The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Nevada is recognized for 20 minutes.
Mr. Ensign: Madam President, as our nation appears to draw closer to war, I rise with full consciousness of the burden that each of us has to help guide our nation during this time of peril. It is indeed a heavy burden to bear, but nothing compared to the burden of those who serve in our military.
The vote to authorize the use of force in Iraq is one of the most difficult and important votes any of us will ever cast. We need to approach this issue as if we are sending our very own children to war because, in effect, we are voting to send our nation's children to war.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld recently told Congress that "a decision to use military force is never easy. No one with any sense considers war a first choice." The risks of war are real but the risks of inaction may be even greater. As Ronald Reagan put it in his first inaugural address, "I do not believe in a fate that will fall on us no matter what we do. I do believe in a fate that will fall on us if we do nothing."
The threat posed by Saddam Hussein's regime is growing with each passing day. He has, at this moment, chemical and biological weapons he could use against us or share with terrorist networks that threaten us. He is pursuing nuclear weapons. He has used chemical weapons against his own people, and against foreign forces. He has invaded two of his neighbors and fired ballistic missiles at four of his neighbors. He supports terrorist networks, and has harbored senior al-Qaida terrorists in Baghdad since September 11. He has a long-standing hostility toward the United States, because we have denied him his ambition to occupy the territory of his neighbors and dominate the Persian Gulf region. He has openly praised the September 11th attacks, and his state-run press has called them "God's punishment." He has warned that Americans should understand that "every Iraqi [can] become a missile."
Each of us needs to carefully weigh the risks posed by his regime the risk of acting and the risk of doing nothing in the face of this threat. And Mr. President, I submit that the risk of inaction far outweigh the risk of war in Iraq. Here is why:
For most of our history, America has been able to rely on our geography to protect us. Two oceans, and friendly neighbors, provided a buffer against enemies who might want to attack us. After September 11th, we now know our invulnerability has passed away. We are not only vulnerable to terrorists who use airplanes as missiles we are vulnerable to terrorist networks and terrorist states that want to use weapons of mass destruction against us.
As Secretary Rumsfeld has pointed out, when the threats came from conventional weapons, our country could afford to wait for an attack to happen, absorb the first blow, regroup, and then respond militarily. In the age of weapons of mass destruction, however, we can no longer afford to wait.
In this new security environment, we must become more proactive in our efforts to prevent attacks that have the potential to be far worse than that of September 11. We must make sure when possible that those who have the desire to attack us are prevented from having the means with which to carry out those attacks. We have a right and an obligation to take anticipatory action in our own self-defense.
This certainly would not be the first time that our nation engaged in preventative military action in defense of our homeland. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, President Kennedy ordered a military blockade of Cuba in 1962, an act of war under international law. This was done even though the Soviets were not engaged in an armed attack, nor were the missiles an imminent threat.
Today, Saddam Hussein poses a similar threat. And we should give this President the authority he needs to deal with the Iraqi threat now, before it reaches our shores.
Saddam Hussein poses a very real and imminent danger to the United States. According to the CIA, Iraq "has broad capability to attack" the U.S. "with chemical or biological weapons and could build a nuclear bomb within a year if it obtains fissile material from abroad." Iraq "probably" has "stockpiled more than 100 tons of mustard gas and other chemical weapons. Iraq has developed `large scale' capability to produce anthrax and other bioweapons in mobile facilities that are easy to hide and hard to destroy."
The longer we wait, the stronger he becomes, and the harder he will be to defeat. Saddam Hussein's regime hosts terrorist networks and has directly ordered acts of terror on foreign soil. He has used weapons of mass murder before, and would not hesitate to use them again.
Moreover, Saddam Hussein's ongoing defiance of U.N. Security Council resolutions has made clear that he has no intention of disarming or discontinuing his weapons of mass destruction programs.
Remember, our goal is not to get weapons inspectors back into Iraq. Our goal is disarmament. And Saddam Hussein has shown that he is not willing to disarm. To the contrary, he has proven willing to pay an enormously high price to maintain his weapons of mass destruction aspirations. Under U.N. sanctions, he has given up about $180 billion in oil revenue to keep his weapons of mass destruction. As Richard Butler, a former U.N. chief weapons inspector has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."
