[Pages S10006-S10031]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

AUTHORIZATION OF THE USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AGAINST IRAQ

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will now
resume consideration of S.J. Res. 45, which the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:

A resolution (S.J. Res. 45) to authorize the United States
Armed Forces against Iraq.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 4
p.m. shall be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or
their designees with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 15
minutes each.
Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent I may have an additional 5 minutes
over the 15.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, tonight at 8:00 p.m., President Bush will
make a televised address to speak to the Nation about the threat of
Iraq. According to press reports from this weekend, the President is
expected to lay out, in detail, his case against Saddam Hussein,
including the repressive dictator's long history of violence and
aggression.
There is no disagreement about the character of Saddam Hussein,
neither on Capitol Hill nor in the minds of every American. But while
the President continues to make his case against Saddam Hussein, the
issue on the minds of Senators and our constituents is, what exactly is
the United States planning to do?
Rather than hearing more about Saddam Hussein--we know enough about
him--what we need to hear from the President are answers to our
questions about what he plans to do in Iraq. We need to know why the
President is demanding that we act now. We need to have some idea of
what we are getting ourselves into, what the costs and consequences may
be, and what the President is planning to do after the fighting has
stopped. After Iraq. After Saddam Hussein. It is not unpatriotic to ask
these questions, especially when they are already on the minds of all
Americans.
Why now? Those two little words: Why now?
Why now? What has changed in the last year, 6 months, or 2 weeks that
would compel us to attack now?
Is Iraq on the verge of attacking the United States? If so, should
our homeland security alert be elevated? Shouldn't the President be
spending more time with his military advisors in Washington, instead of
making campaign speeches all over the country?
The media reports suggest that the administration does not plan to
act

[[Page S10007]]

until February. Why is the President telling Congress it has to act
before the elections? Why are our own leaders telling us we have to act
before the elections.
What are we signing up for?
We are about to give the President a blank check to deal with Iraq
however he sees fit. What exactly is he planning to do with this power?
Does the President have clear objectives for this war? Does he want
to disarm Saddam Hussein, or remove him from power?
When might the fighting end? What conditions must be met before the
President would determine that the war is over?
The President has said several times that he wants to use force in
order to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.
Why is he then demanding that Congress go even further and give him a
blank check that would give him the power to commit our country to
years or even decades of bloody war without the support of our allies?
We have already given the President a blank check to deal with al-
Qaida, which he used to invade and occupy Afghanistan. Does the
President plan to fight these two wars separately, or will the
President combine them into a broader regional campaign?
What will be the costs of this war?
How many troops will be involved? Will we exercise the heavy ground
option or will we exercise the heavy air option? Or might we exercise
both options? How many reservists will have to leave their jobs to
serve in uniform?
Will they be fighting door-to-door combat in downtown Bagdad?
Do our troops have adequate protection against the chemical and
biological weapons that Saddam Hussein might employ?
How many American casualties is the Department of Defense
anticipating in case the heavy ground option is utilized? How many
American casualties is the Department of Defense anticipating. ?
In addition to the cost in blood, war is also a drain on the national
treasury. How much will it cost to fight this war and to maintain an
occupation force? Larry Lindsey said it would cost $100 billion to $200
billion, talking about this war and what it would cost. One hundred to
two hundred billion dollars, and he said: That's nothing. During the
Gulf War, our allies contributed $54 billion of the $61 billion cost of
the war. Leaving the United States holding the bag for roughly $7
billion, a little over $7 billion out of the $61.1 billion total. Will
our allies give us financial assistance in this war? Has anyone been
asking them to divvy it up, to help pay the financial cost, or do we
plan to shoulder it all?
Do we have the resources to care for our injured and sick veterans
when they return from Iraq? Are our hospitals in this country prepared
for that event?
Will there be other consequences to a war with Iraq?
How will the war against Iraq affect the fight against terrorism? How
many of us will feel safer here in this country at night, when the
shades of evening fall? How many of us will feel safer, once an attack
against Iraq is launched? Will National Guard troops be removed from
important homeland security missions in the United States?
If we act without the approval of the international community, what
happens to the international cooperation in the war on terror we worked
so hard to foster after 9/11?
How will a war between the United States and Iraq affect regional
stability in the Middle East?
What will we do if Iraq attacks Israel? Can we persuade Israel to
stay out of the war, or will we just stand by and watch them join in
the fighting?
Are we putting more moderate regimes in the Middle East at risk, like
Jordan, or Pakistan, which already has nuclear weapons. If a more
radical government takes over in Pakistan, are we prepared to act there
as well?
What happens after the war?
Who will govern a defeated Iraq?
How long will our troops be expected to occupy Iraq?
Do we expect Iraqis to rise up against Saddam Hussein, or take arms
against us?
What plans do we have to prevent Iraq from breaking up and descending
into civil war?
How can we contain the instability that will likely result in the
north of Iraq that may threaten Turkey, our friend and NATO ally? Are
we giving any thought to this? Is anybody in the administration giving
thoughts to this question?
In his weekend radio address, the president told us that:

should force be required to bring Saddam to account, the
United States will work with other nations to help the Iraqi
people rebuild and form a just government.

What does he mean by that? Is the President advocating a new Marshall
Plan for the Middle East? Are the American people ready to make that
kind of long-term regional commitment?
How much will the American taxpayer pay to rebuild Iraq? How much
will our allies pay? If the United States should act alone in attacking
Iraq, can we really expect the rest of the world to help rebuild Iraq
after the war? Have any other countries committed to assisting in these
peacekeeping duties? If so, how many? Can we afford to rebuild Iraq and
Afghanistan at the same time? We may have to rebuild Israel as well.

