The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. Specter: I thank the distinguished President pro tempore and the Chair.
Mr. President, I have sought this time to register my very strong objection to cloture on this resolution authorizing the use of force, which is the equivalent of a declaration of war. In my 22 years in the Senate, the only issue which has been of equal importance was the authorization for the use of force in 1991. The motion to invoke cloture, which is to cut off debate, is supposed to be done when there is a filibuster. However, there is no filibuster present on this issue.
I came to the floor yesterday in an effort to participate in a colloquy with Senator Lieberman, the lead proponent of the bill, and found that all the time was allotted and all the time was taken. When no one appeared, we had about 3 minutes to discuss an issue which really required 30 minutes or an hour. I then sought time later in the afternoon, and all the time was taken. I then sought time this morning and find that the only time which is available is some time after 5 p.m. this afternoon.
It is customary in the Senate to see two lights on for a quorum call, but there have been very few quorum calls on this resolution--really none--except when Senators are on their way to the floor or when there are discussions. So there has certainly not been any effort to filibuster. Those who sought time to come over and discuss important issues have found that there is no time to do so.
We now have a series of amendments lined up with time allocations which are very brief. To discuss the cloture resolution itself in 45 minutes is very limited. To discuss the amendments which are pending is very difficult. There is in the bill a change from the 1991 resolution which has an objective test for the President to use force to carry out U.N. resolutions, whereas in the current resolution, it is subjective as the President sees fit. That is a matter of great moment which has not been debated in the Senate.
The resolution has numerous whereas clauses so that one can read the resolution to justify the use of force if the Iraqi Government continues to abuse its citizens. I would not want to say the Iraqi Government has not abused its citizens, but I do not believe anyone is seriously contending that is the basis for the President to take the United States to war. To stop Saddam Hussein from having weapons of mass destruction which pose a threat to the United States, is a reason.
Then there is the issue of regime change, which is in the whereas clause. The resolution contains a provision for U.S. national security interests. I posed questions to the Senator from Connecticut yesterday as to whether regime change was comprehended in our national security interest. That has yet to be answered.
The point I am making is that this is a matter which requires discussion and analysis. I do not believe it helps the President of the United States to have the Senate rush to judgment. It is not quite a blank check. It is not quite a knee-jerk reaction, but it is not the kind of deliberation that ought to characterize the work of this body. It would be unfortunate if the Senate votes for a resolution authorizing the use of force notwithstanding the questions which I have raised, although I said on the floor before that I may well support the President. However, if we do so in a context of deliberation and thoughtfulness when people like Senator Lieberman, Senator McCain, Senator Warner, Senator Biden, Senator Jeffords, and other Members, put our imprimatur on it, it has some significance in the international arena, providing it is debated, and providing there is some lucid discussion on all of the issues we are confronting.
I noted in the "Philadelphia Inquirer" this week the comment of a House member: The President has handcuffed us. I am voting yes on this resolution because I think ultimately the box the President has put us in has forced us to vote in the interests of national security.
I do not think we ought to vote for this resolution because we are being handcuffed. I do not think anyone anywhere ought to vote for a resolution for being handcuffed or for being put in a box.
These are matters which require a lot of analysis and a lot of debate. The cloture motion will cut off nongermane amendments. That is a very tight restriction. Other amendments ought to be offered which are very important to the discussion on this critical matter. I thank the Senator from West Virginia, and I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. Byrd: Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for a very courageous statement.
The Polycraticus of John of Salisbury, completed in 1159, says that Nero, the sixth in line from Julius, having heard the Senate had condemned him to death, begged that someone would give him courage to die by dying with him as an example. When he perceived the horseman drawing near, he upbraided his own cowardice by saying: "I die shamefully." So saying, he drove the steel into his own throat and thus, says John of Salisbury, came to an end the whole House of the Caesars.
Mr. President, here in this pernicious resolution on which the Senate will vote soon, we find the dagger that is being held at the throat of the Senate of the United States. I say to my friends, we ought to pause and wonder if Captain John Parker and his minutemen fought on the green of Lexington for this piece of rag, this so-called resolution. When Parker lost 8 or 10 of his men with that first shot, is this what they died for, this resolution? Is that what they died for?
How about John Paul Jones, when he was fighting the Serapis. He was the captain of the Bon Homme Richard when he said, I have not yet begun to fight. What he was fighting for? Was he fighting for this piece of cowardice here in this resolution that gives to the President--lock, stock and barrel--the authority to use the military forces of this country however he will, whenever he will, and wherever he will, and for as long as he will?
