The Presiding Officer (Ms. Cantwell): Under the previous order, the Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
Mr. Hagel: Madam President, the Senate is, by design, a deliberative institution. Over this past week, we have witnessed thoughtful debate and commentary on how to meet the challenge of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Ours is not an academic exercise; debate informs our decision whether to authorize the President to use force if necessary to enforce U.N. Security Council resolutions dealing with Iraqi disarmament.
There are no easy answers in Iraq. The decision to commit our troops to war is the most difficult decision Members of Congress make. Each course of action we consider in Iraq leads us into imperfect, dangerous, and unknown situations. But we cannot avoid decision on Iraq. The President cannot avoid decision on Iraq. The risks of inaction are too high. We are elected to solve problems, not just debate them. The time has come to chart a new course in Iraq and in the Middle East.
History informs our debate and our decisions. We know tyranny cannot be appeased. We also know our power and influence are enhanced by both a nobility of purpose and the support of allies and institutions that reinforce an international commitment to peace and prosperity. We know war has its own dynamic, that it favors neither ideology, nor democracy, nor tyranny, that men and women die, and that nations and individuals who know war are never again the same.
President Bush has rightly brought the case against Iraq back before the United Nations. Our problems with Iraq, as well as terrorism and the worldwide proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, are not America's alone. Israel, Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iraq's own Kurdish population, and other nations and peoples are on the front lines of Saddam Hussein's ambitions for weapons of mass death.
The United Nations, with American leadership, must act decisively to end Saddam Hussein's decade-long violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions.
America's best case for the possible use of force against Iraq rests with the American and international commitment to enforcing Iraq's disarmament. The diplomatic process is not easy, and we face the competing interests and demands of Russia, France, China, and others, whose interests in Iraq may not always be the same as ours. A regional and international coalition is essential for creating the political environment that will be required for any action we take in Iraq, and especially for how we sustain a democratic transition in a post-Saddam Iraq. We cannot do it alone.
America--including the Congress--and the world, must speak with one voice about Iraqi disarmament, as it must continue to do so in the war on terrorism.
Because the stakes are so high, America must be careful with her rhetoric and mindful of how others perceive her intentions. Actions in Iraq must come in the context of an American-led, multilateral approach to disarmament, not as the first case for a new American doctrine involving the preemptive use of force. America's challenge in this new century will be to strengthen its relationships around the world while leading the world in our war on terrorism, for it is the success of the first challenge that will determine the success of the second. We should not mistake our foreign policy priorities for ideology in a rush to proclaim a new doctrine in world affairs. America must understand it cannot alone win a war against terrorism. It will require allies, friends, and partners.
American leadership in the world will be further defined by our actions in Iraq and the Middle East. What begins in Iraq will not end in Iraq. There will be other "Iraqs." There will be continued acts of terrorism, proliferating powers, and regional conflicts. If we do it right and lead through the U.N., in concert with our allies, we can set a new standard for American leadership and international cooperation. The perception of American power is power, and how our power is perceived can either magnify or diminish our influence in the world. The Senate has a constitutional responsibility and an institutional obligation in this effort.
Federalist Paper No. 63 specifically notes the responsibilities of the Senate in foreign affairs as follows:
An attention to the judgment of other nations is important to every government for two reasons: The one is that independently of the merits of any particular plan or measure, it is desirable, on various accounts, that it should appear to other nations as the offspring of a wise and honorable policy; the second is that, in doubtful cases, particularly where the national councils may be warped by some strong passion or momentary interest, the presumed or known opinion of the impartial world may be the best guide that can always be followed. What has not America lost by her want of character with foreign nations and how many errors and follies would she not have avoided, if the justice and propriety of her measures had, in every instance, been previously tried by the light in which they would probably appear to the unbiased part of mankind?
Remarkable words. The resolution before us today should be tried in that same light as the Federalist Papers points out. The original resolution proposed by the Bush administration, S.J. Res. 45, would have been a setback for this institution. It did not reflect the best democratic traditions of either Congressional-Executive relations, or the conduct of American foreign policy.