I have a lot of questions. The American people have a lot of
questions. But apparently the American people are not going to be
asked. They are not going to be given the opportunity to ask their
questions.
We are going to be stampeded and rushed pellmell into a showdown
right here in the Senate and in the House, and in the next few days.
Why all the hurry? Why are we in such a hurry? Election day is 4 weeks
away from tomorrow. Wouldn't it be better to go home and listen to the
people, hear what they have to say, and answer their questions before
voting on this far-reaching, grave, and troubling question?
Every one of the questions the American people have is important.
Without better answers from the President, we will only be getting part
of the story, which is a dangerous position for Congress to be in as we
prepare to vote on a war resolution this week or next week.
It is a sad thing that the elected representatives of the American
people are being asked to vote on this troubling question before the
election.
But the administration is not giving us meaningful answers to these
questions. All we are getting are vague threats and political pressure
from the White House. The President has not backed up his case against
Iraq with a consistent justification based on clear reason and
evidence. When the President and his advisers are pressed for clarity,
they have responded with evasive and confusing references to the
dangers of terrorism which they now seem to think has more to do with
Saddam Hussein than Osama bin Laden. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld
revealed that recently when he told the Senate Armed Services
Committee:

I suggest that any who insist on perfect evidence are back
in the 20th century and still thinking in pre-9-11 terms.

In other words, it is just too hard for them to answer all of these
questions, so Congress should just hand everything over to the
President, and he will determine by himself what is ``necessary and
appropriate'' when the time comes. Until then, the administration will
provide Congress and the American people with very little information.
We need to know this information, and we need to know it now, before
we are pressured into making a hasty decision about whether to send the
sons and daughters of Americans to war in a foreign land; namely, Iraq.
The President's military doctrine will give him a free hand to
justify almost any military action with unsubstantiated allegations and
arbitrary risk assessments, and Congress is about to rubberstamp that
doctrine and simply step out of the way.
I cannot understand why much of the leadership of this Congress has
bought into the administration's political pressure. Congress will be
out of the business of making any decisions about war, and the voice of
the people will quickly be drowned out by the White House beating the
drums of war.
There is no need for Congress to underwrite the President's new
military doctrine. If the United States uses force against Iraq, then
Congress can provide the President with enough authority to act
decisively in Iraq. Any

[[Page S10008]]

further actions the President wants to take should be decided on a
case-by-case basis. We should not get carried away by all of the war
rhetoric and turn this Iraq resolution into a blank check for the
President to enforce some vague new doctrine in every corner of the
Middle East or the world beyond. Granting him such broad power would
not only set a dangerous international precedent but would severely
undermine our own constitutional system of checks and balances.
Some say that the process laid out in the Constitution will be
satisfied once Congress votes on whether to authorize war. But Congress
must not grant the use of force authorization without a full
understanding of the consequences. We will be voting to decide whether
we will allow the President to declare war at his convenience for an
unlimited period of time. That does not satisfy the Constitution. After
all, the President has repeatedly said he has not decided whether we
must go to war.
Do we want to just give the President and all future Presidents an
authorization for war that they can put in their hip pockets, to be
pulled out whenever it is convenient? That is not the course of action
worthy of the greatness the Founding Fathers expected when they created
the legislative branch.
We should not have this vote on the issue for war or for peace before
the Congress has answers to these questions. The President, when he
speaks to the Nation tonight, must provide real answers to these
questions that the American people are asking.
Madam President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I say to my valued friend and colleague
on the Senate Armed Services Committee that I thought we had an
excellent debate on Friday afternoon, at which time a number of the
points the Senator from West Virginia raised today were discussed. But
I believe the administration has worked diligently in consultation with
the Congress--most particularly the appropriate committees--the Senate
Armed Services Committee, on which my colleague from West Virginia and
I are privileged to serve, and also our colleague from Georgia, as well
as the Foreign Relations Committee.
These questions, I believe, and the information that can be made
available are and perhaps will again in the next day or so be made
available to the Congress. I know I have, I say to my good friend from
West Virginia, pressed the administration to see whether or not further
information that now has classification can be given.
I and other Members of the Senate were back with our constituencies
this weekend. I had about five meetings with my constituents at various
places, and foremost in their minds is the seriousness of this
situation we face with Saddam Hussein and his regime which possesses
these weapons of mass destruction.
I believe this debate is evolving. I believe the Congress is in
possession of those facts to justify a vote on the resolution, which
Senator Lieberman, Senator Bayh, Senator McCain, and I have drawn up in
accordance with consultations with the White House and the leadership.
I thought we got off to a good start on Friday. I thank my colleague
for the opportunity to debate him--and we do very vigorously, and
undoubtedly we will continue. But I believe, if I might say
respectfully to my colleague from West Virginia, it is a good, strong
record for the Congress and the American people. And there may be
additional facts forthcoming. Certainly, we should await the
President's message to the Nation and to the world with great respect
because he has time and time again said war is the last option, the use
of force is the last option. He pursued diligently diplomatic means
before, not only with the United Nations but in one-to-one meetings
himself, and the Secretary of State with the heads of state and
governments in a great many nations.
I believe progress has been made in all directions.
I thank the Chair. I thank my colleague. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
Mr. CLELAND. Madam President, we as Members of the Senate, are now
being asked by the Commander in Chief to make the most serious decision
we can make: the decision to authorize him potentially to send our
young American men and women in the American military into harm's way.
When I was a young man in the mid-1960s, the U.S. Congress authorized
the use of force against North Vietnam, and I volunteered to fight in
that war. Three times since I came to the Senate--on Iraq in 1998, on
Kosovo in 1999, and then last year on al-Qaida and international
terrorism--I have been asked by the Commander in Chief to authorize the
use of military force to achieve our Nation's objectives, and all three
times I voted to authorize the use of force. This is now the fourth
occasion I have been asked to give my consent to such action, and each
time I have thought back to the words of one who occupied the same seat
in the Senate I now have the privilege to hold, Dick Russell. Senator
Russell said:

