The Presiding Officer: The Senator from North Carolina.
Mr. Kerry: Mr. President, point of inquiry?
The Presiding Officer: Will the Senator from North Carolina yield?
Mr. Helms: I yield for that purpose.
Mr. Kerry: I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator from North Carolina, I be recognized, following the----
Mr. McCain: I object. I will seek and obtain recognition after the Senator from North Carolina.
The Presiding Officer: Objection is heard.
Mr. Kerry: I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Arizona be recognized, after which I be recognized following the Senator from Nebraska, and I think the Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. Reid: Mr. President, I would like to know what the request is. What is the request?
Mr. Helms: Mr. President, who has the floor?
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from North Carolina has the floor and he yielded to the Senator from Massachusetts for an inquiry.
Mr. Helms: Mr. President, I used to be a sports writer. I know what freezing the ball is doing.
I ask that it be in order for me to make my short statement seated at my desk.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Helms: Mr. President, the most fundamental and painful of decisions--whether to authorize the President to send U.S. military personnel to war--is being confronted by the Senate today, previous days, and maybe more days. I believe the decision is in good hands.
I have had the privilege of serving in this body for nearly 30 years. The men and women in this chamber are the respected servants of the American people. I have faith in my fellow Senators.
For 3 days in August and 2 days in September, the Foreign Relations Committee heard testimony on the possibility of American military action against Iraq. We heard 23 witnesses, including current and former Secretaries of State, former National Security Advisors, a number of experts on Iraq from academia and from prominent research institutes, an important defector from Iraq's nuclear weapons program, retired senior level military officers, and former members of U.N. inspections teams in Iraq.
The chairman of the committee, Senator Biden, deserves our thanks for conducting these hearings in a fair and comprehensive manner.
The hearings established some fundamental points that deserve repeating here on the floor.
First, the threat posed by the Iraqi regime to American national security is serious and growing. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright testified that after U.N. inspectors were banished by Iraq in 1998, ". . . the risk that Saddam Hussein will succeed in reconstituting deliverable weapons of mass destruction has increased. It is in the interest not only of the United States but also of the entire international community to act."
Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nationals Richard Holbrooke similarly stated: "in my view, Saddam is even more dangerous than [former Serbian leader Slobodan] Milosevic, given his continuing quest for weapons of mass destruction. Left alone, he will only seek to become stronger."
Now, neither of these two eminent individuals share all of President Bush's foreign policy priorities. But both concede that the threat is real, and growing.
Second, three former high-ranking members of the U.N. Special Commission agreed that inspections will fail to stop Iraq's development of weapons of mass destruction. Charles Deulfer stated that, in his opinion, inspections "are only a short term palliative and do not address the fundamental problem. Saddam knows this."
Ambassador Robert Gallucci noted that "We can assume that any regime that appeared as though it would be effective in blocking Iraqi WMD acquisition would also be resisted by Iraq. Therefore, the only way to impose such a regime short of war would be to pose to Iraq the credible alternative of a prompt invasion and regime change if the inspection regime change if the inspection regime resisted."
Lastly, Ambassador Richard Butler, the former head of the inspections team, warned that inspections were doomed to fail if Saddam succeeds once again in what Butler calls the "shell game--phony inspections, more deceit, more concealment." "That would," he concluded, "be deeply dangerous, providing an illusion of security."
Third, a variety of witnesses, including Secretary Powell, agreed that containment of the Iraq threat, our policy since the end of Operation Desert Storm, is no longer suitable.
Secretary Powell told the committee that the box that contains Saddam Hussein's murderous ambitions cannot last much longer. Secretary Powell, said, "[Saddam] continues to bounce against the walls of that box. And one of these days he'll have a box cutter and he'll be out. And we don't want to wait and see that day."
Ambassador Butler also suggested that containment no longer works. He told the committee, "we also need a specific solution to the specific problems posed by this particular and, I suggest, unique outlaw." Former Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane, and Dr. Khidir Hamza, former Iraqi nuclear weapons designer, all noted Saddam's absolute commitment to the development of weapons of mass destruction, especially nuclear weapons.
Secretary Weinberger also noted that Saddam's ability to smuggle goods in and out of Iraq, despite U.N. sanctions, earns him billions of dollars per year--money that goes to develop weapons of mass destruction.
