Mr. Johnson: Mr. President, I rise today to offer my support for the pending resolution. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the Lieberman- Warner-McCain resolution because I believe it is in our national security interests to deal with the threat posed by Iraq. The world would be a far safer place without Saddam Hussein, and as long as he remains in power, he will continue to be a threat to the region, to the United States, and to his own people.
Saddam Hussein is a destabilizing force in the Middle East. A quick review of history reveals he has invaded two of his neighbors--Iran and Kuwait--causing massive destruction, killing hundreds of thousands of people, and bankrupting his country. During the gulf war, he launched ballistic missiles at civilian populations in Israel. He opposes the Middle East peace process and has provided financial rewards to the families of suicide bombers. He supports organizations engaged in terrorism and committed to the overthrow of governments within the region. It is clear that Saddam Hussein is an opponent of stability in the Middle East, and our efforts to build a lasting peace in the region is in jeopardy as long as he remains in power.
In addition to being a threat to his neighbors, Saddam Hussein is a threat to the United States and to our vital national security interests. There can be no doubt that Iraq has continued its drive to develop weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them. After the gulf war, Saddam Hussein agreed to open up his country to international inspectors, to destroy his weapons stockpiles, and to halt all weapons of mass destruction development programs. Despite near continual obstruction by Iraq, international weapons inspectors were able to uncover a portion of his extensive chemical and biological weapons, and gain vital information about his effort to develop nuclear weapons.
However, the weapons inspectors' progress was thwarted when Saddam Hussein forced them to leave the country in 1998. For 4 years, he has been able to pursue chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons capabilities outside the watchful eye of the international community. While Iraq has agreed to allow the weapons inspectors to return, I am skeptical that Saddam Hussein will keep his word and allow unfettered access to suspect sites. Already there are indications that the agreement under which the inspectors will return allows Iraq to forbid entrance into certain key locations. Without full and guaranteed access to all sites, this inspection regime is likely to fail and prove to be just another delaying tactic.
Saddam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction is in itself a threat to the United States, but equally concerning is his ties to international terrorism. It is clear that Iraq is in violation of its obligation to renounce terrorism and to halt its support for terrorist organizations. Recently, the Bush administration announced that it has evidence linking Saddam Hussein with international terrorists. A link between Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction and al-Qaida terrorists would be the gravest threat facing our Nation and would require immediate action by the United States.
Given this threat, and the fact that Iraq is in violation of 16 separate United Nations Security Council resolutions, the United States is well within its rights to act militarily to protect the safety of the American people. I disagree with those who argue our actions must be tied to prior approval by the United Nations. The defense of our Nation should not be dictated by other countries or international organizations. If necessary, the United States should be prepared to act alone.
However, I strongly support efforts to build international support prior to military action against Iraq. The support of our allies, and the international community as a whole, will increase the chances of success for our policy in Iraq and in the ongoing fight against global terrorism. One reason why I support the pending resolution is that I believe a strong vote by Congress will signal our national unity and make it more likely that the President will succeed in creating a strong international coalition.
While much of our focus has been on preparing for possible military action against Iraq, and working with the international community to resume inspections of Iraq's suspected weapons of mass destruction sites, I believe we must also begin the process of planning for a post- Saddam Hussein Iraq. As a part of this, we must begin to talk to the Iraqi people and enlist their support in the fight against Saddam Hussein. There can be no doubt that no one has suffered more from Saddam Hussein's regime than the people of Iraq.
The list of crimes Saddam Hussein has perpetrated against his own citizens is shocking. Since 1997, he has killed over 2,500 prisoners-- many of whom were jailed simply for their opposition to his regime. He has repressed both the Kurds in the north and the Shiites in the south by causing environmental devastation, demolishing homes, destroying villages, and creating hundreds of thousands of internally displaced people throughout the country. In 1988 in the village of Halabja, he used chemical weapons to kill more than 5,000 innocent Iraqi civilians. And while thousands of his people starve, Saddam Hussein diverts much needed food and medicine from the U.N.'s Oil for Food Program for his own enrichment.
Given his history, the Iraqi people should no doubt welcome the end of Saddam Hussein's brutal regime. We should ask for their support in ousting Saddam by assuring them that our goal is nothing short of helping them establish a functioning, democratic society. Iraq enjoys a wealth of natural resources and a well-educated, innovative population. The Iraqi people may well thrive once they are allowed to harness the power of democracy and free markets.