While it is a sound policy to have limited objectives, we
should not expose our men to unnecessary hazards to life and
limb in pursuing them. As for me, my fellow Americans, I
shall never knowingly support a policy of sending even a
single American boy overseas to risk his life in combat
unless the entire civilian population and wealth of our
country--all that we have and all that we are--is to bear a
commensurate responsibility in giving him the fullest support
and protection of which we are capable.

That was a marvelous quote by Senator Russell in the 1960s.
While we need to update Senator Russell's statement to encompass the
young women who now also put themselves into harm's way when we go to
war, I think it stands the test of time very well and speaks to us all
now as we contemplate our second declaration of war in the last 12
months. I believe its counsel of limited ends but sufficient means is
sage advice now, as it was when first uttered under the shadow of the
Vietnam war.
The leading military analyst of the Vietnam War, the late Col. Harry
Summers, wrote in his excellent book, ``On Strategy: The Vietnam War in
Context'':

The first principle of war is the principle of The
Objective. It is the first principle because all else flows
from it . . . How to determine military objectives that will
achieve or assist in achieving the political objectives of
the United States is the primary task of the military
strategist, thus the relationship between military and
political objectives is critical. Prior to any future
commitment of U.S. military forces our military leaders must
insist that the civilian leadership provide tangible,
obtainable political goals. The political objective cannot
merely be a platitude but must be stated in concrete terms.
While such objectives may very well change during the course
of the war, it is essential that we begin with an
understanding of where we intend to go. As Clausewitz said,
we should not ``take the first step without considering the
last.'' In other words, we (and perhaps, more important, the
American people) need to have a definition of ``victory.''

Colonel Summers continues:

There is an inherent contradiction between the military and
its civilian leaders on this issue. For both domestic and
international political purposes the civilian leaders want
maximum flexibility and maneuverability and are hesitant to
fix on firm objectives. The military on the other hand need
just such a firm objective as early as possible in order to
plan and conduct military operations.

Since we are indeed being asked to authorize the commitment of U.S.
military forces, it is our responsibility--I would say it is our
obligation--as the civilian leadership to provide our Armed Forces with
``tangible, obtainable political goals.'' In other words, we have to
define now, before the fighting starts, what the objective is.
It is crystal clear to me what the appropriate, achievable,
internationally supported and sanctioned objective is at the present
time and in the present case: not simply the admission of weapons
inspectors but the verified destruction of Saddam Hussein's store of
weapons of mass destruction. This is the matter which makes the Iraqi
regime a danger requiring international attention beyond that which is
afforded to the all too numerous other regimes which oppress their own
people, or threaten regional peace, or fail to fulfill their
international obligations. It is the objective which President Bush has
been increasingly centered on in his calls for action by the UN. For
example, in his September 26 meeting with congressional leaders, the
President put it very well. He said:

[[Page S10009]]

We are engaged in a deliberate and civil and thorough
discussion. We are moving toward a strong resolution . . .
And by passing this resolution we'll send a clear message to
the world and to the Iraqi regime: the demands of the U.N.
Security Council must be followed. The Iraqi dictator must be
disarmed. These requirements will be met, or they will be
enforced.

And this objective, the disarming of Saddam Hussein, is the objective
which this Senate, this Congress is prepared to overwhelmingly endorse
as we close ranks behind the President.
Adoption of the force resolution authorization will satisfy our
obligations to make it clear to the international community that
America stands united in its determination to rid the world of Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction. And it will fulfill our responsibility to
our military and our service men and women to provide a tangible,
militarily obtainable objective. But it will not discharge this
Congress of all responsibility with respect to our policy on Iraq.
In retrospect, it seems to me that the real failure of Congress in
the Vietnam war was not so much passage of the open-ended Gulf of
Tonkin resolution by near unanimous margins in both Houses--based as it
was on what we now regard as very dubious information supplied by the
executive branch and what those Senators and Representatives had to
take at face value--but its subsequent failure for too many years to
exercise its constitutional responsibilities as that authorization lead
to a cost and level of commitment that few, if any, foresaw at the
time. I would note that Senator Russell actually got the following
language added to the Gulf of Tonkin resolution itself:

This resolution shall expire when the President shall
determine that the peace and security of the area is
reasonably assured by international conditions created by
action of the United Nations, or otherwise, except that it
may be terminated earlier by concurrent resolution of the
Congress.

Our duty, and the duty of this Congress and its successors, to our
Nation's security and to our service men and women with respect to Iraq
will not end merely with the passage of the pending resolution. We have
a constitutional and moral responsibility to continue to review the
evolving situation and to ask the hard questions. I did so on each of
the three previous occasions when I have supported an authorization of
the use of military force. I asked those questions on Iraq in 1998, on
Kosovo in 1999, and then last year on al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden and
the international terrorism war. And I will do so again with respect to
Iraq.
After the 1990-1991 gulf war and after the final end of the cold war,
then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell, propounded a
list of six questions which he believed must be addressed before we
commit to a military intervention:

Is the political objective important, clearly defined, and
well understood?
Second, have all nonviolent means been tried and failed?
Additionally, will military force actually achieve the
objective?
What will be the cost?
Have the gains and risks been thoroughly analyzed?
And finally, after the intervention, how will the situation
likely evolve and what will the consequences be?