We are handing this over to the President of the United States. When we do that, we can put a sign on the top of this Capitol, and we can say: "Gone home." "Gone fishing." "Out of business."
I don't believe our forebears died for that kind of a piece of paper. How about Nathan Hale? He, too, was from Connecticut, may I say to the chief sponsor of this resolution. Nathan Hale volunteered to go into the British lines when he was called upon to do so by George Washington. He volunteered. He went behind the British lines to draw the gun emplacements, the breastwork of the British. And on the night of September 21, 1776, he was prepared to return to his own lines. He had on his person the pictures that he had drawn, the notes he had made, and he was discovered as a spy on the night of September 21, 1776. Nathan Hale.
The next morning he was hauled up before a wooden coffin in which he knew that his body would soon lie and grow cold. And the captain of the British, Captain Cunningham, said to Nathan Hale: Do you have anything that you would like to say? He had already been refused a Bible. He was asked, did he have anything further.
He said: I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.
Nathan Hale gave his own life, one life. It was all he had. Can we give one vote for our country today? Each of us took an oath under this Constitution. You took it in the chair, Mr. President. Mr. Senator from Virginia, you took it. This is the Constitution that James Madison from the State of Virginia helped to write; that George Washington helped to write. We take an oath to support and defend that Constitution. Are we defending it here today? Are we defending the role of the Senate as set forth in this Constitution which says Congress shall declare war?
Here we are about to hand off that role, that responsibility, to a President of the United States without limitation. He can go on and on. We are out of it. Once we pass this resolution and it is signed by the President, Senators are out of it. You can complain, but it won't help.
I say that we are denying the American people their right to be heard. Here we are being shut off on a cloture vote. I know the rules of the Senate. I have used the cloture vote myself. But in a situation such as this, I have pleaded for time, more time. I have been turned down.
The American people out there are going to render a judgment. They are going to render a judgment on every Senator in this body before it is over. I pray to God that if we go to war with Iraq, we will be lucky. I pray to God we will be lucky.
Nobody will support this country in war any more strongly than will I. But here today we are being tested. I didn't swear to support and defend the President of the United States when I came here. I pledged on the Bible up there on the desk to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help me God. That was no light prayer. That was no light oath.
I think we ought to look inside of ourselves. Look at our children and grandchildren. Look in the mirror and see if you can say: Old buddy, I voted for what I thought was right. I voted with the Constitution.
They say: Well, support our Commander in Chief. He is Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy and the militia when called into service. He is not Commander in Chief of industry. He is not Commander in Chief of the Senate of the United States. So where are the Nathan Hales today who would give their life, their own life for their country? Give one vote for this Constitution. After all, if it were not for this Constitution, I wouldn't be here. You would not be here. You would not be here. You would not be here. None of us would be here. But because of this Constitution, we are here today.
The people want us to ask questions. They want us to take a stand. They want us to take a stand against this stampede. Where are Senators today? Where are the backbones that stand up for the people? How many mothers, how many fathers will see their sons and their daughters die possibly in a war in a foreign land?
I say, my friends, I am sorry to see this day. This is my 50th year in Congress. I never would have thought I would find a Senate which would lack the backbone to stand up against the stampede, this rush to war, this rush to give to the President of the United States, whatever President he is, whatever party, this rush to give a President, to put it in his hands alone, to let him determine alone when he will send the sons and daughters of the American people into war, let him have control of the military forces. He will not only make war, but he will declare war.
That flies in the face of this Constitution. This Constitution does not give to a President of the United States the right to determine when, where, how, and for how long he will use the military forces of the United States.
I plead to Senators in the name of this Constitution: We need people who will stand up for the American people. We need Senators who will take a stand. I hope Senators will take what I am saying in the best of spirit. I think we are making one horrible mistake.
Remember: I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country. Nathan Hale.
The Presiding Officer: Under the previous order, the next 15 minutes will be controlled by the Republican Party.
The Republican leader is recognized.
Mr. Lott: Mr. President, I believe under the agreement, I have 15 minutes of this time.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator is correct.
Mr. Lott: I will use approximately 5 minutes of the time and yield the remainder of my time to Senator Warner.