I believe we can succeed in helping the Iraqi people create a better country. It will be difficult and will take a long-term commitment from the United States. But ultimately, the success of our efforts in Iraq will be judged by our ability to make sure that Saddam Hussein is not simply replaced by another dictator who will pursue weapons of mass destruction, invade his neighbors, and support global terrorism.
This vote has particular significance to me. My son, Brooks, is currently serving in the 101st Airborne. The 101st is one of the Army divisions that has been identified by military leaders as likely to prosecute the war against Iraq. I know that a vote in favor of this resolution may be a vote to send my own son to war. Given this, I do not take this vote lightly. I am very proud of my son, and of the thousands of South Dakotans serving in our Armed Forces, and I know they are prepared to do what is necessary to protect the United States.
I will vote for this resolution because I know putting a stop to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program and ending Saddam Hussein's brutal dictatorship is in our national security interests and vital to protecting the American people. While this approach is not without danger, the greatest danger of all would be in a failure of the U.S. and the world community to act in a decisive and urgent manner.
Mr. Lieberman: Mr. President, what weapons, exactly, does Saddam Hussein have, and what could he do with them? When we are talking about this dangerous dictator, that is not a hypothetical question. We can see what he has done already with the chemicals he has developed. We don't have to imagine; we need only extrapolate.
Saddam Hussein not only has large and growing stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. He alone among the dictators of the world has shown a willingness to use them.
In the 1980s Iran-Iraq War, Iraqi troops repeatedly used poison gas, including mustard gas and the nerve agent sarin, against Iranian soldiers. And Saddam has repeatedly attacked Kurds in the north with chemical weapons, namely nerve agents and mustard gas, the most horrifying single attack coming in Halabja in 1988.
It is one thing to see nations accumulate dangerous weapons for purely deterrent and defensive purposes. It is another entirely to see a dictator develop such weapons and deploy them to murder opponents of his regime and wage offensive war against a neighbor.
That is why we must look with special scrutiny on Saddam's stockpiles.
When the U.N. inspectors were forced out of Iraq in 1998, here is what was unaccounted for: up to 360 tons of bulk chemical warfare agents, including one and a half tons of VX nerve agent; up to 3,00 tons of precursor chemicals; growth media sufficient to produce 26,000 liters of anthrax spores; and over 30,000 special munitions for delivery of chemical and biological agents.
Those are just the leftovers that we know about. Then add to that all the deadly weapons that Saddam has been cooking up over the last 11 years. We know Iraq continues to produce chemical agents for chemical weapons. We know Saddam has rebuilt previously destroyed production plants across Iraq. We know he has retained the key personnel formerly engaged in the chemical weapons program. He has mustard gas, VX nerve agent, and a range of other chemical weapons.
The record repeats itself with biological weapons. Intelligence shows us that production has continued. Facilities formerly used for biological weapons have been rebuilt. Equipment has been purchased. And Saddam has retained the personnel who worked on it before the gulf war. Indeed, UNSCOM found that Iraq was working to build mobile biological weapons facilities which are easier to conceal. It appears that they now have such facilities. The biological agents we believe Iraq can produce include anthrax, botulinum, toxin, aflatoxin and ricin.
Perhaps we recite the litany, "chemical, biological, working on nuclear," so often that it loses some of its meaning. British Prime Minister Tony Blair has warned against us developing a kind of "word fatigue" when it comes to these weapons, and I take that warning to heart.
"New Yorker" writer Jeffrey Goldberg has traveled to the region and done significant reporting on Saddam's capabilities and his intentions--on his deadly weapons and his brutal will. Let me read a piece Mr. Goldberg wrote in the online magazine Slate that puts Saddam's possession of at least one of these toxins in sharp relief. I quote:
In 1995, the government of Saddam Hussein admitted to United Nations weapons inspectors that its scientists had weaponized a biological agent called aflatoxin. Charles Duelfer, the former deputy executive chairman of the now-- defunct UNSCOM, told me earlier this year that the Iraqi admission was startling because aflatoxin has no possible battlefield use. Aflatoxin, which is made from fungi that occur in moldy grains, does only one thing well: It causes liver cancer. In fact, it induces it particularly well in children. Its effects are far from immediate. The joke among weapons inspectors is that aflatoxin would stop a lieutenant from making colonel, but it would not stop soldiers from advancing across a battlefield.
