The Presiding Officer: Under the unanimous consent agreement, the question now occurs on agreeing to amendment No. 4856, as modified.
The amendment (No. 4856), as modified, was agreed to.
Mrs. Boxer: Mr. President, in 1991, just prior to the Persian Gulf war, I was the author of legislation that would have allowed one parent of a dual military couple to receive a waiver from deployment to areas where combat is imminent.
I remain very concerned about this issue and fear that if the President decides to use force against Iraq, minor children may face a situation in which both parents are deployed. The Military Family Resource Center estimates that there are approximately 35,000 dual military couples with children serving in the military today.
According to the Department of Defense, request for combat exceptions can be submitted at any time and military personnel may apply for reassignment for humanitarian or compassionate reasons. However, there are no specific policies restricting both parents from being assigned to a war zone.
I hope the Senator from Virginia, the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, will join me in urging the Secretary of Defense to do everything possible to see that dual military couples are not deployed concurrently to a war zone.
Mr. Warner: I understand the Senator's concerns, and I believe that the Department of Defense is already very sensitive to this situation, as reflected in the assignment policies of the military services. I trust the Department will continue to make every reasonable effort, through existing practices and policies, to avoid situations in which both parents would be deployed to a combat zone.
I thank the Senator from California for once again focusing attention on this issue.
Mr. Reid: Mr. President, this is an important issue that Senator Boxer has raised and that she has been concerned about for many years; that is, when both parents of minor children are in the military, the Secretary of Defense should make every effort to ensure that both parents are not deployed in combat at the same time.
If we do indeed go to war against Iraq, this is an important issue that needs to be addressed, and I thank the Senator from California for raising it.
Mr. Shelby: Mr President, I rise today in support of the resolution authorizing the use of military force against Iraq.
I support this resolution because the threat posed by the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein is real, immediate, and growing.
The threat is real because Saddam possesses conventional, chemical, and biological weapons. He also is doing everything in his power to acquire the means to construct and field nuclear weapons.
The threat is real because Saddam has used his conventional and chemical weapons to attack his neighbors and his own people.
The threat is real because Saddam has openly defied the world and has made no secret of his enmity toward the United States and our allies. Saddam even attempted to assassinate a former American President.
The threat is immediate and growing because Saddam has extensive and growing ties to terrorist organizations that have either attacked the United States or declared the United States to be a legitimate target of their twisted crusade that they call "jihad."
The threat is immediate and growing because Saddam has developed the ability to deliver his poisons and pestilence by unmanned aerial vehicles that can easily be smuggled into the United States.
The threat is immediate and growing because Saddam has circumvented the sanctions regime to such an extent that he is virtually unrestrained by resources in his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction.
Let me put this in a historical context.
Following its bloody war with Iran, Hussein's Iraq was heavily in debt. While continuing to spend billions on weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, Saddam, in 1990, invaded and plundered Kuwait in order to help pay his bills. With that act, he made it clear that his priority was to feed the war machine which kept him in power.
In 1991, Kuwait was liberated and the Persian Gulf war ended when Saddam Hussein committed to abide by U.N. Security Council resolutions. Since then, he has broken those commitments. He ignored U.N. weapons prohibitions and ruthlessly crushed rebellions of the Shia and the Kurds.
Today, he continues to violate U.N. resolutions, the very commitments he made to save his regime. His actions continue to impose terrible hardships on his own people. After a decade of sanctions, Saddams's unwillingness to relinquish his prohibited weapons programs continues to cost his country tens of billions of dollars.
There are those who believe that a new U.N. Security Council resolution and renewed inspections are the answer. In reality, inspections will accomplish little, delay the inevitable and provide Saddam with yet more time to field additional weapons of mass destruction.
U.N. Security Council Resolutions have required much of Saddam and produced very little.
Starting in April 1991, Resolution 687 requires Iraq to declare destroy, remove, or render harmless under U.N. or International Atomic Energy Agency supervision and not to use, develop, construct, or acquire all chemical and biological weapons, all ballistic missiles with ranges greater than 150 kilometers, and all nuclear weapons-usable material, including related material, equipment, and facilities. What has happened?
Saddam has refused to declare all parts of each WMD program, submitted several declarations as part of his aggressive efforts to deny and deceive inspectors, and ensured that certain elements of the program would remain concealed. The prohibition against developing delivery platforms with ranges greater than 150 km allowed Baghdad to research and develop shorter-range systems with applications for longer-range systems.
Additionally, the prohibition did not affect Iraqi efforts to convert full-size aircraft into unmanned aerial vehicles for use as potential WMD delivery systems with ranges far beyond 150 km.
Resolution 707 enacted in August 1991, requires Iraq to allow U.N. and International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, inspectors immediate and unrestricted access to any site they wish to inspect. it also demands that Iraq provide full, final, and complete disclosure of all aspects of its WMD programs; cease immediately any attempt to conceal, move, or destroy WMD-related material or equipment; allow UNSCOM and IAEA teams to use fixed-wing and helicopter flights throughout Iraq; and respond fully, completely, and promptly to any Special Commission questions or requests. What has happened?
In 1996, Saddam negotiated with the UNSCOM Executive Chairman modalities that it used to delay inspections, to restrict to four the number of inspectors allowed into any site Baghdad declared as "sensitive," and to prohibit them from visiting altogether sites regarded as sovereign. These modalities gave Iraq leverage over individual inspections. Iraq eventually allowed larger numbers of inspectors into such sites but only after time consuming negotiations at each site.
