Qatar and conveyed Saddam Hussein's offer to him.
If the report is true, then it is at least the second time Saddam Hussein has offered bin Laden asylum. A report in the Christian Science Monitor cited Arab sources which it considered to be legitimate that, according to Hassan Mohammed, who claims to have worked for two decades for Iraq intelligence services, graduates of an Iraqi school were intimately involved in training both Assad al Hassan and al-Qaida cells, and the quote is:
My information is that the Iraqi Government was directly supporting al-Qaida with weapons and explosives.
There are more and more reports like this. It is also logical, logical because Osama bin Laden and his people have made it clear that those who consider us an enemy are their allies. Therefore, Iraq is a natural ally to them, and vice versa.
So the possibility that a weapon of mass destruction which has been developed--and we know they have been developed within Iraq, biological and chemical weapons--could fall into al-Qaida hands or people representing the same concepts of al-Qaida is distinct.
We also know that Iraq is moving forward with a nuclear program, that they wish to have a nuclear bomb, and that they may well have it, if they are able to get fissile material within a year; if not, within 3 or 4 years. They are much further down the road toward obtaining nuclear weapons than we even anticipated when we had the war with them in the early 1990s. That was terminated then but has been restarted.
So what are we to do about this? The U.N. has passed 16 resolutions, the basic purpose of which is to try to disarm Saddam Hussein and his government, specifically in the area of weapons of mass destruction. There is no civilized nation today that does not understand the threat that is represented by having a government headed by a tyrant such as Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction.
So the U.N. has made a conscientious effort to address this with these 16 resolutions. Of course, Saddam Hussein has ignored those, lied about what he is doing, and he ejected the inspectors, which leads us to the point we are at today.
This resolution has as its fundamental purpose the disarmament of Saddam Hussein, taking away his weapons of mass destruction. If, as a corollary to that, a regime change occurred in Iraq, that would be for the betterment of the world, I suspect. But the vital purpose here is to terminate the capacity to have and to use weapons of mass destruction, either by Iraq or by a client of Iraq or by an ally of Iraq or by al-Qaida specifically.
It is a totally legitimate national security purpose that we should pursue. The President has outlined the need to accomplish this. What he has essentially said, and appropriately so, is that we will support the U.N. effort to accomplish this. But if the U.N. is unable to accomplish it, then our national security is so important, so overriding, that we should take action with our allies to accomplish this. That is the only reasonable approach when you confront a threat of this significance.
There are some in this body who have essentially said we should pursue what I call the good intentions approach. That is an American trait--that we do give people the benefit of the doubt. But the good intentions approach in this area--hoping that things will work out through a policy of containment--has not worked.
We know for a fact that Hussein and his people have ignored the 16 resolutions and that they are developing weapons of mass destruction, and they actually possess them. We know for a fact that they may well use them. To wait and rely on good intentions would be an error of policy which might lead to the death of many Americans. We can't afford that risk. We must insist, as the President has said, on the disarmament of the Hussein regime; specifically, the disarmament of their weapons of mass destruction, in a manner which is absolutely confirmable, where we know without question that it has occurred and that those weapons have not been moved into other places of hiding or into other hands, which may cause greater harm.
What the resolution before us does is give the President the authority to accomplish those goals. To fail to give the President the authority to accomplish those goals would be, in my opinion, an act of gross negligence, a failure of our responsibility as a government to defend our people.
We are at war. We have been attacked. Americans have been killed. And if Mr. bin Laden and his people have their way, more will be killed.
If we are to defend ourselves, we must be assured that the most threatening weapons they can use will not be used against Americans. Therefore, we must take action relative to Iraq. This resolution empowers the President to accomplish that. That is why I intend to vote for it.
I yield the floor.
Mr. Allard: Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from New Hampshire for a very fine statement. I notice that our colleague from North Carolina has arrived in the Chamber, and we have Senator Jeffords scheduled to speak at 3. I ask the Senator from North Carolina, does he need a minute or two to make a comment?
Mr. Helms: I thank the Chair, but I cannot use the time now.