I quoted Duelfer, in an article that appeared in the New Yorker, saying that "we kept pressing the Iraqis to discuss the concept of use of aflatoxin." They never came up with an adequate explanation, he said. They did admit, however, that they had loaded aflatoxin into two warheads capable of being fitted onto Scud missiles.
Richard Spertzel, who was the chief biological weapons inspector for UNSCOM, told me that aflatoxin is "a devilish weapon. From a moral standpoint, aflatoxin is the cruelest weapons, it means watching children die slowly of liver cancer."
Spertzel went on to say that, to his knowledge, Iraq is the only country ever to weaponize aflatoxin.
In an advertisement that appeared in the New York Times on Tuesday, a group of worthies called upon the American people to summon the courage to question the war plans of President Bush. The advertisement, which was sponsored by Common Cause, asks, in reference to the Saddam regime, "Of all the repugnant dictatorships, why this one?" . . .
. . . There are, of course, many repugnant dictators in the world; a dozen or so in the Middle East alone. But Saddam Hussein is a figure of singular repugnance, and singular danger. To review: There is no dictator in power anywhere in the world who has, so far in his career, invaded two neighboring countries; fired ballistic missiles at the civilians of two other neighboring countries; tried to have assassinated an ex-president of the United States; harbored al-Quaida fugitives; attacked civilians with chemical weapons; attacked the soldiers of an enemy country with chemical weapons; conducted biological weapons experiments on human subjects; committed genocide; and then there is, of course, the matter of the weaponized aflatoxin, a tool of mass murder and nothing else.
I do not know how any thinking person could believe that Saddam Hussein is a run-of-the-mill dictator. No one else comes close . . . to matching his extraordinary and variegated record of malevolence.
Earlier this year, while traveling across northern Iraq, I interviewed more than 100 survivors of Saddam's campaign of chemical genocide. I will not recite the statistics, or recount the horror stories here, except to say that I met enough barren and cancer-ridden women in Iraqi Kurdistan to last me several lifetimes.
So: Saddam Hussein is uniquely evil, the only ruler in power today--and the first one since Hitler--to commit chemical genocide. Is that enough of a reason to remove him from power? I would say yes, if "never again" is in fact actually to mean "never again."
That is why every day this man remains in power is a day of danger for the American people, the Iraqi people, and, indeed, the people of the world.
Let me give you one more example that is as disturbing as aflatoxin. It is botulinum toxin, the cause of botulism, which comes from bacteria found in the soil. After the gulf war, United Nations weapons inspectors found that Iraq had produced tons of botulinum toxin, some of it loaded into missiles and bombs. Let me repeat. Years ago, inspectors found tons, some of it weaponized. So we know Saddam has experience with this weapon.
For smallpox, there is a vaccine. Anthrax and other bacterial agents can be treated with antibiotics. But botulism is a toxin, a poisonous chemical made by bacteria. Let than a handful of pure botulinum toxin, evenly dispersed in an aerosol, would be enough to kill more than a million people. The only treatment for botulism poisoning is an anti- toxin made from horse serum, and it only works about half the time.
There is a horror story for every biological or chemical agent in this man's arsenal. I don't need to go through them all. We only need to understand that these horror stories could come true if we do not confront Saddam's devious designs.
Some insist, and I don't understand this claim, that chemical and biological weapons aren't all that troubling. They say we need only really worry about nuclear weapons.
Given what I have just explained, I think that is a dangerous assumption. But assume for a moment that Saddam has no chemical weapons and no biological weapons. Would there be cause for forceful United Nations action, and, failing that, American military action?
I say, yes, without a doubt.
There is now a consensus belief that Saddam could have an atomic weapon within months of acquiring fissile material. Based on the best estimates, his regime could manufacture the fuel itself within as little as 3 years. There is no way to measure now long it might take Saddam to acquire the fuel from an outside source. He could be attempting to do so as we speak. Indeed, it would be naive to assume otherwise.
