The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. Reid: Has the Senator completed her statement?
Mrs. Hutchison: Yes.
Mr. Reid: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the statement of Senator Grassley, Senator Graham of Florida be recognized.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Warner: Reserving the right to object. Senator McCain will address the Chair.
Mr. McCain: Mr. President, I ask the Senator to repeat that.
Mr. Reid: I said that following the statement of the Senator from Iowa, Mr. Grassley, Senator Graham be recognized. Based on our conversations, following that, the Senator from Arizona would like to be recognized.
Mr. McCain: That is fine.
Mr. Reid: I add to the request, Mr. President.
The Presiding Officer: Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Warner: Mr. President, might I at this juncture complete my statement to express strong support for the remarks made by the distinguished Senator from Texas. She has been very much involved in the planning for this resolution, and I very much appreciate her remarks.
(Mr. REID assumed the Chair.)
Mrs. Hutchison: Thank you. I say to the Senator from Virginia that I appreciate that. We have worked together on this resolution to try to ensure that the President has the authorization he needs and that Congress plays its constitutional role. I appreciate all the cooperation on both sides of the aisle to make this happen.
Mr. McCain: Mr. President, pending the arrival of Senator Leahy, I ask unanimous consent for a colloquy with Senator Specter and Lieberman. I imagine Senator Leahy will be here shortly.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. Spector: Mr. President, I had discussed briefly with the Senator from Connecticut a couple of questions, and I would like to engage him in a colloquy. The first relates to the difference in language between the 1991 resolution authorizing then-President Bush to use force, which says in pertinent part:
The President is authorized to use United States Armed Forces, pursuant to resolutions of the UN, in order to achieve implementation of those Security Council resolutions.
Now, that is different from the authorization in the current resolution, which says:
The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate.
The current resolution might be called a subjective standard, which gives substantially greater latitude to President Bush to use force "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate." This language is very much subjective as contrasted with the 1991 language, which is more objective, authorizing the President to use force to achieve implementation of certain Security Council resolutions.
I ask the Senator from Connecticut if the intent here, in trying to develop some legislative history, notwithstanding the language in the present resolution, is really about the same--or is the same--as the 1991 resolution.
Mr. Lieberman: Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania for his thoughtful question. The intent is the same, although we may have a different understanding of what that intent is. I will say that the operative language here may be somewhat different because the circumstances that engendered the resolution of Congress in 1991 are different than now. Then, we had a specific act, which was the Iraq invasion of Kuwait. Resolutions have been passed by the U.N. so that there was specifically reference in the authorizing resolution that Senator Warner and I were privileged to cosponsor in 1991.
Now we have a totality of circumstances, including the repeated violation of some of those same resolutions, but others calling for inspections, calling for the destruction of weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein has. In fact, in the initial suggestion of a resolution drafted by the White House, there was an enumeration of specific U.N. resolutions, and Members of Congress negotiating--I believe from the other body--preferred to have the term that we have in there now, giving the President the power to use the Armed Forces to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions.
In either case, I think what is involved here is an understanding both in the 1991 resolution and in this one that Congress, using its authority under article I of the Constitution to declare war, authorize military action, does so and sets the parameters, but that ultimately, according to article II, it is the President who is the Commander in Chief of the Army, Navy, United States militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States. Implicit in that has to be the understanding that the President will use the force that he determines to be necessary and appropriate.
As I said yesterday, with the authority to give the President comes accountability. So, bottom line: There are two different circumstances that engender slightly different resolutions. In each case, Congress is fulfilling its responsibility to authorize military action, ultimately, within the parameters set forth in both resolutions. You have to give the President, as Commander in Chief, the authority to make decisions that he deems to be necessary and appropriate in the defense of our national security, and then be held accountable for those decisions.
The Presiding Officer: Senator Leahy is now recognized for up to 30 minutes.
Mr. Leahy: Mr. President, was the Senator from Pennsylvania seeking further time?
Mr. Spector: I ask, Mr. President, the Senator from Vermont if I may pose one more question.
Mr. McCain: Mr. President, I suggest the regular order.
The Presiding Officer: The time will come off Senator Leahy's time.
Mr. Leahy: I will have no objection to that provided the time is not taken from the time the Senator from Vermont has reserved.
Mr. McCain: Reserving the right to object, how long will it take?
Mr. Spector: Probably less than the time to inquire about it. I will ask the question in a minute or less.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized for up to 1 minute.