I have already discussed the first question, the mission, and to the
extent we focus on disarmament, I believe we satisfy Colin Powell's
first criterion. The second, as to nonmilitary means, is being asked
right now, at the United Nations, at Vienna, and in other world
capitals. And while what the President calls a ``decade of deception''
by Iraq must make one very skeptical about the possibility for a
satisfactory diplomatic resolution, I believe we should and must give
it one final chance before considering the military option. As to the
effectiveness of military force, since the President has not made any
final decisions, he says, as to what kind of military operation, if
any, will be undertaken, it is premature to make a firm determination,
but in principle, given the outstanding capabilities of our Armed
Forces, and what will hopefully be a well-defined mission, I believe we
can answer in the affirmative. So far, so good.
But when we turn to the final three of General Powell's questions
that he asked years ago, we see the need for some serious and sustained
attention not only by the administration but by the Congress as well.
What will be the cost? And here we need to factor in not only the
cost in terms of the immediate military operation, but also potential
costs of what could be a very long-term occupation and nation-building
phase. Among the many reasons we need to actively seek to build as
large an international coalition as possible behind whatever we
eventually undertake in Iraq is to help with the aftermath. I want to
single out the leadership of my friends and colleagues from across the
aisle, Senators Lugar and Hagel, in calling the country's and the
Senate's attention to the importance of this aspect of our Iraq policy.
And what about the cost for our economy? The mere threat of war has
sent oil prices upward and caused shudders on Wall Street. What will a
full blown war do?
Have the gains and risks been thoroughly analyzed? And after the
intervention, how will the situation likely evolve and what will be the
consequences? These two are closely related in that, in my view, the
long-term consequences have been the least discussed part of the
equation thus far. If, as some believe, the consequence of a U.S.
invasion of Iraq will be a united, democratic Iraq which can serve as a
``role model'' for the rest of the Arab world. Maybe, but such an
outcome would not only fly in the face of Iraq's entire history since
being created out of a British mandate at the end of the First World
War but would appear to be contrary to much of what we have seen in the
aftermath of other recent U.S. interventions, including most recently
in Afghanistan. Perhaps, most importantly, we need to make absolutely
certain that whatever we do in Iraq does not distract or detract from
the war we authorized 12 months ago, our war on terrorism, which
remains, in my view, job No. 1, mission No. 1, objective No. 1, one for
our national security policy.
So these are the kinds of questions I will be asking, and I hope I
will be joined by colleagues from both sides of the aisle in asking, as
we move forward.
It now appears the Senate may have at least three alternatives to
consider as we move forward on authorizing force against Saddam
Hussein: the Biden-Lugar-Hagel resolution; a Levin resolution; and the
resolution endorsed by the President, the House leadership and a
bipartisan group of Senators. I certainly wish to pay tribute to all of
the Senators involved in crafting all of these alternatives. Without
exception, they are acting out of conscience and conviction in
promoting our national security. And I believe most Senators share the
views that diplomacy is preferential to force, and that proceeding with
the input and support of the international community, including the
United Nations, is far better and more effective than going it alone.
I will be supporting the resolution backed by the President and
opposing the alternatives because I believe it is imperative that we
now speak with one voice to Saddam Hussein, to the entire international
community and, most importantly, to our servicemen and women. A strong,
bipartisan vote for the pending resolution will strengthen the
President's hand in his efforts to get the international community to
step up to the plate and deal effectively with the threat posed by
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and give the diplomats one last
chance to secure Saddam Hussein's final, unconditional surrender of
those weapons, as he has pledged since 1991.
The objective of our policy against Saddam Hussein should be a regime
of unfettered inspections leading to full disarmament of Iraq's weapons
of mass destruction. If diplomacy fails, the military objective must be
the complete destruction of such weapons. Regime change may come but,
because of the large costs and massive uncertainties this will
inevitably produce, this should be the last resort, not the first.
We must not repeat the most disturbing display of partisanship with
respect to national security to have occurred in the time I have served
in the Congress. I am referring to the extremely disturbing spectacle
of disunity and irresolution displayed by the House of Representatives
on April 28, 1999 when, with American servicemen and women already in
combat against Milosevic and Serbia, the House cast a series of votes
that: prohibited the deployment of ground forces, which the

[[Page S10010]]