This leads to a critical question, and perhaps the threshold question in the debate. How long do my fellow Senators suggest we wait? Until we know, beyond dispute, if there is ever such evidence beyond dispute, that Saddam is 1 month away from obtaining a nuclear weapon and the means to deliver it? Until we know beyond dispute that he is a week away? Or perhaps we should wait until he has it?
In 1996, the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA, reported that Iraq had all the materials for a bomb except for the fissile material itself--either plutonium or highly enriched uranium. It is now 6 years later.
The debate about whether Saddam is an "imminent" threat is an interesting one. What better defines imminence than the facts that I have just outlined?
In fact, we must admit that the only conclusive proof of imminence could come in the hindsight, when innocents are sorting through the rubble and counting the injured or the dead. As National Security Advisor Condaleeza Rice said, the smoking gun could be a mushroom cloud. Or add to that a yellow cloud of mustard gas, an invisible cloud of sarin gas, or the slow and silent spread of smallpox.
I know, despite all this evidence, much of which is beyond dispute, some say, "There is no new evidence."
I have two answers to that. One, we don't need new evidence. The existing evidence of his capabilities and intent is more than enough to paint a poisonous picture.
Two, there is, in fact, new evidence. For instance, the fact that, once acquiring fissile material, Saddam will be just months of developing a nuclear weapon, is new. And it underlines the urgency of defanging this dictator immediately.
In fact, here is a brief review what we know about what Saddam has done since the departure of the U.N. weapons inspections in 1998. British Prime Minister Tony Blair laid this out to the Parliament last month.
Since 1998, we know that Saddam has sought or attempted to buy: specialized vacuum pumps, the type needed for the gas centrifuge to enrich uranium; an entire magnet production lien of the type for use in the motors and top bearings of gas centrifuges; dual use products such as Anhydrous Hydrogen Fluoride and fluoride gas; a filament winding machine, which can be used to manufacture carbon fiber gas centrifuge rotors; 60,000 or more specialized aluminum tubes, which are subject to strict controls due to their potential use in the construction of gas centrifuges.
And Saddam has been trying to buy significant quantities of uranium, though we do not know whether he has been successful. Key personnel from his old nuclear weapons program are at work again. Iraq claims that this is for a civil nuclear power program but it has no nuclear powerplants.
We can search for the most innocuous possible explanation, of each and every disturbing piece of evidence, or we can look realistically at the totality of the evidence.
And what about delivery systems?
Iraq is supposed to only have limited missile capability for conventional weaponry. But we know that a significant number of longer- range missiles were concealed from the previous inspectors, including up to 20 extended range Scud missiles. We know that 2001, Iraq's plans entered a new stage and that now, the regime's development of weapons with a range over 600 miles. Hundreds of key personnel are working on the delivery systems.
The danger will not abate unless we make it abate. it will only grow. And we will be forced to simply wait and see how, when, and against whom Saddam will use these weapons.
What more do we need to know?
Some say that removing Saddam Hussein from power would compromise the wider war against terrorism. But to me, the two are inextricably linked.
First, remember that Iraq under Saddam is one of only seven nations in the world to be designated by our State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism. He provides aid, funding, and training to terrorists who have killed Americans and others. He hosted the Abu Nidal Organization, whose leader was found dead in Baghdad in August. He gives money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.
Second, Saddam himself meets the definition of a terrorist, someone who attacks civilians to achieve a political purpose. He has done so repeatedly against the Kurds in the north of Iraq, as well as against the Shi'a in the south. If he is willing to kill thousands of Iraqis, how many Americans or Europeans do we think he considers expendable?
Third, though the relationship between al-Qaida and Saddam's regime is a subject of intense debate within the intelligence community, we do have evidence of meetings between Iraqi officials and leaders of al- Qaida, and some testimony that Iraqi agents helped train al-Qaida operatives to use chemical and biological weapons. We also know that senior leaders of al-Qaida have been and are now harbored in Iraq.
It is not speculation to suggest that Iraq might pass chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons to terrorists. It is realism.
There are other state sponsors of terrorism, all of which pose serious dangers to the security of America and the world.
But Saddam's is the only regime that combines a record of supporting terrorists with a history of killing and torturing dissidents, ambitions to dominate his region, growing stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and a willingness to use them. That is why the danger he poses rises above the rest on the topography of terror.
