AUTHORIZATION OF THE USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AGAINST IRAQ
The Presiding Officer: Under the previous order, the Senate will now resume consideration of S.J. Res. 45, which the clerk will report.
The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:
A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 45) to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Pending:
Lieberman/Warner Modified Amendment No. 4856, in the nature of a substitute.
Graham Amendment No. 4857 (to Amendment No. 4856), in the nature of a substitute.
The Presiding Officer: The senior Senator from Virginia.
Mr. Warner: The Senate now turns to the resolution, it is my understanding.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator is correct.
Mr. Warner: The leadership has indicated there have been expressions of interest to speak this morning from Senator Feingold for approximately 30 minutes; Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison for 30 minutes; the Presiding Officer, Senator Leahy, for 20 minutes; and Senator Grassley for 20 minutes.
Further, we have expressions on this side by about half a dozen other Members who would hope to speak during the course of the day and the afternoon, but we will await announcement of names and times until the other side indicates the expression of interest on their side.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCain: Mr. President, what is the pending business before the Senate?
The Presiding Officer: I am advised it is the Graham second degree amendment.
Mr. McCain: I thank the President for informing me of what the pending business is before the Senate. I urge my colleagues to come and speak on behalf or in opposition to the Graham amendment so we can dispose of that amendment. It is my intention to move to table the Graham amendment after a reasonable length of time for my colleagues to come and speak for or against that amendment, which is my right, as is any Senator's right, but I want to make sure every Senator has the time, if they so wish, to speak on the pending business.
I see my dear friend from Wisconsin in the Chamber. I know he is talking about the overall issue. We need Senators to speak on the Graham amendment. I am sure my friend from Wisconsin and my colleague from West Virginia would be glad to speak, but we need to dispose of the pending Graham amendment and move on to other amendments.
I understand by 1 p.m. all amendments have to be filed. So let us move on and dispose of the Graham amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. Reid: Mr. President, in debating this resolution on which we spent so much time and so much thought, we are making one of the most important decisions we have ever faced. The decision to send American troops into battle is not one we take lightly and I don't take lightly.
There is much at stake for this Nation. There is much at stake for the State of Nevada. Thousands of men and women in Nevada would undoubtedly be called to support or directly serve in a military conflict with Iraq. Our pilots from Fallon Naval Air Station and Nellis Air Force Base are considered the best aviators in the world. I know they would be asked to play a leading role in eliminating the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
I am personally very grateful for the contributions that would be made by the National Guard and Reserve forces not only from Nevada but from across our country. These heroic citizen soldiers are such an integral part of the American military. We simply could not succeed without them. We must be mindful that their sacrifices are great because they leave their families and civilian occupations behind and become citizen soldiers. They serve proudly on behalf of our Nation. When called upon, they do not complain. They did not question the need to act. They did not ask why.
However, we must explain that these brave men and women are the reason for making this life-and-death decision. Therefore, I rise today to explain to one man why I intend to vote and how I intend to vote. That man is President George W. Bush. I say, President Bush, your father may recall that a decade ago I was the first Democrat in this body to publicly support his request for congressional authorization to make war to free Kuwait. At that time, I compared Saddam Hussein to Benito Mussolini. My position has not changed, although I believe our continued efforts have degraded Hussein from a second-grade dictator to a third-rate thug.
In 1991, I said I thought the constitutional role of the Chief Executive is to make war. That is our role--halt or prevent an unjust or unwise conflict. I stated my strong belief that the President must be able to use the diplomatic corps and the Marine Corps with equal facility, subject only to our power to force a halt to actions taken contrary to the national interests.
President Bush, I intend once again to vote to give you that power on a geographically limited basis, but I do so with more reluctance because the situation has changed. We do not, as we did 10 years ago, face a dictator who successfully invaded a tiny and relatively defenseless neighbor.
We have not enlisted, as your father did so magnificently, the whole world to fight by our side. We have not yet convinced our people or the world that international law is on our side, or that we are champions of the new world order envisioned by your father in which the power of a nation is measured by the strength of its moral values and not by the size of its Armed Forces.
President Bush, the core ideal which motivated the Founding Fathers was that this would be a nation of laws not men. As such a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that we should declare the causes which impel our action. Our quarrel with Iraq is not about one two-bit tin-horn dictator. Rather, it is, and it ought to, be explained as a question of the rule of law.