President had never asked for; defeated an attempt to remove US forces;
and most dismaying of all, on a tie vote of 213-213, defeated the
Senate-passed resolution authorizing the very air operations and
missile strikes which were even then underway. What kind of message was
that to send our Armed Forces personnel, or our NATO allies or
Milosevic?
I implore the Senate to pull together behind the one resolution
endorsed by the President, by the bipartisan House leadership and by a
bipartisan group of Senators. That resolution affirms the importance of
working in concert with other nations, gives preference to a diplomatic
over military solution, focuses attention where it should be on
disarming Saddam Hussein, seeks to ensure that we not be diverted from
fighting the war on terrorism, and provides for the ongoing and
Constitutional role of the Congress as events unfold in our policy
toward Iraq. I urge a strong and bipartisan vote in favor of the
resolution.
God Bless our country and the young men and women who serve in
uniform.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Rockefeller). The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wonder if I might ask my very valued
friend and colleague a question or two.
With his indulgence, I would like to make a few preliminary comments.
First and foremost is that we have shared for some years now a strong
friendship and strong working relationship, primarily through his
service on the Senate Armed Services Committee. There has been no
Senator who has been more mindful of the needs of the men and women of
the Armed Forces than our colleague from Georgia. I felt his remarks
today were exceedingly well taken, and in particular the need for a
strengthened resolution here in the Congress, House and Senate
together, acting on a resolution which is clear in its terms, in such a
way that there be no daylight, no perceived or actual difference
between the legislative bodies of our Government--the Congress, the
Senate and the House, and the Executive, the Commander in Chief, the
President. I commend him on that point and share it.
In previous days on this floor, most particularly on Friday, I have
said that repeatedly. That is the key, the arch of this whole debate is
the need to have unity of the two branches of Government.
I was also drawn to his excellent analysis of what we call the Powell
doctrine, enunciated by General Powell during his period as Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs. It is interesting today, of course, in his role as
Secretary of State and in his testimony before the Foreign Relations
Committee here in the Senate, those criteria he set down are basically
the criteria he follows today as he represents this Nation on behalf of
the President and all others in the United Nations and in his constant
series of meetings with heads of state and government in an effort to
build a coalition much like that which was built by the first President
Bush in 1991.
The Senator from Georgia hit on the key part of the formula of
Secretary Powell: What is the cost? And he quite properly enunciated
some concerns and areas in there.
The question I ask is the question that has to be asked: What is the
cost if we don't act now, act as we are doing; namely, through the
United Nations, trying to exhaust all diplomatic means, act as we are
now acting in consultation with the heads of state and government in
order to build a coalition, and, as I understand it, supporting in some
way the writing of a new resolution to be considered by the Security
Council which would enable a new inspection regime, this time with
clear absolute authority, no equivocation whatsoever about the
authority of those going in to perform it and the consequences?
Hopefully that resolution would be forthcoming, spelling out the
consequences of the failure of Saddam Hussein to accept the resolution
and indicate cooperation.
As my colleague knows, cooperation is essential in discharging any
inspection regime. So that is where we are now.
What would be the cost, had our President not taken the initiative
here in the past months to bring to the very forefront of the entire
world the problem facing liberty and freedom with the potential of
weapons of mass destruction being made night and day by Saddam Hussein
in amounts far exceeding anything he would ever need to defend a
sovereign nation?
What is the cost, had we not elevated this debate, had we not gone to
the U.N., had not the Congress been asked by the President to have a
resolution? What is your estimate of the cost? What would be the course
of action for the world to take?
Mr. CLELAND. I thank the Senator for those kind words. In terms of
the Powell doctrine, I had a chance to listen to it up front and close
when I encountered him as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the
Pentagon. We had a long discussion about being fellow Vietnam veterans,
about what we learned out of that war, and how he approached the world
now as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
I can remember two elements to the Powell doctrine. The first is
sometimes overlooked. The first should be how to use the American
military to stay out of war and, if we do get in it, win quickly. The
second part of the Powell doctrine is the doctrine of superior force,
what Nimitz called in the Second World War in the Pacific ``superior
upon the point of contact.''
I am delighted we have a Secretary of State who understands the power
of the first, which is using the American military to stay out of war.
I think that is step one for me in the Powell doctrine. Step two is
obviously if diplomacy fails, use superior force to accomplish your
objective. In many ways, we have been acting since 1991. We have had
Iraq under Operation Northern Watch and Southern Watch. We are covering
40 percent of Iraqi territory as we speak, we have a naval blockade,
and we have sanctions, so we have not been inactive since 1991.
What is the status of his weapons of mass destruction, which is the
focus of this entire debate? We really don't know, since the U.N.
inspectors were kicked out about 4 years ago, where we stand in that
regard. That poses a question and a threat. We know he has biological
and chemical weapons, and he is working on a nuclear weapon. So that
poses great danger to the Middle East, our allies, Western Europe, and
potentially to us. Therefore, I think it is appropriate for the U.S.
Senate to support, and the Congress to support, a resolution
authorizing the President to take all necessary means, including to use
force, to back up the original 1991 U.N. resolution authorizing
disarmament of Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction. For
me, that is the political objective and the military objective.
Mr. WARNER. The Senator also made reference to the period of the
Clinton administration when President Clinton, again, in consultation
with the Congress, acted on the seriousness of the issues of Saddam
Hussein after he kicked out the inspectors and defied all 16
resolutions. We in the Senate acted, and I am going to read the
resolution we adopted in the Senate:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That the
Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of
its international obligations, and therefore the President is
urged to take appropriate action, in accordance with the
Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring
Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.

Both the Senator from Georgia and I supported it, am I not correct?
Mr. CLELAND. That is correct. I voted for that resolution in 1998. At
one point, the resolution did not authorize the American forces to
involve themselves in a regime change. In this resolution we are
considering now, we are considering using American forces to not only
order Saddam Hussein to comply with the 1991 resolution in terms of
disarmament, there is an ``or else'' clause that says the President can
use force as well.
Mr. WARNER. As my colleague, I assume, agrees with me, whoever is
President of the United States--be it President Clinton or now
President George Bush--has the inherent power to utilize the Armed
Forces of our Nation when he deems there is a threat to our security.
That, of course, is the essence of the debate we are undertaking now.
So when I read the clause where