In my view, if we remove his pernicious influence from the Middle East and free the Iraqi people to determine their own destiny, we will transform the politics of the region, and advance the war against terrorism, not set it back as some have suggested.
In April 1917, in requesting a congressional declaration to enter what was then known as the Great War, Woodrow Wilson said, "We act without animus, not in enmity toward a people or with the desire to bring any injury or disadvantage upon them, but only in armed opposition to an irresponsible government which has thrown aside all considerations of humanity and of right and is running amuck."
The same can be said if and when we must confront Saddam's brutal regime. We will not be fighting the Iraqi people. Our goal, to the contrary, will be to liberate the Iraqi people from tyranny even as we remove the threat from this rabid regime.
But we must prove that good and decent intent not only on the day we commit arms, if we must, on the day we win. We must prove our commitment to building a better nation for the Iraqi people on the day after the day after, and the day after that, when we will face, and help the Iraqi people to face, the broad range of humanitarian, economic, diplomatic, and political problems that will no doubt present themselves.
The wars we wage are measured by the quality of the peace that follows.
I know that some fear the future of Iraq post-Saddam. They fear the risks, the responsibilities, and the costs, so much that those fears of tomorrow lead them to justify inaction today. To me, post-Saddam Iraq is not a burden to be shunned but an opportunity to be seized. It must become a signal to the world, particularly the Islamic world, of our Nation's best intentions.
Indeed, post-Suddam Iraq will be a test of America and our values. We have barely earned a passing grade on our first test, in post-Taliban Afghanistan. We cannot afford to scrape and slip by again, because this time the stakes are higher, the stage larger, and the consequences of failure even more dire.
How do we lay the foundation for a civil and open society after the fighting stops and the likely celebrations in the streets subside?
First, we must we invest in Iraq's security. Some will be tempted to shortchange our post-Saddam commitment by whittling down a security presence to the smallest possible size we think we can get away with, or by pulling our forces out the first open window.
But we must learn from Afghanistan, where, despite a brilliant military victory and early movements toward a stable and civil society, some big mistakes have been made.
Perhaps due to the Bush administration's stated aversion to nation building, we failed to establish a peacekeeping presence strong enough or geographically wide enough to tame the factionalism and ethnic conflict that have plagued Afghanistan for years. We failed to get ready to deal with the decrepit state of the nation's infrastructure caused by the long civil war that preceded our involvement. And, though our nations assisted us in our military victory, we did not leverage their investment to give them sufficient stake in a responsibility in a long-term peace.
As a result, the situation on the ground in Afghanistan is tenuous today. Warlords control the countryside. Hamid Karzai's rule in Kabul is uncertain. His ministers have been assassinated. Karzai himself came within a hair's breath of assassination. Have we lost the peace? No. But the current instability can, if left to fester, give rise to terrorism. oppression, and civil war.
It is not too late to correct our course. That is why Senator Hagel and I have sponsored the Afghanistan Freedom Support Act of 2002, currently before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. The bill would commit to the country's stability, security, and democratic development by investing $2.5 billion over 4 years in economic, political, and humanitarian assistance, including a half billion dollars toward an enterprise fund for business development and job creation and $300 million in military and security assistance for police training and crime control. It would also urge President Bush to expand the international security force beyond Kabul, and, if that decision were made, would authorize $1 billion over the next two years to make that possible. This is extremely important legislation that deserves broad legislative and public support.
Now we must hear from the administration that they are ready with specific plans for Iraq that will not repeat the mistakes of Afghanistan.
In fact, we have to face the fact that the best-case military scenario--the rapid collapse of the Iraqi military and the swift capture or elimination of Saddam--would also present the most challenging security scenario.
The three most immediate security objectives will be securing all chemical, biological and nuclear weapons sites and relevant personnel, tracking down Saddam's remaining secret police, and preventing potential Iranian military interference.
Simultaneously, among the Iraqi people at large, U.S. forces must be ready immediately to shift gears to post-conflict operations, helping to restore order and handling humanitarian emergencies. Despite its tremendous training and talent, our military needs more specialized teams to take on this crucial job.
The administration should also work with non-governmental organizations to recruit Iraqi-American and other Arab-American volunteers who can help peacekeepers and humanitarian organizations communicate with the Iraqi people, distribute supplies, assist in healthcare delivery, and do other critical jobs. A similar volunteer program worked in the Balkans and can work again in Iraq.
