The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. Reid: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the time that Senator Dayton had under the order that had been entered be given to the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Biden.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Biden: Mr. President, I have time tomorrow to speak, too. I will make a much longer speech on my views on this subject.
There used to be a trial lawyer I practiced law under. I used to sit in the counsel chair next to him and watch how he tried cases. He used to say to the jury, when he started the case, his opening statement, he would say: I want you to keep your eye on the ball. I want you to focus on the issue at hand.
He would turn to his client, who sometimes was not the most admirable of people, who may have been innocent but not admirable. And he would say: I want you to take a look at my client. You wouldn't invite my client home for dinner. You wouldn't want your daughter going out with my client. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't even go have a cup of coffee with him after this. The question is not whether or not he is a homely guy or a bad guy, or whether or not he is a guy who you would like to have as a friend.
The question is, did he kill Cock Robin? Keep your eye on the ball. What is going to happen here is you are going to have the State coming in saying this is a bad guy. He is an ugly guy. Look at him, he doesn't dress very well. Look at him, he is not very amiable. Keep your eye on the ball.
Just listening to my friend from Kansas and others today, I think we are kind of taking our eye off the ball. Tomorrow I will go into this in great detail. But let's remind ourselves why are we here right now. Why are we here, notwithstanding the fact Senator Lieberman and Congressman Gephardt went down and stood with the President of the United States and said they adopted a resolution? That is not why we are here today. We are not here because of that. We are here because of what the President told us. Everybody remember, keep your eye on the ball.
The President said he has not decided whether or not we are going to go to war. He said it is his hope that we not go to war. It is his hope it can be avoided. Yet, for the first time in the history of the United States of America, in my judgment, the President of the United States is asking for the Congress to give him the equivalent of a declaration of war--to go to war--before the President has made up his mind. He has not made up his mind.
Keep your eye on the ball. Follow the bouncing ball like in the old Lawrence Welk days. A, the President has not decided whether or not to go to war; B, the President says give me the authority to go to war; C, we say on what basis do you want to go to war, Mr. President?
The details matter. If, for example, we leave here, setting a precedent, suggesting the reason we might go to war is because of this new doctrine of preemption, which no one has explained--no one has explained it. I sat at the White House, I say to my friend from Virginia, with Dr. Rice for hours. Dr. Rice said it is no different than what has always been the policy of the U.S.
Well, if that is the case, then I don't have any problem. The President always has the right to act preemptively if we are in imminent danger. If they are coming up over the hill, he can respond; if troops are coming out of Tijuana, heading north, we can respond; if they are coming down from Toronto, we can respond; if missiles are on their way, we can respond. But that is not the way I hear it being used here. We are talking about preemption, as if we are adopting a policy. As Dr. Kissinger said before our committee, that will undo an agreement the Western World made in the early 1640s at the end of the religious wars in Europe, which said no country has a right to preemptively move against another country because they think they are going to be bad guys.
So this is a pretty big deal. Words matter. And so I say to my friends, let's go back. Why did the President ask us for a resolution when he sent up the draft resolution? Why? He stated forthrightly why. He said: Because I need to demonstrate that I have support in order not to go to war. That is what he said. He said: You, the Congress, give me overwhelming support. Then the U.N. will know I mean it. Then the Security Council will say if we don't, he will, so we better. That is the reason why we are here. That is the reason, I remind my colleague from Connecticut and my friend from Virginia, why we are here. Otherwise, it is ridiculous--a President saying I don't know whether I want to go to war yet, but declare it.
So I hope people don't start confusing things on this floor. I may not be around here after November--I hope I am; I am up for reelection, but I don't want to be on this floor 6 years from now and have someone stand up and inaccurately say, by the way, back in the year 2002, in October, we adopted a policy of preemption. Therefore, even though we are in no imminent danger, even though there is no violation of any international rule, we think the country of Xanadu are bad guys and we are invading. That would be a serious mistake. Let me tell you why--not because as an American and as President, if I were President, or as a Senator, or as a Congressman, I would like to have that ability. But, guess what, I don't want Beijing waking up one morning and saying, you know, we have a right to preemptively attack Taiwan. I don't want India waking up one morning and saying, by the way, we have a right preemptively to attack Pakistan. In case you are all wondering--and I know my colleagues are not, because they know the score and they are thinking about both of those things--both of those countries could conceivably reach that conclusion. It's not an impossibility, if the most powerful Nation in the world establishes an unnecessary doctrine. So let's keep our eye on the ball.