I am voting you this power, Mr. President, because I know this nation would be justified in making war to enforce the terms we impose on Iraq in 1991, if we have to. But I am also voting you this power secure in the knowledge that no President of the United States of whatever political philosophy, will take this nation to war as a first resort alternative rather than as a last resort.
I found most encouraging your speech on Monday when you said war was not inevitable.
I urge you Mr. President to continue to make the case to the American people and to the world. The international coalition you have started to build is critical, not only for military and cost-sharing reasons, but also to assist in the rebuilding of Iraq.
Your father chose not to carry our fight into the cities of Iraq in 1991, and we have to live with his decision. He gave the Iraqi leadership a chance to reenter the community of peaceful nations. Saddam Hussein has squandered that opportunity.
We stopped the fighting based on an agreement that Iraq would take steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict. President Bush, if you believe the time has come to use force, this resolution authorizes you to do so. I trust you will use this force wisely.
I have not doubt that is Iraq continues to refuse to abide by its agreement the nations united in 1991 will again support enforcement in the United Nations. But Mr. President, the rule of law matters, and so does a decent respect for opinion of the rest of the world. As President of the United States you are the leader of the free world; you are not its ruler.
I will support the Lieberman amendment. But I have said enough, President Bush, and I have said it to explain my vote to you, to the people of Nevada, to the people of this Nation, and to the world. I have confidence, sir, that you will do the right thing.
Mr. Feingold: Mr. President, what is the regular order?
The Presiding Officer: The regular order is for Senators to debate the Graham amendment to S.J. Res. 45. Senators will be recognized as they seek to speak, as they so appropriately do.
Mr. Feingold: My understanding was there was an order entered whereby I would be recognized at this point.
The Presiding Officer: It was not a unanimous consent request, but the distinguished Senator from Virginia had mentioned others would be coming. Of course, the Senator from Wisconsin now has the floor and he is in control of his time.
Mr. Feingold: I thank the Chair.
Mr. Byrd: Will the distinguished Senator yield for a question?
Mr. Feingold: I yield for a question.
Mr. Byrd: This Senator has to go downtown and speak around noon. Does the Senator intend to speak a considerable length at this point?
Mr. Feingold: Not that long. I will be concluded in time for the Senator to speak prior to that.
Mr. Byrd: Prior to that time?
Mr. Feingold: Yes, sir.
Mr. Byrd: I wonder if I might ask unanimous consent to follow the Senator from Wisconsin?
Mr. Warner: I say to my colleague that Senator Reid, the assistant Democrat leader, working with us, established the order. In consultation with Senator Reid, if he wishes to come back and suggest to us an amendment to what he had in mind, certainly we will take into consideration the desire of the Senator from West Virginia. But at this time, I feel the leadership has established this, and I would not be at liberty to agree to anything else.
Mr. Byrd: If the Senator will yield further without losing the floor?
Mr. Feingold: Yes.
Mr. Byrd: If and when Senator Reid comes back to the floor and attempts to change the list----
Mr. Reid: I am here.
Mr. Byrd: I was about to say, I was hoping I might be considered on the list and be able to follow the statement by Mr. Feingold.
Mr. Reid: Without the Senator from Wisconsin losing his right to the floor, could we answer a few questions that are pending? I was watching the proceedings from my office.
It is my understanding there is an order that is now in effect. Could the Chair announce what that is?
The Presiding Officer: The Senator is correct.
Mr. Reid: It is my understanding, under the order, we have four Senators who are set to speak, and they have been given time. Senator Feingold is first. The Republican is Senator Hutchison of Texas, to speak for 30 minutes, as I recall. Then Senator Leahy speaks for 30 minutes, and then Senator Grassley speaks. That is as far as we went this morning.
Mr. McCain: Is there a unanimous consent in effect?
Mr. Reid: That order has already been entered.
The Presiding Officer: The Chair was in error before. There is a unanimous consent that was granted this morning before the present occupant took the chair, giving the allocated times to Senator Feingold, Senator Hutchison, Senator Leahy, and Senator Grassley in the order as described by the senior Senator from Virginia.