Like the military campaign itself, stabilizing post-Saddam Iraq and tending to the Iraqi people will be aided dramatically if the United States is part of a international coalition, especially one that includes Muslim and Arab nations. That will make clear to Iraqis and the world that our enemy is Saddam and not the Iraqi people, and just as Saddam is a threat to the world, securing and rebuilding Iraq is the duty of the world.
The bottom line is this: While Afghanistan's growing instability is deeply troubling, allowing post-Saddam Iraq, which abuts Syria and Iran, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, Kuwait and Turkey, to fall into civil war or into the hands of another dictator would be disastrous. If post- Saddam Iraq unravels, as Afghanistan is at risk of doing, so will the credibility and the effectiveness of our wider war against terrorism. And we will be that much closer to a global civilization war.
Once security and stability are established in post-Saddam Iraq, we must begin to establish the foundation for democratic governance and the rule of law. I am pleased that the Bush administration has begun bringing key opposition groups together to lay what a foundation for an honest, effective, and representative government. Iraq is a divided nation, with at least three key regions and three key religious, ethnic, and political factions. But let's be clear. Post-Saddam Iraqi governance will take more than a couple of conference calls to get right.
And we must be very careful here. Our goal is not replacing Baghdad with New York on the Tigris. We do not want an American client state, and we can't expect a democracy that overnight looks exactly like ours. We must be realistic. This process will require the sustained guidance, partnership, and investment of our nation and our allies, working with the Iraqi people.
The war against terrorism, including this effort to disarm Iraq, is like no other war we have waged.
If we are true to our principles, we can again make the world a safer and better place, not only for us Americans but for people in Iraq and throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds, who deserve the freedom and opportunity that we declared at the birth of our Nation 226 years ago: the endowment each human being receives at birth from our Creator.
Mr. Fitzgerald: Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Lieberman-Warner resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. This resolution gives President Bush the flexibility he needs to address the threat posed by Saddam Hussein, including the authority to use military force as he deems appropriate, without ceding too much authority to the executive to wage war outside Iraq. I applaud Senators Lieberman, Warner, McCain, and so many others who have worked with President Bush to reach an agreement on this critical issue.
I support the President's policy of regime change in Iraq to eliminate the threat Saddam poses to the U.S. and the world, and agree that time is of the essence. I was concerned that the administration's initial draft resolution was too broad, and called for tighter parameters on the Presidential mandate. The resolution now before us addresses my concerns by confining the scope of possible military action to Iraq, rather than the entire Middle East region.
Only last month we commemorated the one-year anniversary of the deadliest terrorist attack in our history. Today, we face a threat from a regime that would not hesitate to use weapons of mass destruction against our friends and allies, or against the United States itself, or transfer these weapons to terrorist groups that target Americans.
Saddam Hussein's track record is well-known to all. He ordered the use of chemical weapons--including sarin, VX, tabun, and mustard agents--against his own people, killing tens of thousands of innocent civilians. His regime invaded two neighbors and threatened others. In 1991, his troops were prepared to invade other countries, had they not been thwarted by the U.S.-led international coalition. His regime launched ballistic missiles at four of its neighbors--Israel, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Bahrain. He ordered the assassination of opponents in Iraq and abroad, including a former president of the United States. His regime beat and tortured American POWs and used them as human shields during the 1991 Persian gulf war. His military continues to fire at U.S. and coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones in northern and southern Iraq.
Based on the information presented to me in classified briefings, I share President Bush's assessment that Iraqi disarmament must be the objective. Weapon inspections alone will not achieve this goal, and a lengthy inspections regime could inadvertently give Saddam more time to stockpile and conceal weapons of mass destruction. After eleven years of lies and deception, we cannot expect that Saddam will reverse course and willingly disarm. Clearly, regime change in Iraq is the only way to end the threat Saddam Hussein poses to the United States and the world.
What has brought us to this point?
