Mrs. Feinstein: Mr. President, I have come to the floor to state that, after much deliberation, I have decided to vote for the resolution introduced by Senators Lieberman, Warner, Bayh and McCain.
In two prior floor statements, I have expressed my views. I serve as the senior Senator from California, representing 35 million people. That is a formidable task. People have weighed in by the tens of thousands. If I were just to cast a representative vote based on those who have voiced their opinions with my office--and with no other factors--I would have to vote against this resolution. But as a member of the Intelligence Committee, as someone who has read and discussed and studied the history of Iraq, the record of obfuscation and the terror Saddam Hussein has sown, one comes to the conclusion that he remains a consequential threat.
Although the ties between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida are tenuous, there should be no question that his entire government is forged and held together by terror: The terror of secret police in station wagons on street corners watching; The terror forged through assassinations and brutal murders of anyone who disagrees with him; And yes even of his own family members.
While the distance between the United States and Iraq is great, Saddam Hussein's ability to use his chemical and biological weapons against us is not constrained by geography--it can be accomplished in a number of different ways--which is what makes this threat so real and persuasive. I supported the Levin amendment, which authorized use of force pursuant to U.N. Security Council action, because it was the strongest resolution supporting a multilateral effort. I believe a multilateral effort, through the United Nations, provides a strong moral imprimatur and as such is preferable to America's taking preemptive action that could have consequences tomorrow and years after that--consequences we cannot imagine or even begin to understand today.
The original resolution sent to Congress by the President would have authorized a broad and sweeping use of force whenever or wherever he deemed necessary--literally any place on earth. It would have authorized the newly promulgated national security strategy of unilateral preemptive use of force in the defense of the nation in the war on terror. The resolution before us does not grant such a sweeping use of force. Rather, the use of force is confined to Iraq and targeted toward forcing Iraq to comply with 16 Security Council resolutions passed in the wake of the Persian Gulf war in 1991.
Most importantly, I believe the Lieberman resolution becomes a catalyst to encourage prompt, forceful and effective action by the United Nations to compel this long sought-after and much-evaded disarmament of weapons of mass destruction. Disarming Iraq under Saddam Hussein is necessary and vital to the safety and security of America, the Persian Gulf and the Middle East--let there be no doubt about this. But the decision to cast this vote does not come lightly. I continue to have serious concerns that there are those in the administration who would seek to use this authorization for a unilateral, preemptive attack against Iraq. I believe this would be a terrible mistake.
But I am reassured by statements made by the President in his address to the United Nations on September 12, which conveyed a major shift in the administration's approach--turning away from a preemptive strategy and, instead, engaging and challenging the U.N. Security Council to compel Iraq's disarmament and back this with force. I deeply believe that it is vital for the U.N. Security Council to approve a new, robust resolution requiring full and unconditional access to search for and destroy all weapons of mass destruction. Unfortunately, the Security Council has not yet taken this action. Nor do we, at this time, know if they will.
If one believes Iraq is a real threat, and I do, and if the United Nations fails to act, then the only alternative is military action led by the United States. Ironically, this authorization of use of force may well prompt the Security Council to act. Because if they do not, the United Nations becomes a paper tiger unable to enforce its mandates and unwilling to meet the challenge of this new day of danger.
For the past 11 years, Saddam Hussein has prevaricated, manipulated, deceived and violated every agreement he has made to disarm. If the past is prologue, this record means that arms inspections, alone, will not force disarmament. The great danger is a nuclear one. If Saddam Hussein achieves nuclear capability, the risk increases exponentially and the balance of power shifts radically in a deeply menacing way. As I said on this floor in earlier remarks, I believe that Saddam Hussein rules by terror and has squirreled away stores of biological and chemical weapons. He has used them on Kurdish villages and in his invasion of Iran.
Evidence indicates that he is engaged in developing nuclear weapons. However, today the best authorities I could find indicate he does not yet have nuclear capability. But this is only a question of time. And we cannot let Saddam Hussein become a nuclear power.
And, so, it is my intention to vote yes on the resolution before us. I do so with the hope that the United Nations will rise to the challenge and with the trust that the administration forge a coalition rather than go it alone. And I do so with the fervent prayer that it will not be necessary to place America's fighting forces or innocent civilians anywhere in harm's way.