Why are we being asked to do this--to give the President the kind of momentum he needs to allow the Secretary of State to convince the Security Council to do what they should do in the first place?
The second point I would like to make is this: We are, right now, talking about preemption, when there is no need for any doctrine of preemption to justify us going against Iraq with others, or alone, if need be. Let's get the facts straight. There is a guy named Saddam Hussein who, in the early 1990s, broke international law, invaded another country, violating every rule of international law. The world, under the leadership of a President named Bush, united and expelled him from that country. Upon expulsion, he said a condition for your being able to remain in power, Saddam Hussein, is you sue for peace and you agree to the following terms of surrender. Those terms of surrender, unlike with the Treaty of Versailles and other treaties where surrender comes about, were in the form of concessions to the U.N., to the world. So he signed onto a number of resolutions.
If the world decides it must use force for his failure to abide by the terms of surrender, then it is not preempting, it is enforcing. It is enforcing, it is finishing a war he reignited, because the only reason the war stopped is he sued for peace.
So, for Lord's sake, anybody who decides to vote for this resolution, please do not rest it on this cockamamie notion of preemption. You will rue the day. If that is the precedent we establish for our own safety's sake, you will rue the day.
The third point I want to make about keeping your eye on the ball here is--the fact of the matter is the President of the United States has not yet, A, made the decision about going to war and, B, if he decides to go to war, he has not made the case to the American people.
Let me explain what I mean by that before my colleagues jump all over it. He made a clear case to the U.N. that by the standards of the United Nations, this man, Saddam Hussein, has flouted the rules of the U.N.--absolutely an overwhelming case. Then he came along on Monday and he made a clear case, in the minds of many, to the American people that Saddam Hussein is a danger to the United States.
But there is one more case he has to make. Those of us out of the generation of Vietnam, and those who were in power during the generation of Vietnam, know that no matter how well articulated, no matter how well formulated a foreign policy is, it cannot be sustained without the informed consent of the American people. What is being asked of them? The American people do not know what is going to be asked of them yet.
I am fully confident if the President decides, in concert with others, war is necessary, he will have to inform them before he launches it. I say that because he personally told me that. I asked him. My friend from Virginia may have been at the leadership meeting 3 weeks ago in the cabinet room when the President turned to me after others had spoken and said, "Mr. Chairman, will you be with me?" I said, "Mr. President, I will be with you on the condition that you do two things: One, you make every effort possible to do this under the auspices of the U.N. or the coalition, like we did in Kosovo; and you inform the American people that it is going to require substantial American forces and substantial American money to stay in Iraq after Saddam Hussein is down." He looked at me in the presence of everybody and said, "I will do that." So I take him at his word.
I lay you 8 to 5, if you go home and ask your constituents who say they are for war--ask them the following question: How long do you think we are going to have to keep American forces in Iraq? I will lay you 8 to 5 that 90 percent will look at you with a blank stare and ask: What do you mean, stay in Iraq? What are you talking about, stay in Iraq? They have no notion. Senator Dodd, Senator Sarbanes, and I, and the Foreign Relations Committee held several very good hearings. At one hearing, we had the fellow who headed up the office in the Pentagon as to what we do after we win the war--planning. We had two other military experts.
Do my colleagues know what they told us? They probably told you the same thing in Armed Services Committee. It is probable we will have to keep at least 75,000 American forces in Iraq for at least 1 year at a cost of $19 billion. Maybe it will not be 75,000. Maybe it will be 25,000; maybe 105,000. I do not know. But we have an obligation to tell our constituents.