I would like to begin by saying how much I appreciate the work that has been done here in handling this legislation, having a full debate. Senator Warner has been here joining in the discussion, Senator Reid, Senator McCain. There has been a serious effort to make sure we had an orderly process where Senators could make their feelings known. There has been thoughtful discussion on both sides of the issue, and there might have been one or two quorum calls the whole time because Senators have known, when you come to the floor, this will be your opportunity to speak on this issue.
And there will be more time today. As I look at the schedule that was lined up through the diligent efforts of Senator Warner, Senator McCain, and Senator Reid, we are going to have votes on amendments-- even amendments that would not be germaine postcloture. There has been a real effort to make sure Senator Byrd and Senators Levin, Durbin, Boxer, and others have an opportunity to offer amendments and make their case. We will have five votes between now and approximately 4 o'clock this afternoon.
Mr. President, I remember the discussion back in 1991 on the Persian Gulf resolution. I think we had about 2 days of debate previously, and 2 1/2 days when we actually took up the debate--when it passed. It was a very important debate. I thought it was an occasion when the Senate proved it is the world's greatest deliberative body. It was very serious. Every Senator spoke, we had the vote, and it passed. I thought it was one of the high-water marks since I have served in the Senate. It was only 2 1/2 days and every Senator got a chance to speak.
In 1998, at the request of President Clinton, I moved aggressively, in a bipartisan way, to pass the Iraqi Liberation Act. As I recall, at that time, Senator Kyl worked with me on that issue, Senator Warner was involved, as were Senators Kerry and Lieberman, and we passed that resolution, which also called for a regime change unanimously, with very short debate--as I recall, maybe even a half day, or a day at the most. But it was important debate and an important vote.
So when we have been called on by Presidents of both parties to address this very serious issue in this very serious area of the world, we have handled it in the right way. I think that is the case here. Senators were told in my conference, and I know Senator Daschle told his side's conference, you will be able to speak on Friday and, again, on Monday. We will stay as long as you need. We had all day yesterday. A great effort was made to make sure Senators had a chance to speak. Now Senators have a chance to offer amendments and speak on them. After the vote between 3 and 4 o'clock, there will be more time because Senators do feel strongly about this and want an opportunity to be heard. They are going to have that opportunity.
I believe this issue has been aired fully. It is not new. We have been worrying about this, talking about this, and debating the seriousness of the threat from Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction for years--really, for 11 years. There is new information that is available. We have had our classified briefings. I have made sure Senators on our side--and I know the administration has made sure Senators on both sides of the aisle--have had a chance to get briefings at multiple opportunities. So Senators know what the issue is. We have seen, yesterday, Senators from both parties moving toward giving the President the authority to do this job.
I hope we can get inspectors in there, that they can find the weapons of mass destruction, and they are destroyed. But I don't trust Saddam Hussein. His record is clear. I think, once again, he will resist, he will agree, he will dissemble. In the end, he will try to block this. You can always hope and pray we will find a solution here.
The President of the United States has listened to the American people, to the Congress, to the U.N, and our allies. The President came to the Congress and said, yes, I want your input. He sent up some suggested language on this resolution, and it was changed once and then twice; significant changes were made at the recommendation of Senators on both sides of the aisle. So he has worked with us in this effort. He encouraged our involvement and our debate. He has gone to the U.N. and called on them to stand up to their commitment and do their job, and quit passing resolutions that are not backed or demanded to be complied with, with force if necessary. He did the job. He and his administration, including the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, have worked with allies at the U.N. and with our allies around the world. This President has made it clear he is not going to act precipitously, but he is prepared to act.
This President has led with commitment and has shown leadership. He is prepared to try to find a peaceful solution here. But unless we make it clear he is committed, we are committed, and the U.N. is committed, this problem will not go away. It is serious and it is imminent. It takes but one person with a small container to bring very dangerous weapons of mass destruction into this country.
Some people say, why now? Well, because the threat is not going to lessen. It has been 4 years since we passed the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998. I suspect matters have gotten much worse. Besides that, the U.N. is going to be leaving soon for the year and won't be back until next August. We want to see action from the U.N. We need to act to show our commitment, and we need to show our determination to get them to act in a way that has real force.
I think we have had a full debate and we will have more debate. To try to delay it another day, another week, is not going to be helpful. We need to stand up now, show we mean what we say, and we are going to get the results and, by doing that, perhaps something can be worked out without the use of force. But this President has asked for this. This Senate is committed to this. I believe the vote will be overwhelming.