Mr. Reid: Yesterday, we tried to line up Senators and give specific times, but it did not work. So what we decided to do, with the consent of the two leaders, is to line up a couple on each side. We hope that works better than yesterday. Yesterday we had a little bit of downtime because some people did not speak long enough, some people spoke too long. So if the Senators from Arizona and West Virginia wish to get in the queue, I think that is totally appropriate.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCain: If the Senator from Nevada will yield, I stated earlier the pending business before the Senate is the Graham amendment. The Graham amendment should be dispensed with. That is why I hope any Senator who supports or opposes the Graham amendment would speak on it because I intend to move to table the Graham amendment, which is my right. So when we line up people to talk, I am all for that, but I would seek recognition at some time--sooner rather than later--so we could dispose of the Graham amendment. We need to move forward on this issue, I say to my friend from Nevada.
Mr. Reid: The Senator from Arizona is totally correct. I have been in touch with the Senator from Florida, and he needs to come and speak. Otherwise, his motion is going to be tabled because it is not only the Senator from Arizona but others have the same thing in mind. As we all know, once that motion is made, it is nondebatable. From what I have been able to determine, it is likely that motion would prevail.
I would like to hear from the Senator from West Virginia. Does the Senator from West Virginia wish to speak after the four we have lined up?
Mr. Byrd: I have an engagement downtown. I had hoped to speak immediately following Mr. Feingold. I would have to say to my friend from Arizona my remarks are on the general subject. They are not precisely on the point with respect to the Graham amendment.
May I make a parliamentary inquiry? I ask if the Senator will yield for that purpose?
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Wisconsin has the floor.
Mr. Feingold: I do not want to lose my right to the floor at this point. Can the Senator from West Virginia pose a question to me?
Mr. Byrd: I would like to make a parliamentary inquiry of the Chair.
The Presiding Officer: Does the Senator yield for that purpose?
Mr. Feingold: If I retain my right to the floor.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. Byrd: I thank the distinguished Senator for yielding for the inquiry. Is there a motion to invoke cloture before the Senate?
The Presiding Officer: Two cloture motions were filed yesterday, on the resolution itself and on the Lieberman substitute amendment.
Mr. Byrd: If I might ask, until what time today are Senators in a position to offer amendments in the first degree to the cloture motion on the Lieberman amendment?
The Presiding Officer: Under rule XXII, a 1 p.m. filing deadline is imposed on the first-degree amendments.
Mr. Byrd: I wonder if Senators would yield consent to allow Senators to file first-degree amendments until a later point today. For example, my own situation is such, I have so many things going on, including a conference on the Defense appropriations. I also have other problems that would impinge upon my ability to offer an amendment by 1 p.m.
Could all Senators have a little longer than that today?
Mr. Reid: If I may, with the permission of the Senator from Wisconsin, I will respond to the Senator from West Virginia. I will be happy, while Senator Feingold is speaking, to see if we can work with both sides to see if that is possible. We will do that.
You are scheduled to speak for how long, Senator?
Mr. Feingold: Thirty minutes.
Mr. Reid: And I say to my friend from Arizona, we have heard from Senator Graham from Florida. He was ready to come anytime today, but because we lined up the speakers, he did not come. We will make sure he has an opportunity to speak on his amendment and that you are recognized.
Mr. Warner: Mr. President, we can rearrange the Senators on our side because the Senator from Arizona made the point last night, Senator Graham came in--we were here-- unexpectedly, laid that amendment down, and indicated to this Senator that he was going to pursue it early in the morning.
Mr. Reid: I say to my friend from Virginia it is not his fault. He is anxious to speak.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. Reid: I ask unanimous consent that the time to which the Senator from Wisconsin is entitled still be in effect.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Byrd: I thank the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin for his kindness and courtesy.
Mr. Feingold: Mr. President, many have spent months reviewing the issue on advisability of invading Iraq in the near future, from hearings and meeting on the process and the very important role of Congress to the difficult questions of substance, including foreign policy and military implications. After my own review and carefully listening to hundreds of Wisconsin citizens in person, I spoke on the floor on Thursday, September 26. I indicated my opposition to the original draft use of force authorization by the President. I also used that opportunity to raise some very important questions to which I needed answers before supporting a narrower and more responsible resolution.