Resolution 715 adopted in October 1991, requires Iraq to submit to long-term monitoring of Iraqi WMD programs by UNSCOM and IAEA; approved detailed plans called for in United Nations Security Council Resolutions 687 and 707 for long-term monitoring.
In reality, Iraq generally accommodated U.N. monitors at declared sites but obstructed access and manipulated the monitoring process.
Beginning in March 1996, Resolution 1051 established the Iraqi export and import monitoring system. This system requires U.N. members to provide IAEA and UNSCOM with information on materials exported to Iraq that may be applicable to WMD production, and requires Iraq to report imports of all dual-use items.
In reality, Iraq is negotiating contracts for the procurement, outside of U.N. controls, of dual-use items with WMD applications. The U.N. lacks the staff needed to conduct thorough inspections of goods at Iraq's borders and to monitor imports inside Iraq.
In June 1996 the following resolutions were adopted: Resolutions 1060, 1115, 1134, 1137, 1154, 1194, and 1205. These demand that Iraq cooperate with UNSCOM and allow inspection teams immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to facilities for inspection and access to Iraqi officials for interviews. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1137 condemns Saddam for his refusal to allow entry into Iraq of UNSCOM officials on the grounds of their nationality and for his threats to the safety of U.N. reconnaissance aircraft.
Throughout the inspection process in Iraq, Saddam consistently sought to impede and limit UNSCOM by blocking access to numerous facilities, sanitizing sites before the arrival of inspectors and routinely attempting to deny inspectors access to requested sites and individuals. At times, Saddam would promise compliance to avoid consequences, only to renege later.
Resolution 1154 enacted in March 1998, demands that Iraq comply with UNSCOM and IAEA inspections and endorses the Secretary General's memorandum of understanding with Iraq, providing for "severest consequences" if Iraq fails to comply.
Resolution 1194 adopted in September 1998, condemns Iraq's decision to suspend cooperation with UNSCOM and the IAEA.
Resolution 1205 adopted November 1998, condemns Iraq's decision to cease cooperation with UNSCOM.
These resolutions were meaningless without Iraqi compliance. Baghdad refused to work with UNSCOM and instead negotiated with the Secretary General, whom it believed would be more sympathetic to Iraq's needs.
Finally, in December 1999, Resolution 1284 established the United Nations Monitoring, Verification, and Inspection Commission, UNMOVIC, replacing UNSCOM. The resolution demanded that Iraq allow the commission's teams immediate, unconditional, and unrestricted access to any and all aspects of Iraq's WMD programs.
Iraq repeatedly has rejected the unrestricted return of U.N. arms inspectors and claims that it has satisfied all U.N. resolutions relevant to disarmament. Compared with UNSCOM, Resolution 1284 gives the UNMOVIC chairman less authority, gives the Security Council a greater role in defining key disarmament tasks, and requires that inspectors be full-time U.N. employees.
Saddam has manipulated the U.N. before, and if permitted, he will do it again. Right now, Saddam is "shuffling the deck" to hide his prohibited items in anticipation of the return of inspectors.
I believe that inspectors will not set foot in Iraq until Baghdad is ready for them. If they were to return, they would be starting from square one in a hostile and deceitful environment.
In a June 11, 2000 article, Charles Duelfer, the former deputy executive chairman for UNSCOM, noted that, ". . . the attempt to disarm Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction was doomed from the start. This failure repeats the same mismatch between disarmament goals and disarmament mechanisms that frustrated efforts to disarm Germany . . ." after the First World War.
In the Versailles Treaty of 1919, the victorious allies imposed disarmament obligations upon a defeated Germany. An international organization called the Inter-Allied Control Commission was created to implement those provisions. The Germans, however, were very adept at denial and deception. Consequently, Germany was able to preserve illicit armaments and weapons production. The Germans argued that the inspectors were too demanding and acted like spies. Does this rhetoric sound familiar?
The lessons of appeasement are not intended solely for history classrooms. These lessons are to be learned and where relevant, applied. Saddam Hussein's priorities have not changed and I do not believe that they ever will, so we must act before his alliance with terror finds it way to our shores.
Much has been said about how unprecedented it would be to engage in anticipatory self defense by taking military action against Iraq. In one respect, this is true: it is a step that our country has historically tended to shy away from taking.
But "unprecedented" is not the same thing as illegal or improper. Scholars have debated the idea of anticipatory self-defense for many years, and while there is no consensus upon its exact meaning, the idea is clearly not foreign to international law.
Under article 2 of the United Nations Charter, countries may not use the "threat or use of force" in a manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Article 51 of the charter also recognizes that countries have an inherent right of both individual and collective self-defense.
Reading articles 2 and 51 together, it is clear to me that the right to self-defense can arise not only in response to the "use" of force but also in response to the threat of the use of force.
That this must be the case should be clear to anyone familiar with the dangers of the modern world. At some point in the past, it might have been possible to wait until an attack actually occurs before striking back. Today, however, such a rule would clearly be unworkable, so dangerously unworkable as to imperil the inherent right of self- defense in the first place.
Today, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction make it madness to wait until one is attacked first. These basic military realities compel us to understand the idea of self-defense in response to a threat in broader ways than before.
To paraphrase U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, the law is not a suicide pact.
