The Presiding Officer (Mr. Durbin): The Senator from Washington is recognized for 30 minutes.
Ms. Cantwell: Mr. President, I come to the floor today to discuss S.J. Res. 46, the Lieberman, Warner Bayh-McCain resolution, and the issue that everyone of my colleagues agree on--that Iraq is in serious violation of its U.S. and U.N. agreements prohibiting its possession of weapons of mass destruction.
What my colleagues cannot agree on is how we should go about disarming Iraq.
Let me add my views.
I believe that the best way to deal with the threat posed by Saddam Hussein is to build a multinational coalition and engage the United Nations.
But we can't ask the United Nations to disarm Saddam Hussein if we are not willing to disarm him ourselves.
Today's vote for S.J. Res. 46 is a statement of national resolve to disarm Saddam Hussein. By showing our unity as a nation, we help the United States unite the world against his continued effort to use weapons of mass destruction.
History has shown that we have been very patient with Saddam Hussein.
First, let us remember that the United States and 34 other nations were at war with Iraq in 1991.
After 3 months of war in which the U.S. coalition lost 556 lives and 502 wounded--including seven young men from my home State--not to mention the estimated 100,000 Iraqis killed--we negotiated a cease-fire agreement with Iraq that ended our military campaign.
This cease-fire was approved in return for Saddam Hussein's promise that he would unconditionally accept the destruction and removal of all biological, chemical and nuclear weapons and to allow U.N. inspectors to verify the elimination of these programs.
This cease-fire agreement was even signed by the Iraq government.
We staked lives, resources, and diplomatic weight on that promise, and yet here we are today because of the non-compliance of that issue.
If military action is eventually taken by a UN-backed effort or multinational US effort, that military action would not be a pre- emptive strike, but the enforcement of the Iraqi government cease fire agreement.
In fact, I would say we have been in a constant battle of enforcement for 11 years on this enforcement issue.
Shortly after the cease-fire agreement in 1991, Saddam Hussein started to thwart the cease fire agreement.
For 7 years, inspectors were sent to Iraq to verify his promise to disclose and destroy his cache of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, and for 7 years Hussein obstructed the inspectors efforts.
Saddam Hussein did hide and inspectors did find weapons of mass destruction--literally tons of them--most of which were unaccounted for in the final reports" and in clear breach of the cease-fire agreement.
Saddam Hussein even bugged the UNSCOM offices in Bahrain and New York, disguised weapons and hid them in various places. He leaked false intelligence and blatantly lied over, and as Sandra Mackey outlines in her book, "The Reckoning, Iraq and the Legacy of Saddam Hussein," "Hussein's tactical war of cheat and retreat with UN arms inspectors gave him power to remain a world figure and gain a hold over his own people."
What has been our response and the response of the United Nations?
We have tried economic sanctions to get Iraq to comply with the disarmament agreement--and they have failed miserably.
It is the innocent Iraqi people that feel the effects of sanctions, including hunger and a lack of medical care.
Saddam Hussein not only continues to eat well--hoarding much of the aid and food imported into Iraq through the oil-for-food program--but he builds palaces, and he devotes substantial riches toward developing weapons of mass destruction.
We have tried sending a strong signal to the United Nations.
In 1994, I joined my colleagues in the House of Representatives in calling for the United Nations to take action on Iraq's noncompliance.
The House resolution went even further and urged the President and the United Nations to establish a tribunal to charge Saddam Hussein as a war criminal.
That vote showed a clear consensus eight years ago when members of the House agreed that Saddam Hussein was neither a legitimate ruler nor an honest actor in the ceasefire and UN agreements.
In 1998, we increased military pressure in the region and even conducted a military strike under President Clinton called Operation Desert Fox--hoping that the threat of force and the destruction of military installations would bring Hussein to reason and allow the inspectors back in.
While this limited military pressure produced some initial results, as soon as the United States turned down the heat Saddam Hussein went back to his old ways.
Where are we today.
For 11 years since our cease-fire agreement with Iraq we have tried to stop Iraq's effort to develop weapons of mass destruction.
In reality, our efforts have failed to stop his continued build-up of weapons of mass destruction.
The United Nations should never have allowed Saddam to negotiate the terms of inspections.