Now, after many more meetings and reading articles and attending briefings, listening to my colleagues' speeches, and especially listening to the President's speech in Cincinnati on Monday, I still do not believe the President and the administration have adequately answered the critical questions. They have not yet met the important burden to persuade Congress and the American people we should invade Iraq at this time.
Both in terms of the justifications for an invasion and in terms of the mission and the plan for the invasion, the administration's arguments do not add up. They do not add up to a coherent basis for a new major war in the middle of our current challenging fight against the terrorism of al-Qaida and related organizations. Therefore, I cannot support the resolution for the use of force before the Senate.
My colleagues, my focus today is on the wisdom of this specific resolution, vis-a-vis Iraq, as opposed to discussing the notion of an expanded doctrine of preemption, which the President has articulated on several occasions. However, I associate myself with the concerns eloquently raised by Senator Kennedy and Senator Byrd and others that this could well represent a disturbing change in our overall foreign and military policy. This includes grave concerns about what such a preemption-plus policy will do to our relationship with our allies, to our national security, and to the cause of world peace in so many regions of the world where such a doctrine could trigger very dangerous actions with very minimal justification.
I want to be clear about something. None of this is to say that I don't agree with the President on much of what he has said about the fight against terrorism and even what he has said about Iraq. I agree, post-9/11, we face, as the President said, a long and difficult fight against terrorism. We must be very patient and very vigilant, and we must be ready to act and make some very serious sacrifices.
With regard to Iraq, I agree, Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological, and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the President argues. And I support the concept of regime change. Saddam Hussein is one of several despots whom the international community should condemn and isolate with the hope of new leadership in those nations.
Yes, I agree; if we do this Iraq invasion, I hope Saddam Hussein will actually be removed from power this time. I agree, we cannot do nothing with regard to Saddam Hussein in Iraq. We must act. We must act with serious purpose and stop the weapons of mass destruction and stop Saddam Hussein. I agree, a return to the inspections regime of the past alone is not a serious, credible policy.
I also believe and agree, as important and as preferable as U.N. action and multilateral solutions to this problem are, we cannot give the United Nations the ability to veto our ability to counter this threat to our people. We retain and will always retain the right of self-defense, including self-defense against weapons of mass destruction. When such a threat requiring self-defense would present itself--and I am skeptical that is exactly what we are dealing with here--then we could, if necessary, act alone, including militarily.
These are all areas where I agree with the administration. However, I am increasingly troubled by the seemingly shifting justifications for an invasion at this time. My colleagues, I am not suggesting there has to be only one justification for such a dramatic action, but when the administration moves back and forth from one argument to another, it undercuts the credibility of the case and the belief in its urgency. I believe this practice of shifting justifications has much to do with the troubling phenomenon of many Americans questioning the administration's motives in insisting on action at this time.
What am I talking about? I am talking about the spectacle of the President and senior administration officials citing a reported connection to al-Qaida one day, weapons of mass destruction the next day, Saddam Hussein's treatment of his own people on another day, and then on some days the issue of Kuwaiti prisoners of war.
For some of these, we may well be willing to send some 250,000 Americans into harm's way; for others, frankly, probably not.
These litanies of various justifications--whether the original draft resolution discussions or the new White House resolution, or, regrettably throughout the President's speech in Cincinnati--in my view set the bar for an alternative to a U.S. invasion so high I am afraid it almost locks in--it almost requires--a potentially extreme and reckless solution to these problems.
I am especially troubled by these shifting justifications because I and most Americans strongly support the President on the use of force in response to the attacks on September 11, 2001. I voted for S.J. Res. 23--the use of force resolution--to go after al-Qaida and the Taliban and those associated with the tragedies of September 11, and I strongly supported military actions pursuant to S.J. Res. 23. But the relentless attempt to link 9/11 and the issue of Iraq has been disappointing to me for months, culminating in the President's singularly unpersuasive attempt in Cincinnati to intertwine 9/11 and Iraq, to make the American people believe there are no important differences between the perpetrators of 9/11 and Iraq.
I believe it is dangerous for the world--and especially dangerous for us--to take the tragedy of 9/11 and the word "terrorism" in all their powerful emotion and then too easily apply them to many other situations--situations that surely need our serious attention, but are not necessarily the same as individuals and organizations who have shown a willingness to fly suicide planes into the World Trade Center and into the Pentagon.