The law does not require us to wait for a biological weapon such as smallpox or a genetically engineered anthrax strain to be used to kill potentially millions of Americans before we have the right to attack the would-be user.
Especially in this age of modern transportation, biological weapons know no boundaries. From 1918 to 1919, the influenza pandemic killed between 20 and 40 million people worldwide. Today's biological weapons scientists have the capacity to cause even worse mayhem, not just to any single target country, but perhaps to everyone on the planet.
We have long recognized such principles in our domestic law. A policeman, for instance, need not wait for a criminal to actually shoot at him before he can use lethal force in self-defense.
The United States has been involved in Iraq for years in attempting to enforce the many Security Council resolutions violated by Iraq. Throughout this entire period, Iraq has continually fired upon our forces, and those of our allies, with conventional weapons.
Iraq has a large and expanding biological and chemical weapons program. And he is doing everything in his power to add nuclear weapons and long-range ballistic missiles to his arsenal.
The law does not require us to wait to be attached with the other weapons in Saddam's arsenal before completing the task the Security Council has set for ending the threat Iraq poses to international peace and security. The law does not require this, and our security, and that of other countries in the region, and around the world, does not permit it.
I will close with these final thoughts. There are those at home and abroad who criticize U.S. intent to take action. I remind them that the United States did not pick this conflict. The United States doe not want this fight, Saddam Hussein forced our hand by not complying with his obligations under the 1991 cease fire. He forced our hand by not complying with U.N. resolutions. He forced our hand by building alliances with terrorists.
We do not make this decision lightly, we are very aware of the potential costs of taking action, but we are much more aware of the costs of not taking action. As said by Edmond Burke, "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Mr. Dorgan: Mr. President, I have decided that I will cast a vote tonight to authorize the President to use force if necessary to find and destroy any weapons of mass destruction under the control of Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
Some of my colleagues have expressed the ease with which they will vote to authorize the use of force. For me it has been very difficult.
When we cast a vote that could send our sons and daughters to war, it is deadly serious business. It requires us to ask tough questions and demand good answers.
And while I will vote to authorize the President to use force if necessary, I do so with reservation because I believe very strongly that force should be an option that is used only as a last resort, after all other diplomatic and peaceful means have been exhausted. And, if force is necessary , it ought to be carried out with a coalition of countries in whose interest it is to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction.
I want to stress that I would never have voted for the resolution in the form that the White House originally asked Congress to approve. That proposal asked Congress to give the President a blank check to use force, with or without the backing of other nations, not just to disarm Iraq, but also to deal with unspecified threats to American interests anywhere in the region.
However, the Joint Resolution that Congress will vote on tonight is fundamentally different from the one the President sent to us. It was narrowed substantially in scope through bipartisan negotiations.
First, this resolution focuses specifically on the threat posed by Iraq, instead of giving the President broad and unfocused authorization to take action in the region, as the Administration originally sought. Second, the resolution expresses the conviction that President Bush should continue to work through the United Nations to secure Iraq's compliance with U.N. resolutions. Third, this resolution makes it clear that the President must exhaust diplomatic and peaceful efforts before he can use force against Iraq. And fourth, this resolution protects the balance of power by requiring the President to comply with the War Powers Act.
I believe it is the right course to go to the United Nations, extract from the Security Council the tough new resolution requested by the President, and then coercively enforce that resolution with a coalition of countries who will not only bear the burden of fighting along side us if it is required, but who will also bear the expensive burden of occupation, peace keeping and nation building following any military action.
My fervent hope is that the Joint Resolution we pass tonight authorizing the President to use force if necessary to disarm Iraq will spur the United Nations Security Council to take similar action. And I hope that the action of Congress and the United Nations together will convince Saddam Hussein to allow complete and unfettered inspections and to cooperate in the elimination of any weapons of mass destruction that he still possesses.
With a backdrop of the September 11 terrorist attacks on the United States and the clear and present danger to our country of future terrorist attacks, coupled with the evidence that Saddam Hussein is aggressively trying to acquire nuclear weapons, I finally concluded that, if we err in this matter, we must err on the side of our national security interests. The stakes are too high, and the consequences too deadly to do otherwise.
The final point I will make about this resolution is that our confrontation with Iraq is dramatically different from our confrontation with any other "rogue" country. Saddam Hussein has consistently defied the terms of surrender to which he agreed at the end of the Gulf War in 1991. We know that he lied about his weapons of mass destruction and hid them from United Nations inspectors. We know that he secretly continued to produce chemical and biological agents. We know that he is still trying to acquire nuclear weapons.
I've been to the Incerlik Air Base in Turkey where American fighter pilots fly air cover over the Northern Iraq no-fly zone. I know firsthand that Iraq continues to fire on our pilots who are just doing what Saddam Hussein promised to allow under the terms of the Gulf War surrender.
I know there are some who say, "well, let's not be so hasty. There's another way, let's explore other options." But the fact is we have worked for 10 years without success to force Iraq to comply with the terms of its surrender following the Gulf War. So, to those who say let's give them more time, I say this situation is unique. Iraq has had a decade to comply, and the tyrant who runs it has demonstrated that he has no intention of complying without the threat of the use of force.
I will vote for this resolution because I think that it is important that we unite behind our President to deal with the clear and present danger that Iraq poses to our national security. But I want to point out a few concerns about aspects of this administration's foreign policy which I consider to be very troubling.