When he crossed the line in the sand that separated Iraq from Kuwait, Hussein demonstrated to the world his absolute disregard for international law; and his defiance of the will of the international community.
He also displayed, on a world platform, his utter disdain for the principles of human rights and a free society; and revealed to the world a frightening weapons capacity, including chemical and biological weapons and substantial progress towards developing a nuclear weapon-- all of which he intended to use to advance his regional ambitions and threaten enemies.
Saddam Hussein is a global menace that we cannot simply wish away.
By doing nothing the world is not only failing to enforce the terms of a cease-fire that we fought for; but it is allowing a dangerous threat to grow that deserves renewed immediacy.
This immediacy was demonstrated 13 months ago, when we witnessed the devastating steps that terrorists were willing to take and we know that this problem is not going away; and Saddam only increases the danger.
Some citizens say there are other countries in the world producing weapons of mass destruction and could be a source of aid to terrorists. Why worry about Iraq?
I know of no other country that has posed such a unique threat by: Violating of US/UN cease-fire agreement to stop development of weapons of mass destruction; Using weapons of mass destruction in war or against its own people; and Refusing to help the U.S. in the Afghanistan war on terrorism and actually applauded the efforts of Al Quida of 9/11.
We are now considering a resolution that I believe will take a positive step towards effectively dealing with the threat of Saddam Hussein, his failure to comply with the terms of the 1991 ceasefire agreement.
The best way to do that is to bolster the President's and the U.S. efforts by sending a message to the U.N. Security Council that we must act. This vote tells the President of the United States we agree Saddam Hussein and his failure to comply with the cease-fire agreement constitutes a serious breach and a threat to global stability.
The vote tells the President we firmly support his promise to go to the United Nations Security Council and live up to the responsibilities to enforce a cease-fire agreement that Iraq has continued to try to subvert. This vote is a statement of national resolve that Saddam Hussein must be disarmed by peaceful means, if necessary, but by showing our unity as a nation, that we, the United States, will help eliminate this threat and will unite the world behind it.
Some have called this unconditional authorization. That is not the case. Senators Lieberman, Warner, Bayh, and others have made great progress on this legislation. There are conditions. It requires a limited scope of operations in the Iraq theater, continued consultation with Congress on military action, and serious reporting requirements to inform Congress of the commencement progress and plans of both operations and postwar strategies.
I make clear this resolution does not endorse a unilateral action. If for some reason the U.N. Security Council does not act, I expect the President to make a major and aggressive diplomatic effort to enlist other partners around the globe in doing the right thing to stop Hussein's efforts. The President has promised Members of Congress, including the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, that he would be committed to developing a coalition of allies for military action. We know how important these coalitions are. We expect the President to fulfill this promise.
My vote for this resolution does not mean I am convinced the administration has answered all the questions. In fact, I believe the following issues must be addressed--there are several--before the U.N. or the United States takes military action: First, it is clear we need a continued, multilateral approach. The President must continue to make the disarmament of Iraq a global issue. The rhetoric surrounding Iraq earlier this summer was unilateralist. It offended our allies and others who might have been with us. It brandished the view around the world that the United States is an arrogant power, and did serious damage to our relationship with many important powers in the Middle East region.
The President's September speech to the United Nations reflected a new chapter and much needed improvement in the administration's efforts to confront Saddam Hussein. He made clear that the priority of the administration was to mobilize an international effort to enforce the cease-fire.
Second, we must understand what our successful military strategy is. This vote is not an endorsement of the President's military strategy, mainly because we have not been given what it is. However, there is good reason to believe that this operation, which may require force to enter Baghdad, will prove substantially more complex and difficult and costly than Operation Desert Storm--not only in its economic cost, but most important, in the lives of soldiers and innocent Iraqi citizens. This is, indeed, a troubling scenario. And if the administration ultimately acts within the scope of this authorization, it must be up front and honest with Congress and the American people in explaining what we are up against.
Third, we must have a postwar commitment strategy. This vote is not an endorsement of the President's postwar scenario either, largely because I have not seen details on that. We have heard some broad outlines, if, in fact, action by the U.N. or U.S. troops were taken. But we need to realize the process of creating a peaceful and stable post-Saddam Iraq will be huge and expensive and politically volatile.