Ms. Ladrieu: Mr. President, as Members of this body, there is no issue we face as grave and important as determining whether we should authorize force against Iraq that might place our men and women in uniform in mortal danger in order to protect the freedoms we cherish, and extend these freedoms to the people of Iraq, through the disarmament of a tyrant committed to harming his own people and the rest of the world. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, and as a citizen, I have given great consideration and thought to this course of action. Can I in good conscience authorize the use of force that could place someone's child, or my child, or someone's husband, wife, mother, or father in harm's way? Should the President commit troops to Iraq, American blood will certainly be shed. But, the authorization of force is recourse we must take.
For 11 years, Saddam Hussein has openly violated 16 U.N. resolutions calling on him to disarm; cease his production of weapons of mass destruction; and stop the ethnic cleansing of his own people. For 11 years, the people of Iraq have suffered. Furthermore, Saddam Hussein has made the world a much more dangerous place. His relish to produce chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons has only increased since the end of the Gulf War. Now, we have learned that he is harboring al-Qaida terrorists; strengthening his ties to al-Qaida; and financing terrorist organizations that promote suicide bomb attacks in Israel.
I am confident that the enactment of this resolution will give our President the tools he needs to bring the world community together to disarm this brutal tyrant through diplomacy. But, this resolution also gives the President authority to follow diplomacy with force, if necessary, to ensure that the threats Saddam Hussein brings to the world are neutralized.
The threat from Saddam Hussein's WMD programs is real and growing every day we fail to take action to disarm him. He has used WMD against his own people and his neighbors. We should not wonder whether he has any interest in using them against the U.S. or our allies.
As chair of the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee, along with Senator Roberts, the Subcommittee held a hearing in February to investigate the status of his WMD programs since inspectors left and the threat those weapons could pose to the U.S. At that hearing, the Subcommittee was faced with the blunt findings that Saddam successfully hid weapons while U.N. inspectors were in Iraq. Moreover, there are no mechanisms in place to prohibit Iraq from ramping up its production of biological and chemical weapons, and its quest for nuclear weapons.
At the hearing, Anthony Cordesman, from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, stated Iraq admitted in 1995, "that it had produced 30,000 liters of bulk biological agents. Iraq admitted it produced anthrax, botulinum toxins, and aflatoxins." We must remember it took only a few grams of Anthrax to throw the Senate and the East Coast of the U.S. into disarray. Worse yet, Iraq admitted it had affixed these biological agents to missile warheads and bombs.
Dr. Cordesman went on to say that UNSCOM believed Iraq had produced as much as 120,000 liters of biological weapons, not the 30,000 it admitted--enough to kill millions. Furthermore, UNSCOM has been out of Iraq for 4 years, yet UNSCOM stated that Iraq could reconstitute its biological weapons program within a matter of weeks after UNSCOM's departure. Imagine the destruction that could be caused by Saddam Hussein with his unchecked inventory of hundreds of thousands of liters of biological weapons. Again, he has the capability to injure or kill millions.
The Subcommittee also received testimony that Iraq has actively rebuilt its chemical weapons programs since UNSCOM was thrown out of Iraq. UNSCOM reported to the Security Council that Iraq withheld information related to Iraq's chemical weapons program. UNSCOM uncovered only a small portion of Iraq's chemical weapons. In fact, Iraq confiscated information gathered by UNSCOM regarding Iraq's chemical weapons, so the information could not be transmitted to the Security Council. Iraq also told UNSCOM Iraq had not armed missiles with VX gas--one of the deadliest of nerve agents. Yet, in 1998, UNSCOM discovered missiles tipped with VX. Soon after, UNSCOM was told to leave Iraq and Iraq has resumed chemical weapons production. It takes only 10 milligrams of VX to kill a person. A wine bottle full of VX could kill at least 75 people. We must find out how much VX Saddam has, and destroy it.
Moreover, Saddam Hussein is devoting much of his defense budget to becoming a nuclear power. After the Gulf War, we learned from the U.N. weapons inspectors that Iraq was within 1 year of developing nuclear weapons. Prior to the war, we thought Iraq was 5 to 7 years away. Since 1998, we cannot say with any certainty that we know the status of Iraq's nuclear program. Once again, Saddam could be less than a year away from a nuclear bomb. The world must know how close he is, and he must stop his nuclear development. Once he develops a nuclear program, we will never be able to shut it down.