Let me say the President is right, we have to view the world, the threats, and our own national security in a very different light since 9/11. There are shocking new threats. But it is not helpful to use virtually any strand or extreme rhetoric to suggest the new threat is the same as other preexisting threats.
I think common sense tells us they are not the same. They cannot so easily be lumped together as the President sought to do in Cincinnati.
I have reviewed the intermittent efforts to suggest a connection of 9/11 and Saddam Hussein, or suggest the possibility such a connection has developed since 9/11. I want to be very clear. In fact, if there was a connection in planning for the 9/11 attacks by Saddam Hussein or his agents and the perpetrators of 9/11 and al-Qaida, I have already voted for military action. I have no objection. But if it is not, if this is premised on some case that has supposedly been made with regard to a subsequent coalition between al-Qaida and the Iraqi government, I think the President has to do better. He has to do better than the shoddy piecing together of flimsy evidence that contradicts the very briefings we have received by various agencies. I am not hearing the same things at the briefings I am hearing from the President's top officials.
In fact, on March 11 of this year, Vice President Cheney, following a meeting with Tony Blair, raised the possibility of weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of terrorists. He said:
We have to be concerned about the potential marriage, if you will, between a terrorist organization like al-Qaida and those who hold or are proliferating knowledge about weapons of mass destruction.
In March, there was a potential marriage.
Then the Vice President said on September 8, without evidence--and no evidence has been given since that time--that there are:
"Credible but unconfirmed" intelligence reports that 9/11 ringleader Mohammad Atta met in Prague with senior Iraqi intelligence officials a few months before the 9/11 attacks.
We have seen no proof of that.
Finally, the Secretary of Defense follows on September 27 of this year, and says:
There is "bulletproof evidence" of Iraqi links to al- Qaida, including the recent presence of senior al-Qaida members in Baghdad.
I don't know where this comes from. This so-called "potential marriage" in March is beginning to sound like a 25th wedding anniversary at this point.
The facts just aren't there. At least they have not been presented to me in the situations where they should have been presented to me as an elected Member of this body. In other words, the administration appears to use 9/11 and the language of terrorism and the connection to Iraq too loosely--almost like a bootstrap.
For example, I heard the President say in Cincinnati that Iraq and al-Qaida both regard us as a common enemy. Of course they do. Who else are we going to attack in the near future on that basis alone?
Or do we see an attempt to stretch the notion of harboring terrorists? I agree with the President, if any country is actively harboring and assisting terrorists involved in 9/11, we have to act against them. But I don't think you can bring to the definition of harboring terrorists the simple presence of some al-Qaida members somewhere in Iraq. After all, apparently we have al-Qaida agents active in our country as well. They are present in our Nation as well. How can this be a sufficient basis on its own?
Therefore, without a better case for an al-Qaida connection to Saddam Hussein, this proposed invasion must stand on its own merit--not on some notion that those who question this invasion don't thoroughly condemn and want to see the destruction of the perpetrators of 9/11 and similar terrorist attacks on the United States.
Invasion of Iraq must stand on its own--not just because it is different than the fight against the perpetrators of 9/11, but because it may not be consistent with and may even be harmful to the top national security issue of this country. And that is the fight against terrorism and the perpetrators of the crimes of 9/11.
In fact, I am so pleased to see one of the most eloquent spokesmen on this viewpoint here in the Senate Chamber, Senator Graham, who has done a terrific job of trying to point out our top priorities in this area. He said:
Our first priority should be the successful completion of the war on terrorism. Today, we Americans are more vulnerable to international terrorist organizations than we are to Saddam Hussein.
I ask: Is this war against terrorism going so terribly well when we see the possible explosion of the French tanker in Yemen, when we see the tremendous difficulties in trying to pursue stability in Afghanistan itself, and when we realize we are not certain at all whether Mr. Osama bin Laden is alive or dead? Will the invasion of Iraq encourage our allies and Islamic friends to help us in the fight against terrorism, or just make them extremely nervous?
I met with a group of African Ambassadors the other day in my role as chairman of the Africa Subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee. They told me various people were placing bets on what country would be next after Iraq under this new doctrine the President is putting forward. Will this idea of invading Iraq at this time, on this case, on these merits, help or hurt cooperation in our fight against terrorism, against the known murderers of Americans who are known to be plotting more of the same?