Recently the Bush administration released a new 33-page National Security Policy document that has alarmed even our closest allies because it declares that it is America's new policy to maintain overwhelming military might and to use preemptive force whenever and wherever it suits our national interests.
Few would deny that the United States has the right to go after terrorists or rogue states preemptively if we are in serious danger of being attacked by a weapon of mass destruction. So what in the world was the administration thinking when it decided to release this document at the same time that our diplomats around the world are seeking the support of the international community for action against Saddam Hussein?
In my judgment, this is an example of the Bush administration's approach to foreign policy that has largely abandoned the successful strategies we've employed for decades to weld together alliances and coalitions of our allies to tackle the threats and challenges of an unstable world.
Another issue that relates to this debate is America's role in the international effort to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
One of the centerpieces of the debate about the danger Iraq poses for the rest of the world is that Saddam Hussein might soon possess a nuclear weapon. I acknowledge the danger that would pose for the region and the rest of the world, but I want to ask those who are experiencing seizures over that prospect: where is their concern about the larger danger posed by the spread of nuclear weapons to other countries and to terrorists?
Year after year, and time after time those who now appear most alarmed about the prospect that Iraq would possess even one nuclear weapon, are the same people who are unwilling to exert U.S. leadership in the international effort to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
For example, President Bush has appointed John Bolton to be the Assistant Secretary of State responsible for arms control even though Bolton's stated position is that he doesn't believe in arms control. This administration, and its supporters in Congress, have demonstrated a lack of interest in making any effort to stop the spread of nuclear weapons.
They oppose the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty even though a blue-ribbon panel of the National Academies of Science recently concluded that the treaty would significantly enhance U.S. security by slowing the spread of nuclear weapons.
And this administration and its supporters want to deploy a new generation of "designer" nuclear weapons that could be used like conventional weapons. Nothing would do more to undermine international efforts to stigmatize countries that aspire to become nuclear powers.
Perhaps now the prospect of a country like Iraq acquiring one nuclear weapon will convince the Bush administration that safeguarding the nuclear weapons that exist around the world, reducing nuclear stockpiles, and stopping the proliferation of nuclear weapons to other countries and to terrorists must be among this country's top priorities.
There are somewhere in the neighborhood of 25,000-30,000 nuclear weapons in the world today. A fair number of them are not very well controlled, particularly in Russia, which has thousands of nuclear weapons in storage facilities that fall far short of American security standards. Russia also has enough highly enriched uranium and weapons-grade plutonium for 80,000 nuclear weapons. Much of it is poorly protected against theft or diversion.
One nuclear weapon in the wrong hands will make the devastating tragedy of 9/11 seem like a small incident by comparison. That is why this issue is so critical, and it is why I raise it now to point out the inconsistency of those who are pushing so hard to use force against Iraq but who are so unwilling to exhibit any muscle in dealing with the broader and potentially more devastating problem of the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
So I will vote for this Joint Resolution because I am convinced it is time for the United States to assume leadership in the effort to disarm Saddam Hussein and make Iraq live up to the commitments it made after the Gulf War. But I hope that President Bush will help prevent further Iraqs by stepping forward and exerting US leadership in the international effort to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.
Mr. Edwards: Mr. President, I am here to speak in support of the resolution before us, which I cosponsored. I believe we must vote for this resolution not because we want war, but because the national security of our country requires action. The prospect of using force to protect our security is the most difficult decision a Nation must ever make.
We all agree that this is not an easy decision. It carries many risks. If force proves necessary, it will also carry costs, certainly in resources, and perhaps in lives. After careful consideration, I believe that the risks of inaction are far greater than the risks of action.
Saddam Hussein's regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.
Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf war and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq's efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction.
By ignoring these resolutions, Saddam Hussein is undermining the credibility of the United Nations, openly violating international law, and making a mockery of the very idea of collective action that is so important to the United States and its allies.
We cannot allow Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons in violation of his own commitments, our commitments, and the world's commitments.
This resolution will send a clear message to Iraq and the world: America is united in its determination to eliminate forever the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
The United States must do as much as possible to build a new United Nations Security Council coalition against Saddam Hussein.
Although the administration was far too slow to start this diplomatic process, squandering valuable time to bring nations to our side, I support its recent efforts to forge a new U.N. Security Council resolution to disarm Iraq.
If inspectors go back into Iraq, they should do so with parameters that are air-tight, water-tight, and Saddam-tight. They should be allowed to see what they want when they want, anytime, anywhere, without warning, and without delay.
Yet if the Security Council is prevented from supporting this new effort, then the United States must be prepared to act with as many allies as possible to address this threat.
We must achieve the central goal of disarming Iraq. Of course, the best outcome would be a peaceful resolution of this issue. No one here wants war. We all hope that Saddam Hussein meets his obligations to existing Security Council Resolutions and agrees to disarm, but after 11 years of watching Hussein play shell-games with his weapons programs, there is little reason to believe he has any intention to comply with an even tougher resolution. We cannot trust Saddam Hussein, and we would be irresponsible to do so.
That is why we must be prepared to use force, if necessary, to disarm Saddam Hussein, and eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction once and for all.
Almost no one disagrees with these basic facts: that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a menace; that he has weapons of mass destruction and that he is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons; that he has supported terrorists; that he is a grave threat to the region, to vital allies like Israel, and to the United States; and that he is thwarting the will of the international community and undermining the United Nations' credibility.