Mr. Spector: The question I have for the Senator from Connecticut is on the expansive whereas clauses. One of these clauses refers to repression of the civilian population of Iraq. I ask whether the resolution intends to give the President the power to use force to cure those kinds of matters, which are separate from the issues of weapons of mass destruction, and whether the issue on weapons of mass destruction is satisfied, so that the UN resolutions are satisfied, and whether the clause on authorization relating to defending the national security interests of the United States will be satisfied with the resolution of the weapons of mass destruction without picking up the whereas clause on regime change.
I think that is less than a minute, Mr. President.
Mr. Lieberman: I probably should let the Senator from Arizona respond because he will do it much more quickly than I.
Mr. Leahy: Again, Mr. President, I ask this not be deducted from the time available to the Senator from Vermont.
Mr. Lieberman: Mr. President, I will try to do this within a minute and perhaps give time for Senator Specter to clarify this. The whereas clauses, the preamble, speak for themselves. It suggests a totality of circumstances that lead the sponsors of the resolution to want to authorize the President, if all else fails, to take military action against Iraq under Saddam Hussein.
Clearly--and what the President has said and what the sponsors of the resolution have said--the focus of our concern is the weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. As we said yesterday, this resolution is intended to send a message to Saddam: Disarm, as you promised to do 11 years ago at the end of the gulf war, or we will use force to disarm you with our allies and the international community.
Nonetheless, the other conditions describing the totality of Saddam's brutality--violation of international law, invasion of his neighbors, et cetera--are stated in the preamble and consistent with what I said in response to the earlier question.
The President, as Commander in Chief, is given the authority, the responsibility, and accountability to enforce all relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. I do not think anyone expects the President to take military action against Iraq if, hopefully, and in some sense miraculously, Saddam disarms, destroys his ballistic missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles, allows inspections without any restrictions. Under those circumstances, it is hard to imagine the President would authorize military action, for instance, in regard to some of the lesser U.N. resolutions as generally understood by this body.
Mr. Spector: I thank the Senator from Connecticut.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Vermont is recognized for up to 30 minutes.
Mr. Leahy: Mr. President, I have enjoyed this colloquy and would yield further, but I know there are other Senators awaiting their turn to speak.
On September 26, I spoke at length in this Chamber about the important issue before us. I voiced my concerns and the concerns of a great many Vermonters--in fact, a great many Americans from whom I have heard. I spoke about the President's plan to send Americans into battle to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
Many Senators have also expressed their views on this difficult decision. As I prepared to speak 2 weeks ago, I listened to Senator Bingaman urge the administration to seriously consider a proposal for "coerced inspections." After I finished speaking, Senator Johnson voiced his support for providing the President with the broad authority he seeks to use military force against Iraq.
The opportunity and responsibility to have this debate is one of the cornerstones on which this institution, and indeed this country is built. Some have suggested that expressing misgivings or asking questions about the President's plan to attack Iraq is somehow unpatriotic. Others have tried to make it an election year issue on bumper stickers or in TV advertisements.
These attempts are misguided. They are beneath the people who make these attempts and they are beneath the issue. This is an issue of war. An issue of war should be openly debated. That is a great freedom of this Nation. We fought a revolution to have such debates.
As I and others have said over and over, declaring war is the single most important responsibility given to Congress. Unfortunately, at times like this, it is a responsibility Congress has often shirked. Too often, Congress has abdicated its responsibility and deferred to the executive branch on such matters. It should not. It should pause and read the Constitution.
In the Senate, we have a duty to the Constitution, to our consciences, and to the American people, especially our men and women in uniform, to ask questions, to discuss the benefits, the risks, the costs, to have a thorough debate and then vote to declare war or not. This body, the Senate, is supposed to be the conscience of the Nation. We should fulfill this great responsibility.
In my 28 years in the Senate, I can think of many instances when we asked questions and took the time to study the facts. It led to significant improvements in what we have done here.
I can also remember times when Senators in both parties wished they had taken more time to carefully consider the issues before them, to ask the hard questions, or make changes to the legislation, despite the sometimes overwhelming public pressure to pass the first bill that came along.
I know following the Constitution is not always politically expedient or popular. The Constitution was not designed to be politically expedient, but following the Constitution is the right course to take. It is what we are sworn to do, and there is no question that having this debate, which really began some months ago, has helped move the administration in the right direction.