If the President does not commit to multilateral military action, we must similarly commit ourself to a serious long-term strategy to bring about freedom, representative democracy, and prosperity to the people of Iraq. This will require a substantial obligation and commitment.
Fourth, fighting the broader war on terrorism cannot be left behind. And while the President has made the point that this effort is related, we need to make sure if we commit troops to the Persian Gulf, that we will not be diminishing our other efforts on the war on terrorism.
Fifth, and probably the challenge that most of my colleagues have tried to address, maintaining the Middle East stability. I do remain very concerned about the effective military action and the volatile situation that may occur in the Middle East. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains in a disappointing and potentially volatile state. We must be aware that any action in Iraq and the possible extension to Israel poses a serious threat to the future peace in this region.
If the administration or the U.N. selects military action against Iraq within the scope of this resolution, we must work aggressively through diplomatic channels to ensure that such action is kept separate and distinct from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
And lastly, we must protect Iraqi civilians. We cannot diminish the serious concerns regarding the effective potential military action on that population. They have been the victims of a brutal, harsh and inhumane dictator who has not only stripped away their political liberty and free expression but also distributed to Iraqi populations economic deprivation, malnutrition, lack of medicine, and diverted billions of dollars into other programs.
If the President of the United States or the U.N. determines that we should move forward within the framework of this resolution and military action must be taken, it must be used as a last resort.
The President needs to take leadership and work with Congress to incorporate the issues I have just mentioned and come back to Congress and consult with them.
I take this vote very seriously. The men and women in the Armed Forces from Washington State may very well be called into action. Whether it be our troops at Fort Lewis, our refueling tankers flying out of Fairchild Air Force Base in Spokane, our cargo planes from McChord, our radio jammers or P-2 aircraft out of Whidbey Island, or even the men and women of the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln who were recently in the Persian Gulf, or the thousands of men and women serving in Washington State--I hope our vote tonight with the President's multilateral effort will lead to a successful result where we would not need to use these personnel. But if we do, I know these men and women will be ready to meet the task with conviction, resolve, and professionalism.
I do not now, nor have I ever believed, that military action is our preferred method to address international conflict. But I have seen over the last 11 years, Saddam Hussein has consistently failed to live up to the 1991 cease-fire agreement, and his noncompliance is a dangerous failure that this body must address. This problem is not going away. If anything, it will grow increasingly more dangerous as Saddam Hussein increases his chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons stockpile.
There is no question that we are looking for a strong and effective response from the United Nations Security Council, and I believe this vote sends an important message to the United Nations Security Council and gives the President the domestic backing he needs to get that international support. By being serious, forceful, and resolute in expressing our dissatisfaction with Saddam Hussein for his continued noncompliance, I think we are charting the best course for an international response. We are taking action in this body tonight, and we want the international community to take action with us.
I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer: Under the unanimous consent agreement, the Chair recognizes the Senator from North Dakota for 30 minutes.
Mr. Conrad: Mr. President, in a few moments we will make one of the most fateful decisions for our country. We will decide if we authorize the President to take this Nation to war. As with every momentous debate in this Chamber, our deliberations will resonate long into the future. Few decisions will have greater consequences to the people we represent and to the future of our Nation.
Before I ask young men and women to put themselves in harm's way, I must be convinced we have exhausted every other possibility, pursued every other avenue. For me, and I believe for the people I represent, war must be the last resort.
As we debate the course this Nation will take, some facts are clear and unassailable. Saddam Hussein is a menace to the whole region of the Middle East and a vicious tyrant who harms and oppresses his own people. He has waged war against neighboring nations, and he has attacked the people of his own country. He has acquired chemical and biological weapons. He is attempting to acquire nuclear weapons and the means to deliver those weapons using ballistic missiles.
There is no question that Saddam Hussein is ignoring the will of the United Nations and that he has not honored the agreements he made following the Gulf War. Saddam Hussein is a dangerous force in the world.
I agree that we must take action. The question is, What course do we take? How do we best protect the national security of our country?