Mr. Allard: Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The Presiding Officer: The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. Reid: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Reid: Mr. President, I was speaking to the manager of the bill, Senator Allard. He is scheduled to speak after Senator Jeffords, who is not here. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Allard be recognized for 20 minutes and that Senator Jeffords follow him.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
Mr. Allard: I thank the Senator from Nevada.
Mr. President, today, I rise in strong support of S.J. Res. 46, the bipartisan joint resolution to authorize the use of the U.S. Armed Forces against Iraq.
First, I want to praise the President for his leadership and for reaching out to all Members of this body. I am proud to be an original cosponsor of S.J. Res. 46 with Senators Lieberman, McCain, Warner, Bayh, Domenici, Helms, Hutchison, Landrieu, and Miller. These Senators are leaders of the Senate, and I am proud to be associated with them on this important matter.
Also, I want to commend the leadership of the other body for their leadership in brokering this agreement between the administration, the Senate, and the House.
I know this debate will be vigorous in nature and serious in tone, which is exactly how such a debate should take place. One of our most solemn duties as Senators is when we are called upon to cast a vote on whether to send our men and women in uniform into harm's way. Quite simply, this is one of the most serious votes any Member will make.
I remember, as a new Member of Congress in 1991, one of my first votes was whether to go to war in the Persian Gulf. Just like in 1991, voting on this resolution will be a tough vote. But that is why we are here--to take a stand, state what we believe, and make the tough votes. In the end, I hope this debate will show that the Senate, despite any disagreements, is united in its resolve against Saddam Hussein.
Mr. President, the United States has basically been at war with Iraq ever since the Persian Gulf conflict. In April 1991 and August 1992, the northern and the southern no-fly zones were established in order to enforce United Nations Resolution 688. Since then, U.S., British, and coalition aircraft patrolling these no-fly zones have been fired upon by Iraq more than 2,500 times and over 400 times this year alone. However, despite the daily threat in the no-fly zones, our pilots have only fired back in response 44 times.
Saddam Hussein has repeatedly defied sixteen United Nations resolutions which were designed to ensure that Iraq would no longer be a threat to international peace and security. Plus, the United Nations Security Council has issued 30 statements regarding Saddam Hussein's violations of these 16 resolutions. At this time, I ask unanimous consent that a list provided by the White House of the 16 United Nations Security Council Resolutions and a list of Council statements regarding the violations be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
U.N. Security Council Resolutions and Council Statements Regarding Violations
Defied UN Security Council Eesolutions by Saddam Hussein
UNSCR 678--November 29, 1990
Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's illegal invasion of Kuwait) "and all subsequent relevant resolutions."
Authorizes UN Member States "to use all necessary means to uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area." UNSCR 686--March 2, 1991
Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.
Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War.
Iraq must accept liability under international law for damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait. UNSCR 687--April 3, 1991
Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "chemical and biological weapons and all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and components and all research, development, support and manufacturing facilities."
Iraq must "unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material" or any research, development or manufacturing facilities.
Iraq must "unconditionally accept" the destruction, removal or rendering harmless "under international supervision" of all "ballistic missiles with a range greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and production facilities."
Iraq must not "use, develop, construct or acquire" any weapons of mass destruction.
Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty.
Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to verify the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear weapons program.
Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction programs.
Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.
Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead Kuwaitis and others.
Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf War. UNSCR 688--April 5, 1991
"Condemns" repression of Iraqi civilian population, "the consequences of which threaten international peace and security."
Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian population.
Iraq must allow immediate access to international humanitarian organization to those in need of assistance. UNSCR 707--August 15, 1991.
"Condemns" Iraq's "serious violation" of UNSCR 687.
"Further condemns" Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the Security Council deems Iraq in full compliance.
Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile programs.
Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass destruction, and related materials and facilities.
Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct inspection flights throughout Iraq.
Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical support for UN and IAEA inspectors. UNSCR 715--October 11, 1991
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors. UNSCR 949--October 15, 1994
"Condemns" Iraq's recent military deployments toward Kuwait.
Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or UN operations in Iraq.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors.
Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern Iraq. UNSCR 1051--March 27, 1996
Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to weapons of mass destruction to the UN and IAEA.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access. UNSCR 1060--June 12, 1996
"Deplores" Iraq's refusal to allow access to UN inspectors and Iraq's "clear violations" of previous UN resolutions.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access. UNSCR 1115--June 21, 1997
"Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "clear and flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview. UNSCR 1134--October 23, 1997
"Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access" to UN inspectors, which constitutes a "flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to interview. UNSCR 1137--November 12, 1997
"Condemns the continued violations by Iraq" of previous UN resolutions, including its "implicit threat to the safety of" aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering with UN inspector monitoring equipment.
Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of UN inspectors.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and allows immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access. UNSCR 1154--March 2, 1998
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have the "severest consequences for Iraq." UNSCR 1194--September 9, 1998
"Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend cooperation with" UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes "a totally unacceptable contravention" of its obligations under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.
Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access. UNSCR 1205--November 5, 1998
"Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease cooperation" with UN inspectors as "a flagrant violation" of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.
Iraq must provide "immediate, complete and unconditional cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspectors. UNSCR 1284--December 17, 1999
Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon inspection team (UNSCOM).
Iraq must allow UNMOVIC "immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access" to Iraqi officials and facilities.
Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War prisoners.
Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable Iraqis without discrimination.
Additional UN Security Council Statements
In addition to the legally binding UNSCRs, the UN Security Council has also issued at least 30 statements from the President of the UN Security Council regarding Saddam Hussein's continued violations of UNSCRs. The list of statements includes:
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 28, 1991.
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 5, 1992.
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 19, 1992.
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 28, 1992.
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 6, 1992.
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 11, 1992.
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 12, 1992.
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, April 10, 1992.
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 17, 1992.
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, July 6, 1992.
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, September 2, 1992.
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 23, 1992.
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 24, 1992.
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 8, 1993.
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 11, 1993.
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 18, 1993.
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 28, 1993.
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 23, 1993.
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, October 8, 1994.
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 19, 1996.
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 14, 1996.
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, August 23, 1996.
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 30, 1996.
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 13, 1997.
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, October 29, 1997.
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 13, 1997.
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 3, 1997.
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 22, 1997.
- UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 14, 1998.
Source: White House.
Mr. Allard: After the Persian Gulf conflict, the international community levied economic sanctions and established the "Oil for Food" program. However, these sanctions have largely eroded due to the lack of resolve by the international community and the reality of Iraq's substantial illicit trade. Turkey and Jordan import Iraqi oil via truck routes, Iran escorts oil tankers through territorial waters, an Iraq-Syrian pipeline is the largest export method of Iraqi oil, with an Iraq-Jordan pipeline scheduled to be operational in 2005.
The United States attempted to garner support for "Smart Sanctions" in early 2001, but this attempt met tepid reception by the international community. Russia, China, and France have negotiated substantial contracts with Iraq which would be executable upon lifting of U.N. sanctions. Under the Oil for Food program, food import levels exceed and oil revenue is comparable to pre-Gulf war levels. The program experiences periodic progressive adjustments in its export ceiling in response to growing international concern about the Iraqi humanitarian condition.
However, Saddam Hussein consistently circumvent's the economic sanctions and attempts to thwart the oil for food program. Saddam's regime has exported thousands of barrels of oil each day in violation of UN resolutions and he completely disregards the humanitarian well- being of his own people. By illegally exporting this oil, he has deprived the Iraqi people billions of dollars in food and medicine which would have been allowed under the program.
The living conditions of the Iraqi people are intolerable. Saddam Hussein has expanded his violence against women and children, withheld food and medicine from his own citizens, and violated the basic human rights of the Iraqi people.
Mr. President, some have blamed the oil for food program and the economic sanctions for these conditions. But let us be very clear, the reason for these intolerable conditions and why we are debating this topic today lay at the feet of Saddam Hussein and his regime. To quote Secretary of State Powell from a Foreign Relations Committee hearing on September 26, "Iraq stands guilty. It convicts itself by its actions."