S.J. Res. 46, sponsored by Senators Lieberman, Warner, McCain, and Bayh, is a far more responsible and accountable document than the one we started with 3 weeks ago. I congratulate my colleagues, especially Senators Lugar, Biden, and Daschle, and the four sponsors of this resolution, for their efforts and leadership in getting it to this point.
S.J. Res. 46 narrows the authorization for the use of force to all relevant U.N. resolutions regarding Iraq, and to defending our national interests against the threats posed by Iraq. It includes support for U.S. diplomatic efforts at the U.N.; a requirement that, before taking action, the President formally determines that diplomatic or other peaceful means will not be adequate in meeting our objectives; reference to the war powers resolution requirements; and periodic reports to Congress that include those actions described in the section of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998 regarding assistance and support for Iraq upon replacement of Saddam Hussein. This resolution recognizes Congress as a coequal partner in dealing with the threat from Saddam Hussein's Iraq.
If disarmament in Iraq requires the use of force, we need to consider carefully the implications and consequences of our actions. The future of Iraq after Saddam Hussein is also an open question. Some of my colleagues and some American analysts now speak authoritatively of Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds in Iraq, and how Iraq can be a test case for democracy in the Arab world.
How many of us really know and understand much about Iraq, the country, the history, the people, the role in the Arab world? I approach the issue of post-Saddam Iraq and the future of democracy and stability in the Middle East with more caution, realism, and a bit more humility. While the people of the Arab world need no education from America about Saddam's record of deceit, aggression, and brutality, and while many of them may respect and desire the freedoms the American model offers, imposing democracy through force in Iraq is a roll of the dice. A democratic effort cannot be maintained without building durable Iraqi political institutions and developing a regional and international commitment to Iraq's reconstruction. No small task.
To succeed, our commitment must extend beyond the day after to the months and years after Saddam is gone. The American people must be told of this long-term commitment, risk, and costs of this undertaking.
We should not be seduced by the expectations of "dancing in the streets" after Saddam's regime has fallen, the kites, the candy, and cheering crowds we expect to greet our troops, but instead, focus on the great challenges ahead, the commitment and resources that will be needed to ensure a democratic transition in Iraq and a more stable and peaceful Middle East. <divide>We should spend more time debating the cost and extent of this commitment, the risks we may face in military engagement with Iraq, the implications of the precedent of United States military action for regime change, and the likely character and challenges of a post-Saddam Iraq. We have heard precious little from the President, his team, as well as from this Congress, with a few notable exceptions, about these most difficult and critical questions.
We need only look to Afghanistan where the Afghan people joyously welcomed our liberation force but, months later, a fragile transition government grapples with rebuilding a fractured political culture, economy, and country.
However, Iraq, because of its resources, geography, capabilities, history, and people, offers even more complications and greater peril and, yes, greater opportunities and greater promise. This is the vast unknown, the heavy burden that lies ahead.
The Senate should not cast a vote in the hopes of putting Iraq behind us so we can get back to our campaigns or move on to other issues next year. The decision to possibly commit a nation to war cannot and should not ever be considered in the context of either party loyalty or campaign politics. I regret that this vote will take place under the cloud and pressure of elections next month. Some are already using the Iraq issue to gain advantage in political campaigns. It might have been better for our vote to have been delayed until after the elections, as it was in 1990. Authorizing the use of force against Iraq or any country for any purpose should always be weighed on its own merits, not with an eye on the politics of the vote or campaign TV spots. War is too serious, the human price too high, and the implications unforeseen.
While I cannot predict the future, I believe that what we decide in this Chamber this week will influence America's security and role in the world for the coming decades. It will serve as the framework, both intentionally and unintentionally, for the future. It will set in motion a series of actions and events that we cannot now understand or control.
In authorizing the use of force against Iraq, we are at the beginning of a road that has no clear end. The votes in Congress this week are votes for an intensification of engagement with Iraq and the Middle East, a world of which we know very little and whose destiny will now be directly tied to ours.