[[Page S10011]]

the Congress said ``therefore the President is urged to take
appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant
laws of the United States,'' to me, that implies a recitation of what
we all know since the very first President--he has the authority to use
force, if he deems it necessary, to bring Iraq into compliance with its
international obligation.
I wonder if the Senator would agree with this Senator one thing that
has changed since this resolution is the situation in Iraq has worsened
in the sense Saddam Hussein has had these years to proceed with his
scheme of building weapons of mass destruction, and I think the open
evidence shows he has achieved it in terms of the biological, and he
has achieved it in terms of the chemical. With respect to the nuclear
weapons, I believe the agreed-upon set of facts is he is doing
everything he can to complete a program. There is a difference of
opinion as to the time within which he can complete a program to give
him a nuclear weapon.
So, in my judgment, what has changed since 1998 is the situation has
gotten worse and more threatening from Saddam Hussein. Does my
colleague have a view in concurrence with the Senator from Virginia?
Mr. CLELAND. Two points. First, the 1998 resolution, which I
supported, the Senator from Virginia supported, and most of us
supported, called for regime change but did not authorize the use of
American military force. This resolution is different because I believe
the situation is different, as the Senator pointed out. The situation
is we really don't know the exact status of the biological and chemical
capability of Saddam Hussein to wage warfare on his neighbors, our
allies, our friends in the Middle East, and on us. Therefore, the 4
years the inspectors have not been there gives us great pause and great
concern.
Therefore, our first step should be access to those military sites,
those weapons of mass destruction sites, and the destruction of those
weapons of mass destruction and complete disarmament according to the
1991 resolution. It is worth, in my opinion, authorizing the use of
military force to accomplish that objective.
Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague very much. I have enjoyed his
observations. I respect him very much, as he bears the scars of a brave
soldier on behalf of freedom while defending this country.
Mr. President, to conclude our colloquy, I want to read a brief
statement that was given by President Clinton at the time of this
resolution:

In the next century, the community of nations may see more
and more the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue
state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or
provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers, or organized
criminals, who travel the world among us unnoticed. If we
fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow
in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge
that they can act with impunity--even in the face of a clear
message from the United Nations Security Council and clear
evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.

Mr. President, I see others on the floor.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah is recognized.
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, all I know is what I read in the
newspapers. Based on what I do know about public policy and what I read
in the newspapers, I would be very frightened if all I knew was what I
read in the newspapers because newspapers often get things wrong. It
has been interesting to me, as we have had the buildup to this
discussion in the Senate about Iraq, there have been a number of very
thoughtful pieces written that have appeared in the newspapers, and I
wish to draw on some of those and quote from some of them at length
here today.
It so happens that both of the pieces I will use today appeared in
the Washington Post, but there have also been useful pieces in the New
York Times and the Wall Street Journal.
Before I get to that, I want to describe a conversation I had once as
a younger man that has been an absolute paradigm conversation in my
understanding of politics.
I was having lunch with an old friend, a very experienced political
hand, a man who had once served President Eisenhower as a close member
of his staff. We were discussing a certain candidate for President.
I said, somewhat improperly, because it was rather arrogant for me to
do this: Is this candidate smart enough to be President of the United
States?
My old friend answered immediately. He said: Of course not. Nobody
is. Then he went on to explain.
As I say, he was a man who had been at Eisenhower's elbow during some
of the most significant decisions of our time, and he made this point.
He said: Every truly Presidential decision is so loaded down with
unknowable consequences, with unforeseen possibilities, and
unforeseeable challenges that no truly Presidential decision is ever
made on the basis of intellect. It is made on the basis of instinct.
He mentioned this same candidate, and he said: He has good instincts,
and you can back him with a clear conscience.
I have thought about that ever since that conversation, and I have
realized the wisdom of it. If difficult decisions could be made by
smart people and resolved, they would be resolved before they got to
the President of the United States because any President in either
party has plenty of smart people around him who can figure things out
and come to a neat, tidy, absolutely defensible conclusion. But those
decisions that do not lend themselves to neat and tidy and absolutely
defensible conclusions are the ones that ultimately end up on the
President's desk and are ultimately made, as my old friend said, on
instinct, out of the gut, rather than intellect out of the analysis.
I remember a President who many people thought was lacking in
intellectual candle power, who made a very momentous decision. His name
was Harry Truman. He described how he was at his mother-in-law's home
for Sunday dinner back in Missouri when the phone rang. He went to the
entry hall of that old home where the phone was kept--showing how long
ago this really was. There was no black box following him around. There
was no communications apparatus with instant ties to the White House,
just a phone in the entry hall where the phone used to be put in the
days when there was only one phone per house, and that would be in a
central location.
He answered the phone. It was Dean Acheson, who told him the North
Koreans had just started across the border into South Korea. President
Truman said: We have to stop the--expletives deleted.
In later years, he was asked to outline his decisionmaking analysis
of the decision to hold the line in North Korea, and he told of the
phone call and said: My decisionmaking analysis was that one sentence
when I told Dean Acheson: We have to stop the--expletives deleted. He
did not think about it any more than that. That came straight out of
his gut. And it was Harry Truman's gut that made him one of the
Presidents we now revere as one of the greatest of the past century.
This decision is about going to war in Iraq or about, putting it more
properly, giving the President authorization to move ahead with force
if at some point it becomes clear to him that is what we should do. It
is in the category of those truly Presidential decisions.