Yet some question why Congress should act now to give the President the authority to act against Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
I believe we should act now for two reasons: first, bipartisan congressional action on a strong, unambiguous resolution, like the one before us now, will strengthen America's hand as we seek support from the Security Council and seek to enlist the cooperation of our allies.
If the administration continues its strong, if belated, diplomacy, backed by the bipartisan resolve of the Congress, I believe the United States will succeed in rallying many allies to our side.
Second, strong domestic support and a broad international coalition will make it less likely that force would need to be used. Saddam Hussein has one last chance to adhere to his obligations and disarm, and his past behavior shows that the only chance he will comply is if he is threatened with force.
Of course, there is no guarantee that he will comply even if threatened by force, but we must try.
Others argue that if even our allies support us, we should not support this resolution because confronting Iraq now would undermine the long-term fight against terrorist groups like al-Qaida. Yet, I believe that this is not an either-or choice. Our national security requires us to do both, and we can.
The resolution before us today is significantly better than the one the president initially submitted. It is not a blank check. It contains several provisions that I and many of my colleagues have long argued were required.
First, it gives the administration the authority to use all necessary means to eliminate the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
Second, it calls on the administration to do as much as possible to forge a new U.N. Security Council mandate, understanding that if new Security Council action proves impossible, the United States must be prepared to act with as many allies as will join us.
Third, it requires the administration to report to Congress on its plans to assist with Iraq's transition to democracy after Saddam Hussein is gone.
It is in America's national interest to help build an Iraq at peace with itself and its neighbors, because a democratic, tolerant and accountable Iraq will be a peaceful regional partner. Such an Iraq could serve as a model for the entire Arab world.
So far, we have not heard nearly enough from the administration about its plans for assisting the Iraqi people as they rebuild their lives and create a new, democratic government. The president has said that the U.S. will help, but he hasn't offered any details about how.
As we have learned in Afghanistan, this administration's words are not enough. This resolution will require the administration to move beyond its words and share with Congress, and the world, its concrete plans for how America will support a post-Saddam Iraq.
Finally, in taking this action, Congress must make clear that any actions against Iraq are part of a broader strategy to strengthen American security in the Middle East, and indeed around the world.
We must do more to support existing non-proliferation and disarmament programs that can help prevent access to the weapons-grade materials that tyrants like Saddam Hussein want. We must demand America's active and continuous involvement in addressing the crisis between Israel and the Palestinians, and promoting democratization throughout the Arab world. We must commit to developing a national strategy for energy security, one that would reduce our reliance on the Middle East for such critical resources.
The decision we must make now is one a nation never seeks. Yet when confronted with a danger as great as Saddam Hussein, it is a decision we must make. America's security requires nothing less.
Mr. Baucus: Mr. President, I rise today to speak out on the issue of Iraq. This conceivably is one of the most important issues that we as a governing body will address in what remains of the 107th Congress.
Let me start by saying that Saddam Hussein is a dangerous man. As many of my colleagues have already pointed out, he has actively engaged in attacking Americans in the region. He has actively engaged in deploying chemical and biological weapons against his own people. He has participated in genocide against his own people. He has continually deceived U.N. weapons inspectors. He has failed to comply with U.N. resolutions to disarm his weapons of mass destruction. He was involved in an assassination attempt against former President George Bush senior. He has committed serious acts of aggression against his neighbors.
These are all acts of a man that cannot be trusted.
Back in 1998, the Senate passed the Iraqi Liberation Act that declared it should be the policy of the United States to seek to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and replace him with a democratic government. I supported this bill and believe that Saddam continues to be a detriment to his people. The Iraqi people deserve a chance to be free from a vicious dictator.
Our actions today go far beyond declaring Saddam a danger to his people and to the rest of the world. Our actions today will authorize the use of force in the case Saddam refuses once again to defy U.N. resolutions and disarm. Our actions today could send our sons and daughters to battle. And, our actions today, if not handled cautiously, could erupt into a conflict we as a nation are not prepared to address. This is not something we can take lightly.
Last week, a bipartisan group of Congressmen and Senators brokered an agreement with the President and produced a resolution that strikes a good balance between diplomacy and force. The resolution supports exhausting diplomatic means to disarm Saddam prior to engaging in the use of force. It also provides the President with adequate flexibility to do what needs to be done in the case that Saddam refuses to disarm. I have cosponsored this bipartisan agreement and believe that the focus of the resolution is appropriate.
I believe that a strong resolution is necessary to protect the American people from threats posed by Saddam Hussein. And while I believe we should strive to garner the support of the U.N. and our allies around the world, we must ensure that we don't limit our ability to act to protect American lives.
Mr. Smith of Oregon: Mr. President, I have the privilege of serving in what was, for 30 years, Mark Hatfield's seat in the United States Senate. And as those who served with him know, no one is more dedicated to peace than Mark Hatfield. As I have thought about the question of going to war with Iraq, I find myself mindful of Senator Hatfield, and I am likewise committed to working for peace.
I am also very mindful of the Oregonians who have expressed to me their hopes and prayers for peace. And it is precisely because I want peace that I stand today to express my support for this resolution.
I believe in peace and diplomacy. These values have guided my service on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. And rather than an immediate declaration of war, I strongly believe that this resolution is but one step in a continuing diplomatic process.
