The Presiding Officer: Under the previous order, the Senator from Washington is recognized.
Mrs. Murray: Mr. President, I rise this evening to address the President's request for authority for military action in Iraq. I have spent weeks thinking about this issue and listening. I have sat across the table from Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, National Security Advisor Rice, Governor Ridge, CIA Director Tenet, FBI Director Mueller, Secretary of State Colin Powell, and Vice President Cheney. I have listened closely to the President's speeches and I have listened openly to the many questions my constituents have raised over the past few weeks.
Mr. President, I understand the consequences of war and I don't shrink from them. My father was among the first to land on Okinawa as a GI. Growing up, we always knew that our country may need to project force to defend our freedoms. I know we have high obligations to the men and women of our Armed Forces who undertake the hard work of securing our freedom. In college, I volunteered at the Seattle Veterans Hospital. Most of the patients were young men, my age, who had returned from Vietnam. I carry that experience with me as the first woman on the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee.
When I look at decisions like this one, I take the time to consider all sides, with the full knowledge this decision will have serious consequences for our country, our world, and our future.
This evening, I want to share with my colleagues and my constituents my thoughts and my decision on this difficult issue. But most of all, I want to share my reasoning because I want everyone to know how I arrived at this conclusion. First, I looked to the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Then I looked at the many questions that must be considered before our country begins military action. Then I looked at the President's case, the role of the U.N. and our allies, the impact war could have on the Middle East, and the impact it would have on the war on terrorism. Finally, I looked at the context in which we are being asked to make this decision, including our economy and the political climate.
Mr. President, let me first address the threat. There is no doubt Saddam Hussein poses a serious threat to our interests, to his own people, and to the world. Under his rule, Iraq has been an aggressor nation. It has started conflict with its neighbors and it has sought to stockpile conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction.
Over the years, Iraq has worked to develop nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons. During 1991 through 1994, despite Iraq's denials, U.N. inspectors discovered and dismantled a large network of facilities Iraq was using to develop nuclear weapons. Various reports indicate Iraq is still actively pursuing nuclear weapons capability. There is no reason to think otherwise.
Beyond nuclear weapons, Iraq has actively pursued biological and chemical weapons. U.N. inspectors have said Iraq's claims about biological weapons is neither credible nor verifiable. In 1986, Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran and later against its own Kurdish population.
While weapons inspections have been successful in the past, there have been no inspections since the end of 1998. There can be no doubt Iraq has continued to pursue its goal of obtaining weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. President, we know from history and experience that Iraq poses a danger to the region, to our interests, and perhaps to ourselves. It will continue its aggression and its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.
This leads us to a second set of questions. What should we do about this threat? The President has now asked Congress to authorize him to make war on Iraq. The goals of military action have shifted from regime change one day to disarmament, to enforcing any number of U.N. resolutions. The list of crimes to which the administration says Iraq must be held accountable varies widely. They include: attempting to assassinate a former President; holding prisoners of war after the gulf war, including one American; firing on aircraft enforcing the no-fly zone; seeking weapons of mass destruction; and violating U.N. resolutions.
All of these are serious crimes; not all of them deserve the same response; not all of them call for war.
Without a clear objective, victory cannot be measured. Indeed, it appears the administration established a solution--going to war--before it defined the problem or the goal.
Our most important goal is disarmament. Given Iraq's history and Saddam's madness, there can be no doubt the world will be safer if we dismantle Iraq's ability to produce and use weapons of mass destruction. On this goal, the President receives complete support from the American people, the Congress, and the world community.
Disarmament of Iraq is unquestionably the right thing to do. The means of achieving this goal are what is up for debate.
In the past few weeks, the Bush administration unveiled its new preemption doctrine. This marks a shift from our longstanding national policy, and so far we have not been told how it applies to the world beyond Iraq. Obviously, if troops or tanks are amassing at the border, we have the right to defend ourselves, but to strike on the basis of suspicion alone is another matter. It is something this Congress and the American people need to fully explore and debate before we endorse the preemption doctrine.
The United States is not alone in facing the threat of Saddam Hussein, but unfortunately our Government is acting that way. I am very concerned that a unilateral race to make war on Iraq will weaken the support we need worldwide to win the war on terrorism.
In the aftermath of September 11, the international community helped us heal and supported our efforts to respond. Their support has provided critical intelligence keys to disrupting international terrorist networks. But today our allies are as confused about America's objectives in Iraq as the American people are. Like the American public, our allies woke up one day to find that the administration was making plans for war. Like the Congress, they were not consulted. Like the American people, they had nothing explained to them. They saw, as did the rest of us, that a course of action had apparently been determined before the reasons were clear.