Congress recognized that fact in 1998 when it passed The Iraq Liberation Act stating that, "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime." We knew then what we know now-- that regime change and disarmament are inextricably linked.
Just like there are career criminals there are career criminal regimes. Leniency only incites them to more violence. They are driven; they are compulsive. And unless they are constantly thwarted they will continue to prey on the weak and defenseless.
We cannot stake the lives of tens of thousands of innocent American citizens on the hope that Saddam Hussein will never use his weapons of mass destruction against us. He has already proven that he cannot be trusted, and that he poses a great threat to the peace and stability of the world. This is a critical moment for the United States. If Saddam Hussein is appeased with more talk of weakened, compromised weapons inspections, which he has repeatedly defied, we risk leaving our country open for another catastrophic attack, one potentially far worse than the heinous acts of September 11th.
As we debate how to deal with the Iraqi threat, we must never forget that in Saddam Hussein we are dealing not just with a homicidal dictator; we are confronting Evil that is akin to Stalin and Hitler.
Just ask former Iraqi general, Najib Salhi. He defected from Iraq and was living in Amman, Jordan when one day he came home to find a package from Saddam Hussein's intelligence service. He opened it to find a video tape.
When he put it into the VCR, he saw what he thought was a pornographic film--till he realized, to his horror, that he was watching the rape of one of his closest female relatives. The message was clear. They wanted to blackmail him into silence.
That is the face of Evil.
Or consider the fact that Saddam Hussein's regime has admitted to having weaponized aflotoxin--the only country in the world known to have done so. As former CIA Director Jim Woolsey has stated, "The only use of aflatoxin is that it creates cancer, long-term cancer, especially in children."
Aflatoxin has no military value. It has no battlefield use. It takes tens of years to kill its victim. It is a weapons whose only purpose is to kill innocent people for murder's sake. Richard Spertzel, the former chief biological weapons inspector for UNSCOM, declared that aflatoxin is "a devilish weapon. From a moral standpoint, aflatoxin is the cruelest weapon--it means watching children die slowly of liver cancer."
That is the face of Evil.
Look at the attacks Saddam Hussein has ordered on his own people--on thousands of innocent men, women, and children--in Halabja, using a chemical weapons cocktail. Those attacks are causing cancer and genetic mutations that will be felt in this generation and the next.
That is the face of Evil.
Saddam Hussein is a man who has personally shot and killed members of his own cabinet; who has ordered his opponents to be burned alive in vats of acid; who forces those suspected of disloyalty to watch the gang rape of their mothers, daughters, wives, and sisters; who not only tortures dissidents, but tortures their children in front of them.
He is the living incarnation of an Evil that cannot be appeased and cannot be deterred, and must be confronted and defeated.
He has murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people--and is pursuing weapons that will allow him to extend his deadly reach across oceans and continents--that will give him the capability to kill our people--our children, our families.
The President has rightly called Saddam Hussein "a student of Stalin." And I applaud him for his resolve in confronting the dangers posed by the Iraqi Regime.
The President has awakened the world to the existence of evil in our midst--and challenged the world to confront that evil before it confronts us, at the cost of millions of lives.
It is a natural reaction to flee in the face of evil. It is little wonder that much of the world has been reluctant to stand its ground and face down Saddam Hussein, which is why the President's leadership has been critical, and why it is so important for the United States Congress to show similar resolve, and demonstrate our unity with the President.
In showing steadfastness and steely determination, the President made clear to the Iraqi regime, and the world, that we were not going to repeat the tired old pattern of meeting Iraq's threats with inaction. And that leadership has had an impact. One by one we have seen nations join the U.S. in recognition that Saddam must go. Some have said so publicly, others privately. Let there be no doubt: if we go to war, we will not be going it alone.
Thanks to our President, the world understands that there is a price to be paid for defying the United States when our survival is at stake. And I believe that a strong show of support by Congress will strengthen the President's hand at the United Nations.
While we greatly value the support of our allies in the war on terror, we must never give other nations the authority to stop us from defending our freedom or from acting in our own self-defense. We must do what we feel is right in protecting America, whether or not we have the approval of France, Russia, China or any of the other nations which currently sit on the U.N. Security Council.
None of us takes the prospect of war lightly. War is difficult and dangerous, and lives will be lost. I understand the concerns many Americans have about war in Iraq, and I fully appreciate the sacrifice American families make when they lose a loved-one in the fight to keep America and the rest of the world free from tyranny and oppression.