On March 3, 1991, Iraq, having been forced to abandon the territory it overran in Kuwait, agreed to the terms of a cease-fire offered by the allied forces. Since the cease-fire, Iraq has repeatedly violated a series of Security Council resolutions designed to ensure that Iraq submits to U.N. inspections, abides by the cease-fire agreement, dismantles its extensive weapons of mass destruction programs, and returns Kuwaiti and other nations' POWs, missing persons, and property seized during the gulf war. The United Nations has found Iraq in "material breach of cease-fire terms" on seven occasions, and Iraq remains in violation of the cease-fire to this very day.
For seven and one-half years, Saddam Hussein played a cat-and-mouse game with U.N. inspectors. The Iraqi regime misled, lied, intimidated, and physically obstructed the inspectors; and Iraqi scientists who provided in formation to the inspectors disappeared, most likely into Saddam's dungeons and execution chambers. The inspectors uncovered an enormous amount of biological and chemical weapons materials and production facilities, but by their own account they could not find everything. And any success they may have had was in large measure because Saddam feared a renewed military offensive by the United States. Finally, on November 11, 1998, following Iraq's announcement that it was prohibiting all U.N. inspections, weapons inspections in Iraq ceased. Under increasing international pressure, Iraq again agreed to allow inspectors full access, but then resumed obstructing their operations, and the United Nations withdrew the inspectors on December 15, 1998. Over the next 4 years, Iraq refused to admit weapons inspectors under the terms set forth by the Security Council.
Iraq has had 4 years to refine its techniques of deception. It defies common sense to suggest that a hundred or even a thousand U.N. inspectors could, with any assurance, succeed in finding small WMD stockpiles and facilities in a country the size of the state of California. Many former U.N. inspectors who experienced first-hand Iraq's lies and deceptions have come to the same conclusion.
We know that Saddam has chemical and biological weapons, and is developing nuclear weapons. These weapons would immediately threaten U.S. troops and our friends and allies in the region. A Saddam Hussein with nuclear weapons would radically alter the balance of power in the Middle East, requiring a profound shift in the deployment of American forces and undermine our ability to respond to other potential threats around the globe.
Saddam has worked with terrorist networks for many years. He harbored Abu Nidal, and is reportedly providing safe have to Abdul Rahman Yasin, a key participant in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Saddam has himself ordered acts of terror. He shares many objectives with groups like al-Qaida, and may decide to use terrorists to conceal his responsibility for an attack on the United States.
For 11 years, Saddam Hussein has thumbed his nose at the international community. Would it be prudent to continue what has failed for 11 long years? Would it be wise to give Saddam more time, which we know he will devote to realizing his greatest dream--to obtain the nuclear weapons that would allow him to dominate the Middle East with all of its oil and threaten to drive the United States out of a region that is vital to our security?
Never in our history have we been in a position where we could be blackmailed, under the threat of nuclear war, into withdrawing support for our closest allies or sacrificing our national security to prevent the death of millions. And yet this is the danger we face in as little as one year if we do not act to remove this looming threat. Time is not on our side; it is on the side of Saddam Hussein. We cannot wait for a smoking gun, because a gun smokes only after it is fired, and the smoke of a nuclear blast would mean that we are too late.
I applaud the President's decision to seek international support for regime change in Iraq, but U.S. action should not hinge on the endorsement of the United Nations. The United States is leading a coalition of international allies in the war on terror, not the other way around.
In the case of Iraq, U.S. national security interests should not be sacrificed if the U.N. cannot be persuaded of the urgency of this threat. It would be preferable to have U.N. support, but we have to be prepared to go it alone if necessary. We cannot give the United Nations veto power over our decisions to protect our national interests.
I remain concerned about our planning for the future of Iraq if we succeed in removing Saddam Hussein from power. Administration officials have presented a vision of a post-Saddam Iraq that is peaceful, democratic, and unified. Defeating the Iraqi military on the battlefield will not be easy, but ensuring a stable and friendly post- Saddam Iraq will pose even greater challenges, requiring careful planning by the administration in concert with our allies in the region. Iraq could rapidly slide into long-term political instability or even bloody war upon the collapse of the Baathist regime.