In hearings before other committees, our able Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, has pointed out that the problem is not inspections but disarmament. Saddam has succeeded in circumventing sanctions and containment to the point where we no longer have the luxury of waiting idly by while he continues to develop the means to threaten us and our allies.
The President's policy is the only way to deal with Iraq today, and we are obliged to give him maximum flexibility to carry it out. Even as the President develops a coalition, we cannot yield to a few countries like China or Russia that would allow Saddam to evade full disarmament.
We can no longer countenance Saddam's delays and obfuscations. The President, in his speech to the Nation Monday night, articulated a series of options to deal with the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein. He displayed the essence of leadership, moving forward in the face of evil. Diplomacy absent demonstrated resolve--which was our policy too often in the past--will continue to prove absolutely ineffectual.
I do hope Senators will stand with the President today. He has shown the leadership necessary to rid the world of Saddam Hussein. We should demonstrate that same leadership and authorize the President to do what is now so clearly necessary.
I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. Reid: Mr. President, we are trying to set up a couple of speakers on that side, and we are not going to go any more in advance of that. We should tell everybody that, after cloture is invoked, people still will have an opportunity to speak. It is not as if this is the last train out of the station. If people feel inclined to speak, they can do so.
The leader will stay in session as long as people want to speak tonight. I ask unanimous consent that Senator McCain be recognized for 20 minutes; Senator Kerry, up to 45 minutes--he said he may not use all of that time--Senator Hagel, for 25 minutes; Senator Dodd, for 20 minutes.
Mr. Warner: Mr. President, could we entertain the desire of the Senator from Kansas to speak?
Mr. Reid: The Democrats have used 20 minutes more during this time than the Republicans, so how long would Senator Roberts speak?
Mr. Roberts: About 20 minutes.
Mr. Reid: I ask unanimous consent that Senator Roberts may speak after Senator Dodd for 20 minutes.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
Mr. McCain: Mr. President, a lot of ground was covered in the time between the last vote and the time that I have been recognized, not necessarily in a structured fashion. I want to respond to some of the questions and comments that were made.
First of all, very importantly, the Senator from West Virginia made an impassioned plea that we not vote for cloture, not move forward with the disposition of this resolution supporting the President of the United States of America to take action, if necessary, to bring about an elimination of the threat to the U.S. national security.
I think it is worthy of a couple of observations, Mr. President. One is, in the recent past the Foreign Relations Committee has held numerous hearings and the Armed Services Committee has held numerous hearings. In reality, though, this issue has been with us for 11 years, and it is not possible to turn on your television set without seeing a discussion and debate over this issue. The night before last, the President of the United States spoke to the people of this country on this issue. Debate is taking place in the U.N. There are discussions in the U.N. Security Council as we speak. This issue, more than any other today, is known to the American people. As we, their representatives, debate and discuss it, it is to further inform them; but they are clearly aware of the major aspects of this issue.
Since the year 1992, we have begun to be aware that Saddam Hussein would not be overthrown.
We became even more aware over time that he was not going to comply with the cease-fire agreements he entered into and the Security Council resolutions requiring him to allow intrusive and comprehensive weapons inspections throughout his country.
His obfuscation, his delay, his outright refusal to allow these inspections culminated in 1998 in ejecting those inspectors, and that resulted in the passage of legislation on August 14, 1998, which President Clinton signed into law, S.J. Res. 54, which declared that the Government of Iraq was in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations, and urged the President:
to take appropriate action in accordance with the Constitution and relative laws of the United States to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.
On October 31, 1998, then-President Clinton signed into law the Iraq Liberation Act, which stated:
It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a domestic government to replace that regime.
That was October 31, 1998, the Iraq Liberation Act, signed into law by the President of the United States.
I have to say allegations or assertions that somehow the American people are not aware of this issue just do not ring true. Anyone who believes this issue is not being debated around kitchen tables and in restaurants and other social gathering places throughout America is simply not aware of what is going on in America.
Yes, they pay attention to this debate, but the issue is well known, and there is no reason why we should not invoke cloture.
It was interesting to me that my colleague from Virginia mentioned we really only spent 2 days of formal debate on the floor of the Senate in 1991. The Senator from Connecticut and I were heavily involved in that debate. But the fact is, that issue was debated far and wide. By the time that vote was taken, the American people and the Members of this body were very well aware--very well aware--as to what was at stake and what, at that time, was a far more controversial issue than this one is, if you accept our predictions of an overwhelming vote.