This country lives, freedom lives, because brave men and women were willing to die for it--willing to risk their lives, and give their lives, for a cause greater than themselves. As scripture teaches "there is no greater love than this: that a man lay down his life for his friends." We are all concerned for the well being of our troops, and we thank them for their willingness to keep America safe from the evil that has been made so apparent in the last year.
While I value diplomacy and rhetoric, there comes a time when force is inevitable--when our choice is not between war and peace, but between war today, when our enemy is weaker, or war tomorrow, when our enemy is stronger. That is the choice we face today.
We have tried diplomacy. We have imposed sanctions. We have sent inspectors. All attempts to reason with the Iraqi Regime have failed. The only language Saddam Hussein understands is force.
Indeed, in a way, we are already at war with Iraq. Since hostilities ended in 1991, Iraq has repeatedly violated the ceasefire conditions which were set out at the close of the Gulf War. Just ask our brave pilots who are being shot almost every day as they patrol the no-fly zones over Iraq.
After President Bush's speech to the U.N., Saddam Hussein sent a letter to the U.N. promising to "allow the return of United Nations weapons inspectors to Iraq without conditions." He went on to say that Iraq "based its decision concerning the return of inspectors on its desire to complete the implementation of the relevant Security Council resolutions and to remove any doubts that Iraq still possesses weapons of mass destruction."
Hours after that letter arrived at the U.N., Iraq was shooting at U.S. aircraft implementing those same relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions. Since 1992, the Iraqis have used anti-aircraft artillery, or Triple-A, against our aircraft in the northern and southern no-fly zones. In fact, over the last three years Iraqi Triple-A has fired at coalition aircraft over 1,000 times. This year to date they have fired on us over 400 times--and since that September 16 letter where Saddam pledged his support for U.N. resolutions they have fired on coalition aircraft more than 70 times. It appears that Iraq has actually stepped up its firing on U.S. and British planes since he agreed to cooperate with the U.N. Actions speak louder than words. And for 11 years Saddam Hussein's actions have shown that he is bent upon pursuing weapons of mass destruction at all costs.
After all, three days after Saddam Hussein's September 16th letter pledging the unconditional return of weapons inspectors, Iraq's foreign minister stated U.N. resolutions were "unjust and at odds with the U.N. charter and international law." He further declared, "Iraq demands that its inalienable rights are met, including respect for its sovereignty, security and the lifting of the blockade imposed on it." Then Baghdad stated that the 1998 Memorandum of Understanding which exempted certain presidential palaces must stand. I am sure we will hear from time to time that Baghdad is once again stating that unconditional inspections could take place. The words change, but the actions stay the same. They keep right on firing at our pilots.
Madam President, on September 11, 3,000 innocent citizens were killed. If their deaths are to have any meaning, our nation must not forget the lesson they gave their lives for us to learn. The era of our invulnerability is over. Evil exists--it is real, it is out there, and it seeks our destruction. If we ignore it, it will not go away. It will continue to stalk us, and kill more of our people.
It must be confronted and it must be defeated.
"There is a time for all things," the Rev. Peter Muhlenberg told his congregation on the eve of the Revolutionary War, "a time to preach and a time to pray. But those times have passed away. There is a time to fight, and that time has now come."
We have listened and we have prayed. Now we must fight.
For the best honor we can bestow on those who have died for our nation, and those who will die for our nation, is victory. Victory over terrorism. And if the President believes it is necessary to secure our freedom, victory over the regime of Saddam Hussein.
Madam President, I yield back the remainder of my time.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. Reid: Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Graham's and Senator Cantwell's time be changed. Senator Graham will go before Senator Cantwell.
The Presiding Officer: Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Florida is recognized for 30 minutes.
Mr. Graham: Thank you, Madam President.
Madam President, I rise this evening to speak to my colleagues, more importantly to speak to the people of the United States and, especially, my fellow Floridians.
In my service in the Senate I have not shied away from authorizing the use of force when I believed it was in our Nation's interests.
I voted to use force in the Persian Gulf in 1991. I voted to use force in Bosnia in 1992. I voted to use force in Kosovo in 1999.
I have given the President of the United States a presumption of correctness in his assessment of our national security interest.