Today, we are considering a resolution offered by Senator Lieberman to authorize the use of force. Article I of the Constitution gives the Congress the sole power to declare war. But instead of exercising this responsibility and voting up or down on a declaration of war, what have we done? We have chosen to delegate this authority and this burden to the executive branch.
This resolution, like others before it, does not declare anything. It tells the President: Why don't you decide; we are not going to.
This resolution, when you get through the pages of whereas clauses, is nothing more than a blank check. The President can decide when to use military force, how to use it, and for how long. This Vermonter does not sign blank checks.
Mr. President, I suppose this resolution is something of an improvement. Back in August the President's advisors insisted that there was not even any need for authorization from Congress to go to war. They said past resolutions sufficed.
Others in the administration argued that the United States should attack Iraq preemptively and unilaterally, without bothering to seek the support of the United Nations, even though it is Iraq's violations of U.N. resolutions which is used to justify military action.
Eventually, the President listened to those who urged him to change course and he went to the United Nations. He has since come to the Congress. I commended President Bush for doing that.
I fully support the efforts of Secretary Powell to negotiate a strong, new Security Council resolution for the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq, backed up with force, if necessary, to overcome Iraqi resistance.
Two weeks ago, when the President sent Congress his proposed resolution authorizing the use of force, I said that I hoped his proposal was the beginning of a consultative, bipartisan process to produce a sensible resolution to be acted on at the appropriate time.
I also said that I could envision circumstances which would cause me to support sending U.S. Armed Forces to Iraq. But I also made it clear that I could never support the kind of blank check resolution that the President proposed. I was not elected to do that.
I commend Senator Daschle, Senator Hagel, and others who tried hard to work with the administration to craft a bipartisan resolution that we could all support.
But while the resolution that we are considering today is an improvement from the version that the President first sent to Congress, it is fundamentally the same. It is still a blank check. I will vote against this resolution for all the reasons I have stated before and the reasons I will explain in detail now.
Mr. President, there is no dispute that Saddam Hussein is a menace to his people and to Iraq's neighbors. He is a tyrant and the world would be far better without him.
Saddam Hussein has also made no secret of his hatred of the United States, and should he acquire a nuclear weapon and the means to deliver it, he would pose a grave threat to the lives of all Americans, as well as to our closest allies.
The question is not whether Saddam Hussein should be disarmed; it is how imminent is this threat and how should we deal with it?
Do we go it alone, as some in the administration are eager to do because they see Iraq as their first opportunity to apply the President's strategy of preemptive military force?
Do we do that, potentially jeopardizing the support of those nations we need to combat terrorism and further antagonizing Muslim populations who already deeply resent our policies in the Middle East?
Or, do we work with other nations to disarm Saddam, using force if other options fail?
The resolution now before the Senate leaves the door open to act alone, even absent an imminent threat. It surrenders to the President authority which the Constitution explicitly reserves for the Congress.
And As I said 2 weeks ago, it is premature. I have never believed, nor do I think that any Senator believes, that U.S. foreign policy should be hostage to any nation, nor to the United Nations. Ultimately, we must do what we believe is right and necessary to protect our security, whenever it is called for. But going to war alone is rarely the answer.
On Monday night, the President spoke about working with the United Nations. He said:
To actually work, any new inspections, sanctions, or enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different. America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that helps keep the peace. That is why we are urging the Security Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, immediate requirements.
I could not agree more. The President is right. The status quo is unacceptable. Past U.N. resolutions have not worked. Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials have lied to the world over and over and over. As the President points out, an effort is underway in the U.N. Security Council--led by the United States--to adopt a strong resolution requiring unconditional, unimpeded access for U.N. weapons inspectors, backed up with force if necessary.
That effort is making steady progress. There is wide acceptance that a new resolution is necessary before the inspectors can return to Iraq, and this has put pressure on the other nations, especially Russia and France, to support our position.
If successful, it could achieve the goal of disarming Saddam without putting thousands of American and innocent Iraqi lives at risk or spending tens of billions, or hundreds of billions, of dollars at a time when the U.S. economy is weakening, the Federal deficit is growing, and the retirement savings of America's senior citizens have been decimated.
Diplomacy is often tedious. It does not usually make the headlines or the evening news. We certainly know about past diplomatic failures. But history has shown over and over that diplomatic pressure cannot only protect our national interests, it can also enhance the effectiveness of military force when force becomes necessary.