A decade ago in the gulf war, Saddam Hussein launched a surprise attack on Kuwait and we rallied a powerful international response to defeat him. Today, we debate a much different scenario. Saddam has not directly threatened his neighbors since the gulf war. In a recent threat assessment from the Central Intelligence Agency, it concludes that Iraq is not likely to initiate a chemical or biological attack on the United States. Yet the President is contemplating a preemptive invasion of Iraq with the goal of ousting Saddam Hussein and installing a new regime. Never before in the history of this Nation has the Congress voted to authorize a preemptive attack on a country that has not first attacked us or our allies.
Let me be clear. I do not oppose the use of force against this lawless and dangerous tyrant, but I cannot support the resolution before us as it stands. It is too broad and open-ended, and I do not believe it is in the national security interest of the United States. In my judgment, an invasion of Iraq at this time would make the United States less secure rather than more secure. It would make a dangerous world even more dangerous.
First, we have unfinished business with the terrorists of al-Qaida. For the past year we have all agreed that combating al-Qaida was our first priority. News reports just this morning warned us of the danger of renewed terrorist attacks against our country, organized and orchestrated by al-Qaida. I believe defeating the terrorists who launched the attacks on the United States last September 11 must be our first priority before we launch a new war on a new front. Yet today the President asks us to take action against Iraq as a first priority. I believe that has the priority wrong.
Second, a unilateral invasion could prompt the very attack we seek to preempt. In just the last few days, the CIA has reported that there is a very low probability Saddam Hussein would launch a biological or chemical attack against the United States or our interests in the region. However, if we launch a unilateral invasion, the risk rises dramatically that a desperate Saddam would use biological and chemical weapons.
Brent Scowcroft, National Security Adviser to former President Bush, wrote that in the wake of an invasion:
Saddam would be likely to conclude he had nothing left to lose, leading him to unleash whatever weapons of mass destruction he possesses.
Third, an invasion of Iraq for the purposes of regime change would necessitate a march on Baghdad. Such a course would expose our forces on the ground to serious risks in hand-to-hand, street-by-street urban warfare in a foreign capital. We would lose much of our advantage in superior airpower and technology. The military and civilian casualties could be substantial.
The former Commander in Chief of the U.S. Central Command, retired Marine Corps General Joseph Hoar, testified before Congress:
In urban warfare you could run through battalions a day at a time. All our advantages of command and control, technology, mobility . . . are in part given up.
Those are sobering words--battalions a day at a time.
Fourth, a unilateral attack by the United States could destabilize an already volatile and dangerous region and inflame anti-American interests around the globe. An American invasion could doubtless impact the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The backlash in Arab nations could further energize and deepen anti-American sentiment. Al-Qaida and other terrorist groups could gain more willing suicide bombers and raise even greater financial resources from the wealthy nations of the region.
General Wesley Clark, the former Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, put it succinctly: "If we go in unilaterally or without the full weight of the international organizations behind us, if we go in with a very sparse number of allies. . . . we're liable to super-charge recruiting for al Qaeda." Let me repeat that. "We're liable to super- charge recruiting for al Qaeda."
Fifth, if this nation asserts that pre-emptive military attacks are justified in this conflict, what are the consequences for other conflicts around the globe? Would India or Pakistan claim the same justification in Kashmir, raising the prospect of nuclear war in South Asia? Could China use this precedent to attack Taiwan, potentially drawing the U.S. into a major war with China? Could Russia use this justification to re-occupy parts of the former Soviet Union?
And sixth, while the financial costs of this effort should not drive this debate, we cannot ignore them. The Congressional Budget Office has just estimated that an invasion of Iraq could cost this nation $6 billion to $9 billion a month. That is a significant financial toll at any time, but particularly when we are still engaged in conflict in Afghanistan. The economic downturn makes the expense even harder to bear.
CBO estimates that the costs of an invasion plus a five-year occupation would reach some $272 billion. How will we pay for this? Does the White House propose new taxes? Or are we to assume that this will be paid for out of the Social Security trust funds? Will we go deeper and deeper into debt? Or does the President suggest cuts in key domestic programs, such as education, highways, or healthcare.