I have no doubt that Saddam Hussein presents an imminent threat to America, our freedom and our way of life. The proof lies in Baghdad. Over the last decade we have collected a considerable body of evidence that Hussein is amassing weapons of mass destruction, weapons that he has already used on his own people.
It is only with a heavy heart that any of us can reach the solemn conclusion that our young men and women may have to risk their lives in defense of our Nation. But the heavy weight of proof moves us now to prevent the loss of more American lives.
More than a decade ago, the United States led a coalition of nations against the tyrannical regime of Saddam Hussein. The United Nations resolutions that followed Saddam's surrender required Iraq, among other things, to halt its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs, account for POWs from the Gulf War, and cease its support for terrorism. Since that time, Saddam Hussein has continually and flagrantly violated the U.N.'s requirements. In less than 12 years, he has defied 16 Security Council resolutions and provoked at least 30 Council statements condemning these violations. He has exploited the goodwill of the international community, oppressed his people, devastated his nation and developed weapons of mass destruction.
Today, as it was then, we are called as Americans not simply to contribute to an international coalition, but to lead it. That obligation became all the more clear when last year's terrorist attacks ushered in an era when threats are more tangible, where civilians are at risk, and where deterrence no longer works. I believe the free nations of the world will again join us in the fight against tyranny, and I still hold out hope that the danger Iraq poses can be eliminated without war.
But today, we must choose whether to allow Saddam Hussein to continue threatening the civilized world or to disarm him. I believe we must choose the latter. We will first exhaust every peaceful means in our effort, but confront him we must.
Saddam Hussein has attacked Iran, Israel, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. He recently called on the people of the Arab world to attack the United States and he is an avowed enemy of the democracy in the Middle East, Israel. He is a man who murdered his own people in chemical attacks and systematically attempted to destroy an ethnic minority in his nation. To believe that Saddam Hussein would hesitate to launch future attacks would be to turn a blind eye to a lethal mix of weapons of mass destruction and terrorists waiting to use them.
In addition to the arms we are certain he has, overwhelming evidence indicates that he continues to develop weapons of mass destruction with the full intention of using them. High level Iraqi defectors have provided similar evidence of biological and nuclear weapons programs, evidence that is substantiated by Saddam's actions. We know that he has sold $3 billion worth of oil illegally this year, money that is unaccounted for, while importing materials used in nuclear enrichment programs. All the while, he has called Iraq's nuclear scientists "the salvation of his nation."
On September 12, President Bush outlined these facts when he spoke to the United Nations. As he said then, Saddam is truly defying the U.N., not only the United States. The 16 resolutions Iraq has violated were not issued by the U.S. Congress, but by the U.N. Security Council, the highest body of international diplomacy. While few reasonable people would disagree that Saddam Hussein is dangerous and will attack America and its allies whenever it is possible, the President was correct in seeking international support for confronting Iraq.
Diplomacy and efforts toward peace are always preferable to war. But if war is unavoidable, it is best to have the backing of the world community. Immediately following the president's call to action, international support began to increase. And the president continues to build on that support. I believe that with the passage of this resolution we will see our allies join in lending our sons and daughters in seeking a peaceful regime in Iraq.
The United Nations now has the opportunity to prove itself to be an important world body. It is incumbent upon the U.N., and especially the Security Council, to ensure that if Saddam Hussein fails to fulfill his most recent commitments to weapons inspectors, he does not do so with impunity.
I would like to conclude by telling you about a trip I made earlier this year, I traveled to Coos Bay, OR to attend the memorial service of a remarkable young man named Byran Bertrand. Bryan was a 23-year-old Marine who gave his life for his country when his C-130 crashed into a mountain near the Afghan-Pakistan border. The memorial service program included excerpts from the last letter that Bryan had send this parents.
In this letter he explained why he had turned down the opportunity to return to duty in the United States. "You know me," wrote the former high school athlete, "I always hated sitting on the bench."
In those words, we can find our calling as a Nation. If Saddam Hussein does not comply with United Nations resolutions and if he continues to build and stockpile weapons of mass destruction, then America can no longer sit on the bench. We must take the heavy mantle of leadership to seek a peaceful regime change. This burden rests on the President, on the Congress, but more importantly, it rests on the people of the United States. For it is the American people, 3,000 of whom died on September 11, 2001, who are Saddam's targets. We are targets because ours is a Nation that is the beacon of liberty in the world. We must never forget that, and we must never take it for granted.
Mr. Harkin: Mr. President, the debate here in this chamber is being held in community halls, meeting places and living rooms across America and across Iowa. Many Iowans have told me in recent weeks that going to war should be the last resort for our Nation and I agree with them.
Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator, who has brought nothing but pain and suffering to the Iraqi people and threat and instability to his neighbors throughout the Persian Gulf and the Middle East. He invaded Iran before he invaded Kuwait. He has aided and abetted the suicide bombers. He is guilty of countless crimes against humanity. He has even used chemical weapons against men, women and children in his own country. I understand the grave danger posed to America and the whole international community by weapons of mass destruction in the hands of a reckless dictator like Saddam Hussein. Since the terrorist hijackings and anthrax attacks in America last year, which wantonly took the lives of more than 3,000 people, all Americans are rightly concerned about the safety of our homeland and united in supporting the brave men and women who defend us and the cause of freedom around the world.