As I said to my good friend, Mr. Brownback, who is on our committee, in one of our hearings: Everything may go smoothly. And I think there is a possibility it could happen. If we have to go to war, everything may go smoothly, and once he is down and does not use chemical weapons, the army surrenders and the Republican Guard crumbles, and he is assassinated on the way out of town, and we get our hands on the weapons of mass destruction quickly, we identify where they are, we destroy them, and the rest of the world comes in to help us with the burden of keeping Iraq from splitting into at least three separate pieces--that could all happen. That is possible.
What happens if it does not? Big nations cannot bluff. We should tell the American people straight up, and I am prepared to do it and support it: If, in fact, we are forced to go into Iraq with other nations, for his failure to comply, say goodbye for a while to the new permanent tax cut; say goodbye for a while to significant increases in health care funding; say goodbye for a while to a whole lot of issues for those who vote for this.
This is the time for a little honesty in advertising. This is the time the American people are strong, they are bright, and they are willing to take this on. The one thing I believe they will not stand for is being sold a bill of goods. We are not stopping 400 miles short of Baghdad this time if we go. We are not. The Senator from West Virginia has said repeatedly, this is a considerable undertaking.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. Biden: As I said, I will tomorrow go into much greater detail. Again, keep your eye on the ball and level with the American people as we go through this process because I think if Saddam Hussein is around 5 years from now, we are in deep trouble as a country--we are in deep trouble.
The Presiding Officer: Under the previous order, the Senator from Tennessee is to be recognized.
Mr. Sarbanes: Mr. President, can I inquire what the parliamentary situation is?
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Tennessee is to speak for 15 minutes, followed by the senior Senator from New Mexico for 20 minutes, and the senior Senator from Michigan for 30 minutes.
Mr. Sarbanes: For what?
The Presiding Officer: The senior Senator from Michigan for 30 minutes.
Mr. Sarbanes: Is this all being done through unanimous consent requests?
The Presiding Officer: It is.
Mr. Sarbanes: I ask unanimous consent that I be permitted to speak after the senior Senator from Michigan.
The Presiding Officer: Is there objection?
Mr. Warner: Mr. President, I have to object at this time. I have been in consultation with the senior Senator from West Virginia who had expressed some interest in taking that slot. Without losing my right to the floor, does the senior Senator from West Virginia wish to speak to his desires? He has the pending amendment, and I think it is very important that the Senate have the opportunity tonight to vote on your amendment. Of course, the Senator will desire to speak for a period of time prior to, I anticipate, a motion to table.
I have the floor, but I yield for a question.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Maryland has the floor.
Mr. Warner: Beg your pardon?
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Maryland has the floor.
Mr. Sarbanes: I am happy to yield to the Senator from Virginia for a comment or an observation he wants to make, but I do not yield the floor.
Mr. Warner: I reserved the right to object to the Senator's unanimous consent request.
Mr. Sarbanes: But that does not give the Senator the floor.
Mr. Warner: No, I reserved the right to object.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Maryland is correct.
Mr. Warner: Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
Mr. Byrd: He did not yield for that purpose.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator does not have the floor and cannot make that request.
Mr. Byrd: May I respond now?
Mr. Reid: Mr. President, it is my understanding, under the order, the Senator from Tennessee is to be recognized.
The Presiding Officer: That is correct, under the unanimous consent agreement. The Senator from Maryland proposed a unanimous consent request. Is there an objection?
Mr. Warner: Objection.
Mr. Byrd: Reserving the right to object.
The Presiding Officer: Objection is heard. The Senator from Tennessee has the floor and is recognized.
Mr. Byrd: Mr. President, will the Senator from Tennessee yield, without losing his right to the floor?
Mr. Frist: I will be happy to yield.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Byrd: Mr. President, I had indicated to the distinguished Senator from Virginia that I would like to be recognized after Mr. Levin. I believe he is last on the list. I have no problem with the Senator--if the Senator will agree to allow him--Mr. Sarbanes to follow Mr. Levin and then I would like to be recognized at that time.
Mr. Reid: If I can ask a question of the Senator from West Virginia, who proposed a unanimous consent request.
Mr. Byrd: Yes.