I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture. There will be times for postcloture debate. We have bent over backward to make sure everybody had an opportunity and will still have an opportunity to speak and even offer amendments.
With that, I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Virginia, who has done a magnificent job in fairly managing this legislation.
Mr. Warner: I thank the leader. I appreciate very much the calm tone with which he addresses this issue of a rush to judgment. Regrettably, our colleague from Pennsylvania used those terms. I was reminded of being here last Friday afternoon for 5 \1/2\ hours. What a memorable opportunity it was with my distinguished colleague from West Virginia. Senator Kennedy and Senator Dodd joined in. I think we went about a very constructive debate and exchanged our views. Senator Byrd and I debated again on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. Here we are on the fifth day.
Mr. President, this is not a rush to judgment. This is the Senate working diligently. Most of us were here close to 11 o'clock last night. In parallel, as the distinguished leader said--I remember it so well--the period of January 10 through 12, when a resolution, again drawn up by my colleague from Connecticut, the principal sponsor this time, at that time I was the principal sponsor. It was carefully debated. The Senate is doing its job and doing it well. We have had a very good debate and we will complete that debate here today, tomorrow, or whatever the case may be.
I wish to draw the attention of the Senate to the last vote--a very strong vote, not against our colleague from West Virginia. But I thought, as he mentioned the Gulf of Tonkin, how appropriate it was that in the leader's chair, Senator McCain, my partner who is working diligently with me on this side, spoke very softly of his experience. I don't know of anyone in this Chamber more qualified than he to speak to that period, and the relevance of that resolution. I was Secretary of the Navy for 5 years, and Under Secretary during that period of time, and we remember well that period.
I wish to talk about the President of the United States. As I look upon this situation and listen to the debate, I think we are of a mind, all 100 of us, of the seriousness of these weapons of mass destruction. We may have a difference of conscience as to the level of threat posed perhaps today, tomorrow, in the future, but it is there. This is no question.
I stop to think that the United Nations has done nothing for 4 years. They have not sought to enforce the resolutions, 16 in number. It has been this President, President George Bush, who has taken the initiative to go not only to the American people, but to the whole world, and very carefully and methodically tell the world we should be on alert; we cannot do nothing. We should join as a community of nations to address it. He said that at the United Nations very brilliantly. I think everyone in this body respects him.
As we are debating today, another debate is taking place in the U.N. To the extent this resolution remains strong as it is now is the extent to which we can expect an equal and perhaps even stronger statement of resolve by the United Nations to fulfill its mandate, to fulfill its charter.
The League of Nations failed to act at a critical time in the history of this Nation, and it went into the dustbin of history. The United Nations will not go into the dustbin of history. I am confident that this time they will stand up, that they will devise a 17th resolution.
I look upon the action by the Senate today in voting a strong bipartisan vote for this resolution as not an act of war. It is an act to deter war, to put in place the tools for our President and our Secretary of State to get the strongest possible resolution in the United Nations. It is an act seen to force, I repeat, the last option as our President has said ever so clearly time and again. It is an act to deter war to make the last option the use of force.
I yield the floor.
Mr. Daschle: Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes of my time to the Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. Lieberman: Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his gracious yielding of time. I thank him for more than that. I thank him for his leadership in this matter of how the Senate should proceed with regard to Iraq, and I thank him specifically for the work that he and his staff did in negotiations with the White House and with Members of the House to get this resolution to where it is where I am confident it can and will enjoy broad bipartisan support.
There will be time for debate later in the day about the relevance of this resolution, about the extent to which I am confident it is clearly within our constitutional authority under article I. I have comparisons to other declarations of war and authorizations of military action, that is, if anything, more specific than most.
I am inspired by Senator Byrd's reference to Nathan Hale. Nathan Hale was not only a son of Connecticut, but a Yale man. For my entire freshman year, I walked by an inspiring statue of Nathan Hale. I read about him. I studied him. I cannot say I knew him personally, but I feel as if I knew Nathan Hale, who was remembered for saying: "I regret I have only one life to give for my country."
Nathan Hale was a patriot, and he was prepared to give his life for the security and freedom of his country. I am absolutely confident that if Nathan Hale were in the Senate of the United States today, he would not only be cosponsoring this resolution, he would be impatient to have the talking stop and the action begin.
Is it time? Are we ready? Time is what it is about.