The Senator from Massachusetts asked the Senator from West Virginia if he knew about the stories carried in this morning's papers about Saddam Hussein being likely to use weapons of mass destruction if he is attacked.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a statement by George Tenet be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Statement by DCI George Tenet
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 the 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.
Mr. McCain: Mr. President, I do not want to go through the whole debate again, but here is the point. Saddam Hussein continues to acquire, amass, and improve on his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. He continues to attempt to acquire a nuclear weapon. These are all well-known facts. So if you believe that Saddam Hussein, after we go through this expression of approval, national debate, Security Council resolutions, is not going to abandon his request for his weapons, then the longer we wait, the more dangerous he becomes. In other words, if we attack Iraq tomorrow--and that is not clear yet; we have Security Council resolutions to go through--perhaps Saddam Hussein in his desperation may want to use a weapon of mass destruction, but if Saddam Hussein does not comply and continues the clear record of violations he has amassed over the last 11 years, then if we have to remove these weapons of mass destruction, each day that goes by he becomes more dangerous, his capabilities become better, and, in the case of nuclear weapons, it is not a question of whether, it is a question of when.
Experts will debate whether it is 2 years when he acquires these weapons, whether it is 5 years, 7 years, 10 years, but there is no doubt over time he will acquire a nuclear weapon.
Why do I mention a nuclear weapon? We have equipment that can protect our men and women in the military against biological and chemical attack. It is tough to fight, it is bulky equipment, but we do have that equipment. We have not invented any equipment yet that can protect our troops from a nuclear weapon.
Mr. Lieberman: Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. McCain: I will be glad to yield to the Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. Lieberman: Mr. President, I appreciate the comments the Senator has made. I think they are right on target. Is there any reason from history or evidence to believe Saddam Hussein is developing these weapons of mass destruction for defensive purposes? Isn't the thought he might use them against someone else if attacked indication he would use them offensively as soon as he feels the opportunity to do so?
Mr. McCain: I say to my friend, it is very clear he is not developing these weapons for defensive purposes. He has used them twice--once against his own people, once against troops of a neighboring country in a conflict.
The fundamental point that seems to be lost in this debate sometimes is at any time in the last 11 years, Saddam Hussein could have avoided any threat to Saddam Hussein's illegitimate, terrible regime. It is a terrible and odious regime, but there are lots of bad guys around the world. He could have eliminated any threat if he had just come clean, taken out these weapons of mass destruction, taken out the laboratories, stopped, allowed the inspectors in, so he must have some other agenda. The longer we delay when he is in noncompliance, the more dangerous that threat becomes.
There was no contradiction, in my view, of the comments of the Director of the CIA that were widely quoted in the media this morning. I can understand, by the way, without knowledge of Saddam Hussein, without the background we have of his record, without the knowledge of what he has tried to do over the last 11 years, why those comments might be misconstrued. But taken in the context of the history of this despot, I think it is very clear that if he fails to comply--and we are going to the United Nations and there will be a Security Council resolution or resolutions--then obviously the longer we delay, if he continues on this reckless path, the more dangerous it becomes and, frankly, the more casualties accrue, in response to the Senator from West Virginia.
I wish to make another comment about this debate. There is no Member of this body who has any priority or any franchise on the lives of American young men and women. All of us place that as our highest priority. All of us recognize the sacred obligation we have when we vote to send young men and women into harm's way, and no one's motives should be or will be impugned in this debate.
I think it is important for the Senator from West Virginia to appreciate that I and others will object to any unanimous consent agreement that would delay a cloture vote tomorrow morning. We believe the American people have been informed, and the Members of this body have been informed.
As the Senator from Virginia said, Friday we had debate, and we will, according to the majority leader, stay as late or as long as anybody in this body wants to talk or debate or discuss.
With all due respect to the Senator from West Virginia, we will object.
Mr. President, we are trying to dispose of 13 amendments. Obviously, people want to speak. I respect that, but I do feel compelled to comment on the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia briefly.
Mr. Warner: Mr. President, could I ask a brief question before the Senator proceeds to the amendment?
Mr. McCain: I will be glad to yield to the Senator.