While there is not definite evidence of prior close collaboration between the al-Qaeda criminals who attacked our nation last year and Saddam Hussein, there is no doubt they might find common cause in attacking us and our allies at any time. Simply put: it is clear to me that the current situation in Iraq is an on-going tragedy for the Iraqi people and an unacceptable menace for us, his neighbors, and the world. President Bush is to be commended for calling on the United Nations to confront this menace and Iraq's flagrant disregard of past Security Council Resolutions. It remains to be seen whether and how the UN Security Council will meet head-on the direct challenge posed by the continued failure of Saddam Hussein and the Government of Iraq to fully comply with 16 resolutions approved by the Council since 1991, including an ironclad requirement that Iraq destroy all of its biological and chemical weapons, dismantle its nuclear program, and submit to rigorous international inspections to verify its compliance.
But there is a right way and a wrong way to confront Saddam Hussein and to force him to relinquish all of the weapons of mass destruction at his disposal. Our policy, and certainly any fateful decision to actually go to war, must be made after careful deliberation and in full accordance with the U.S. Constitution and our Nation's laws. No President of either political party should be allowed to take our nation into war like the one that is now possible solely on his or her own authority. That is why last July Senator Specter and I were the first members of the Senate to introduce bipartisan legislation to require the Congress to debate and vote on a resolution to require the Congress to debate and vote on a resolution authorizing the use of force by American armed forces against Iraq before the President issued such an order. I think the President was right to provide additional information to the Congress and the American people and to put this issue before the Congress with the draft resolution of three weeks ago.
In my view, that first draft amounted to a blank check for the President to go to war with Iraq and other countries in the region, whenever he saw fit, and regardless of whether we had the backing of our allies inside and outside the region or in the international community. I have said that I could not have supported that resolution. It was too broad, too unqualified, and too far-reaching. I am glad that since then Republican and Democratic Senators across the political spectrum have recognized the need to narrow and improve upon the President's initial request. Senators Biden and Levin, Chairmen of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Armed Services Committee respectively, held essential hearings and formulated thoughtful legislative proposals. Their work reaffirms that the focus of U.S. policy should be to secure the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and the establishment of a new, effective international inspections regime to enforce that policy. Their careful approach also underscores the urgency and importance of maximizing our diplomatic efforts to secure the strongest possible U.N. Security Council resolution to force Saddam Hussein to relinquish his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction once and for all.
I also took to heart the President's statement in his address to the nation Monday night in which he said that the pending congressional resolution giving him the right to use force if necessary, "does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable." That statement is consistent with the approach I believe in, which can maximize the strength of our coalition and the success of our policy. Accordingly, at this point in time, I believe the President and the Congress should be united and focused like a laser on getting the strongest possible, enforceable resolution through the U.N. Security Council. That is why I will vote for the Levin resolution and why I ultimately will vote for the Lieberman resolution, too, if that is the final choice. But I want to be very clear that in voting for these resolutions, this Senator is not voting for immediate war with Iraq. I am voting for them in order to give the President and Secretary of State Powell the maximum leverage to persuade the UN Security Council to promptly approve a new, tough, resolution that requires Iraq to immediately allow unconditional, unfettered inspections designed to secure the complete disarmament of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. There should be clear consequences that follow from his failure to comply. And the UN inspectors should be given enough time to complete their work and to determine whether Iraq can be disarmed short of going to war.
I am concerned that if we immediately move to unilateral U.S. military action or in concert with only our British allies we will weaken our coalition efforts to wage and win the international fight against terrorism. This would also undermine international respect for the rule of law and the multilateral problem-solving institutions that America helped to create and which have served as the foundation for principled U.S. leadership in the world for 50 years and more. Indeed, I am concerned that precipitous U.S. military action against Iraq could result in our nation and world becoming less rather than more stable and secure. Under the terms of these resolutions, the President will be required to report to the Congress every 60 days on on-going diplomatic efforts at the UN Security Council and elsewhere to establish a tough new inspections regime and to force Saddam Hussein to destroy his weapons of mass destruction. At that time, we will have the opportunity to examine the issues again. Nobody knows for certain at this time, including the President of the United States, how best to compel Iraq to get rid of all of its weapons of mass destruction. But we do know, we all agree, that war must be a last resort, not a first response. We must work with the international community as much as possible to find new and enforceable means to deal with the Iraqi danger in ways that make this a safe world.
Mr. McConnell: Mr. President, the resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq is before us.
We are being asked to decide some fundamental questions about the world in which we live. But more significantly, we are being asked to decide what kind of world we choose for our children.
Essentially, the question is this: Is the world going to be safer today, tomorrow and in the years ahead if the United States leads an effort to rid the world of not only Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, but of a ruthless terrorist-supporting despot as well?
Here is what we have learned.
There is agreement that Saddam Hussein is amassing weapons of mass destruction--chemical, biological, and even nuclear--but some continue to naively believe that diplomatic initiatives and weapon inspections must be given a chance to succeed. There is consensus that Iraq is a state sponsor of terrorism, but some believe that America should not act alone against Iraq and that an attack on Iraq will detract from our ongoing pursuit of al-Qaida. There is concurrence that Saddam Hussein is a mass murderer of Iraqi, Kurdish, Kuwaiti and Iranian men, women, and children, but some believe that Iraq poses no immediate threat to the American people or those in Saddam's backyard, including our allies.