The negotiations are at a sensitive stage. By authorizing the use of force today, the Congress will be saying that irrespective of what the Security Council does, we have already decided to go our own way.
As Chairman and sometime Ranking Member of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee for over a decade, I have received countless letters from Secretaries of State--from both Democratic and Republican Administrations--urging Congress not to adopt legislation because it would upset ongoing negotiations. Why is this different?
Some say the President's hand will be strengthened by Congress passing this resolution. In 1990, when the United States successfully assembled a broad coalition to fight the gulf war, the Congress passed a resolution only after the UN had acted. The world already knows that President Bush is serious about using force against Iraq, and the votes are there in Congress to declare war if diplomatic efforts fail and war becomes unavoidable.
More importantly, the resolution now before the Senate goes well beyond what the President said on Monday about working through the United Nations. It would permit the administration to take precipitous, unilateral action without following through at the U.N.
Many respected and knowledgeable people--former senior military officers and diplomats among them--have expressed strong reservations about this resolution. They agree that if there is credible evidence that Saddam Hussein is planning to use weapons of mass destruction against the United States or one of our allies, the American people and the Congress would overwhelmingly support the use of American military power to stop him. But they have not seen that evidence, and neither have I.
We have heard a lot of bellicose rhetoric, but what are the facts? I am not asking for 100 percent proof, but the administration is asking Congress to make a decision to go to war based on conflicting statements, angry assertions, and assumption based on speculation. This is not the way a great nation goes to war.
The administration has also been vague, evasive and contradictory about its plans. Speaking here in Washington, the President and his advisors continue to say this issue is about disarming Saddam Hussein; that he has made no decision to use force.
But the President paints a different picture when he is on the campaign trail, where he often talks about regime change. The Vice President said on national television that "The President's made it clear that the goal of the United States is regime change. He said that on many occasions."
Proponents of this resolution argue that it does put diplomacy first. They point to section 4, which require the President to determine that further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone will not adequately protect the national security, before he resorts to military force. They say that this ensures that we will act only in a deliberative way, in concert with our allies.
But they fail to point out that the resolution permits the President to use unilateral military force if he determines that reliance on diplomacy along.
. . . is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq . . ."
Unfortunately, we have learned that "not likely" is a wide open phrase that can be used to justify just about anything. So let us not pretend we are doing something we are not. This resolution permits the President to take whatever military action he wants, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants. It is a blank check.
We have the best trained, best equipped Armed Forces in the world, and I know they can defeat Iraq. I hope, as we all do, that if force is used the Iraqi military surrenders quickly.
But if we have learned anything from history, it is that wars are unpredictable. They can trigger consequences that none of us would intend or expect. Is it fair to the American people, who have become accustomed to wars waged from 30,000 feet lasting a few weeks with few casualties, that we not discuss what else could happen? We could be involved in urban warfare where large numbers of our troops are killed.
And what of the critical issue of rebuilding a post-Saddam Iraq, about which the Administration has said virtually nothing? It is one thing to topple a regime, but it is equally important, and sometimes far more difficult, to rebuild a country to prevent it from becoming engulfed by factional fighting.
If these nations cannot successfully rebuild, then they will once again become havens for terrorists. To ensure that does not happen, do we foresee basing thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq after the war, and if so, for how many years? How many billions of dollars will we spend?
Are the American people prepared to spend what it will take to rebuild Iraq even when the administration is not budgeting the money that is needed to rebuild Afghanistan, having promised to do so? Do we spend hundreds of billions in Iraq, as the President's Economic Adviser suggested, while not providing at home for homeland defense, drought aid for farmers, education for our young people, and other domestic priorities?
Who is going to replace Saddam Hussein? The leading coalition of opposition groups, the Iraqi National Congress, is divided, has questionable support among the Iraqi people, and has made little headway in overthrowing Saddam. While Iraq has a strong civil society, in the chaos of a post-Saddam Iraq another dictator could rise to the top or the country could splinter along ethnic or religious lines.
These are the questions the American people are asking and these are the issues we should be debating. They are difficult issues of war and peace, but the administration, and the proponents of this resolution, would rather leave them for another day. They say: vote now! and let the President decide. Don't give the U.N. time to do its job. Don't worry that the resolution is a blank check.