Recently, the administration has done a better job working with our allies. Secretary of State Powell is to be commended for his work, but we still have a long way to go. It would greatly benefit the Congress and the American people to know where our allies stand and what they are willing to do before we take action.
While we welcome the support of our allies and the United Nations, we do not hand them or anyone else the ultimate power to decide America's security demands. Only the United States can determine our interests and what steps are required to defend them.
That said, before we jump into a fight, we should know who is with us and what we are getting into, and today we do not.
Another key part of the international response to the Iraqi threat is the United Nations. Efforts at the U.N. have been met with both success and failure. To date, our greatest failure has been the ending of weapons inspections in 1998 and the U.N.'s failure to hold Iraq responsible for its obligations.
Today, the United States is working with our ally Britain to pass through the U.N. Security Council a new, tough resolution regarding Iraqi weapons inspections. I believe we need a new, strong U.N. resolution that provides for complete transparency of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. This new resolution must allow inspectors to search all sites without roadblocks. Iraq should know that the U.N. and the international community are serious about enforcing this resolution even with force, if necessary.
One of the reasons U.N. support is critical is that it shapes how other nations will look upon our action in Iraq. There is a difference between going it alone and having the support of a broad coalition. We have a stated goal of working to achieve peace in the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. We have strong ties to other states in the region--Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other gulf states. What action we take and how we take it will have a direct impact on our other stated foreign policy goals of achieving peace in the Middle East, maintaining friendly relations with our allies in the region, and contributing to the stability of the region.
In addition to the impact of war on the Middle East, we must understand how action in Iraq will affect the war on terrorism.
On September 11 last year, we were reminded again of the dangerous world in which we live. After bombing our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania and attacking the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, al-Qaida has pulled off the most horrific crime our Nation has ever known.
In the aftermath of these tragic events, the President declared war on terrorism. We dispatched our troops to Afghanistan and its neighbors. We worked closely with our allies. We even got help from some unexpected quarters. Most of the world joined our effort, but there are places where we do not have relations where terrorists hide, and to reach those dark corners we rely on intermediaries. Today, those intermediaries are providing us with intelligence information to help our efforts.
We have to ask: Will unilateral action in Iraq undermine the support we need from other countries in the war on terrorism? The answer to that question should help inform us on our decision on military action in Iraq.
If we do take action in Iraq, there is no doubt that our Armed Forces will prevail. We will win a war with Iraq decisively, and, God willing, will win it quickly. But what happens after the war? That will have just as big an impact on our future peace and our security. Will we be obligated to rebuild Iraq, and, if so, how? Our economy at home is reeling, our budget is in deficit, and we have no estimate of the cost of rebuilding. And with whom?
As New York Times columnist Tom Friedman points out, there is a retail store mentality that suggests to some: If you break it, you buy it.
How will the Iraqis get back on their feet? Iraq's leadership has led its people through two decades of misery. The people of Iraq have paid a terrible price for Saddam Hussein's military campaigns. What promises is the international community prepared to make to help restore the health of the Iraqi people? What promise is implicit in a unilateral attack?
If we must disarm Iraq by force, we will, but we cannot achieve peace through occupation alone. It costs money and energy and time, and like building anything else, it is better as a shared responsibility than a solo effort.
Again, the answers to these questions should not be the only factors in play as we make decisions on how to protect our security interests, but they are not insignificant and they have not been answered.
We do not have a clear policy. We do not have a clear path to implementing that policy. We do not yet know what level of assistance we are going to get from our allies and the broader international community. We have not factored in all of the implications this may have on our other foreign policy objectives. We have not factored in all the implications this may have on our own economy.
Not having a well-defined policy or proper preparations for contingencies that may result from whatever action we take is a dangerous situation on the eve of the war this administration says we must have.
With all of these unanswered questions, how do we get here today? The administration has said it wants a vote on this resolution "before the election." In this debate, many in Congress and many of our citizens are asking: What is special about November 5 in deciding this question?
The question of war should not be placed in the context of trying to influence the outcome of an election, and surely that cannot be the case today. The question is too grave for that to be the motivation, even for that to be a motivation. The question of war should be placed squarely in the context of what is the right policy to achieve our Nation's security goals.
With all of these questions in mind, I look to the resolution that is before us. Does this resolution address the question this Nation must answer in order to succeed? Does it clearly articulate a policy objective? What course of action does it sanction in our Nation's pursuit of that goal?
While this resolution is a marked improvement over the President's original proposal, S.J. Res. 46 does not provide the information--and the objectives--needed at this time.