The threat of Saddam Hussein is real and is growing. Iraq enjoys a sizable military advantage over all Gulf States except Iran. Iraq's 424,000 military personnel outnumber the combined personnel total of all U.S. Gulf allies. Iraq continues to pursue weapons of mass destruction, and is attempting to acquire a nuclear capability. According to recent reports, it is estimated that if Iraq were to obtain fissile material then Saddam Hussein could build a nuclear bomb within months. United Nations Special Commission has identified gaps in accounting for Iraq's current chemical stockpiles and capabilities and has not accounted for hundreds of tons of chemical precursors and 1000's of delivery warheads. UNSCOM also reported that Iraq has understated their declarations regarding the extent of its biological agents.
Again, I would like to quote Secretary Powell from the same hearing, when he stated:
We can have debates about the size and nature of the Iraqi stockpile. We can have debates about how long it will take them to reach this level of readiness or that level of readiness with respect to these weapons. But no one can doubt two things: one, they are in violation of these resolutions-- there's no debate about that; and secondly, they have not lost the interest to develop these weapons of mass destruction. Whether they are one day, five days, one year or seven years away from any particular weapons, whether their stockpile is small, medium or large, what has not been lost is the interest to have such weapons of mass destruction.
Secretary Powell also made it clear that we aren't alone in our concern regarding the threat of Saddam Hussein. Referencing Arab leaders and their thoughts regarding Saddam, Secretary Powell added, "There is no question in their minds that he's a threat to regional stability and peace. There is no question in their minds that he is a threat to the region and has demonstrated previously his willingness to use weapons of mass destruction. And there is no doubt in their minds that he continues to have the intent to develop these weapons of mass destructions."
So what now--what do we do? Do we hope that Saddam Hussein goes gently into the night or do we finally stand up to this dictator and let the world know that Saddam Hussein can no longer thumb his nose at the international community.
We only need to go back a few weeks to see Saddam's duplicity. On September 16, 4 days after the President's speech at the U.N., the Iraqi government announced it would unconditionally allow the return of U.N. inspectors. However on September 20, Iraq backpeddled on its previous announcement by stating that the definition of "unconditional access" means no "presidential sites" and 24 hours notice before any inspection."
My reaction to this new definition of "unconditional" by Iraq is best summed up in an October 3 Denver Post editorial when it stated, "Saddam, there you go again."
I ask unanimous consent that the entire article entitled "Saddam Must Open Palaces" be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
From the Denver Post, Oct. 3, 2002
Saddam Must Open PalacesSaddam, there you go again. Pardon the paraphrasing of Ronald Reagan, but Saddam Hussein's offer to allow weapons inspectors back into his country under current United Nation rules--the same rules he has willfully and flagrantly violated for years--is pure smoke-and-mirrors diplomacy.
Under those rules, Saddam's palaces would be off limits to inspectors.
Any inspection of Iraq must be unfettered. Otherwise, what's the point?
It's simply Saddam trying to stay one step ahead of the United States, with catch-me-if-you-can stall tactics.
The Iraqi dictator has been spending billions since the Persian Gulf War building what the U.S. government believes to be dozens of mammoth desert palaces. Meanwhile, his people starve. (Saddam cleverly blames U.N. sanctions for keeping food and medicine out of his country, yet somehow finds the marble and gold to build palaces.)
Who's he trying to fool?
Well, France, Russia and China for starters. Those three permanent, voting members of the U.N. Security Council have not yet backed the United States' push to require open weapons inspections, destruction of any weapons of mass destruction and the use of military force if Iraq doesn't comply.
President Bush was right in going to the United Nations to remind its members how Saddam has consistently and brazenly laughed off its rules.
It was a big step toward building a much-needed world consensus for striking Iraq. But if getting U.N. Security Council approval requires us to work under old rules, such as those where palaces are off limits, the world, and those three countries, must know the United States will act without them.
The U.N. can't fall for Saddam's old tricks.
Congress on Wednesday was moving forward with a strongly worded resolution that gives Bush authority to attack Iraq if diplomatic measures fail.
Bush, in turn, must certify to Congress before an attack, or within 48 hours, that diplomatic and other peaceful means alone aren't enough to protect Americans.
"We will not leave the future of peace and the security of America in the hands of this cruel and dangerous man," Bush said Wednesday from the White House Rose Garden.