I can count the votes. The Senate will pass this resolution. They will give the President the authority he needs to send United States troops to Iraq. But before the President takes that step, I hope he will consider the questions that have been asked. I hope he considers the concerns raised by former generals, senior diplomats, and intelligence officials in testimony before Congress. I hope he listens to concerns raised privately by some of our military officers. Above all, I hope he will listen to the American people who are urging him to proceed cautiously and not to act alone.
Notwithstanding whatever disagreements there may be on our policy toward Iraq, if a decision is made to send troops into battle, there is no question that every Member of Congress will unite behind our President and our Armed Forces.
But that time has not yet come. Based on what I know today, I believe in order to solve this problem without potentially creating more terrorists and more enemies, we have to act deliberately and not precipitously. The way the United States responds to the threat posed by Iraq is going to have consequences for our country and for the world for years to come.
Authorizing a U.S. attack to overthrow another government while negotiations at the United Nations are ongoing, and before we exhaust other options, could damage our standing in the world as a country that recognizes the importance of international solutions. I am afraid that it would be what the world expects of a superpower that seems increasing disdainful of international opinion or cooperation and collective diplomacy, a superpower that seems more and more inclined to "go it alone."
What a dramatic shift from a year ago, when the world was united in its expressions of sympathy toward the United States. A year ago, the world would have welcomed the opportunity to work with us on a wide agenda of common problems.
I remember the emotion I felt when I saw "The Star Spangled Banner" sung by crowds of people outside Buckingham Palace in London. The leading French newspaper, Le Monde, declared, "We are all Americans." China's Jiang Zemin was one of the first world leaders to call Washington and express sympathy after September 11.
Why squander the goodwill we had in the world? Why squander this unity? If September 11 taught us anything, it is that protecting our security involves much more than military might. It involves cooperation with other nations to break up terrorist rings, dry up the sources of funding, and address the conditions of ignorance and despair that create breeding grounds for terrorists. We are far more likely to achieve these goals by working with other nations than by going it alone.
I am optimistic that the Administration's efforts at the U.N. will succeed and that the Security Council will adopt a strong resolution. If Saddam Hussein refuses to comply, then force may be justified, and it may be required.
But we are a great nation, with a wide range of resources available to us and with the goodwill of most of the world. Let us proceed deliberately, moving as close to our goal as we can by working with our allies and the United Nations, rather than writing a blank check that is premature, and which would continue the trend of abdicating our constitutional authority and our responsibility.
Mr. President, that trend started many years ago, and I have gone back and read some of the speeches the Senators have made. For example, and I quote:
The resolution now pending is an expression of American unity in this time of crisis.
It is a vote of confidence . . . but is not a blank check for policies that might in the future be carried on by the executive branch of the Government without full consultation by the Congress.
Do these speeches sound familiar? They were not about Iraq. They were spoken 38 years ago when I was still a prosecutor in Vermont. At the end of that debate, after statements were made that this resolution is not a blank check, and that Congress will always watch what the Executive Branch is doing, the Senate voted on that resolution. Do you know what the vote was? 88 to 2. It passed overwhelmingly.
In case everyone does not know what resolution I am talking about, I am talking about the Tonkin Gulf resolution. As we know all too well, the Tonkin Gulf resolution was used by both the Johnson and Nixon administrations as carte blanche to wage war on Vietnam, ultimately involving more than half a million American troops, resulting in the deaths of more than 58,000 Americans. Yet, even the Tonkin Gulf resolution, unlike the one that we are debating today, had a sunset provision.
When I came to the Senate, there were a lot of Senators, both Republicans and Democrats, who had voted for the Tonkin Gulf resolution. Every single Senator who ever discussed it with me said what a mistake it was to write that kind of blank check on the assurance that we would continue to watch what went on.
I am not suggesting the administration is trying to mislead the Congress about the situation in Iraq, as Congress was misled on the Tonkin Gulf resolution. I am not comparing a possible war in Iraq to the Vietnam war. They are very different countries, with different histories, and with different military capabilities. But the key words in the resolution we are considering today are remarkably similar to the infamous resolution of 38 years ago which so many Senators and so many millions of Americans came to regret.
Let us not make that mistake again. Let us not pass a Tonkin Gulf resolution. Let us not set the history of our great country this way. Let us not make the mistake we made once before.
I yield the floor.