It is 12 years since Iraq invaded Kuwait and threatened to invade Saudi Arabia and thereby showed that all that Saddam Hussein had been saying about wanting to make Baghdad the capital of the Arab world and dominate the Arab world was not just talk; he was prepared to act on it.
It is 12 years since U.N. Resolution 678 authorizing the use of force against Iraq.
It is 11 years since the congressional authorization for Desert Storm and the triumphant brilliant effort of our military in Desert Storm.
It is 11 years since Saddam asked for a cease-fire and accepted the inspection regime as part of that cease-fire on which he has never followed through and complied.
It is 11 years since the no-fly zones were first adopted and began to be enforced by American military personnel.
It is 9 years since the U.N. found Saddam in "material breach of his international obligations."
It is 9 years since Iraq under Saddam Hussein attempted to assassinate former President Bush.
It is 6 years since Saddam crushed Kurdish and Shi'a resistance to his regime.
It is 4 years since Saddam ejected inspectors and President Clinton ordered Operation Desert Fox, an air campaign against Iraq in response to this act.
It is 4 years since this Senate called for the indictment of Saddam as a war criminal.
It is 4 years since the Senate found Iraq in breach of international obligations and authorized the President to take "appropriate action in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligation."
It is 4 years since Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Iraq Liberation Act.
It is more than 1 year since we were attacked by terrorists on September 11, 2001, showing us the risks of inaction against those who would arm and threaten us.
It is 1 month since the President of the United States challenged the United Nations to act against this international lawbreaker.
It is 8 days since we started the debate on this resolution in the Senate; excluding the Sabbath, 6 days. The Lord made Heaven and Earth in 6 days. It is time now for us to come to a conclusion.
Is it time? Are we ready to act? I think the record shows we are ready to act.
I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer: The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. Daschle: Mr. President, if I need additional time, I will take it from my Senate leader allocation for the day.
The Senate is now engaged in one of the most consequential debates addressed in this Chamber for many years. We are confronting the grave issues of war and peace. We are considering how the United States should respond to a murderous dictator who has shown he will be bound neither by conscience nor by the laws or principles of civilized nations. And we are contemplating whether and under what conditions the Congress should authorize the preemptive use of American military power to remove the threat that he poses.
These questions go directly to who we are as a nation. How we answer them will have a profound consequence for our Nation, for our allies, for the war on terror, and perhaps most importantly, for the men and women in our Armed Forces who could be called to risk their lives because of our decisions.
There is no question that Saddam Hussein is a dangerous man who has done barbaric things. He has invaded neighbors, supported terrorists, repressed and murdered his own people.
Over the last several months, as the world has sought to calm the violence between Israelis and Palestinians, Iraq has tried to inflame the situation by speaking against the very existence of Israel and encouraging suicide bombers in Gaza and the West Bank.
Saddam Hussein has stockpiled, weaponized and used chemical and biological weapons, and he has made no secret of his desire to acquire nuclear weapons. He has ignored international agreements and frustrated the efforts of international inspectors, and his ambitions today are as unrelenting as they have ever been.
As a condition of the truce that ended the gulf war, Saddam Hussein agreed to eliminate Iraq's nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and to abandon all efforts to develop or deliver such weapons. That agreement is spelled out in U.N. Security Council Resolution 687. Iraq has never complied with the resolution.
For the first 7 years after the gulf war, it tried to deceive U.N. weapons inspectors, block their access to key sites, and make it impossible for them to do their jobs.
Finally, in October of 1998, the U.N. was left with no choice but to withdraw its inspectors from Iraq. As a result, we do not know exactly what is now in Iraq's arsenal. We do know Iraq has weaponized thousands of gallons of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. We know Iraq maintains stockpiles of some of the world's deadliest chemical weapons, including VX, sarin, and mustard gas. We know Iraq is developing deadlier ways to deliver these horrible weapons, including unmanned drones and long-range ballistic missiles. And we know Saddam Hussein is committed to one day possessing nuclear weapons.
If that should happen, instead of simply bullying the gulf region, he could dominate it. Instead of threatening only his neighbors, he could become a grave threat to U.S. security and to global security.
The threat posed by Saddam Hussein may not be imminent, but it is real, it is growing, and it cannot be ignored. Despite that, like many Americans, I was concerned by the way the administration first proposed to deal with that threat. The President's desire to wage war alone, without the support of our allies and without authorization from Congress, was wrong. Many of us, Democrats and Republicans, made it clear that such unilateralism was not in our Nation's best interest. I now commend the administration for changing its approach and acknowledging the importance of working with our allies. I also commend it for recognizing that under our Constitution, it is Congress that authorizes the use of force, and for requesting a resolution providing such authority.