For these reasons, we cannot take our time in passing this resolution. We must act now. Saddam Hussein has shown, on numerous occasions, his willingness to use WMD to attack his countrymen and his neighbors. He has killed 20,000 Iraqis in 40 villages with WMD. As President Bush said two nights ago, "Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."
I want to read from Charles Duelfer's testimony before the Emerging Threats and Capabilities Subcommittee's hearing on Iraq's WMD programs on February 27, 2002. Mr. Duelfer was the Deputy Executive Chairman of UNSCOM. He said that it is inconceivable that Iraq did not resume its WMD programs after UNSCOM left. Mr. Duelfer said it is difficult "to imagine circumstances under which this regime would end these programs" of WMD because . . . "the regime in Baghdad will devote full resources to its weapons programs . . . This has not changed even under sanctions . . . The regime seeks to dominate the region . . . The use of force comes naturally" to Saddam Hussein. WMD are his tools to dominate the region. If we wait to pass this resolution, Saddam will only continue to enlarge his WMD program; threaten the Middle East; and then threaten the U.S. He will never end his programs unless the world reins down on him to eliminate his tremendous capacity for killing.
This resolution is the proper tool to give the Administration a firm hand in negotiating with the world to disarm Saddam Hussein and eliminate his capacity to kill. We should pass the Lieberman-McCain Resolution immediately and overwhelmingly to show the world we are united. We must not tie the President's hands and the hands of Secretary Powell to negotiate a new Security Council Resolution that calls for the disarmament of Iraq--and the threat of force against Iraq if Saddam does not abide by the resolution. We can bring the Security Council on board if we can show them the United States stands together to disarm Saddam Hussein. If this body is divided, the U.N., and especially Saddam Hussein, will pay us no mind.
The best outcome is a new Security Council resolution that calls for unfettered inspections throughout Iraq, including Saddam's presidential palaces; the disarmament of all WMD; and the threat of force should Saddam Hussein not comply. That outcome has a better chance of becoming a reality if we pass this resolution.
The new U.N. resolution the President and Secretary Powell seek is our best chance to avoid a war. But the threat of force must be present to enforce a new resolution because Saddam only understands force. Again, Charles Duelfer testified before the Iraqis were perfectly willing to thumb their nose at UNSCOM because the U.N. had not authorized force to make Iraq comply.
Iraq's Deputy Foreign Minister, Tariq Aziz, regularly told Mr. Duelfer, "You are not General MacArthur (referring to MacArthur's occupation/disarmament of the Japanese) . . . Therefore, there are limits to what you can do." What Aziz meant was you have no authorized force; you have no army with you to make us show you what we have and where it is. A new resolution will only work if the threat of force lurks behind any Iraqi failure to obey.
This resolution is also a narrowly tailored authorization of force. It seeks peace before war to enforce past and future U.N. resolutions against Iraq. This resolution does not give the President carte blanche to use force throughout the Middle East for any reason. Force is only authorized to bring Iraq into compliance with U.N. resolutions--so that Iraq disarms its WMD; ceases production of WMD; does not threaten its neighbors, and does not repress and commit atrocities against its citizens with WMD.
This resolution correctly authorizes force for the violation of all 16 U.N. resolutions, because Saddam's crimes against humanity should concern America as much as his WMD capabilities.
America has been a tremendous defender of human rights. But, at times, we have not always defended the victims of ruthless dictators.
In Rwanda, 800,000 Rwandans were slaughtered in 12 months, yet America did nothing to stop the ethnic cleansing. America's failure to act in Rwanda could be the lowest point in American history. We should not make the same mistake by turning a blind eye to the Kurds and Shiites Saddam has tortured for years. Any resolution to dismantle his WMD must also call for him to end ethnic cleansing in Iraq.
In 1944, two Jews who escaped Auschwitz--and revealed the horrors of concentration camps to the world--asked the U.S. War Department and the War Refugee Board to bomb train tracks leading to Auschwitz so no more Jews could be brought there. U.S. bombers were already bombing fuel dumps near Auschwitz. Yet the War Refugee Board refused this simple request. John McCloy, the head of the Refugee Board, denied the request. He stated the operation did "not warrant the use of our resources." How could saving lives not warrant the use of American resources? As a result, between 500,000 and 800,000 Jews died at Auschwitz in the final year of WWII. These lives could have been saved, but we did not make it a priority.