Mr. Reid: If people have a question as to the position we are in today, yesterday we tried lining up speakers, and that did not work. Today we lined up two speakers on each side so people do not come to the Chamber and have to wait. That is what we did. That is the position we are in now. Both cloakrooms received requests from people who wanted to speak. That is what we have done.
There is a question as to who is going to be the next speaker. I will only say there is no requirement to do so. We have been going back and forth: Senator Levin and then I assume we will go to a Republican. After Senator Levin, anybody could get the floor.
Mr. Sarbanes: Can I inquire who follows Senator Frist?
Mr. Reid: After Senator Frist is Senator Domenici.
Mr. Sarbanes: That does not strike me as going back and forth.
Mr. Reid: We had Senator Kerry, who spoke for 45 minutes. These two Senators are speaking for a total of 35 minutes. That is the amount of time Senator Kerry had.
Mr. McCain: Will the Senator from Nevada yield? I ask unanimous consent to speak with the Senator from Nevada.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCain: Without interfering with the Senator from Tennessee, is it his predilection to continue this debate tonight until all speakers are finished, or is the desire of the majority leader and the majority whip to have a vote on the Byrd amendment, or put it off until tomorrow? We have 13 amendments pending.
Mr. Reid: Mr. President, as we all know, I say to my friend, anyone who has the floor can move to table the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. McCain: Yes.
Mr. Reid: I assume that because of the respect people have for Senator Byrd, before that happens someone will give him the opportunity to speak. I am sure that will happen.
Mr. McCain: If the Senator will yield further, it is not our desire to propose a motion to table until the Senator from West Virginia has had ample time to discuss his amendment. I do not think that would be appropriate. But at some point, I hope we can reach a point where we can have a motion to table or an up-or-down vote on the amendment. For the benefit of all Senators, perhaps we can try to ascertain that.
Mr. Reid: The answer to your question, from my perspective, the best thing to do for an orderly process is to dispose of the Byrd amendment and then move to the Levin amendment for which we have been waiting a long time.
Before we dispose of the Byrd amendment, I am sure, as I indicated-- whether it is Domenici, whoever it is--will give the Senator from West Virginia ample opportunity to discuss his amendment.
The Senator from Arizona asked me if that should happen. That is what should happen.
Mr. McCain: If I can finish. So we will dispose of the Byrd amendment tonight, if it is agreeable with the Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. Reid: I will put it another way. Senator Byrd's amendment, as he knows, being the mother of all parliamentarians, can be disposed of at any time.
Mr. McCain: Yes.
Mr. Reid: I think we would like to move this along. I hope Senator Byrd's amendment will be disposed of before we move to the Levin amendment. That is not a necessity, but it would make it a little more orderly.
Mr. McCain: Finally, could I ask Senator Byrd's predilections on this issue?
Mr. Byrd: Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Arizona for his question. I say to the Senator, he has amendments, and he has already submitted his amendments. I would like to have a chance to vote on these amendments before the cloture vote. I hope we will get the cloture vote delayed at least a few hours tomorrow until Senators, such as Mr. Levin, who have amendments will have a fair shot at explaining their amendments and have a vote on them before cloture. I do not know whether the Senate will be disposed to do that or not.
Let me see if I can answer the distinguished Senator from Arizona. I have another amendment I would like to get voted on, too. I would like to offer it to the amendment that is pending. I say to the distinguished Senator from Arizona--and he is a very distinguished Senator--the other amendment would be to provide a sunset provision.
So if the Senate is going to waive its constitutional powers to the extent that I think would be required if the Lieberman amendment were to be agreed upon, I would like at least for the Senate to have a sunset provision so there would be a time limit when the Lieberman amendment would run its course. If the Congress wanted to renew that, Congress could do it, of course, but at least my amendment would say 12 months, and the President could extend that for 12 months.
That is a rough explanation of my amendment. So that would be 12 months for the President under my amendment, providing for the President on his own to extend that for an additional 12 months, but at the end of that time it is over unless the Congress renews or extends it. I would like to have that amendment also voted upon.
I am very willing to enter into some kind of an agreement, say, to vote up or down on both amendments. There would be a vote on the Lieberman amendment and then a vote on cloture tomorrow at some point.