Which brings me to my final point. If our goal is to topple Saddam, what is our responsibility for the regime that follows:
Forming a new government in Iraq is far from simple. There is no clear successor to Saddam Hussein. Iraq is a country filled with competing ethnic groups and religious and tribal factions with no history of democracy.
I do not want to see our forces mired in a long occupation, in dangerous territory, in a destabilized region, subject to violence within Iraq. I do not want to see the United States responsible for the stability of Iraq, the economy of Iraq, and the political future of that nation.
I began by saying that while I do not oppose the use of force against this dictator, war must be our last resort. I believe history has important lessons for us.
Many other dangerous dictators have acquired weapons of mass destruction, or tried to. Yet we successfully contained the Soviet Union, Communist China, and North Korea and others without resorting to a pre-emptive first strike. Again and again, we have seen the scenario. A vicious dictator amasses weapons of mass destruction, threatens his neighbors, and threatens the United States.
Always in the past, we have chosen containment and deterence--not invasion. In the past, we have contained the dictator, rallied international support to isolate him, and together with our allies carried out a disciplined, forceful and effective strategy of deterrence. We did not launch an invasion.
Even when the Soviet Union placed nuclear missiles just 90 miles off our coastline, we did not invade. Rather, President John F. Kennedy issued an ultimatum--a successful ultimatum. We demanded the removal of those missiles. We succeeded, and we brought the world back from the brink of a nuclear conflict that might have engulfed the world.
Historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., recently asked: "Why not . . . try the combination of containment and deterrence that won us the Cold War? Saddam is not likely to attack other countries. He knows that he would be playing into Bush's hands. Retaliation would be prompt and overwhelming, and Saddam has no interest in suicide. The one situation that might induce him to use his weaponry is a U.S. attack on Iraq."
The historical lesson is clear. There are disciplined and forceful actions we can take against dictators and aggressors short of invasion, actions that can succeed.
Clearly, if Saddam Hussein were to attack this country--or if we had strong evidence that an attack on this country were imminent--we would have every right to defend ourselves. In that case, Saddam should have no doubt that the United States would obliterate him.
If the President has new knowledge on an imminent threat from Iraq that contradicts the statement of his CIA Director just this week that an attack is unlikely, he should reveal it to this Congress. I believe in protecting our people and our allies from imminent danger. But I believe the President must present stronger evidence to the Congress and the American public before he reverses a strategy that has worked well against dictators around the world. Before this nation strikes first, strikes unilaterally, strikes preemptively, we must know how this threat is different from those that have come before.
Inaction and appeasement are not options. We must be prepared to use force to defend out national security interests, with or without the support of the UN. And I support the use of force against Iraq in the following circumstances.
We need no one's permission to fight back when attacked, and force would be fully justified in the case of an Iraqi attack against this country or our allies. Force would also be justified if we were presented with clear and compelling evidence Saddam was preparing an imminent attack on this nation, or on our allies.
Additionally, the use of force would be justified if we were provided with credible evidence that Saddam was linked to the September 11th attacks on this nation or if Saddam were to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.
Finally, I believe we must be prepared to use force in concert with our allies to destroy, Iraq's weapons of mass destruction if Saddam refuses to comply with UN resolutions ordering him to disarm.
I support the use of force when it is in our national security interest. I voted for the Levin amendment to authorize the use of force to disarm Saddam Hussein and affirm our right to self defense. I also voted for the Durbin amendment to authorize the use of force to destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
For all the reasons I have cited, I believe an invasion of Iraq must be a last resort, not a first response. Instead, I believe we can and should take a phased approach.
First, we should exhaust every option available to us at the United Nations. Saddam has defied the U.N. in the past, but the growing U.S. and international pressure, and the imminent threat of military action may give the process new life. Further, our allies will be more willing to join with us if we exhaust every option at the U.N.
Next, we should make every attempt to forge the same strong coalition of nations that brought Saddam to his knees during the Gulf War. The knowledge that he is an outlaw in the eyes of the world community will send a powerful message to Saddam to comply with the U.N. resolutions he agreed to after the Gulf War.
I believe we should issue an ultimatum to Saddam to allow weapons inspections and immediately disarm. If he does not comply we can then take swift military action to force his compliance and deprive him of his weapons. But I do not believe we should authorize an invasion of Iraq tonight.