I am especially dismayed at the weak response to the potential drain on our military capability and resources in our fight against terrorism, if we go forward with this invasion at this time. The administration likes to quickly say, whenever asked whether we can do this and fight the war against terrorism--they just simply say we can do both. There is no proof. There is no real assurance of this.
I find these answers glib, at best.
When former Secretary of State Kissinger was asked in this regard, he said:
It is not clear to me what measures that are required in the war against terrorism would be interrupted or weakened by the actions that may be imposed on us if it is not possible to do away with the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq by other means.
That is the only explanation the former Secretary of State gave us on this tough question.
But let's look at what the current Secretary of State, Colin Powell, said in response to a similar question. He said:
So the campaign against terrorism is going in full swing. And I don't see why there is a suggestion that somehow, if we had to undertake this mission, it would be at the expense of the campaign against terrorism.
That is all he said. Now, that is a pretty weak reassurance, to me, that such an enormous undertaking will not call into question some of our other military efforts and priorities.
What about what we are doing in Bosnia? What about what we are doing in Kosovo? What about all the resources stretching from the Philippines all the way to portions of the former Soviet Union, to the Middle East, to parts of Africa, that are being employed in the fight against terrorism? What about the fact we are using our National Guards and Reserves, many times within our country, to protect our own citizens at public events with regard to the challenge of the fight against terrorism?
All of this, and an invasion of Iraq, too? I wonder. As mighty as we are, I wonder if we are not very close to being overextended. Invasion of Iraq in the next few weeks or months could, in fact, be very counterproductive. In fact, it could risk our national security.
In any event, I oppose this resolution because of the continuing unanswered questions, including the very important questions about what the mission is here, what the nature of the operation will be, what will happen concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as the attack proceeds and afterward, and what the plan is after the attack is over.
In effect, we are being asked to vote on something that is unclear. We do not have the answers to these questions. We are being asked to vote on something that is almost unknowable in terms of the information we have been given.
In my judgment, the issue that presents the greatest potential threat to U.S. national security--Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass destruction--has not been addressed in any comprehensive way by the administration to date. Of course, I know we don't need to know all the details, and we don't have to be given all the details, and we shouldn't be given all the details, but we have to be given some kind of a reasonable explanation.
Before we vote on this resolution, we need a credible plan for securing WMD sites and not allowing materials of concern to slip away during some chaotic course of action. I know that is a tall order, but it is a necessary demand.
As I said, I agree with the administration when it asserts that returning to the same restricted weapons inspection regime of the recent past is not a credible policy for addressing the WMD problem in Iraq. But there is nothing credible about the "we will figure that out later" approach we have heard to date.
What if actors competing for power in the post-Hussein world have access to WMD? What if there is chaos in the wake of the regime's fall that provides new opportunities for non-state actors, including terrorist organizations, to bid on the sinister items tucked away in Iraq?
Some would say those who do not unquestionably support the administration are failing to provide for our national security. But, I am sure of this: these issues are critical to that security, and I have yet to get any answers.
We need an honest assessment of the commitment required of America. If the right way to address this threat is through internationally supported military action in Iraq, and Saddam Hussein's regime falls, we will need to take action to ensure stability in Iraq and to help the country on the road to reconstruction.
This could be very costly and time-consuming. It could involve the occupation--the occupation--of a Middle Eastern country. Now, this is not a small matter: the American occupation of a Middle Eastern country. Consider the regional implications of that scenario: the unrest in moderate states, the calls for action against American interests, the difficulty of bringing stability to Iraq so we can extricate ourselves in the midst of regional turmoil.
We need much more information about how we propose to proceed so we can weigh the costs and benefits to our national security.
In Afghanistan, the Government of President Karzai works under constant threat, and instability plagues the country outside of Kabul. Many Afghan people are waiting for concrete indicators that they have a stake in this new Taliban-free future. The task is daunting, and we only have just begun that task.
What demands might be added in a post-Saddam Iraq?
I do believe the American people are willing to bear high costs to pursue a policy that makes sense. But right now, after all of the briefings, after all of the hearings, and after all of the statements, as far as I can tell, the administration apparently intends to wing it when it comes to the day after, or, as others have suggested, the decade after. I think that makes no sense at all.
So, Mr. President, I believe to date the administration has failed to answer the key questions to justify the invasion of Iraq at this time.