Mr. Warner: Madam President, late last night in a colloquy between myself and the Senator from Oregon, the Senator from Oregon read into the Record portions of a letter addressed to Senator Graham, chairman, Select Committee on Intelligence, signed by George Tenet. I ask unanimous consent that that letter be printed in the Record today, followed by a statement issued by Mr. Tenet bearing on his interpretation and intent in writing that letter.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Central Intelligence Agency,
Washington, DC, October 7, 2002.Hon. Bob Graham,
Chairman, Select Committee on Intelligence, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.Dear Mr. Chairman: In response to your letter of 4 October 2002, we have made unclassified material available to further the Senate's forthcoming open debate on a Joint Resolution concerning Iraq.
As always, our declassification efforts seek a balance between your need for unfettered debate and our need to protect sources and methods. We have also been mindful of a shared interest in not providing to Saddam a blueprint of our intelligence capabilities and shortcoming, or with insight into our expectation of how he will and will not act. The salience of such concerns is only heightened by the possibility for hostilities between the U.S. and Iraq.
These are some of the reasons why we did not include our classified judgments on Saddam's decisionmaking regarding the use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in our recent unclassified paper on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction. Viewing your request with those concerns in mind, however, we can declassify the following from the paragraphs you requested.
Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against the United States.
Should Saddam conclude that a US-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions. Such terrorism might involve conventional means, as with Iraq's unsuccessful attempt at a terrorist offensive in 1991, or CBW.
Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a WMD attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.
Regarding the 2 October closed hearing, we can declassify the following dialogue.
Senator Levin: . . . If (Saddam) didn't feel threatened, did not feel threatened, is it likely that he would initiate an attack using a weapon of mass destruction?
Senior Intelligence Witness: . . . My judgment would be that the probability of him initiating an attack--let me put a time frame on it--in the foreseeable future, given the conditions we understand now, the likelihood I think would be low.
Senator Levin: Now if he did initiate an attack you've . . . indicated he would probably attempt clandestine attacks against us . . . But what about his use of weapons of mass destruction? If we initiate an attack and he thought he was in extremis or otherwise, what's the likelihood in response to our attack that he would use chemical or biological weapons?
Senior Intelligence Witness: Pretty high, in my view.
In the above dialogue, the witness's qualifications--"in the foreseeable future, given the conditions we understand now"--were intended to underscore that the likelihood of Saddam using WMD for blackmail, deterrence, or otherwise grows as his arsenal builds. Moreover, if Saddam used WMD, it would disprove his repeated denials that he has such weapons.
Regarding Senator Bayh's question of Iraqi links to al- Qa'ida, Senators could draw from the following points for unclassified discussions:
Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and al- Qa'ida is evolving and is based on sources of varying reliability. Some of the information we have received comes from detainees, including some of high rank.
We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al-Qa'ida going back a decade.
Credible information indicates that Iraq and al-Qa'ida have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression.
Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al-Qa'ida members, including some that have been in Baghdad.
We have credible reporting that al-Qa'ida leaders sought contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has provided training to al-Qa'ida members in the areas of poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.
Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians, coupled with growing indications of a relationship with al- Qa'ida, suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will increase, even absent US military action.
Sincerely,
John McLaughlin
(For George J. Tenet, Director).
Statement by DCI George Tenet, October 8, 2002
There is no inconsistency between our view of Saddam's growing threat and the view as expressed by the President in his speech. Although we think the chances of Saddam initiating a WMD attack at this moment are low--in part because it would constitute an admission that he possesses WMD--there is no question that the likelihood of Saddam using WMD against the United States or our allies in the region for blackmail, deterrence, or otherwise grows as his arsenal continues to build. His past use of WMD against civilian and military targets shows that he produces those weapons to use not just to deter.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Iowa is recognized for 20 minutes.
Mr. Grassley: Madam President, before I give my reasons for my vote on this resolution, I would like to point out some ironies and inconsistencies in some positions of some of my colleagues.
It is not unusual for Senators to be inconsistent in positions taken, but in recent weeks we have had some colleagues blaming the administration for not responding to the pre-9/11 warnings of possible terrorist attacks on the United States. I am talking about the warnings of whether or not the CIA and the FBI had information about that and whether or not the President had access to that information. The insinuation is that maybe the President knew more than what he did and, why didn't he do something about 9/11?