I applaud my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans in the House and in the Senate, for the improvements they have made to the administration's original resolution. Four changes were especially critical.
First, instead of giving the President broad and unfocused authorization to take action in the region, as the administration originally sought, this resolution focuses specifically on the threat posed by Iraq. It no longer authorizes, nor should it be used to justify, the use of force against other nations, organizations, or individuals that the President may believe threaten peace and stability in the Persian Gulf region. It is a strong and focused response to a specific threat. It is not a template or model for any other situation.
Second, the resolution expresses the deep conviction of this Congress and of the American people that President Bush should continue to work through the United Nations Security Council in order to secure Iraqi compliance with U.N. resolutions. Unfettered inspections may or may not lead to Iraqi disarmament, but whether they succeed or fail, the effort we expend in seeking inspections will make it easier for the President to assemble a global coalition against Saddam should military action eventually be needed.
Third, this resolution makes it clear that before the President can use force in Iraq, he must certify to the Congress that diplomacy has failed, that further diplomatic efforts alone cannot protect America's national security interests, nor can they lead to enforcement of the U.N. Security Council resolutions.
Fourth, this resolution protects the balance of power by requiring the President to comply with the War Powers Act and to report to Congress at least every 60 days on matters relevant to this resolution.
This resolution gives the President the authority he needs to confront the threat posed by Iraq. It is fundamentally different and a better resolution than the one the President sent to us. It is neither a Democratic resolution nor a Republican resolution. It is now a statement of American resolve and values. It is more respectful of our Constitution, more reflective of our understanding that we need to work with our allies in this effort, and more in keeping with our strong belief that force must be a last resort, not a first response.
Because this resolution is improved, because I believe Saddam Hussein represents a real threat, and because I believe it is important for America to speak with one voice at this critical moment, I will vote to give the President the authority he needs, but I respect those who reach different conclusions. For me, the deciding factor is my belief that a united Congress will help the President unite the world, and by uniting the world we can increase the world's chances of succeeding in this effort and reduce both the risks and the costs America may have to bear. With this resolution, we are giving the President extraordinary authority. How he exercises that authority will determine how successful any action in Iraq might be.
In 1991, by the time the President's father sought congressional support to use force against Iraq, he had secured pledges of military cooperation from nearly 40 nations and statements of support from scores of others. He had already secured the backing of the United Nations, and he had already developed a clear plan of action. In assembling that coalition, the legitimacy of our cause was affirmed, regional stability was maintained, the risks to our soldiers were lessened, America's burden was reduced, and perhaps most importantly, Iraq was isolated.
At this point, we have done none of those things. That is why, unlike in 1991, our vote on this resolution should be seen as the beginning of a process, not the end. For our efforts in Iraq to succeed, the President must continue to consult with Congress and work hard to build a global coalition. That is not capitulation, it is leadership. And it is essential.
In my view, there are five other crucial steps the administration must take before any final decision on the use of force in Iraq is made. First and foremost, the President needs to be honest with the American people, not only about the benefits of action against Iraq but also about the risks and the costs of such action. We are no longer talking about driving Saddam Hussein back to within his borders, we are talking about driving him from power. That is a much more difficult and complicated goal.
There was a story in this past Sunday's Philadelphia Inquirer that top officials in the administration "have exaggerated the degree of allied support for a war in Iraq." The story goes on to say that others in the administration "are rankled by what they charge is a tendency" by some in the administration "to gloss over the unpleasant realities" of a potential war with Iraq.
A report in yesterday's Washington Post suggests "an increasing number of intelligence officials, including former and current intelligence agency employees, are concerned the agency is tailoring its public stance to fit the administration's views."
I do not know whether these reports are accurate. We do know from our own national experience, however, that public support for military action can evaporate quickly if the American people come to believe they have not been given all of the facts. If that should happen, no resolution Congress might pass will be able to unify our Nation. The American people expect, and success demands, that they be told both the benefits and the risks involved in any action against Iraq.
Second, we need to make clear to the world that the reason we would use force in Iraq is to remove Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I would have preferred if this goal had been made explicit in this resolution. However, it is clear from this debate that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction are the principal threat to the United States and the only threat that would justify the use of the United States military force against Iraq. It is the threat that the President cited repeatedly in his speech to the American people on Monday night. It may also be the only threat that can rally the world to support our efforts. Therefore, we expect, and success demands, that the administration not lose sight of this essential mission.