As I listen to the debate on the floor, the questions being asked,
the analysis being demanded, the effort being made to come up with a
clear set of tidy pros and cons that can then be weighed on a balance
sheet or an accounting statement and then a carefully crisp decision
made on the basis of all of that evidence, I go back to my conversation
with my friend. We do not know. No one knows what will be the situation
in Iraq if we attack after it is over. We do not know whether the
Middle East will be a more beneficent place or a more malevolent place
if that attack takes place, and no one does.
I can find experts who will tell us this would be the very best thing
we could possibly do, and that the Middle East will be much more
peaceful, and that liberty will be on the march if we just stand firm.
Out of the newspapers we can find plenty of columnists who will tell us
that.
I can find other experts who will say this is the greatest disaster
we would possibly bring upon the Middle East, and that if we attack
Iraq, we will unleash a whole Pandora's box of problems. The Arab
street will rise up, and

[[Page S10012]]

America will be hated for 100 years. There are plenty of columnists in
the newspapers who will tell us that.
I can find experts who will say: Weapons of mass destruction will be
used against Israel if we move ahead against Iraq; that there will be
biological and chemical attacks not only against Israel but against
American installations everywhere; that American multinational
companies will become the targets of biological and chemical attacks;
and that all of this can be averted if we just continue the
discussions. I can find plenty of columnists and people in the
newspapers who will tell us that.
Then there are those who say: If we do not act, we will so embolden
Saddam Hussein and all the other dictators of the area that they will
never move in a peaceful direction; we will have inevitable war, and it
will be many times worse than anything that would be triggered by
action taken now. Again, in the newspapers, I can find plenty of
columnists who will tell us that.
So this is a truly Presidential decision, and it will be made not in
George Bush's head or in the heads of those around him--Dick Cheney,
Colin Powell, Don Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, brilliant people all;
they stack up their degrees, they stack up their accomplishments in the
world, and this is as glittering an array of talent as any President
has ever assembled to advise him on foreign policy matters--but the
ultimate decision will be made in the President's gut because this is a
truly Presidential decision fraught with so many unknowable
consequences and possible side effects that no one, no matter how
smart, can accurately analyze them in advance and come to a neat and
tidy and firm conclusion.
I take some comfort in an analysis that has been made of what I would
call the long-term and big-picture question, a big-picture question
that perhaps can be analyzed a little better than the specifics of
whether or not we move ahead with force in Iraq. I refer first to a
piece that appeared in the Washington Post written by Jackson Diehl
entitled ``Bush's Foreign Policy First--But no one seems to notice--
even at the White House.'' That is the subhead.

The ``foreign policy first'' that Mr. Diehl is talking about is the
fact that the Bush administration, for the first time since the cold
war, has laid down a coherent doctrine and strategy with respect to
America's role in the post-cold war world.
We all sat in the House Chamber 10 days after the attack, perhaps a
week or so after the attack, on September 11, and we heard President
Bush deliver a fabulous speech. It had some of the most dramatic
rhetoric I expect to ever hear in my lifetime, and it was the finest
Presidential speech I have ever heard in my lifetime. As I stepped away
from that speech and the emotion of the moment and analyzed it,
realized President Bush had, in fact, for the first time in the post-
cold war world, laid down a vision of that world and America's role in
it. That speech was more than a rhetorical masterpiece. It was a
serious policy statement of where America should be.
That has been fleshed out in a 34-page statement of foreign policy
issued by the White House. That is what Jackson Diehl is referring to
when he says Bush's foreign policy first--the first statement of the
situation post-cold war as seen by an American administration looking
at it in toto.
Quoting from Mr. Diehl's presentation, he says:

For a decade U.S. internationalists bemoaned the absence of
any coherent policy for engaging the world after the fall of
Communism. The Clinton administration, like the Bush team
before it, was excoriated for stumbling from crisis to crisis
and for consistently making bad judgments about where and how
to use America's sole-superpower strength. Now, at last, the
internationalists have gotten what they wanted, and the
reaction of too many of them is to be aghast.

Continuing the quote:

The national security doctrine issued this month by the
White House packs into just 34 pages everything the foreign
policy of the 1990s lacked. It begins by embracing two facts
that have been observed since 1991, but hard for a democratic
and sometimes insular society to accept: that America has
unmatched and unprecedented power in the world and therefore
no choice but to shape the international order; and that it
faces threats that are utterly different but in some ways
more dangerous than the threats from the old Soviet Union.

I think that is exactly what the President was saying in his
statement to the Joint Session of Congress. We must face the fact that
we have power unmatched in history and, therefore, cannot abdicate our
responsibility to shape the international order and, two, we must face
the fact that we still live in a dangerous world and we are ironically
more vulnerable now than we were before.
Mr. Diehl goes on, after talking about the situation surrounding the
word ``unilateral,'' or ``presumptive action,'' and he makes this
point:

American presidents have been engaging in unilateral and
preemptive military actions all along--most recently in
Panama, Grenada and Haiti, and in Iraq following the 1998
expulsion of the inspectors. And what the new policy actually
says is this: Because terrorists and rogue dictators now have
the potential to do enormous harm to Americans with weapons
of mass destruction and are not easily deterred, it may be
necessary to strike at some before they can act. Should
we again sit still if a future al-Qaida operates large
terrorist training camps in a future Afghanistan? Rice's
document treats this question as a matter of common sense,
which it is. It also says, sensibly, that preemption is
not the answer to all threats--and so far, at least, it
hasn't been the legal basis for the White House campaign
against Iraq.

I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to continue for an
additional 5 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator may proceed.
Mr. BENNETT. Jackson Diehl summarizes this way:

The real heart of the doctrine, the proposition that U.S.
strength be wielded to spread liberty throughout the world,
has been barely acknowledged by a policy apparatus that
continues to cultivate old and new autocratic allies in the
Middle East and Asia.