But, Madam President, tonight I am going to vote no on this resolution. The reason is this resolution is too timid. It is too limiting. It is too weak. This resolution fails to recognize the new reality of the era of terrorism. And that reality is that war abroad will, without assertive security actions, increase the prospects of terrorist attacks here at home.
In fact, war on Iraq alone leaves Americans more vulnerable to the No. 1 threat facing us today, those international terrorist organizations that have the capability to inflict upon us a repeat of the tragedy of September 11.
The resolution I had hoped we would pass would contain what the President has asked for relative to the use of force against Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq, and more.
It also should provide the President all necessary authorities to use force against the international terrorist groups that will probably strike the United States as the regime of Saddam Hussein crumbles.
I offered an amendment on this floor yesterday that would have given the President the authorities he needs to deal with the threat posed by the five deadliest terrorist organizations in addition to al-Qaida-- that would gladly join Saddam Hussein in his retaliatory strike.
Those five organizations have already killed hundreds of Americans. Those five organizations have ties to countries that could provide them with weapons of mass destruction. Those five organizations have the capability to strike within our homeland. They have recruited, trained, and placed operatives in our hometowns.
I argued that the President should have the option to set priorities and choose our targets, and to be able to preempt terrorists before they can order strikes against us in our homeland. Unfortunately, that amendment was rejected.
Some said I was incorrect in my contention that the President, as Commander in Chief, lacks the power to expand the war on terrorism beyond al-Qaida. I disagree. But I will not repeat the legal arguments that I made yesterday.
But even accepting the fact that others may disagree, how is it in the interest of our Nation's security to leave the question in doubt as to whether the President has the authority to attack these international terrorist organizations that represent such a lethal threat to the people of the United States?
There have been some past administrations which have allowed leaders of rogue states to be uncertain as to how America would respond if they used weapons of mass destruction. This administration should not repeat that fundamental error.
If we want to deter the world's terrorists and madmen, shouldn't we tell them, in the most explicit terms, what they will face by U.S. retaliation to their action?
I also want to restate my conviction that this resolution forces the President to focus our military and intelligence resources on the wrong target. A historical example, which has been used repeatedly in this debate, is the example of the 1930s: that England, France, and other nations, which would eventually join in the world's greatest alliance, slept while Hitler's power grew.
They say the equivalent of passing this resolution is to have declared war on Hitler. I disagree with that assessment of what this lesson of history means. In my judgment, passing this resolution tonight will be the equivalent of declaring war on Italy. That is not what we should be doing. We should not be declaring war just on Mussolini's Italy. We should also be declaring war on Hitler's Germany.
There are good reasons to consider attacking today's Italy, by which I mean Iraq. Saddam Hussein's regime has chemical and biological weapons and is trying to get nuclear capacity. But the briefings I have received suggest our efforts, for instance, to block him from obtaining necessary nuclear materials have been largely successful, as evidenced by the recent intercept of centrifuge tubes, and that he is years away from having nuclear capability.
So why does it make sense to attack this era's Italy and not Germany, especially when by attacking Italy, we are making Germany a more probable adversary?
The CIA has warned us that international terrorist organizations will probably use United States action against Iraq as a justification for striking us here in the homeland. You might ask: What does the word "probably" mean in intelligence speak. "Probably" means there is a 75 percent or greater chance of the event occurring. And the event is that international terrorist organizations will use United States action against Iraq as a justification for striking us here in the homeland.
Let me read a declassified portion of a CIA report recently presented to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence:
Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or [chemical and biological weapons] against the United States.
Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions.
Such terrorism might involve conventional means . . . or [chemical and biological weapons].
Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamic terrorists in conducting a [weapon of mass destruction] attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him.
In other words, the odds of another strike against the people of the United States by al-Qaida or one of the international terrorist groups goes up when we attack Baghdad.
The President should be in the most advantageous position to protect Americans, to launch preemptive strikes and hack off the heads of these snakes. With the resolution before us, we are denying the President that opportunity, and we are sending confusing signals to our people and our allies as to the sincerity of our commitment to the war on terrorism.