Iraq's population is made up of three main components: the Kurdish speaking people in the north, the Arab Sunnis in the center, and the Arab Shiites in the south who make up a majority--some 60 percent--of the entire population of the country. Many Shiites desire a theocratic government similar to that in neighboring Iran. The Kurdish leadership in the north may recognize that independence is an impossible dream, but their experience of ten years of self-government will make their reintegration into a unified Iraq problematic at best. Arab Sunnis, fearing retaliation from the long-oppressed Shiite majority, may use the Sunni-dominated Iraqi military to keep the Shiites from gaining power. And while the overthrow of Saddam Hussein would involve the likely end to the Iraqi Republican Guard, the regular Iraqi army may remain to play a critical role in a post-Saddam Iraq. Yet the Iraqi army may become a den of coup-plotters; after all, Iraq endured a succession of bloody coups from 1953 until Saddam Hussein's ascent to power in the late 1970s.
Our military planning should be guided by an awareness that how Saddam's regime falls will shape the Iraq that follows. At some point the American people will need to know the nature and extent of America's commitment to a post-Saddam Iraq. How long will our troops be on the ground in Iraq? What material and financial resources will we be asked to provide to Iraq? What responsibility will the United States have to maintain peace in the region? What help will we get from our allies in rebuilding Iraq?
President Bush has exercised great leadership at a critical time in our history. I am proud to be a part of the debate we are having today in this chamber, which is a powerful demonstration of our democratic institutions. Ours is a nation that is slow to anger. Americans abhor war. I vote in support of this resolution, but hope and pray that the President, united with Congress, will succeed in averting war.
There is no question in my mind that we must disarm Saddam, and that time is running out. Clearly, there are risks involved. But I believe the risks of doing nothing are far greater.
I yield that floor.
The Presiding Officer: Under the previous order, the cloture motion is vitiated on Senate Joint Resolution 45.
The clerk will read the joint resolution for the third time.
The joint resolution was read the third time.
The Presiding Officer: Under the previous order, the Senate will now proceed to the consideration of House Joint Resolution 114.
The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Presiding Officer: The joint resolution having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the joint resolution pass?
Mr. McCain: Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The Presiding Officer: Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 77, nays 23, as follows:
| Rollcall Vote No. 237 Leg. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YEAS--77 | ||||
| Allard | Allen | Baucus | Bayh | Bennett |
| Biden | Bond | Breaux | Brownback | Bunning |
| Burns | Campbell | Cantwell | Carnahan | Carper |
| Cleland | Clinton | Cochran | Collins | Craig |
| Crapo | Daschle | DeWine | Dodd | Domenici |
| Dorgan | Edwards | Ensign | Enzi | Feinstein |
| Fitzgerald | Frist | Gramm | Grassley | Gregg |
| Hagel | Harkin | Hatch | Helms | Hollings |
| Hutchinson | Hutchison | Inhofe | Johnson | Kerry |
| Kohl | Kyl | Landrieu | Lieberman | Lincoln |
| Lott | Lugar | McCain | McConnell | Miller |
| Murkowski | Nelson (FL) | Nelson (NE) | Nickles | Reid |
| Roberts | Rockefeller | Santorum | Schumer | Sessions |
| Shelby | Smith (NH) | Smith (OR) | Snowe | Specter |
| Stevens | Thomas | Thompson | Thurmond | Torricelli |
| Voinovich | Warner | |||
| Nays--23 | ||||
| Akaka | Bingaman | Boxer | Byrd | Chafee |
| Conrad | Corzine | Dayton | Durbin | Feingold |
| Graham | Inouye | Jeffords | Kennedy | Leahy |
| Levin | Mikulski | Murray | Reed | Sarbanes |
| Stabenow | Wellstone | Wyden | ||
The joint resolution (H.J. Res. 114) was passed.
The Presiding Officer: Under the previous order, the preamble is agreed to.
Under the previous order, S.J. Res. 45, as amended, is indefinitely postponed.
Mr. Reid: Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 619, S. 3009, a bill to provide a 13-week extension for unemployment compensation, and that the bill be read the third time and passed.
The Presiding Officer (Ms. LINCOLN): Is there objection?
Mr. Nickles: Madam President, reserving the right to object--and I shall object--this is not a 13-week extension, it is a 26-week extension, plus an additional 7 weeks for some States. It changes the threshold. It costs $17 billion. A clean extension would be $7 billion.
I will be happy to work with my colleagues to come up with something more reasonable and affordable. This bill before us, S. 3009, is not. Therefore, I object.
The Presiding Officer: Objection is heard.