America cannot trade a new focus on Iraq for a lesser effort in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The bloodshed between Israel and the Palestinians continues, and the danger mounts. Stability in Afghanistan is not assured. We must carry through with our commitment. Stability in this region depends on it. America's credibility is at stake, and long- term stability in central and South Asia hangs in the balance.
We must also continue to pay close attention to North Korea where there is no guesswork about nuclear weapons. There on the Korean peninsula reside nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, and 37,000 American troops. Despite setting the right course for disarmament in Iraq, the administration has yet to define an end game in Iraq or explain the extent of the American commitment if regime change is required, or describe how our actions in Iraq might affect our other many interests and commitments around the world.
I share the hope of a better world without Saddam Hussein, but we do not really know if our intervention in Iraq will lead to democracy in either Iraq or elsewhere in the Arab world. America has continued to take on large, complicated, and expensive responsibilities that will place heavy burdens on all of us over the next generation. It may well be necessary, but Americans should understand the extent of this burden and what may be required to pay for it and support it in both American blood and trade.
As the Congress votes on this resolution, we must understand that we have not put Iraqi issues behind us. This is just the beginning. The risks should not be understated, miscast, or misunderstood. Ours is a path of both peril and opportunity with many detours and no shortcuts.
We in the Congress are men and women of many parts. For me, it is the present-day Senator, the former soldier, or concerned father who guides my judgment and ultimate vote? It is pieces of all, for I am pieces of all. The responsibilities of each lead me to support the Lieberman- McCain-Warner-Bayh resolution, for which I will vote.
In the end, each of us who has the high honor of holding public office has the burden and privilege of decision and responsibilities. It is a sacred trust we share with the public. We will be held accountable for our actions, as it must be.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer: Under the previous order, the Senator from Connecticut is recognized for 20 minutes.
Mr. Dodd: Madam President, before he departs the floor, I commend my colleague from Nebraska. I regret--it is late in the day, and I am sure there is going to be more speechifying tomorrow on this subject matter--but I regret there were not more Members present to hear his comments.
Senator Hagel is one of the most thoughtful Members of this body. When he talks about the sum of all our parts and talks about being a father and a soldier, it is always in our interest to listen to those who have worn the military uniform into combat when we debate the issues of war and peace because they know more than just intellectually and theoretically what the price can be.
I believe I should give my remarks because I have written these things out, but I can associate myself with the comments of my friend from Nebraska. He pretty much couches a lot of my thinking on how this has evolved, where we are, what we have come to this evening, the pace at which we are moving, the regrets I feel about how I wish this debate were being conducted under circumstances other than on the eve of an election in this country where already the campaign spots are running wildly one way or the other in terms of where people are. So I commend the Senator for his comments this afternoon on this subject matter.
I come this afternoon to speak about the subject which is on the minds not only of all of us but I think millions of our constituents across the country, the possibility of going to war against Iraq.
On Monday night, President Bush, I think, spoke for all of us. I know of no one who really disagrees at all. He described Saddam Hussein as a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction. It is that addiction that demands a strong response. We all agree on that. There is no question that Iraq possesses biological and chemical weapons and that he seeks to acquire additional weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. That is not in debate. I also agree with President Bush that Saddam Hussein is a threat to peace and must be disarmed, to quote President Bush directly. I suspect virtually every Member of this Chamber would not vary too much with those conclusions.
How imminent that threat is, unfortunately, has been extremely difficult to assess. This is because of a troubling new trend by the intelligence agencies to not just give us information and objective analysis but, in my opinion, too often to insert themselves into policymaking. That is not their job. It is not the job of the intelligence agencies to make policy. It is their job to provide others in the executive branch and the Congress with neutral information, with facts on which we will ultimately base our policy judgments.
This is a very troubling trend, in my view, which I believe ought to stop. If we are to go to war, it is even more important that we trust the information given by the intelligence agencies.