I know this vote will place me with a small minority of colleagues here, but I must vote my conscience.
I say to the President and to my colleagues that while I do not support this resolution, I know it will pass. And if the President exercises the authority it grants him to launch a unilateral invasion of Iraq, I will stand with him. I will do everything in my power to support our troops and ask for the support of our allies. Like every American on that day, I will pray for the safety of our soldiers in battle, the wisdom of our leaders, a swift victory, and the lasting peace that has so far eluded the troubled peoples of the region.
Mr. Levin: Mr. President, I would like to explain why I am voting against final passage of the Lieberman amendment. I have already explained much of my reasoning during the debate on my earlier amendment, but I wanted to state my opposition in one place.
Section 4 of the Lieberman amendment authorizes the President to use the Armed Forces of the United States, one, "against the continuing threat posed by Iraq;" and, two, to "enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
This grant of authority under (1) above, with its threshold of "continuing threat," is virtually the issuance of a blank check to the President to use U.S. military force, since the Findings section of the amendment already contains the statement that "Iraq poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States."
The only limitation on the President's authority is found in section 4 of the amendment which requires that the President submit his determination to the Congress, within 48 hours after he exercises such authority, that further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone will not protect our national security or is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant Security Council Resolutions and that exercising such authority is consistent with the continuation of the United States and other countries actions against international terrorism.
This grant of authority is also unacceptable since it empowers the President to initiate the use of U.S. military force although the threat against which it is used is not imminent. International law has required that there be an imminent threat before one initiates an attack under the rubric of self defense. The resolution's language regrettably, therefore, serves to implement the President's desire, as expressed in his September 2002 National Security Strategy, to "adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities and objectives of today's adversaries." This unfortunate precedent, if followed by, for example, nation A as a justification to use aggressive military force in the name of self-defense against nation B that nation A perceives poses a continuing threat to it, although the threat is not imminent, could lead to an increase in violence and aggression throughout the world. And it could have extraordinary consequences for the world if one or both of such nations possess nuclear weapons, such as India and Pakistan.
The grant of authority under (2) above, to enforce all relevant U.N. Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq is also unacceptable. For instance, Iraq is presently in default on its obligations under relevant Security Council Resolutions that require it to return Kuwaiti archives and property. It is exceedingly unwise to provide such a broad grant of authority when the real threat that Iraq poses is because of its refusal to destroy its weapons of mass destruction and prohibited delivery systems.
The Lieberman amendment also sends the wrong message to the United Nations. It contradicts the thrust of the President's speech to the U.N. General Assembly on September 12 when he said "We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions" and "We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, and successful." That is so because, at the same time that Secretary of State Powell is trying to negotiate with the U.N. Security Council for the very resolution that the President said he wants, the Congress would be vesting extraordinary authority in the President of the United States to "go it alone," to use U.S. military force whether or not the Security Council authorizes Members States to use military force to enforce its resolutions. By telling the Security Council, if you don't act, we will, we are letting them off the hook. We should, instead, as we did at the time of the Gulf War, be putting all of our focus on having the Security Council adopt the requisite resolution and committing forces to implement it. We should be working to unite the world community, not divide it.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the Lieberman amendment compounds all of these problems by authorizing the use of U.S. military force at this time unilaterally, i.e., without U.N. Security Council authorization. The unilateral, go-it-alone use of U.S. military force carries with it all of the risks that could be avoided or, at least, reduced by acting multilaterally, i.e., with the strength and world- wide political acceptance that flows from U.N. authorization. If we act unilaterally, will we be able to secure the use of airbases, supply bases, and overflight rights that we need; will there be a reduction in the international support we are receiving for the war on terrorism; will it destabilize an already volatile region and undermine governments such as Jordan and Pakistan; will Saddam Hussein and his generals be more likely to use weapons of mass destruction against our forces and other nations in the region; will we be undercutting efforts to get other nations to help us with the expensive, lengthy task of stabilizing a post-Saddam Iraq? These are serious short- and long-term risks that will be exacerbated if we act unilaterally rather than multilaterally.
Accordingly, and for all of these reasons, I will cast my vote against final passage of the Lieberman amendment.