We shouldn't now say that human rights are not worthy of U.S. and international diplomacy. We should not say that we are unwilling to disarm a dictator who brutalizes his people. If we do, we will have failed the world, again.
Fortunately, I think this body and the American people do care about human rights. We stood up for human rights in Kosovo. We used force against a sovereign leader, Milosevic, who was committed to the genocide of ethnic Albanians. Through American force, Milosevic was removed from power and indicted for numerous war crimes. We did the right thing for an oppressed people. And, I must remind you President Clinton did not seek Congressional authorization to use force in Kosovo. Today, unlike in Kosovo, the President does seek Congressional approval for force in an effort to seek a unified American front to disarm another leader threatening his people and the world.
But, I must say, again, that force is a last option under this resolution. The resolution requires the president not to use force until he presents his determination to Congress that diplomacy is no longer an option. This resolution is not a call to arms. The President will not roll tanks into Iraq as soon as we pass the Lieberman-McCain resolution. As the President said on Monday, "War is neither desirable nor inevitable." War can be avoided.
The President will seek Security Council support and support from other allies to bring about a diplomatic answer to disarm Saddam Hussein. I have no doubt that the President's first hope is to neutralize the Iraqi threat without invading Iraq.
But, if a Security Council resolution cannot be achieved and Saddam continues to jeopardize the livelihood of Americans--or if Saddam violates any future resolution--the President should have the authority to use force. Because his most important job as Commander in Chief is to keep the American people safe from a tyrant.
In conclusion, I want to, once again, reiterate my support for the Lieberman-McCain resolution. As a co-sponsor, this resolution is America's best effort to stand united to show the world, and especially Saddam Hussein, that we are committed to disarm Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, which are a clear and present danger to America and the world. Hopefully, this can be accomplished diplomatically with the world-wide support. But, this resolution also sends a clear signal that we are willing to use force to change Iraq's ways if Iraq continues to threaten the U.S.; if Iraq disobeys a new Security Council resolution; or if the President determines all diplomatic efforts have been exhausted. At that time, force may be necessary for America to defend herself. This resolution is the proper mix of diplomacy and force. As President Kennedy said, "Either alone, will fail." I hope the Senate will pass this resolution overwhelmingly to show solidarity and resolve to our friends and our enemies.
Mr. Santorum: Mr. President, I rise tonight to address the important resolution pending before the Senate concerning the authority to use military force against the Republic of Iraq. I firmly believe that this resolution we are debating will strengthen the hand of President Bush and the international community in forcing Saddam Hussein to disarm and to ensure his compliance with all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions.
I believe President Bush will do everything possible before deciding to commit U.S. military forces against Saddam Hussein's regime. The President has not decided to employ military force, nor does this resolution demand that he do so. Rather, the resolution signals to the President that Congress stands behind his decision to employ military force if Saddam Hussein fails to disarm or abide by all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions.
When he addressed the United Nations on September 12, 2002, President Bush convincingly and accurately presented the case against Saddam Hussein and his flouting of international norms and agreements. President Bush rightly called attention to Saddam Hussein's abysmal track record on complying with the terms of disarmament he accepted at the conclusion of the Persian Gulf war. In so doing, President Bush bucked current international attitudes that would prefer that we not call attention to his regime's activities.
Ever since the conclusion of the Persian Gulf war, we have seen Saddam behave with contempt towards those countries that see value in the United Nations resolutions and that ultimately seek a peaceful and stable Middle East. For more than 10 years, the world looked the other way and ignored the problem with the hope that Saddam Hussein and his regime would go away. Regretfully, Saddam Hussein has displayed remarkable staying power and a powerful appetite for acquiring weapons of mass destruction.
I commend President Bush for seeking congressional authorization for possible military action against Iraq and for consulting with Congress on the drafting of a truly bipartisan resolution. In response to those who condemn the United States for displaying "unilateralism," President Bush took his case to the United Nations and forced the world to acknowledge the realities of the Iraqi transgressions. The President is also right to seek a United Nations Security Council resolution authorizing a return of weapons inspectors to Iraq. These inspectors must have unfettered access to suspected weapons sites in Iraq. There can be no conditions or dickering over Iraq's national sovereignty. Saddam Hussein lost a war he initiated, he sued for peace, and he needs to accept the terms and conditions he pledged to honor. To expect anything less would be to condone his transgressions.