Mr. Warner: Our colleague from Connecticut raises a very valuable question: Is he manufacturing these weapons of mass destruction for the defense of his sovereign nation? The clearest evidence this Senator finds to show that he is not doing that is the excessive amounts.
During the inspection regime, while it was somewhat functional in the early 1990s, they discovered records of clearly documented biological and chemical weaponry that had been made. To this day, it has never been unearthed, never been discovered, never been acknowledged by Saddam Hussein.
So the question is important, and the Senator from Arizona answered it very carefully. I suggest that those who have any doubt address the excess quantities of all of these weapons. And for what reason would he need a nuclear weapon? That is a question to which none of us have an answer.
Mr. McCain: I thank my friend from Virginia.
Mr. President, now I will make a few brief comments about the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia.
The amendment is to provide constitutional authorities to the President of the United States. In the heart of the amendment, it says the President of the United States cannot use the Armed Forces for any purposes not directly related to a clear threat of imminent, sudden, and direct attack upon the United States, its possessions or territories.
If this were 100 years ago, at the time of my hero, Theodore Roosevelt, who was ready to send the Great White Fleet around the world, I would vote for this amendment in a New York minute because 100 years ago we had two oceans to protect us. One hundred years ago, we did not have in this world weapons of mass destruction that could strike continents away, travel thousands of miles and strike with incredible accuracy. We did not have a threat from a group of people who are yet somewhat unknown to us, who want to destroy our culture, who want to destroy our values, and indeed everything about Western civilization. They travel sometimes in secret without us being able to detect them, in the case of September 11, until too late.
One hundred years ago, we had two oceans to protect us. We knew who our enemies might be, either real or potential, and we could afford to wait until there was an imminent, sudden, or direct attack upon the United States, its possessions or territories. Then I would have supported this amendment.
The fact is, we all know if we wait until there is a direct attack on the United States of America, we pay a very heavy price. I hope the Senator from West Virginia, who I am sorry is not in the Chamber, would have appreciated that lesson from September 11; that we cannot wait until there is a direct, imminent, or sudden attack upon the United States of America. That is why if this amendment were to pass, it would completely prevent the President of the United States of America from addressing a clear and present danger to the United States of America in the form of Saddam Hussein's inventory of weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. Lieberman: Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. McCain: I will be glad to yield to the Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. Lieberman: The Senator makes a good series of points about the pending amendment introduced by the Senator from West Virginia.
We have language in our resolution that authorizes the President to take action to protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat from Iraq. I must say that in my opinion, and I ask the Senator for his reaction, the terms that the Senator from West Virginia has stated are literally being met now for this reason: As my friend from Arizona well knows, the Armed Forces of the United States are under direct attack from Iraq as they fly along with their British colleagues to enforce the no-fly zone.
Approximately 7,500 American men and women in uniform are dispatched there, costing the American taxpayer a billion or more dollars a year. This year alone, there have been more than 400 occasions on which Iraqi forces have fired at the Armed Forces of the United States.
Of course, I am opposed to this amendment, but I ask the Senator from Arizona if he would agree with me that there is a direct attack by Iraq going on right now, not on the United States or its possessions or territories but on the Armed Forces of our country?
Mr. McCain: I respond to my friend and say that, yes, if this amendment said a clear threat of imminent, sudden, or direct attack upon the Armed Forces of the United States, clearly that is the case. We saw it in the USS Cole. We saw it in the attacks on our embassies. We have seen it in many places.
If there has to be a clear threat of imminent, sudden, and direct attack upon the United States, its possessions, or territories, in all due respect, I think Saddam Hussein would be very pleased if we passed this kind of resolution because that would allow him to continue to build up his inventory, to build his weapons of mass destruction, perhaps acquire a missile with sufficient range to reach the United States, and only then could we respond. That is not what I think our responsibilities and duties are to the American people.
I am enjoying this debate. I think it is a good one. I look forward to hearing the next two speakers because both of them have played a very important and informative role, not only on the floor of the Senate but on talk shows and great programs throughout America, both written and in public.
In fact, some of them have been accused of what I have been accused of from time to time, and that is seeking a camera, which is, of course, never true of me or my two colleagues.
I certainly look forward to listening to their arguments. I think these next two speakers will contribute enormously to the debate. I think the American people, as well as our colleagues, will be better informed at the completion of their remarks.
I yield back the remainder of my time.