Mr. Warner: Mr. President, we have been endeavoring to accommodate the pending amendment with the time agreement such that it could be brought up as soon as possible.
The Senator from West Virginia and I have had no discussion about a second amendment, and I urge that we allow the Senator from Tennessee to speak, and in the interim let's gather and see whether or not we can reconcile honest differences and motives.
Mr. Reid: If I could just suggest one thing, maybe we could have all of this taken care of by not having a cloture vote. Cloture is going to be invoked by a large margin. Maybe we would not need a cloture vote.
Mr. Warner: There are Senators on this side who wish to leave intact this present procedure, which is working well. It has produced 13 amendments, 7 of which have been ruled germane thus far by the Parliamentarian. This debate is well underway, well structured, and can proceed.
At the moment, we have a pending amendment, and I urge that we allow the Senator from Tennessee----
Mr. Reid: I ask unanimous consent that the 15 minutes allocated to the Senator from Tennessee be given in its entirety. We have taken most of that time. Then during that time, we will confer as to how we can proceed.
Mr. Warner: I thank the Senator.
The Presiding Officer (Mr. Dayton): The Senator from Tennessee has the floor.
Mr. Frist: Mr. President, the Members of this body will soon vote on authorizing the President to use the military might of this Nation against Saddam Hussein. This decision has weighed heavily on me, as it has on us all. No one takes lightly the prospect of young Americans risking their lives on the battlefield of war, but we and they swear an oath to defend our rights and freedoms against all enemies. And so our duty we must now do.
Saddam Hussein is a direct and deadly threat to the American people and to the people of the world. He holds the power to murder not just hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands, but millions. He defies all international efforts to restrain that power and keep world peace, and he disdains the value of human life, even the lives of his own people. This is an evil, lawless, and murderous man.
The resolution before the Senate is carefully constructed to encourage the widest possible international support for unified action against Saddam Hussein. The nations of the world need to show him they will no longer tolerate his arrogant contempt for United Nations resolutions, requiring him to give up his weapons of mass destruction and cease the gross human rights violations he has committed on his own people. I support the President's intensive efforts to build such a coalition, and I pray for his success.
No one wants to avoid a war more than I do. I am a physician. I have devoted my life to a profession that is centered on saving lives. Only when we have exhausted all reasonable efforts at keeping peace should we consider waging war. The President shares a firm commitment to this principle. I consider this resolution a strong statement of support for peace and, if the Nation must, for war as well. For if the safety of our people, the security of our Nation, and the stability of the world remain so threatened, we must risk war for peace. To do anything less would leave a grave and growing danger looming over the lives of millions.
This evening I will talk about Saddam Hussein's past, his present, and what I consider his greatest danger, a robust biological weapons program. More than chemical and nuclear weapons, Saddam's biological weapons pose a unique and immediate threat. Unlike other conventional weapons, they are easily made. They can be readily concealed and are beyond the reach of inspectors and can readily be delivered across borders and, yes, even across oceans. In the hands of a madman, biological weapons literally threaten us all.
I refer to the words on this chart concerning Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, excerpts from an October 2002 unclassified CIA report, which reads:
Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating BW--Biological weapon--agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery by bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers and covert operatives, including potentially against the U.S. homeland.
Indeed, these biological weapons literally threaten us all-- "potentially against the U.S. homeland."
Saddam Hussein has pursued the most deadly weapons known to man, with brutal determination. His arsenal has included tens of thousands of tons of chemical agents and biological agents. He has come within months of acquiring nuclear weapons, and he has developed many means, both in number and type, to deliver his desired destruction.
History shows that dictators do not amass such weapons without the intent to use them. Indeed, Saddam Hussein has accumulated chemical weapons and used them to attack his neighbors and even murder his own people. During the Iran-Iraq war, which lasted from 1980 to 1988, Saddam Hussein inflicted 20,000 casualties by striking with chemicals-- mustard gas, sarin, and tabun. He also used mustard and nerve agents to murder as many as 5,000 Iraqi Kurds and inflict the misery of chemical warfare on another 10,000.