It is overly broad in defining the objectives of military action.
After considering the threat, the cost, and the unanswered questions, I have reached a decision. I will vote against the underlying resolution; I will vote against going to war at this time.
I am committed to fighting and winning the war on terrorism, including eliminating Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
I support wholeheartedly our men and women in uniform. I admire their heroism. And I will continue to do all I can to provide them with the resources they need for whatever mission they are asked to carry out on our behalf.
Today we are being told we have no choice; that we have to grant the President war-making authority immediately, without knowing the ultimate goal or the ultimate cost, and without knowing whether we are going it alone.
It may well be that someday our country needs to take military action in Iraq, but the decision right now to give the President this broad authority, without focusing it narrowly on weapons of mass destruction, without the support of our allies, without defining the costs to our country today and tomorrow, is not something I can support given what we know today.
The constituents I hear from want to know:
Why are we racing to take this action right now, alone, with so many questions unanswered?
The administration could answer those questions with clear, compelling facts and goals, but so far we have not heard them.
We are being asked to endorse a policy that has not been thought out, and one that could have dramatic consequences for our citizens and our future.
While we may need to take action in Iraq down the road, today I cannot support sending our men and women into harm's way on an ill- defined, solo mission with so many critical questions unanswered.
If, in the coming weeks or months, we learn that Saddam's capabilities are more advanced than we now realize, or if Saddam defies U.N. resolutions, we will certainly have the right to take appropriate action.
Looking back over the past year, it is clear that we can respond to September 11 several ways.
We can act out of fear, casting aside our principles, and taking action without sufficient planning. Or we can stick to our principles and draw strength from them in tough times. That is the course I advocate today.
In closing, let me be clear. Despite my reservations today, I will always stand with and support those who serve our country, wherever and whenever their Commander in Chief sends them.
If American troops are called to fight in Iraq, I will stand with the President and I will support our troops not only during the conflict, but afterward.
The international community, and those who would do us harm, need to know without exception that while we may have our disagreements before military action, once our troops are on the ground, we are all on the same side.
I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer: Under the previous order, the Senator from Wyoming is recognized.
Mr. Enzi: Mr. President, I want to answer some of these questions about why we are now considering a resolution and what proof we have about Iraq. Senator Sarbanes and I are the two delegates to the United Nations this year for the House and Senate. I was on the floor of the United Nations General Assembly when the President made his speech and presented his case to the General Assembly. I have to say I was so proud of him.
Before he even gave the speech, there had been a lot of hype in the papers that was unfavorable to him. When he was introduced, the tension in the crowd could be felt, and there was no applause. I did learn later that there is seldom applause when a head of state is introduced.
When he gave his speech the body language could be seen on the other delegates. At the end of the speech--also untypical--they gave him applause.
I also want to tell my colleagues what happened after that. As we wandered about and met other delegates, we heard lots of positive comments about what the President said. Not only that, virtually every head of state who followed him had the same message for the U.N.: Be useful or be done. That is the message that the President delivered.
Why now? Right now because we are trying to strengthen the resolve of the United Nations. Discussions are going on right now in the Senate and throughout the nation about what should be done with Iraq. We are the ones who provide the leadership in this country. We are the ones who set the tone. We are the ones who have to approve what the President is doing.
What proof do we have? I hope everyone is attending the classified briefings that are available. The things that are not classified are enough to scare us. The reports of Iraq that gave to the United Nations show many chemical weapons they had left at the end of the war--their report, their numbers, their chemicals, their weapons of bioterrorism. Subtract out the numbers that they destroyed, and we wind up with a huge supply of chemical and biological weapons. Weapons that could be used against us now.
One of the things the other countries of this world appreciate is the patience our President had after September 11. Bombs were going off in Afghanistan that very night, and the press covering it said: The United States is retaliating. But it was not us. The President was busy sending envoys to nations all over the world, setting up a coalition-- the same kind of coalition we are being asked about now. Some have asked: Shouldn't we see if there is a coalition first? No. First we should show our resolve, and then we can build coalitions.
This is the President who built coalitions. This is the President who went into Afghanistan with war plans, with a method, with cooperation, and he did in 1 month what Russia was not able to do in 7 years. It is a President who knows what he is doing. It is a President with patience. Now he is asking us to pass a resolution.
How strange and unheard of is this request to pass a resolution? In 1998, a Republican-controlled Senate for a Democrat President recognized that this was not Democrat versus Republican. We then said that it was very important to bring up a resolution that would show our resolve. That is exactly what a resolution does--show resolve. We passed a resolution in 1 day. We passed a resolution with no amendments. The President asked us. We did it. We showed unity. We showed the country we were behind the President and we were ready to do whatever was necessary for the same despot we are talking about now.