Nevertheless, this week we are debating because there are profound disagreements over how, when, and with whom we should act to deal with the threat posed by Iraq.
To have a different answer to these questions than the President should not be considered unpatriotic or partisan. Unfortunately, that is the kind of rhetoric we are hearing too often today.
Let's be honest. We are less than 30 days out from a national congressional election in this country. That is never an easy time for the Congress and the executive branch to come together on much of anything, let alone the question of war and peace.
Some in this Chamber have said the eve of an election is in fact the best time for Members of Congress to make decisions such as these. I could not disagree more. As my good friend and colleague, Senator Byrd, has passionately reminded us every day this week, forcing a vote on this issue so close to an election will, whether we like it or not, embroil the issue in politics more than usual.
The campaign ads running across this country speak for themselves. Forcing Congress's hand on this important matter does a disservice, I believe, to the American public and to this most profound and serious debate. But now we have no choice but to consider the matter and to vote on the issues of this utmost gravity, the issues of war and peace and of life and death, for those who will engage in it.
The President has asked Congress to grant him the authority to use force against Iraq, if he deems it necessary, and Congress will provide the President with the authority to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq. But we will do so only after careful consideration of all of the stakes involved.
My colleagues, Senator Byrd, Senator Kennedy, Senator Levin, and others, have done an outstanding job of highlighting their questions and concerns, reflecting the questions and concerns raised by millions of Americans across political and economic lines, across geographic lines in this country; questions and concerns regarding the use of force and the resolution the President originally sent to Congress, a number of these concerns which I think many of us share.
Many of us believe the language of the President's original request was too far reaching, empowering the President to use all means necessary that he would determine appropriate, including force, to restore peace and stability to the region. That was an open invitation for an American military involvement in the broad context of the Middle East. And the language was far too unilateral. It did not even mention a role for the United Nations or our allies.
Thanks to the efforts of our congressional leaders--and I commend specifically Senator Daschle and others--we now have a compromise resolution, a modified resolution, correcting many of the evident flaws in the initial resolution that was sent to us.
The resolution now before us is limited to Iraq, and it contemplates the possibility of resolving this threat peacefully through the use of diplomacy. It also acknowledges the importance of maintaining our focus on our continuing war on terrorism as we consider what action to take in Iraq.
Despite these changes, of course, questions do remain. First and foremost, will the President use the authority granted by Congress to go it alone? Or will he take the time to build the international coalition that the overwhelming majority of Americans believe is the better course of action to follow?
If he chooses to go it alone, I believe that will be a terrible mistake, and I think millions of others in this country do as well. Given the geography and the politics of the region in the Middle East, I do not see how the United States could engage Iraq militarily, without the help of others, without seriously undermining our chances of success. And it would be terribly destabilizing to the entire region.
There are many reasons for acting with international support.
I have already commended the President for his decision to look first to the United Nations to answer these questions. On September 12, speaking before the United Nations General Assembly, President Bush enumerated Iraq's repeated failures to meet its international obligations.
The U.N. has been a valued body for the last one-half of the 20th century. It has not always done what we wanted. It has not always acted deliberately. It has not always acted with the kind of force and direction that many of us wish it would have. But think what the world would have looked like over the last 50 years had there not been a United Nations to have a forum where the world gathers to try to resolve the many conflicts that confront us.
It has not served our interests well to have national leadership ridicule this institution. We are the founders, in many ways, of the U.N. system. It was the great leaders in the post-World War II period who insisted we try to frame an international body where we might resolve disputes other than going through what we did throughout World War II. My hope would be that as dark as these clouds may seem as we debate and consider the issue of Iraq, that this may be an opportunity for the institution of the United Nations to mature into the 21st century role it must if we are going to succeed in the efforts against terrorism, the efforts against Iraq or other problems that will emerge, without any question, in the coming years.
My hope will be that this U.N. will look at what we are doing, listen to what we are saying as one nation, and consider how important its role must be in the coming weeks and months. If there ever were a set of circumstances that justified U.N. action, I believe it is now on Iraq, without any question.