Third, we need to prepare for what might happen in Iraq after Saddam Hussein. Regime change is an easy expression for a difficult job. One thing we have learned from our action in Afghanistan is that it is easier to topple illegitimate regimes than it is to build legitimate democracies. We will need to do much better in post-Saddam Iraq than the administration has done so far in post-Taliban Afghanistan. Iraq is driven by religious and ethnic differences and demoralized by a repressive government and crushing poverty. It has no experience with democracy. History tells us it is not enough merely to hope that well- intentioned leaders will rise to fill the void that the departure of Saddam Hussein would leave. We must help create the conditions under which such a leader can arise and govern. Unless we want to risk seeing Iraq go from bad to worse, we must help the Iraqi people build their political and economic institutions after Saddam. That could take many years and many billions of dollars, which is another reason we must build a global coalition. The American people expect, and success demands, that we plan for stability and for economic and political progress in Iraq after Saddam.
Fourth, we need to minimize the chances that any action we may take in Iraq will destabilize the region. Throughout the Persian Gulf, there are extremists who would like nothing more than to transform a confrontation with Iraq into a wider war between the Arab world and Israel or the Arab world and the West. What happens if, by acting in Iraq, we undermine the government in Jordan, a critical ally and a strategic buffer between Iraq and Israel? What happens if we destabilize Pakistan and empower Islamic fundamentalists? Unlike Iraq, Pakistan already has nuclear weapons and the means to deliver. What happens if that arsenal falls into the hands of al-Qaida or other extremists?
We can tell the Arab world this is not a fight between their nations and ours. But a far better way to maintain stability in the gulf is to demonstrate that by building a global coalition to confront Saddam Hussein. That is why the administration must make every reasonable effort to secure a U.N. resolution just as we did in 1991. With U.N. support, we can count a number of Arab countries as full allies. Without U.N. support, we cannot even count on their airspace. We expect, and success demands, that any action we take in Iraq will make the region more stable, not less.
Fifth, and finally, we cannot allow a war in Iraq to jeopardize the war on terrorism. We are fighting terrorist organizations with global networks, and we need partners around the globe. Some, including the chairman of the President's own Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, doubt we can count on this continued cooperation in the war on terror if we go to war against Iraq. I do not know if that is true. I do know, however, that the military intelligence and political cooperation we receive from nations throughout the world are critical to the war on terrorism.
Saddam Hussein may yet target America. Al-Qaida already has. The American people expect, and our national security demands, that the administration make plans to ensure that any action we take in Iraq does not distract or detract from the war on terror. If they fail to do so, any victory we win in Iraq will come at a terrible cost.
On Monday night in his speech to the Nation, the President said: The situation could hardly get worse for world security and the people of Iraq.
Yes, it can. If the administration attempts to use the authority in this resolution without doing the work that is required before and after military action in Iraq, the situation there and elsewhere can indeed get worse. We could see more turmoil in the Persian Gulf, not less. We could see more bloodshed in the Middle East, not less. Americans could find themselves more vulnerable to terrorist attacks, not less.
So I stress again, this resolution represents a beginning, not an end. If we are going to make America and the world safer, much more work needs to be done before the force authorized in this document is used.
Some people think it is wrong to ask questions or raise concerns when the President says our national security is at risk. They believe it is an act of disloyalty. I disagree. In America, asking questions is an act of patriotism. For those of us who have been entrusted by our fellow citizens to serve in this Senate, asking questions is more than a privilege, it is a constitutional responsibility.
The American people have serious questions about the course of action on which this resolution could set us. Given the gravity of the issues involved and the far-reaching consequences of this course, it is essential that their questions are answered. I support this resolution. And for the sake of the American people, especially those who will be called to defend our Nation, we must continue to ask questions.
On one point, however, I have no question. I believe deeply and absolutely in the courage, the skill, and the devotion of our men and women in uniform. I know that if it becomes necessary for them to stand in harm's way to protect America, they will do so with pride and without hesitation and they will succeed. They are the finest fighting force the world has ever known. For their sake, for the sake of all Americans, for the world's sake, we must confront Saddam Hussein. But we must do so in a way that avoids making a dangerous situation even worse.
I yield the floor.