Do we think he has gotten better? No. He has gotten worse. Do we think he has gotten less prepared? No. He has gotten more prepared. It is time we did something about it, and time we did it through the right channels--that is exactly what the President is doing. Part of that process is to ask us, ask Congress, to help.
In 1998, we did it with no questions. We did it with no amendments. We did it with no filibuster. What do we have in the Senate today? We have a filibuster. We have amendments. We have people giving all kinds of excuses so they can vote against an amendment that is necessary to get the resolve of the Security Council. That way the United Nations will have the backbone to say to this despot, this tyrant, this killer of babies, that it is time he straightened out, got rid of his chemical weapons, got rid of his biological weapons, and let us in to make sure there were not any nuclear weapons. It is time he becomes part of the community of nations or gets out of office. It is that simple.
If we could do pass a resolution for Bill Clinton, we ought to be able to do it for President Bush. Again, I want to remind my colleagues of the patience and resolve we had going into Afghanistan. I think parts of this discussion came up from the fact that somebody heard that we had plans for attacking Iraq. Well, we better have. We have a Defense Department that we pay a lot of money to plan for events so that they never happen. They have a plan on Iraq, and they have a plan on another dozen countries.
Every once in awhile, we even have exercises or war games so our Defense Department can see how to move people and have the right equipment in the right place at the right time. That way we know that the training is good for the people we have in the armed services. Anybody who commits to the service of this country must be assured that we are also committed to providing them with the training and everything under the Sun we can give them to keep them safe. Keep them safe so they can do their job and to com home alive. That is absolutely essential.
Today we have half a dozen amendments, we have substitutes amendments to substitute amendment. We do have a resolution, a resolution the President asked us to pass. It is one that is considerably more detailed and one that has more hoops to jump through than the one we approved in 1998. This is the resolution we need to pass. We must give President Bush the authority we gave President Clinton in 1998 without limiting authority or amendments.
In July of 1998, as I mentioned, we considered a resolution urging the President to take appropriate action to bring Iraq in compliance with international obligations. The Senate debated that for one day, without amendments. We approved the resolution by unanimous consent. That means no one objected and no one wanted to add an amendment. We just said yes. The House debated that one for day, had no amendments, and approved it by a vote of 407 to 6.
In October of 1998, we considered legislation that, in addition to authorizing the President to provide assistance to the Iraqi democratic opposition, declared it should be the policies of the United States to seek the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime and replace it with a democratic government. What did we do on that? The Senate debated that legislation for one day without amendments and we approved it by unanimous consent. Once again, no one wanted to amend it, no one disagreed. We gave President Clinton the authority. The House debated that legislation for one day and approved it by a vote of 360 to 38. One day in each Chamber--one day in each Republican-controlled Chamber giving authority to a Democratic president. One day in 1998. How many days will it take in 2002? We are already days into debate. How many days are needed by my colleagues to undermine the ability of the United States to address a security threat?
The President has been criticized for asking for a Congressional resolution prior to achieving a United Nations Security Council resolution. I believe the United Nations does have an important role in the future of Iraq. If the UN does its job, and member states do what is right, we can address the threat within the realm of the United Nations, which I am sure would be everyone's preference. As an independent nation, however, the United States cannot sit idly by while the Security Council debates the validity of pledges made by a known liar. If the General Assembly and Security Council are not prepared to defend the security of the world and the legitimacy of this organization, the United States must be prepared to act. A strong resolution with strong support is the best effort to prevent a war later. Afghanistan made the U.S. credible. It proved our patience and capability. Those traits go a long way to moving Saddam--as long as Congress shows resolve and then the UN shows resolve.
It is also important to note that the passage of a Congressional Resolution would not prevent the Administration from continuing its work at the United Nations. Rather, I believe it will help the President gain support for an appropriate Security Council resolution. As Congress, our actions must show a united front with the strong resolve of the American people. We will not wait to be attacked. We will not wait for inaction and discord. We will not tolerate an Iraqi President who flouts the authority of an organization only to cower under its umbrella when convenient.
Saddam Hussein is not crazy or an idiot. He is dangerous because he is cunning and very calculated. Repeatedly, he pushes the international community to the brink point and then backs down and says--sure, let the weapons inspectors come back. How many times are we going to let him play this game? Do we wait for him to attack with nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons? Do we wait for yet another international inspector team to be denied access to weapons stockpiles? Do we wait for another attack on the United States? Iraq has a despot leader, chemical and biological weapons, and a proven willingness to use anything. Iraq is the only country in the world with all three components. We must have changes immediately or regret it soon.