If the framework of international law, developed at the U.N. over the last 50 years to protect peace and security, is to stand, then the U.N. must act with leadership. It is my sincere hope that the President has the patience and staying power to make the U.N. work in support of our interests.
There is also no question that the President's speech, in which he called for a more engaged U.N., got Saddam Hussein's attention. Iraq quickly announced its willingness to permit weapons inspections beginning as early as the middle of October.
At the end of the day, I suspect Iraq will accept whatever terms are ultimately contained in a final version of the U.N. resolution now under consideration. To be credible, however, that resolution must have teeth. It must be enforceable, by military means, if necessary, should Iraq fail to comply with any new disarmament regime.
I also have questions about the ultimate goal of U.S. strategy, what it is and what it ought to be. Is it the destruction of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction or the Iraqi regime itself? Secretary of State Colin Powell was definitive before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in saying--and I quote him--regime change for its own sake was not the administration's goal.
Specifically, he stated:
If Iraq was to disarm as a result of an inspection regime that gave us and the Security Council confidence that it had been disarmed, I think it unlikely that we would find a casus belli.
Many Members are still very concerned that President Bush has regime change on his mind. If anything, Monday night's speech clarified this position when he said that "regime change in Iraq is the only certain means of removing a great danger to our Nation."
I hope the President will heed the advice of his Secretary of State and keep our eye on the ball. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction should be our immediate threat or seen as our immediate threat, not some two- bit dictator that Saddam Hussein is. It is the weapons of mass destruction; but for those we would not be here debating or discussing the matter we are this evening.
Finally, I still have concerns about how the President intends to manage the war on terrorism if we confront Iraq militarily. September 11 revealed Saddam Hussein is not the only or perhaps even the greatest threat to our national security. Those who hold no allegiance to any state, who have no name or return address, are a far greater threat to America and the American way of life. As recent arrests in Buffalo, NY, and Portland, OR, remind us, these threats are not always in some distant land. The United States acting without global support could divert our military intelligence assets away from our global effort to combat terrorism and to uproot terrorist organizations. It could also weaken the multilateral coalition forged over the last 12 months to combat this international scourge.
I state for the record I do not hold some ironclad view that the United States should never use force or act alone. And I believe that the President of the United States already has the authority as Commander in Chief to deploy military force to protect America against all imminent threats. The pending resolution recognizes this reality. The fact is, unless force is a real option, our resolution will not have the credibility needed to, once and for all, get Saddam Hussein's full attention on this matter.
As I said earlier, I accept the proposition that we must deal with the Iraqi threat. I stand prepared, as almost all of our colleagues do, to support the unilateral use of force against Iraq but only if U.N. or other multinational efforts prove ineffective, or if Saddam Hussein is using them as a guise to rebuild his offensive weapons capabilities.
We still have time to do this right.
Mr. Warner: At the appropriate time, could I pose a question on the United Nations to my colleague?
Mr. Dodd: After I complete my remarks.
We still have time to do this right. We should have an opportunity to debate and vote on all meaningful alternatives to the pending resolution, regardless of parliamentary technicalities. For that reason, I join with my colleague, Senator Byrd, in opposing cloture when we vote on this issue tomorrow. I am not persuaded that the situation is so dire that a few more days or an additional week of deliberations at the U.N. will be harmful to our interests.
I have been in this body 22 years. The unique role of the Senate is the role of debate, unlimited debate. It is what makes us fundamentally different from the Chamber down the hall. If there are Members of this body who wish to be heard and wish to offer meaningful ideas to something as critical as this, then asking this body to take a few more days to weigh and discuss those matters ought not to be denied. We are invoking cloture too often. I know people are interested in efficiency, but if efficiency was the only goal of the Founding Fathers, they never would have created this body to begin with. They understood the importance of debate and discussion when a matter of this magnitude and this significance is before the American public.