I show this chart briefly to demonstrate the impact of these chemicals. Saddam Hussein used the chemicals on his own people. We can see the effects of this tragedy among the victims, who are women and children in this picture.
Saddam Hussein was fully prepared to use biological weapons during the gulf war. In 1995, Iraq admitted it had produced 19,000 liters of botulinum toxin, 8,500 liters of anthrax, and 2,200 liters of aflatoxin. That is enough botulinum toxin--remember, that is the most potent poison known to man--to kill every man, woman and child on Earth.
Iraq also admitted it had loaded thousands of liters of agents into bombs, into munitions, into dozens of warheads and aircraft spray tanks, just as American and allied forces prepared to liberate Kuwait. Before the gulf war, intelligence experts believed Saddam Hussein was at least 8 to 10 years from having a nuclear weapon. That estimate was way off. Iraq had already assembled many of the pieces needed to build a nuclear weapon. What it lacked was fissile material that makes up the explosive core of a nuclear device. If Saddam Hussein had been able to obtain that material, either by making it or buying it, he would likely have had a nuclear bomb by no later than 1993.
Indeed, Iraq has gone to great lengths to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Its efforts to hide the weapons have been equally ambitious. Saddam Hussein has defied the international community almost from the moment he came to power in 1979. His rule has been a constant threat to peace among the Iraqi people, in the Middle East, and throughout the world.
Saddam Hussein has twice invaded sovereign nations. In 1980, he launched the Iran-Iraq war solely for territorial gain. Eight years, one million casualties and hundreds of billions of dollars later, the war ended with Iraq gaining nothing. In 1990, Saddam Hussein started the gulf war by invading Kuwait. His objective? Seize control of his neighbor's oil fields. We expelled him. As we did, he fired dozens of Scud missiles into Israel and into Saudi Arabia and the waters off Qatar.
Iraq has shown as much contempt for the international community as it has shown aggression toward its neighbors. Since 1990, Iraq has violated 16 United Nations Security Council resolutions. Inspectors charged with enforcing those resolutions have been deceived, they have been obstructed, they have been intimidated by Saddam Hussein and his henchmen.
Saddam Hussein has funneled as much as $9 billion from the United Nations Oil-for-Food program into his weapons of mass destruction program and other illegal activities, starving his people and strangling the economy.
To Saddam Hussein international treaties are worth less than the paper on which they are written. Iraq is the only nation publicly cited for violating the Geneva Convention ban on using chemical weapons. Its biological weapons program has directly violated the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. And Iraq has utterly ignored the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty, which has been signed by 187 countries since its inception in 1968.
Saddam Hussein said in a recent speech, "The present of any nation or people cannot be isolated from its past . . ." Indeed. What Saddam has done in the past is reckless, lawless and appalling. But what he is doing now should frighten us all and compel the world to action. Not only does he continue to develop and produce weapons of mass destruction, but he's more likely to use them than ever before. I am particularly concerned about the unique and immediate threat Saddam's biological weapons program presents.
Iraq has lethal and incapacitating biological weapons agents potentially to use against the United States homeland.
Iraq likely produced two to four times more biological agents than it publicly admitted in 1995. United Nations inspection teams could not account for biological culture growth media that would have easily tripled Saddam's stocks of anthrax--a bacteria that can be rapidly and easily produced as a weapon of mass destruction. Mr. President, 30,000 munitions designed solely for chemical and biological agents were also unaccounted for. Missing biological agents, missing biological munitions and Iraq's pattern of deception lead to only one conclusion: Saddam Hussein today retains a large arsenal of deadly living microorganisms available as weapons of mass destruction.
That arsenal likely contains stocks of live viruses and bacteria produced not only before the Gulf War, but also after, especially since weapons inspectors left Iraq in 1998. Saddam has expanded so-called "dual-use" facilities--laboratories, research centers and manufacturing plants that have civilian or commercial uses, but are likely used to build his arsenal of microbiological terror, as well.