Yes, September 11 raises the emotional stakes and raises legitimate new questions. This makes the President's request understandable, but it does not make it wise.
I am concerned the President is pushing us into a mistaken and counterproductive course of action. Instead of, in his words, this action being "crucial to win the war on terrorism," I fear it could have the opposite effect.
So this moment--in which we are responsible for assessing the threat before us, the appropriate response, and the potential costs and consequences of military action--this moment is of grave importance. Yet there is something hollow in our efforts. In all of the administration's public statements, its presentations to Congress, and its exhortations for action, Congress is urged to provide this authority and approve the use of our awesome military power in Iraq without knowing much at all about what we intend to do with it.
We are about to make one of the weightiest decisions of our time within a context of confused justifications and vague proposals. We are urged to get on board and bring the American people with us, but we do not know where the ship is sailing.
On Monday night, the President said in Cincinnati: "We refuse to live in fear." I agree. But let us not overreact or get tricked or get trapped out of fear, either.
Mr. President, on the 11th of September, 2001, our country came under attack, and the world suddenly seemed shockingly small and unquestionably dangerous. What followed that horror continued to be frightening and disorienting: anthrax attacks, color-coded threat levels, report after report of terrorist cells seemingly everywhere.
In the weeks and months since September 11, Americans have had to contend with these changes and to come to grips with the reality this could happen again and there are forces planning to do us harm, and we cannot unconditionally guarantee our own safety.
In this new world, we cannot help but sense the future is uncertain, our world is disordered, unpredictable, up for grabs. So when our leaders propose taking action, Americans do not want to resist. But they are resisting this vague and worrisome proposal.
My constituents have voiced their concerns in calls, at town meetings, in letters, and through e-mails or faxes. They are not calling for Congress to bury its head in the sand. They are not naively suggesting Saddam Hussein is somehow misunderstood. But they are asking questions that bear directly on our national security, and they are looking for answers that make sense. They are setting the standard, just as they should do, in a great democracy.
Their standard is high. We should work together to develop a policy toward Iraq that meets it.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The Presiding Officer: The clerk will call the roll.
The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. Warner: 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. Warner: The Senator from Texas is present in the Chamber. My understanding is, she is next to be recognized.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator is right. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
Mrs. Hutchison: Mr. President, I thank the Senators from Virginia, Arizona, and Connecticut for all of the efforts being made to bring a full debate on this issue to the Senate.
Congress has no greater responsibility under the Constitution than to provide for our Nation's common defense. There is no decision we make that requires more careful consideration than a decision to authorize the use of armed forces and, in so doing, send America's sons and daughters into harm's way.
Shortly after I was elected to the Senate, our Nation suffered through the brutal battle in Mogadishu, Somalia. It left 18 of our soldiers dead. Our mission was vague. There was no clear American national security threat in Somalia. The President did not come to the American people and explain the rationale for continued military involvement.
The impact of this uncertainty became very clear to me soon after the tragedy when I met a constituent on a flight from Washington, DC, to Dallas.
He came up to me and said: Senator, my name is Larry Joyce. I am your constituent.
I said: Hi, Larry, how are you doing? What were you doing in Washington?
He said: I was burying my son in Arlington National Cemetery.
His son Casey had been killed in the street ambush that was depicted in the book "Black Hawk Down," also a movie.
Colonel Joyce said to me, with tears rolling down his face: Senator, I am a military man. I served two tours in Vietnam. And now my son Casey, on his first mission as an Army Ranger, is not coming home. Senator, I can't tell you why.
I vowed that day that I would never vote to send an American into battle unless I could answer that question. I want to be able to face any parent and say: This is the national security interest of our country, and that is why your child signed up and was willing to fight and was sent to do so.
Since Somalia, I have come to the Senate floor to express grave reservations about deployments to Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo. In each case, I called on the President to come to Congress, make the case to the American people, and outline the U.S. security interest.
After the tragic events of 9/11, President Bush sought and received the authorization to use force to find and destroy the terrorists who had launched that heinous crime. There was no question in my mind and in the minds of most Members of Congress that our national security demanded our support of the President.
Today, President Bush seeks congressional authorization to use military force to deal with the threat Saddam Hussein poses with weapons of mass destruction. We must answer the major question for America: What is the U.S. security interest? Why Saddam? Why now?