The President is being practical by raising the "what if" element to the debate. History has shown Saddam will go to elaborate measures to conceal and elude efforts to uncover his weapons of mass destruction capabilities and development efforts. It is only prudent that the U.S. Congress and all members of the U.N. Security Council consider authorizing measures to force Iraq's compliance with efforts to ensure disarmament. Earlier today, the House of Representatives passed this same resolution on a vote of 296 to 133, and I firmly believe that overwhelming bicameral approval of this resolution will strengthen the hand of the President in securing the strongest possible United Nations Security Council resolution.
In plain terms, the threat posed by Saddam Hussein is analogous to the threat posed by a drunk driver. The drunk driver is a threat to all on and in close proximity to the road. Behind the wheel of a rolling weapon, it is only a matter of time before the drunk driver crashes into another car, kills an innocent bystander or causes immense damage to someone's personal property. Saddam is this drunk driver careening along the road, a threat to all those innocents who have the misfortune to cross his path. It is time to get Saddam off the road before he can kill or injure innocents who cross his path.
For those who are critical of discussion or references to "regime change," I call to your attention section 3 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, P.L. 105-338. Section 3 of the act states: "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." Through this provision, Congress has already expressed its views on this subject. I applaud the efforts of the Bush administration to engage Iraqi opponents of Saddam Hussein and to work with these groups to provide a democratic alternative to this tyrant.
The United States has a strong record of restoring order and cultivating democracy in post-conflict regions of the globe. Examples such as post-World War II Germany and Japan are stellar illustrations of how the U.S. has worked to better defeated nations that strayed from the norms and rules of acceptable international behavior. In addition, unlike Afghanistan, Iraq is a wealthy nation with natural resources, an educated populace and a middle class--all elements that will bolster the chances of democracy thriving in this country. There is no reason to expect that with a concerted effort by the U.S. and other democratic nations that Iraq cannot join Israel as the only other Middle Eastern democracy.
But perhaps most important, benign neglect is not morally acceptable. Looking the other way will not and cannot improve the situation in Iraq and the threat Saddam Hussein poses to the world. There is a parallel between today's situation and the situation that confronted the civilized Western World of the 1930s. In that era, democratic leaders sought to appease the ambitions of Adolph Hitler and the Third Reich. World War II, the Holocaust and millions of military and civilian casualties are the outcome of that deferral of action.
President Bush's effort to compel compliance with applicable U.N. Security Council resolutions is our best chance for peaceful disarmament. Not one speaker here in the Senate has indicated that the status quo is acceptable or reasonable. It is painfully clear that one way or another we--preferably the U.S. in concert with our allies and the support of the United Nations--must deal with Saddam and his threat to our interests, our allies' interests, the stability of the Middle East and the interests of the civilized world.
In conclusion, given the events of September 11th, given the past transgressions of Saddam Hussein, and given the threat posed to the world by his weapons of mass destruction programs, it is imperative that we provide President Bush with the strongest hand possible to seek compliance with all applicable U.N. Security Council resolutions. The attacks of September 11th and the fateful decisions not taken in the 1930s illustrate that there is a cost to not taking corrective action in a prompt and decisive fashion.
It is my sincere hope that this resolution will rally the United Nations Security Council to draft a strong resolution forcing the disarmament of Saddam Hussein and his regime of terror. If the U.N. fails to act, the U.S. must do what is in the best interest of our national security interests and disarm Saddam Hussein. Today represents our best opportunity for peaceful disarmament disarmament on our terms and according to standards established by the U.N. and other civilized nations. To do or expect anything less is to shirk our moral obligation to meet the national security obligations of our country.
It is for this reason that I will vote in favor of the bipartisan resolution which is before us now.
Mr. Murkowski: Mr. President, we have a dilemma where we recognize that one individual, who has repeatedly defied the will of the international community, almost certainly has control over a concentration of weapons of mass destruction.
We have already seen this individual's willingness to use these weapons against his own people and against Iranian forces during the Iran-Iraq war.
So the question is, is it inevitable that sooner or later Saddam Hussein will again use weapons of mass destruction, and if so, against whom?
There is concern that if the United States and her allies use force against Iraq, Saddam will attempt to use his weapons of mass destruction in order to remain in power. It is a legitimate concern and one that must not be taken lightly.