The American people and our allies gave President Bush their wholehearted support in the war on terrorism after September 11. They cheered our efforts to remove Osama bin Laden and the Taliban government from Afghanistan. A year after we commenced that war, action in Afghanistan has ground to a virtual halt. Osama bin Laden remains at large, and we have not moved aggressively beyond Afghanistan to take on the cells of al-Qaida operatives in other parts of the world.
We also know of sanctuaries, training camps where the next generation of terrorists are being trained and that those sanctuaries are going unattacked.
With sadness, I predict we will live to regret on this day, October 10, 2002, we stood by, and we allowed those terrorist organizations to continue growing in the shadows. It may be days, weeks, months, or years before they strike Americans again, but they will, and we will have allowed them to grow that capability.
If we are going to pass this resolution--and I expect we will--there are several things we should say about the need to protect the American people. Within the region of the Middle East and central Asia, we have a constellation of challenges, threats, and commitments of the United States. We need to use this period of time to begin to reduce the threat environment in that area by active, sustained U.S. diplomacy on two half-century-old disputes: The dispute between Israel and Palestine, and the dispute over Kashmir, the festering sore between two nuclear powers, India and Pakistan.
Second, the President a year ago should have ordered all of the law enforcement agencies under his control to design a comprehensive means of determining the number, location, and capability of terrorists who are living among us. But tonight, no one in our government can fully tell us which, when, where, and how terrorist organizations might hurt us. This I consider to be a stunning admission and an unnecessary vulnerability.
At this late hour, such action should be of the most urgent priority. This should be done, of course, within the confines of the protections afforded to all American persons by the Constitution of the United States.
Third, we should be moving to detain all those who can be legally detained who represent a threat to the United States.
Fourth, the President should direct the military forces of our country to prepare to execute a full-fledged war on terrorism. We must complete our mission in Afghanistan and then move to the next targets of al-Qaida cells.
Finally, I would advise the President to request of the Congress the authorities he needs to execute the war on terror and to protect Americans. Specifically, this should include the authority to use force against those international terrorist organizations with the greatest capability to kill Americans here at home, with the greatest history of having used their evil intent against Americans, and with the largest number of terrorist operatives located within the United States.
Our people need to know their government is doing all it can to keep them safe. Tonight many Americans are anxious and frightened, and they have cause to be. One year ago letters carrying anthrax killed five Americans, including one in my home State, and created great concern. That case has not yet been solved.
One year later, here in the Capital region, a sniper is randomly taking lives of innocent people going about their daily activities. Just hours ago, police confirmed the man who was shot last night while pumping gas into his car at a service station is the eighth victim, six of whom are dead. And in today's Washington Post, a front page article has the headline "Probe Less Cohesive Than Advertised."
It states:
Behind the scenes at the command central, however, interviews with leading investigators suggest that while some aspects of the massive effort are working well, others are fraught with the same turf battles, politics, leaks and confusion that historically have characterized manhunts of this size.
Are these acts that we are trying to unravel those of a madman, a mad scientist, a terrorist? The honest answer is that we do not know. In these frightening times, it is irresponsible to add to the anxiety of the American people by going to war with Iraq--without taking the additional steps required to curtail the possibility of more horrors being inflicted upon us here in our homeland. This resolution fails to take those steps.
Different people have different opinions of what our national security priorities should be. Clearly, some--including the President-- believe the first priority should be regime change in Baghdad. Others believe our first priority should be to disarm Iraq by removing its weapons of mass destruction. As important as they may be, I have a different view.
The United States has many challenges, threats, and commitments to respond to, particularly in the region of the Middle East and central Asia. These include the Israel-Palestine conflict, the India-Pakistan standoff, and the threats posed by weapons of mass destruction. Even if we say the No. 1 issue in the region should be containing weapons of mass destruction--especially nuclear weapons--I frankly do not believe Iraq should be our first concern. We do not know the full capabilities of the State of Israel, although we believe it has the full capacity to defend itself against attacks, or the threat of an attack. We are aware of the significant capacity possessed by India, Pakistan, and Iran. I can say without fear of contradiction that all of these possess substantially greater capabilities and means of delivering nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction than Iraq.
Of all the issues we care about, and those issues over which we have some capability to determine the outcome, in my judgment, the No. 1 priority should be the war on terrorism and its threat to the people of the United States in our homeland. Our top targets should be those groups that have the greatest potential to repeat what happened on September 11, killing thousands of Americans. Passing this timid resolution, I fear, will only increase the chances of Americans again being killed. That is not a burden of probability I am prepared to accept. Therefore, I will vote no.