Iraq has rebuilt known biological weapons facilities that were destroyed during the Gulf War, by our military, or after, by weapons inspectors. Also, Saddam retains the equipment and, even more crucial, the human expertise to continue building his biological weapons capability. Unlike nuclear weapons, which take years and massive resources to make, biological weapons are inexpensive, can be made easily, within weeks, in a small room, with minimal equipment and manpower. That is what makes biological weapons so unique and capable of causing such death and destruction.
To that end, our intelligence community believes Iraq has built mobile germ warfare production laboratories. Iraq has learned a lot about weapons inspections since the Gulf War. Saddam hid his biological weapons program from inspectors for 4 years. Mobile biological labs are the ideal weapon of deception. They can be quickly moved in inconspicuous trailers and hidden in very small spaces, including, for example, in a single room in one of Saddam Hussein's presidential palaces. Such laboratories would be almost invisible to the outside world.
There is also evidence that Iraq may be developing and producing a new generation of more virulent biological agents. Defectors allege that Iraq is developing an agent called "Blue Nile"--which may be a code name for the ebola virus. Ebola is a deadly virus for which there is no treatment and there is no vaccine. And many experts believe Saddam Hussein may have stocks of the smallpox virus. One of the last naturally occurring smallpox outbreaks occurred on Iraqi soil in the early 1970s, which is precisely when Iraq launched its weapons of mass destruction program.
Though U.S. defenses against smallpox are now much stronger, a 2001 study by Johns Hopkins University found that a smallpox attack launched at three locations in the United States could kill in a worst case scenario one million and infect another two million Americans within two months.
Saddam has invested not only in developing and producing new viruses and bacteria, but also new means to deliver those agents. Iraq has experimented with a variety of unmanned aerial vehicles as part of its longstanding weapons of mass destruction program. But intelligence experts believe Iraq has vastly improved its designs and now has a drone aircraft that can carry and spray up to 80 gallons of anthrax. Such an airplane would be the most effective way to deliver biological weapons over a vast area and would represent a dire threat to the Iraqi people, its neighbors and the international community.
The danger of germ weapons is not merely that Saddam Hussein has them, but that he would use them . . . even against the United States. Biological agents are ideal terrorist weapons. Unlikely other weapons of mass destruction, one cannot hear them or taste them or smell them. They can be invisible to the human eye.
They can be transported long distances without detection in, for example, a terrorist's pocket. They can take hours and even days to take effect, allowing a terrorist to be long gone--to escape.
Thus, Saddam's robust biological weapons program, combined with the support of terrorism, is a deadly force capable of exceeding the death and destruction of even a nuclear bomb.
Saddam does support terrorism. Iraq harbors several terrorist groups that have targeted and murdered American citizens. The Iraqi regime has been in contact with al-Qaida for at least a decade and, as recently as this year, allowed a senior leader to receive medical treatment in Baghdad.
I am hopeful that inspectors will return to Iraq with totally unfettered access to all suspected biological weapons sites. But, remember, such a site can be an 8-by-12-foot room deep in the basement of a huge Presidential palace.
I am hopeful that Saddam Hussein will disarm and destroy his ability to develop and produce such weapons in the future. But I am not optimistic. Saddam Hussein knows his chemical and biological stocks are the source of his power at home and in his region and can be a tool of blackmail. Weapons of mass destruction are as much a part of Saddam Hussein as freedom and democracy are of America.
The test of our resolve in the war on terror was Afghanistan. There we fought the terrorist group and its supporting regimes that murdered more than 3,000 of our own citizens. We were attacked, and, as any capable nation would do, we responded.
Now we face a second test. Saddam Hussein has not yet struck, and we hope he doesn't. We hope he disarms his weapons of mass destruction and chooses peace over war. It is his choice. But should he force us to war, we will fight for a noble and a just cause--to prevent a future and far worse attack than that of September 11, 2001. America will be victorious in this next phase of the war on terror, for the worst of a dictator cannot defeat the will of a free people.
Saddam Hussein will fight to preserve his grip on power and protect weapons that murder millions. But if we must fight, we will do so for love of country, for respect of humanity, and for the rights and freedoms that all people deserve to enjoy, including the Iraqi people.