But I ask my colleagues, if we are hesitant now, how hesitant will we be when Saddam Hussein possesses a nuclear capability? And what will Saddam do when he knows we are unwilling to take action?
We have seen Saddam's willingness to invade his neighbors--Iran and Kuwait. How much farther would Saddam have gone had he not been stopped by U.S.-led coalition forces?
In 1981, Israeli aircraft destroyed an Iraqi military reactor capable of producing nuclear weapons in a surprise, preemptive strike. Israel faced tremendous criticism from the world, but a decade later, during the gulf war, allied forces did not face a nuclear weapon capability from Iraq.
Last month, Secretary Rumsfeld testified before the Senate Armed Forces Committee that prior to Operation Desert Storm, the best intelligence estimates were that Iraq was at least 5 to 7 years away from having nuclear weapons. Yet, when coalition forces entered Iraq, we found that Iraq was 6 months to one year away, not 5 to 7 years.
How close is Saddam today from acquiring nuclear weapons capability? We don't know. We have not been able to place weapons inspectors in Iraq since 1998. Recent reports indicate one to five years, but just like 1991, we don't know for sure.
We do know that Saddam Hussein has developed weapons of mass destruction--weapons such as anthrax, VX, sarin and mustard gas. Are these weapons a country would use to defend itself? Or are these the weapons of an aggressor that would go to whatever means necessary to prevail?
And let's not forget about the threat of proliferation--the threat of Saddam sharing these weapons with like minded terrorist organizations who would not hesitate to use them against the United States and our allies.
Had we known in advance the tragic events of September 11, 2001, there is no doubt that the United States would have taken preemptive action against the al-Qaida terrorist network.
Every month, every year that Saddam Hussein remains in defiance of U.N. Security Council resolutions, we face an even larger, more deadly threat to the security of this great nation. As the President has said, to ignore these threats is to encourage them.
I am hopeful that the use of military action will not be necessary. That Saddam Hussein will fulfill the requirements of the United Nations Security Council. That he will allow full and unobstructed access to U.N. weapons inspectors to destroy all of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. But past history does not give much cause for hope.
In the 11 years since the Persian Gulf War, Saddam Hussein has blatantly ignored 16 U.N. Security Council Resolutions calling for the total destruction of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Eleven years; 16 Resolutions.
This is not a game. We are currently in a limited war with Iraq. So far in 2002, Iraq has fired on Allied fighter planes 409 times, 14 times this past weekend alone. Iraqi forces have fired anti-aircraft artillery 1,000 times, launched 600 rockets and fired nearly 60 surface-to-air missiles. Since Iraq set a letter accepting the return of weapons inspectors on September 16, they have fired on Allied forces 70 times.
The time for appeasement is over. We have seen the policy of appeasement prove ineffectual in the past. The League of Nations was unable to stop Germany from rearming itself and threatening her neighbors. Its policy of appeasement only served to advance Hitler's ambitions.
The United Nations now finds itself in a similar situation. It can choose to either enforce its own resolutions passed by the Security Council, or find itself irrelevant in the view of the world.
The U.N. Security Council is expected to soon take up its 17th resolution regarding Iraq. They deserve to hear, not just from the President of the United States, but the Congress of the United States as well.
We can wait. We can react after the fact. But at what point do we act? When do we recognize that Saddam is a threat, that he does train al-Qaida, that he does fund the terrorists? At a certain point in time, we have to face reality.
What if we left this session of the Congress without authorizing the President to take the appropriate action needed to defend the national security of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq?
How would we feel if--God forbid--Saddam was to take action and take American lives? We would feel we had been derelict in our obligation.
We have an obligation to provide for the security of the people of the United States. Do we follow a policy of appeasement?
Allowing Saddam Hussein to continue to build his weapons of mass destruction?
To continue to play a cat and mouse game of allowing weapons inspectors in, only to place conditions on their actions?
To continue to defy the international community, without fear of reprisal?
To take the chance that those terrorist networks that Saddam supports will not take action against the United States--with Saddam's weapons of mass destruction?
It is oil that built Iraq and it is oil dollars that keep Saddam in power.
Oil dollars fund the weapons, the research, and the training camps for terrorists that give Saddam a global reach.