I close with the words spoken in one of the darkest periods of the history of the Western World. In 1941, Winston Churchill said:
Never, never, never believe any war will be smooth and easy, or that anyone who embarks on the strange voyage can measure the tides and hurricanes he will encounter.
The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy, but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.
Mr. Reid: Madam President, how much time did the Senator from Florida use?
The Presiding Officer: The Senator used 20 minutes.
Mr. Reid: And he had 30 allocated to him. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Mikulski be recognized for 10 minutes.
The Presiding Officer: Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Maryland is recognized.
Ms. Mikulski: Madam President, after careful consideration, I have decided to oppose the Bush resolution on Iraq. This resolution would give President Bush the unilateral authority he seeks to go to war against Iraq without international support or international resources. The resolution includes only tepid language supporting diplomatic efforts at the United Nations.
The Senate is making a grave decision: Whether to give the President unlimited authority to go to war and send American military men and women into harm's way.
I take this responsibility very seriously. I have listened to the President and his advisors. I have consulted with experts and wise heads. I have participated in hearings and briefings as a member of the Senate, and particularly as a member of the Intelligence Committee. I have listened intently to my own constituents.
The American people are deeply ambivalent. The American people want a safer world, a world in which distant tyrants can't threaten us and our bases and our embassies and our treasured allies. The American people are counting on us to assess the Iraqi threat and to confront it with our allies. They and I firmly believe that Saddam Hussein is duplicitous, deceptive, and dangerous.
Iraq has grim and ghoulish weapons to carry out his evil plans. As part of the Gulf War cease-fire agreement, Saddam Hussein committed to destroying its chemical and biological and nuclear weapons programs and longer-range missiles. Instead, Saddam Hussein is trying to add nuclear weapons to an arsenal that already includes chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missiles.
These threats cannot be ignored and allowed to grow. But these are not only threats to us. These are threats to the international community, and the international community must share the responsibility of addressing them.
I support a robust multinational response to the Iraqi threat. That's why I supported the Levin resolution, urging the United Nations Security Council to fulfill President Bush's request to demand Iraqi disarmament, verified by unfettered inspections, and to authorize the use of multinational force if Iraq refuses to comply.
If the UN refuses to act, then Congress would consider a request from the President to authorize acting alone against Iraq.
Let me be very clear on one point. The United States always has the authority to take military action in self-defense. That is our right under international law, included as Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, and I support that.
President Bush says he has not yet decided whether the use of military force is necessary, and I take him at his word.
The United States should first exhaust all diplomatic and other non- military means.
The United States should give the United Nations the opportunity to fulfill its responsibility to address the Iraqi threat.
The United States should fully pursue whether the UN Security Council will authorize the use of multinational force.
The Bush resolution, the White House resolution, would authorize the President to send our Armed Forces to war against Iraq without any further consideration by Congress.
Under the Levin resolution, which I cosponsored, Congress would remain in session, standing ready to promptly reconsider if the UN does not meet the challenge.
I have had to ask myself, 'Why should the Senate wait to see what the United Nations will do before deciding on the unilateral use of force?
The answer is this:
Voting now in support of unilateral action would take the international community off the hook.
Why would the other members of the United Nations Security Council make the tough decision to effectively authorize war against a member state if they know the U.S. will do it by ourselves?
I believe this resolution would actually weaken the negotiating position of the President and the Secretary of State at the United Nations.
Why would other nations send their troops into harm's way if America is ready to send our troops without them?
Why would other nations join us to rebuild Iraq after a war if Uncle Sam is willing to bear the financial burden, as well as the dangers?
I'm concerned about the prospect of America going it alone because I've thought about the risks and consequences.
The risks and consequences of acting alone are so much greater than they would be for multinational action.
The risks to our troops are greater if allied forces do not join the mission.
The challenge in post-conflict Iraq is greater if other nations do not share the burden and the cost.
The consequences for the war on terrorism are greater if we lose the essential cooperation of other nations in the effort to pursue al-Qaida and other terrorist groups. The consequences on our economy would be severe.
A mandate from the United Nations would mean the international community against Saddam instead of the United States against Iraq, and other countries in the region would join our coalition rather than obstructing or opposing us.