It seems to me the same colleagues are now refusing to support the President's call to disarm Saddam Hussein. The President is trying to preempt Saddam Hussein from unleashing on Americans his weapons of mass destruction. Yet my colleagues who are inconsistent in this way apparently want the President to wait until we are attacked again. I ask, if you were expecting preemption before September 11, 2001, why wouldn't you expect the President to preempt an attack on the United States today?
I come to the floor today to share my thoughts concerning the resolution before the Senate. Again we find ourselves in the midst of an important debate with one of the most important decisions that many Senators will make in our lifetime. The issue of war and peace involves the threats to the lives of the men and women we send to battle. This issue may even involve threats to the American civilian population, as well.
It was just a little more than a decade ago that many Members were here making similar decisions in regard to the Persian Gulf war.
As many of my colleagues may remember, I was just one of two Senate Republicans who opposed the resolution authorizing military action against Iraq in 1991. I voted against that resolution because I questioned the timing of military action while diplomatic measures and economic sanctions had just been started. I felt they needed a chance to work. Opposing the resolution was a difficult decision, but one that I have never regretted.
While today's decision is not one to be taken lightly, it stands in stark contrast to that of 1991. While I opposed that resolution for the reasons I stated, I intend to support the compromise resolution before us because I believe the time to hold Saddam Hussein accountable is past due.
But, this is not the first time since 1991 that Congress has approved a resolution approving military action against Iraq.
In 1998, by unanimous vote by the Senate and an overwhelming 407-6 vote in the House, Congress approved a resolution, and subsequently President Clinton bombed Iraq in December of 1998.
Let us see how forthrightly the Senate spoke at that time about the dangers of Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
I speak from page 2 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. It says in section 3:
It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace the regime.
It is pretty clear we knew about the threat of Saddam Hussein under a Democratic President--President Clinton--with a bipartisan action by consensus of this body. Why should anybody be surprised if President Clinton and the Senate, in a bipartisan way, would be expressing the same concern 4 years later?
What was the basis of that overwhelming vote? Primarily, it was because Iraq has kicked United Nations weapons inspectors out, as they did in 1998. Today we have a lot of intelligence information saying it is a far more dangerous situation today, and particularly for the United States.
Thousands of Americans were killed in that 9/11 attack by terrorists.
Iraq is aligned with those terrorists, and Iraq is building weapons of mass destruction. We must, therefore, respond appropriately.
One of the most pressing concerns expressed by my constituents over the past few months is that of timing. The question: Why now? The question: Why can't we continue to pursue inspections and other diplomatic measures? They are legitimate questions. Many of my colleagues will answer this differently than I will. But the response for me is quite simple. I believe the actions by Saddam Hussein over the past 10 years builds a strong case why firm action is needed and why we cannot afford as a Congress delaying a decision any longer.
None of this precludes inspections or diplomatic missions. But these alternatives demand full cooperation by Iraq if a military response is to be withheld.
However, during the past 10 years, the international community has worked with Iraq through diplomatic efforts, various inspection regimes, economic sanctions, and even limited military force in an effort to encourage Saddam Hussein to abide by the very resolutions he agreed to at the end of the gulf war. He agreed to follow these within the rule of law--the international rule of law. We can legitimately expect any person to agree to follow those agreements.
Yet Saddam Hussein has consistently and convincingly evaded and defied those obligations he agreed to.
In the spring of 1991, the United Nations Security Council agreed to Resolution 687, which required Saddam Hussein to destroy his chemical and biological weapons and to unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons. That same resolution also demanded Iraq not develop or acquire any weapons of mass destruction. However, the CIA reported Iraq is continuing to develop and acquire chemical and biological weapons.
The report states since the United Nations weapons inspectors left in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort and invested even more heavily in biological weapons.
In addition, the CIA estimated Iraq could develop nuclear weapons in the near term with the proper supply of material.
United Nations Resolution 687 also required Saddam Hussein to end his support for terrorism and to prohibit terrorist organizations from operating inside the borders of Iraq.
Yet there is clear evidence Iraq has provided safe haven to a number of prominent, international terrorists. Iraq has provided assistance to terrorist organizations whose sole purpose is to disrupt and prevent peace efforts in the Middle East.
Most importantly, fleeing al-Qaida members now reside in Iraq. Of course, it is only a matter of time before these two enemies of the United States join forces--and maybe they already have.
Altogether, Saddam has defied at least 16 United Nations resolutions during the past decade. He has manipulated U.N. weapons inspectors, tortured and repressed Iraqi people, supported international terrorists, and violated United Nations economic sanctions.