Do we continue to import hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil from Iraq each day? In September 2002, it is estimated the U.S. imported 550,000 barrels a day. In September of 2001, we imported 1.2 million barrels a day--and broke an 11 year record.
The GAO reports Saddam received $6.6 billion in illegal revenue through smuggled oil since 1997, $1.5 billion in 2001 alone.
The number of vessels smuggling oil has dramatically risen in the past few months. In June through August, the Multi-national Interception Force boarded 297 vessels--nearly 100 per month--with 225,000 barrels of oil. Prior to that, the boarded an average of 12 vessels per month.
This is the Iraqi oil that powers our economy, fuels our school buses, and provides jet fuel for our fighters.
No longer should Iraq count on the United States to fund its regime.
We must pass an energy bill that helps reduce our dangerous dependence on Iraq. America must not be held victim to the whims of Saudi kings and Middle Eastern dictators.
We have an obligation to the American people. We have an obligation to send a strong, unified voice to the United Nations--Congress and the President, hand in hand--that it is time to stop appeasing Saddam.
It is time to enforce the multitude of resolutions already passed and it is time to remove the deadly threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
And if the United Nations is not willing to enforce its own resolutions, if the United Nations is not willing to make itself relevant, then the United States must not be afraid to stand up, to ensure that the national security of the United States is not endangered by the actions of Saddam Hussein.
I support this resolution. It is time to send a clear message to Saddam that we will no longer stand by while he develops these weapons that threaten the stability of the region, while he continues to defy the will of the international community, and while he poses a threat to the national security of the United States.
We cannot afford the risks of inaction. Not after the lessons we have learned from September 11.
Mrs. Lincoln: Mr. President, I rise today as the Mother of two sons as well as a proud member of this body.
I have come to my decision on this grave matter after going to every length to gather as much information as I could, then weighing it carefully with the general sentiment in my state that we should be very thoughtful. My constituents want us to consider the consequences of war.
I have asked the same questions of the President and his national security team that my constituents asked me. I understand that there are no easy choices when confronting a menace like Saddam Hussein. I have decided to support the Lieberman-Bayh resolution because I believe it gives the President the authority to act with military force if necessary while holding him accountable for a preferred, peaceful solution.
I look at my sons every day and wonder what kind of a world we are creating for them. I am sad that September 11, 2001 has forever changed our perspective on their future and ours. I regret that I cannot be sure that my boys will always be safe from terrorism. But, I am ever more resolved that we have a responsibility to eliminate the Saddam Husseins and Osama bin Ladens of the world. These are people who bear an irrational hatred toward America and the liberty and justice that we stand for. They have converted that hatred into weapons stockpiles and terrorist networks that threaten our way of life. We cannot stand idly by while they gain strength and underestimate our resolve.
Today, I make a difficult choice. I choose to give our President the authority to take military action against Iraq if necessary because I believe him when he says he does not want to go to war. I take our President at his word that disarming Saddam Hussein peacefully is his first choice. I support the notion that a unified Congress sends a strong message to our allies and gives our Secretary of State more leverage as he negotiates a new and tougher U.N. resolution that mandates weapons inspections in Iraq with military consequences if Saddam resists.
Saddam Hussein is a ruthless dictator. He has set himself apart from dictators of the past by using biological weapons against his own people. He has used them before and I don't want to be left with regret if he were to use them against our military or diplomatic personnel overseas, or even our allies. Our objective must be to disarm him before he can unleash his arsenal of chemical and biological weapons or before he can complete work on a nuclear weapon.
The time has come to no longer abide the threat that Saddam Hussein brings to everything that is good in this world. The time has come to eliminate his tools of destruction. Whether we do it alone or with the support of our allies, there can be no question that disarmament of Iraq cannot happen without the significant involvement, in fact the leadership, of the United States.
So I have concluded that Saddam Hussein understands only one kind of communication. A strongly worded U.N. resolution with the solid military backing of the Security Council may change his mind about cooperating. If it doesn't, he must know that his evil and treachery will have consequences.
Today I believe that the risk of doing nothing outweighs the risk of taking action. President Bush has pledged to me and the nation that he will exhaust a peaceful solution before resorting to a military solution. And I intend to hold him to his word.
I vote for this resolution with a heavy heart but also with the knowledge that we can't have it both ways. We cannot wish terrorism away without taking the necessary steps to ensure that our country, and certainly our children, are safe and free.