I recognize that I will likely be in the minority on this vote. The Senate and House of Representatives will probably grant the President the broad authority he now seeks.
I will vote differently than the majority, but I want my constituents, particularly our men and women in uniform, to know that I believe my vote represents the wisest, most prudent course with them in mind.
America's soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines will always have my full and steadfast support. I stand accountable to the oath I took to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I hold myself accountable to my constituents, and I am prepared to defend this vote because I think when history is written, it would have been wiser not to give authority to go it alone right now.
I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized for 15 minutes.
Mr. Smith of New Hampshire: I thank the Chair.
Madam President, I can recall 11 years ago--12 years ago actually--I made my maiden speech on the floor of the Senate. It was about Saddam Hussein and going to war with President Bush in office. Here we are 12 years later doing the same thing.
I rise today to again support the President in his duty, I believe, to stop Iraq from bringing weapons of mass destruction throughout the world. When I addressed this topic in January of 1991, I said then that there was a lot of talk about George Bush--President Bush 41--leading us into war. What I said then, and I will say now, is that was wrong. It is Saddam Hussein who is leading us into war. The same holds true today as it did 12 years ago.
Those voices against the Desert Storm operation, some of whom are repeating this same antiwar rhetoric today, are simply wrong. The warmonger is Saddam Hussein. He is now moving us toward another major military engagement with the stakes even higher than they were 12 years ago.
Unfortunately, Desert Storm did not finish the job. There has been some criticism about that. Given the data and facts President Bush had at the time and with the U.N. resolution, he did what he had to do.
If we calculate the costs of air operations, no-fly zones, and other activities over these past 12 years, containment has not worked. In this age of weapons of mass destruction, relying on a policy of containment and deterrence is a risk we cannot and must not take.
I pulled out a copy of the speech I made in 1991. I do not know anyone in this body who wants war. I do not know anyone in America who wants war. I certainly do not. The President does not. Nobody wants war. Yet we heard today on the floor that President Bush is leading us into war, and that is wrong.
Thomas Paine, who is often quoted, over 200 years ago said: These are the times that try men's souls. This is the time that American service men and women are keenly aware of the enormous burden which the world events have placed upon us. I said that in 1991, and it is true today.
Unfortunately, Saddam Hussein is still with us. The stakes are high. We are in a virtual state of war now with Saddam Hussein and with Iraq, but it has not produced the necessary results. Saddam is again developing the potential to threaten us with weapons of mass destruction and with terrorist attacks.
This threat has to be met. It just simply has to be met head on. And the only answer is the overthrow of Saddam's regime one way or the other--domestically if possible, militarily if necessary. The stakes are simply too high not to do it.
I served in Vietnam. Others have served in war. We all know the stakes. If we do not do this, people may die. If we do this, people will die. Imagine the tremendous burden that is placed now upon the President of the United States.
Democracies do not threaten democracies, and democracies do not start wars. We would all be much safer nations if everybody believed the way we did, but that is not the way it is.
We have learned much in the wake of the vicious attack upon our country on September 11. Frankly, we were pretty much asleep. We were complacent. The terrorist attacks in Africa, the U.S.S. Cole, Khobar Towers, our barracks in Saudi Arabia--these losses were largely inflicted on our military and on our State Department personnel, but we were still largely oblivious to the risks we faced right here on American soil. We were not prepared for the devastation of 9/11 and the lives of nearly 3,000 innocent Americans lost. The total costs are immeasurable. Some say as much as a trillion dollars, but how about in the human loss? All the children orphaned, young people, men and women who were embarking on careers--what they might have contributed to America over the next several years we will never know.
What Saddam Hussein is doing has to be met. He is a threat to the people of the world. He is indeed a threat to the world. I know. I have seen enough intelligence on this over the past several years to know-- not only to believe it but to know it. Weapons of mass destruction-- nuclear, biological, and chemical, whatever they may be--can kill millions in insidious ways throughout the world. We simply cannot let this stand.
I know, having been there, the enormous burden felt by young men and women in uniform who will be there when and if this happens. They need our support. Have the debate, get the debate behind us, and get behind our men and women because they are going to have to do the work, and they deserve our support, unlike Vietnam when the troops did not get that support.