I don't know how many others intend to support my colleague from West Virginia, but I do, not because I necessarily agree with him in his final conclusion, but I stand to defend his right to be heard and to see to it that he has the opportunity to exhaust his ideas, to share them not only with Senators but with the American people. I hope cloture will not necessarily be invoked prematurely.
Our own CIA Director states the likelihood of Iraq using weapons of mass destruction against the United States or passing them off to terrorists to do so is currently long. The real risk emerges should Saddam Hussein believe an attack by the United States is imminent. That is according to press accounts today.
I hope the President does not see the passage of a resolution in the Congress as a termination state for his efforts at the United Nations but rather as a sign of unity and support of continued effort by the United States to elicit further action by the United Nations.
Senators Biden, Lugar, Senator Hagel and others crafted an approach to this issue that I found extremely constructive. I regret the administration did not endorse their ideas. This week's debate would be far less contentious had they done so. Their idea was, of course, to focus on the weapons of mass destruction, a multilateral force, unilateral action if the U.N. efforts or multilateral efforts failed and serious thoughts about what you do to win the peace after the conflict is over. That idea will not be offered as an alternative. I regret that is the case. It is an idea that I found potentially rather attractive.
Some very important elements of the Biden-Lugar draft resolution have been incorporated in the White House compromise language. I commend the White House, those that have been involved in crafting this resolution for including this language.
First in this resolution there is an acknowledgment of U.S. efforts within the United Nations Security Council to forge international agreement on a prompt and decisive strategy to compel Iraqi compliance and the explicit congressional endorsement of such evidence.
Second, the requirement that the President make several important determinations before exercising any military option; namely, "that further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone will not adequately protect the national security of the United States." And that our efforts to fight international terrorism will not be undermined by military action against Iraq. Those determinations are going to be extremely important.
Third, and most importantly, the narrowing of the President's authority to use force to specifically defend the national security of the United States against a threat posed by Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. As I noted earlier, Secretary Colin Powell made it clear in testimony before the Senate and in remarks elsewhere, that it is Iraq's weapons of mass destruction that is the threat to our national security. If Iraq disarms or is disarmed, then the immediate threat to our security would evaporate and force would not be necessary. The benefits of that outcome should be obvious to all.
Finally, the new language recognizes the need to have in place an effective exit strategy should military force prove unavoidable. These changes in the original text of the resolution are extremely important. Without them, I would not be able to consider support of this legislation.
Let me sum up where this Senator stands on this. I support Senator Byrd's motion because more time is needed. It is not a burden on this body to consider questions and to listen to Members. We should not be cut off in debate in being heard on a matter of this importance and significance. I regret Senators Biden and Lugar and others have not moved forward with their proposal. It was the most comprehensive approach, in my view, to dealing with the questions of weapons of mass destruction, U.N. involvement in the aftermath of the conflict.
Third, I think every effort ought to be made to resolve this threat as peacefully as possible.
Fourth, that if military force becomes necessary, every effort must be made to do it multilaterally either through the U.N. or multilateral coalitions.
Fifth, I believe the more immediate threat is international terrorism, and that such a threat can only be contained through collective action.
Sixth, if we must act unilaterally, then the threat must be clear, grave, and imminent.
Last, in cases of preemptive action, we must be even more sure the threat is immediate and grave for the obvious reasons of setting precedent that other nations may model in conflicts that threat everyone around the globe.
The context within which I deliberated over the difficult decision on how I would vote on this imperfect resolution has been hard, always being mindful of the dangers that could result from granting authority contained in this resolution. Ultimately, my main reason for supporting the resolution is that I believe the chances of avoiding war with Iraq are enhanced substantially if this country is united as a nation.
I know members of the United Nations Security Council are listening to this debate very intently and are going to watch this vote very carefully. American unity will strengthen, I believe, the President's hand in convincing members of the Security Council that the civilized world must act and must unite in its action.
Today, in joining with many of my colleagues in support of this resolution, I do so in the fervent hope that this show of unity in authorizing the President to use force will reduce the likelihood that force will ultimately be necessary.
I yield the floor.