My views on this issue could not be more clear: Our Commander in Chief has requested the authority to use force against Iraq to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq" and Congress must authorize it and must do so now.
Nine days after the al-Qaida attacks on our soil, President Bush promised Congress and the world that America would bring the war on terrorism to the terrorists wherever they may hide. He intends to do just that in Iraq. This Congress and our entire nation stood as one with President Bush following the September 11th attacks. A year later, we must continue to stand behind his outstanding leadership in combating terrorism around the globe. This war on terrorism will not end--it must not end--until terrorists and their supporters are destroyed.
Let me say to my colleagues who suggest that diplomatic initiatives and weapon inspections can prevent the coming conflict with Iraq to look at recent history. Saddam Hussein has violated each and every one of the 16 U.N. Security Council Resolutions pertaining to Iraq. His armed forces continue to fire on American and coalition aircraft in the no-fly zone. Al-Qaida terrorists continue to leave footprints on Iraqi soil. And Saddam Hussein and his henchmen continue to make billions of dollars by exploiting the U.N.'s oil for food program and through other illicit activities.
Although the regime recently proved that it can fool some embarrassingly naive visiting American lawmakers into believing its empty assurances of cooperation and compliance, they are not duping this Senator--or the President.
More importantly, the American people will not follow the lead of these modern-day Neville Chamberlains and allow the United States to be played for a fool. For it is only a fool who does not learn from past mistakes, and the world has ten years of Iraqi lies from which to learn. Speaking before the United Nations General Assembly a day after the anniversary of the September 11th attacks, President Bush challenged the United Nations to maintain its relevancy in a world challenged by terror:
Iraq has answered a decade of U.N. demands with a decade of defiance. . . . [America] will work with the U.N. Security Council to meet our common challenge. If Iraq's regime defies us again, the world must move deliberately, decisively to hold Iraq to account. We will work with the U.N. Security Council for the necessary resolutions.
The fact is that President Bush is giving the United Nations and the international community a final chance to disarm Saddam Hussein through diplomatic means. But under no illusions of Saddam Hussein's violent and irrational character, the President has made clear that if reason fails, force will prevail. I am reminded of President Franklin Roosevelt insights into Nazi Germany and Adolph Hitler: "No man can tame a tiger into a kitten by stroking it. There can be no appeasement with ruthlessness. There can be no reasoning with an incendiary bomb."
Unfortunately, some of my colleagues seem to ignore this indisputable truth--and the fact that America is at war against global terrorists. Former Vice President Al Gore's recent attack on the President for his conduct of the war was ill-timed and ill-advised. A self proclaimed hawk, Mr. Gore alleged in a recent speech that in a single year, President Bush "squandered the international outpouring of sympathy, goodwill, and solidarity that followed the attacks of September 11th and converted it into anger and apprehension aimed much more at the United States than at the terrorist network. . . . " This is utter nonsense, and the American people are right to expect more from a former national leader.
Mr. Gore seems to have forgotten that in a single year the Bush administration liberated the people of Afghanistan from oppressive Taliban rule, destroyed and disrupted al-Qaida operations in South Asia and throughout the world, and bolstered homeland defense for the American people. If Mr. Gore belittles the victory in Afghanistan-- against what he describes as a "fifth rate military power"--why was it that his own administration failed to take decisive action to topple the Taliban and al-Qaida? One might surmise that they were too busy "feeling pain" to inflict any.
Mr. Gore's characterization of the pre-emptive use of force to prevent terrorist attacks as "a troubling new element" of U.S. foreign policy is similarly misguided. In the post-September 11th world, the Bush doctrine of pre-emption makes plain old common sense. Who among us disagrees that terrorists should be destroyed before they have a chance to again bring death and destruction on our family, friends, or neighbors? What do we say to the victims of a terrorist attack that we could have prevented--sorry, but Moscow, Paris, or Beijing objected to pre-emptive action?
The fact is that that America has the right and the responsibility to protect and defend its citizens against terrorism--be it from al Qaida terrorists or weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
Let me also dispel the myth that military action against Iraq will detract from ongoing operations against al-Qaida. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld testified before Congress last month that ". . . Iraq is part of the global war on terror. Stopping terrorist regimes from acquiring weapons of mass destruction is a key objective of that war. And we can fight all elements of the global war on terrorism simultaneously."
We have no choice but to fight these threats simultaneously. Our nation is at war. Given Saddam Hussein's use of chemical and biological weapons against his own people and his neighbors, it is reckless to dismiss the immediacy of the threats posed by his regime to the United States. We already know that he is a mass murderer and that he is armed and dangerous--to treat him otherwise is folly.
Saddam Hussein is also a danger to the region. Those nations reluctant to confront him would be wise to take note of the British Government's assessment that Iraq is capable of deploying chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes.
With Fort Campbell and the 101st Airborne Division in Kentucky, I understand firsthand what risks are posed to our military personnel by an attack on Iraq. Having fired the opening shots of Operation Desert Storm more than a decade ago, the Screaming Eagles are no strangers to that country. They--and the Special Forces soldiers of the 5th Group and the Night Stalkers of Task Force 160--are professionals, the best of best. America is fortunate to have such dedicated patriots serving on our front lines. We can be secure in the knowledge that if these troops return to the region, they will answer the call with the same determination and dedication as they did in 1991.
Let me conclude by saying that we did not ask for this war on terrorism.
But we will fight it and win it--on our terms and conditions.