So he continues to thumb his nose at the world, and particularly the rule of law under the international regimes we all respect.
The issue is as much about protecting people as it is about enforcing the international rule of law. But enforcing international rule of law is one way to eliminate chaos so people can live peacefully.
Will the United Nations take a stand in defense of their very own resolutions and hold Saddam Hussein accountable? Will the United Nations resolutions, which seek to provide peace and security in the region, continue to be unenforced?
This resolution before the Senate then asks the United Nations: Does the organization want to be relevant during the 21st century, an instrument of peace in this century, or does it somehow want to fade away as the League of Nations did because of its failures in Abyssinia in the 1930s?
I want, and I hope all my colleagues want, the U.N. to be relevant. I want the U.N. to lead. Its moral leadership is important. We have to discourage tin-horn dictators from violating the rule of law. The time for accountability is right now.
According to former President Clinton, in a speech on December 16, 1998:
Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.
That is what President Clinton said in a speech on December 16, 1998.
Former President Clinton's words are very applicable to the situation now, even 4 years later.
I have also heard concerns from people who question this resolution, saying that by supporting it, we are supporting preemptive military action against a sovereign nation. However, for the last decade, the United States and allied forces have patrolled no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq to protect Kurdish and Shiite minority populations from Saddam Hussein, and all the while they have been fired upon by Iraq's military.
These are American pilots. Some of them have been Iowans because over the past 6 years the Iowa Air National Guard has completed five 90-day missions and will likely be needed for a sixth mission before the end of this year. And as the President stated earlier this week, the American and British pilots have been fired upon more than 750 times. In a sense, we have been involved in military action in Iraq since the 1991 gulf war. So what is contemplated by this resolution cannot be described as preemptive.
Some of my constituents have also questioned the effect this will have on our war on terrorism. I believe that forcing Iraq to disarm is part of the war against terrorism and is consistent with the war on terrorism. Iraq has already been labeled by previous administrations as a state sponsor of terrorism. Iraq is one of seven nations to be designated by our own State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism. And given Iraq's support for international terrorists and its support for efforts to provide safe haven for al-Qaida, it is clear that this effort should not be seen as separate from the war on terrorism but very much an integral part of the war on terrorism.
It is because of our obligations to enforce international law, and to disarm this threat to our national security and to the security of the entire world, that I have decided to support the resolution offered by Senator Lieberman and Senator Warner.
A decade ago, as I said, I opposed war with Iraq because I believed we had not exhausted all alternatives available at that time. Today, I support this resolution because we have exhausted all other remedies, unless somehow Saddam Hussein has a change of heart. After years of evasion, after years of defiance, the time has come to stand firm and enforce the resolutions to disarm Iraq. Or, on the other hand, it is time for Saddam Hussein to repent and fully cooperate. But his track record in that regard is not very promising.
It is important to keep in mind that this resolution before the Senate does not guarantee military action, nor do I think it should. But it does authorize the use of United States military forces to defend the national security of the United States against this continuing threat posed by Iraq and to enforce all relevant U.N. resolutions regarding Iraq. In other words, this is as much about enforcing the rule of law as a policeman in Washington, DC, would enforce the domestic rule of law to prevent chaos and to encourage law- abiding citizenry, as it is about military action, at least from my standpoint.
Most importantly, this resolution makes clear that if the United Nations fails to ensure full compliance with international law, we will not sit quietly and let this tinhorn dictator ignore the rule of law. At the same time, we will be sending the message to other tinhorn dictators around the world that they had better not violate the international rules of law.
The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, dispelled notions of America's invincibility, it placed greater demands on our Government to protect and defend American citizens, and it put more demand on American citizens themselves to look out for their own safety, as a Jerusalem-type terrorist bombing could happen in New York City or Washington, DC, as much as it happens in Jerusalem.
My resolve is stronger than ever to win the war on terrorism, protect U.S. citizens, secure the homeland, and, most importantly, defend American values and our way of life. By supporting this resolution, we will send a strong signal to the United Nations, as well as our friends and allies around the world, that we will not sit idly by and allow a ruthless dictator to violate international law and threaten the security of that region and, in fact, impact the whole world. This resolution says to the world community that America stands together, committed to the rule of law and the security of all nations.
So, Madam President, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution offered by our colleagues, Senator Lieberman and Senator Warner.
I yield the floor.