It is a question I thought about as I sat among the hushed crowds at the Pentagon's memorial service on September 11, 2002. It was a poignant moment. I was surrounded by those who had suffered so much and many who will ultimately bear the consequences of the decision we are about to make.
I doubt there is anyone in America who doesn't feel as I do. If we could have prevented 9/11, we certainly would have. We didn't have warning, and we paid a heavy price.
It is this experience that has led President Bush to think in a different way about protecting our homeland. I believe he doesn't want to wait until an enemy is finished building his deadly arsenal and ready to attack from a position of strength. It is one thing to turn three commercial airliners into weapons of mass destruction. It is another to have a nuclear missile ready to deploy or to arm an unmanned aerial vehicle with anthrax ready to ship anywhere in the world.
Each generation of Americans has been called to defend our freedom. Each time, our forefathers and mothers have answered the call. Our generation's time of national trial has come. We are being called to stop a new kind of enemy, different from any we have ever fought before. This enemy is not just contained in one country or two, it is spread throughout the world and even within our own borders. This enemy purposely kills itself in order to harm others.
This enemy is patient, building resources and striking when and where we are least prepared. This enemy uses a different method each time. This enemy requires a new kind of defense. That is what the President is attempting to build.
The cold war ended when the Iron Curtain and Berlin Wall came tumbling down. The post-cold-war era ended when the World Trade Center towers came crashing down. September 11 made it abundantly clear that the strategy of deterrence alone is not enough.
The President recently released a new national security strategy. It articulates a policy of preemption and dominance. Some fear that our new national security strategy is too bold. A bold defense does not cause calamities to occur, but a lack of action will. It is not our defense strategy that will provoke attacks on the United States. Rather, it is when we fail to act or fail to lead that our enemies strike. It is when they think we have become soft and complacent that they will kill innocent Americans again.
We have learned hard and valuable lessons these past few years. The first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center occurred in 1993, a bombing that killed 6 Americans and injured more than 1,000. What did we do? In 1996, Hezbollah extremists bombed the United States military barracks at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 American servicemembers and injuring 500 others. What did we do? In 1998, al- Qaida terrorists bombed the United States Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing and injuring hundreds. What did we do? In 2000, al- Qaida terrorists again attacked Americans, this time bombing the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, killing 17 American servicemembers and injuring scores more. What did we do?
Then came the devastating attacks of 9/11. Our Nation finally was awakened. We put the pattern together to see the threat to the very freedom that we cherish. We did do something. We took action against our enemy swiftly and boldly after 9/11. Now we must follow through.
The President has asked for authority to meet this threat. Congress gave him wide latitude to root out terrorism. We and our allies are doing that job in Afghanistan, the home base of al-Qaida.
We have liberated millions and millions of innocent Afghanis from the cruel Taliban regime.
Now the President is asking for authority to go into Iraq. Why Iraq? Why now? Because we have learned the lessons of complacency. We have learned the lessons of not being prepared.
The President has solid information that with a small amount of highly enriched uranium, Iraq could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. We know Iraq already has the means to deliver it. He has hard intelligence that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons and small, unmanned aerial vehicles to disseminate them, potentially killing thousands of people anywhere in the world. The President is saying: "Do we wait for the attack, or do we take steps to prevent it?" Our post-9/11 defense strategy demands that we prevent it.
Saddam Hussein has fired on coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones over Iraq 2,500 times since the Gulf War. Saddam Hussein has rewarded the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. He has attempted to assassinate the former U.S. President who led the international coalition that defeated him in the Gulf War. His No. 1 enemy is the United States of America.
So if all diplomatic efforts fail, and if the U.N. weapons inspectors are not allowed unfettered access to suspected sites, our President wants to be able to take away Saddam Hussein's means to destroy us and our allies.
It is our responsibility to give the President the authorization he needs. The question of whether the security of the United States is threatened has been answered. The answer is yes.
It is with a heavy heart and a realization of the consequences that I will vote yes. But it would be a burden I could not carry to vote no and then, a year or 2 from now, see a preventable attack kill thousands more innocent Americans or our allies.
Mr. President, we are going to meet this test of our generation. We are going to protect the freedom and the way of life that has become the beacon to the world of the way life should be. We can do no less.
I yield the floor.