Many have asked why now, and I must ask why have we not acted sooner? We have considered action in Iraq before. We decided in 1991 that we should defend Kuwait. We sent in planes and bombs in 1998 and brought the inspectors home, but we have been silent since then. It is worthwhile to look at a few of the 16 Security Council resolutions that Saddam has chosen to ignore:
Resolution 687, adopted April 3, 1991, called for Iraq to accept the destruction, removal or rendering harmless of all chemical and biological weapons and unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons useable material;
Resolution 707, adopted August 15, 1991, condemned Iraq's violation of Resolution 687, adopted only four months before;
Resolution 1051, adopted March 27, 1996, called for Iraq to comply with weapons inspectors;
Resolution 1115, adopted June 21, 1997, condemned the repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access to UN inspectors; and
Resolution 1194, adopted September 9, 1998, condemned the decision by Iraq to suspend cooperation with inspectors and oppose its obligations under Security Council resolutions.
In 1991, we knew Saddam Hussein was producing weapons of mass destruction. We knew it in 1995. We knew it in 1998. We know now--he has these weapons today. There is no reason he would stop producing them--no one has been there to stop him. The United States and Great Britain have been enforcing the no-fly zones, but no one has been enforcing Saddam's commitments to disarm. No one can believe he would simply stop producing these evil weapons out of the goodness of his heart.
When and if we do use our armed forces, we must show one of the vast differences between the US and Saddam: a value for human life. To him, soldiers are expendable. To us, each and every life has value and worth. Any military action inherently puts the lives of our brave soldiers at risk, and the American people know this far too well, but we must explore all possibilities and attempt to act with as little American and even Iraqi lives lost as possible.
When Congress approved authorization for forays into Iraq in 1998, in one days debate, no amendments, former President Clinton, said, "Let there be no doubt, we are prepared to act." This is the same message we are again debating today. We must allow this President--President George Bush--to stand up and say "We are prepared to act." He must be able to state that to our allies with the authority and Congressional support, without limitation, that we gave in 1998.
When we act with our allies or through the United Nations, we should go into Iraq with a plan--actually, several plans: a plan for how to disarm Saddam and his guard; a plan for how to remove Saddam from power; a plan for when and how American troops should leave Iraq. The United States, however, should not have a plan for installation of a hand-picked successor. The Iraqi people must ultimately choose their leader. The United States and the international community must work with the people of Iraq just as we worked with the people of Afghanistan. If we choose a leader for Iraq, we will not be allowing the Iraqis to form an independent and democratic nation. The United States should have a plan for encouraging the various factions to work together, but we cannot choose a future leader before the battle begins.
The President and Congress have both been accused of trying to politicize the issue of Iraq. This is not a political issue. It wasn't in 1998 and should not be now. It is an issue of national security and international stability. The truth is respected individuals from both parties have expressed support for taking action and, more importantly, support having a plan for action. On September 12 this year, former Senator Bob Kerry, a Democrat from Nebraska, wrote in the Wall Street Journal, "The real choice is between sustaining a military effort designed to contain Saddam Hussein and a military effort designed to replace him." He also pointed out that the United States has spent more than a billion dollars in the last 11 years on simply containing Saddam. What return have the American people received from that investment? Saddam is still in power, the Iraqi people are still oppressed, and the security and stability of the region are still threatened.
This is the choice we have today. Do we keep the status quo and continue to spend money without any change in Iraq or do we authorize the President to take action and make some changes? I support change. Without any serious action by either the United States or the international community, we are telling Saddam that his game can go on. He stays where he is and continues his shell game. We lose again. Saddam is more than willing to keep the game going as long as the United States and the world are willing to lose.
The people of Iraq, the people of the United States, and the people of the world have not need for the leadership of Saddam Hussein--we can all agree on that. If he cannot abide by his international obligations and if he will not disarm then, simply put, he needs to go. We need to be rid of him and the President needs the authority to use armed forces to remove Saddam if necessary.
I firmly believe that firm resolve under this resolution--this resolution that does give some pretty broad powers--will keep us from having to go to war.
Without it, I think we may have to go to war.
I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the language included in the Lieberman-Warner substitute without any amendments--just as we did for President Clinton in 1998--with the same resolve, with the same unity, and with the same straightforwardness we had then.
We can't quite do that, though, can we? We have already debated a couple of days. We have already had amendments put in. But we can still have the kind of unity we need to show our resolve so we can get the U.N. to do something which will keep us from going to war.
I yield the floor.