As he spoke, he was flanked as usual by Republicans, but also by what seems to be a growing number of Democrats.
Perhaps it's the approaching election. Or perhaps, as we hope, it's the morning briefings with congressional leaders where Bush is privately detailing why he considers Iraq an imminent threat.
For whatever reason, one of his potential rivals in 2004 strongly foreshadowed Wednesday that soon both parties will be singing with "one voice," as Bush predicted last week.
Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said the administration has exhausted all non-military means to disarm Saddam.
"They've not worked," he said. "The moment of truth has arrived for Saddam Hussein. This is his last chance."
We've heard that before. Let's hope this time it's true.
Mr. Allard: Mr. President, I wish to quote a few passages from the editorial:
Any inspection of Iraq must be unfettered. Otherwise, what's the point? It's simply Saddam trying to stay one step ahead of the United States, with catch-me-if-you-can stall tactics.
Later in the editorial it states:
President Bush was right in going to the United Nations to remind its members how Saddam has consistently and brazenly laughed off its rules. It was a big step toward building a much-needed world consensus for striking Iraq. But if getting U.S. Security Council approval requires us to work under old rules, such as those where palaces are off limits, the world, and those three countries (France, China, and Russia), must know the United States will act without them. The U.N. can't fall for Saddam's old tricks.
I hope the United Nations Security Council will devise a new tough resolution which will demand "unconditional and unfettered" access to all sites. I do not want to have to use force to disarm Saddam Hussein. However, I also will not allow the United Nations or any permanent member of the Security Council with veto power, to control our national security policy. And that is why I support this resolution.
S.J. Res 46 does not advocate force, but it does not preclude it. It uses force as the last resort, the very last. The resolution basically states that the President is granted authority to use force if he determines 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.
I believe Secretary Powell clarified the administration's position even further regarding the use of force during the September 26 hearing by stating, "Yes, he [the President] wants the authority to carry out those resolutions where he believes force is the appropriate way to get implementation of those resolutions. I think it unlikely the President would use force--if he [Saddam Hussein] complied with the weapons of mass destruction conditions, it seems very unlikely that anybody would be using force to comply with any of the other resolutions."
Much of this debate is about when to pass this resolution. Should we pass a resolution before the United Nations acts or should we wait until after the United Nations acts? I believe this Senate should act prior to the United Nations to show that we speak with one voice in the importance of disarming Saddam Hussein. I agree with Secretary Powell and former Secretary of State Albright when they both stated that the United States would be in a much better position to prevail in the United Nations if the administration had a congressionally approved resolution in their pocket.
Passing this resolution in no way precludes the United Nations from acting, nor should it lessen the resolve of this administration to gain such support, but I believe a vote on this resolution will show our resolve to the world that we want the United Nations to act. However, if the United Nations is determined to follow the same course it has over the last 10 years, then Saddam Hussein must understand that the United States will act alone. On August 20, 1998, President Clinton addressed the Nation and said, "The risks of inaction to America and the world would be far greater than action, for that would embolden our enemies, leaving their ability and their willingness to strike us intact." I do not want us to use force, but I also cannot and will not sit idly by and hope that Saddam Hussein does nothing while the U.N. talks, and talks, and talks.
I believe President Bush summed up our task at hand during his speech last night in Cincinnati when he stated:
We did not ask for this present challenge, but we accept it. Like other generations of Americans, we will meet the responsibility of defending human liberty against violence and aggression. By our resolve, we will give strength to others. By our courage, we will give hope to others. By our actions, we will secure the peace, and lead the world to a better day.
Mr. President, I end on a personal note about this Senate. As I look across the aisle and see the "Conscience and Historian of the Senate", the wonderful senior Senator from West Virginia--with whom I find it a honor to serve--and as I see Members of this Senate debate and disagree on this resolution, it is during these debates I am in awe of this great country and this great institution. Unlike so many other nations, we can debate war and peace and at the end of the day there is no fracture in the fiber of democracy that makes America great. It is this which we all wish for Iraq and for the Iraqi people. I look forward to the day when real democratic elections occur and when the voices of the Iraqi people, which have been silenced for too long, will be heard.
Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Vermont who is speaking next.