We need to find out where the links to al-Qaida are. They annihilate innocent people by virtue of their religious faith or their national identity. That is what they are doing. They will do it with terrorist bombs on their backs. They can do it with nuclear missiles or biological or chemical missiles as well.
If there are some in doubt, I urge them to go down to the Holocaust Museum and take a look and see what the cost of doing nothing is: 6 million innocent lives annihilated because we stood by as a world and let it go too long, and then we finally stopped it. We cannot let this go too long. Six million lives lost the way Hitler took them is horrible, and as despicable as it was, it is nothing compared to the number of lives that can be taken in more evil and despicable ways now.
Some say we should not take preemptive action. Preemptive action? There is already action taken against the United States of America. Remember the 3,000 people dead. This is not preemptive. We are reacting.
Our survival as a nation is at risk. Earlier this year in the wake of the unprecedented and vicious attack in the United States and world by al-Qaida, President Bush came before the American people in his State of the Union Address and unveiled his advocacy for regime change in Iraq.
That is a sound policy. And this is a terrible dilemma. How would you like to be the President of the United States today, sitting in the White House contemplating what has to be done? Criticized if you take action, criticized if you don't; risking death if you do, risking death if you don't.
There is no time in American history where a decision has been more important. There is no more important debate, ever, in my view, in American history where the stakes are higher than they are right now.
I am standing right now at the desk of Daniel Webster. He probably from this desk made some of the greatest speeches in the history of this body, but none of them, whether they were about slavery or all the great issues of the day of the 1830s and 1840s, even come close to the impact of what could happen by allowing this man, this despot, to move forward in the world unchecked.
We cannot rely on the United Nations, weapons inspectors, or Saddam's word that he is going to comply with inspections and disarm. I wish we could. Neville Chamberlain thought that about Hitler, didn't he?
Saddam Hussein's brutal dictatorship has reigned for 30 years. During these three decades, we have seen him attack Iran in a war that took a million lives; we have seen him repress, through murder and terror, ethnic and political elements in Iraq; We have seen him use weapons of mass destruction on 250 occasions against the civilian population. He had come close to producing a nuclear device before the gulf war and is successfully continuing these efforts despite several years of failed weapons inspections. He has breached international law. He has invaded Kuwait. He set oil wells on fire. He has threatened the stability of the world. He prompted the use of military force to contain him, and Saddam Hussein has tried to assassinate a former President of the United States of America.
He is a sponsor of Islamic terrorism throughout the world, and his regime has harbored the likes and established relations with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida. What more evidence do we need to act?
This resolution also touches my heart in another way. This resolution makes very brief mention that Iraq has failed to account for an American serviceman. It might be a small matter compared to the big issue of war with Iraq, but Captain Speicher, who was shot down over Iraq, was the first pilot lost in the war. He was pronounced dead by the Pentagon, but there is no evidence that he is dead. The information was incorrect. His status changed in January 2001. I worked for 7 years to change that status and President Clinton, to his credit, prior to leaving office, changed that status. I give him great credit for that because he very well may be a prisoner held by Saddam Hussein today. In short, whether he is a prisoner or not, Saddam Hussein knows what happened to him. We do not. This is simply unacceptable.
By not seeking a regime change in Iraq, by not backing our policies with military force, by not dismantling Saddam's regime and weapons of mass destruction, I am concerned America will repeat its folly and give Saddam the breathing room to produce a nuclear device, proliferate it, threaten to use it, or use it. He will continue to support terrorism which devastated our Nation.
I supported the resolution on Iraq during the administration of President Bush 41, and I will support the resolution of this President Bush to give him the power to authorize the use of military force against Iraq.
I will close with a comment I made in my closing remarks in 1991:
Stand with the Commander in Chief. Have the courage to stand with him who was elected by all of the American people. Stand with him, and stand with our sons and daughters in the Persian Gulf. Do not give Saddam Hussein a reason to doubt our resolve. Stand together. Let us discard Saddam Hussein on the garbage heap of history along with the other despots like Khrushchev, Stalin, and Hitler. That is where he belongs, and that is where we are going to put him sooner or later.
Unfortunately, it is a little bit later than we expected. We need not fear. We are the greatest Nation in the world, with the greatest people, and I believe it is the right thing to confront this monster and do it now. That is why I will be supporting President Bush.
I yield the floor.