I ask unanimous consent that the entire article appear at the
conclusion of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. BENNETT. Turning to a piece which also appeared in the Washington
Post written by Bernard Lewis, who is considered by some to be the
ultimate authority on conflicts in the Middle East, it is entitled:
``Targeted By a History of Hatred--The United States Is Now the
Unquestioned Leader of the Free World, Also Known as the Infidels.''
That is an interesting tie: We are the unquestioned leader of the free
world, also known in many parts of the world as the infidels.
Put that headline against the statement contained in Jackson Diehl's
summary of the Bush position paper authored primarily by Condoleezza
Rice, and once again you see the big picture. We do live in a world
where we are the only superpower. We have the responsibility to do
something with that, and President Bush and his advisers have now come
to the conclusion that the ultimate test of how we use our power should
be how will it ultimately spread liberty throughout the world. That is
the kind of flag to which I can repair. That is the kind of standard I
can follow.
If we were the British in the 1700s and 1800s presiding over the
world, the grand scheme would be: How can we enhance and increase
British Imperial power? If we were the Romans when they were the only
superpower in that portion of the world they cared about, the only big
picture item would be: How can we secure and extend the power of the
Roman legions? But as President Bush makes this truly Presidential
decision out of his gut, he has made it clear that the ultimate
question he is asking, and we must ask with him, is, How will this
expand the role of liberty throughout the world? That, as I say, is a
standard I can follow.
So I will be voting in favor of the resolution, not because I have
figured out all of the unknowables and imponderables relating to it and
not because I am absolutely sure that the Presidential power will be
used in the right possible way in every possible circumstance. I will
be doing it because I trust George W. Bush's instincts as outlined as
clearly as any post-war President has ever outlined America's role in
the post-war world.
He will use his power to expand and defend liberty throughout the
world. He may use it by mistake. He may do things that do not produce
that result. But that will be his polestar; that

[[Page S10013]]

should be America's polestar; that should be the policy we lay down and
hold now for generations to come. It resonates with the decision of the
Founding Fathers when the country was created. It is a worthy position
for us to take now that the country has become preeminent in the world.
Let us hope and pray that as we give this President this power it is
always used to that end.
I yield the floor.

Exhibit No. 1

Bush's Foreign Policy First

(By Jackson Diehl)

For a decade U.S. internationalists bemoaned the absence of
any coherent policy for engaging the world after the fall of
communism. The Clinton administration, like the Bush team
before it, was excoriated for stumbling from crisis to crisis
and for consistently making bad judgments about where and how
to use America's sole-superpower strength. Now, at last, the
internationalists have gotten what they wanted--and the
reaction of too many of them is to be aghast.
The national security doctrine issued this month by the
White House packs into just 34 pages everything the foreign
policy of the 1990s lacked. It begins by embracing two facts
that have been obvious since 1991, but hard for a democratic
and sometimes insular society to accept: that America has
unmatched and unprecedented power in the world and therefore
no choice but to shape the international order; and that it
faces threats that are utterly different but in some ways
more dangerous than the threats from the old Soviet Union.
The Bush doctrine commits the United States to act
aggressively, with others or alone, ``to promote a balance of
power that favors freedom.'' The phobias about engaging
abroad that paralyzed policy in the '90s, and infuriated the
internationalists, are banished. This isn't just the
Jacksonian assertion of American interests, though that is
surely part of it. There is also a Wilsonian promise to
``bring the hope of democracy, development, free markets and
free trade to every corner of the world''--and a Kissingerian
strategy of maintaining a ``great power balance'' that
decisively favors the United States. the ambition is
breathtaking; ``We will work to translate this moment of
influence,'' declares the doctrine, ``into decades of peace,
prosperity and liberty.'' It is, in short, a bold--and mostly
brilliant--synthesis, one that conceivably could cause
national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, who executed it,
to be remembered as the policymaker who defined a new era.
The first proof that Rice and her team are on to something
is the alarmist reactions that have greeted her paper.
Scandalized members of the foreign policy establishment are
calling its treatment of preemptive action an unprecedented
policy departure that endorses blitzkrieg as the remedy for
anti-Americanism. In a chat with National Public Radio,
historian Douglas Brinkley claimed that it ``is simply
saying, `We do what we want when we feel like it, and we will
declare war on anybody if we think they might be declaring
war on us.' ''
Policy perestroika usually provokes such first responses.
But American presidents have been engaging in unilateral and
preemptive military actions all along--most recently in
Panama, Grenada and Haiti, and in Iraq following the 1998
expulsion of the inspectors. And what the new policy actually
says is this: Because terrorists and rogue dictators now have
the potential to do enormous harm to Americans with weapons
of mass destruction and are not easily deterred, it may be
necessary to strike at some before they can act. Should we
again sit still if a future al Qaeda operates large terrorist
training camps in a future Afghanistan? Rice's document
treats this question as ``a matter of common sense,'' which
it is. It also says, sensibly, that preemption is not the
answer to all threats--and so far, at least, it hasn't been
the legal basis for the White House campaign against Iraq.
That Colin Powell now is negotiating the text of another
Security Council resolution on U.N. inspections with Russia,
Syria and France points to the real weakness of the Bush
doctrine--not that it is too radical but that it lacks the
political momentum needed to overcome decades of encrusted
old thinking and bureaucratic inertia. It's not just that
liberal academics haven't signed on to the new doctrine.
Inside the administration, it's hard to find anyone--other
than Rice--who subscribes to every part of it. Instead, some
push the unilateral offense, some the democratic nation-
building--and no one quite gets his or her way. In practice,
despite all the alarms, the administration's foreign policy,
when not entirely paralyzed by internal infighting, mostly
follows the old norms.
George Kannan's theory of containment eventually won over
challengers from the right and left, and thus became the
consensus doctrine of the Cold War. Will Rice have the same
luck? So far preemption is no more than a scary word used to
motivate the United Nations--which, at least in the case of
Iraq, is perhaps its best use. Meanwhile, the real heart of
the doctrine--the proposition that U.S. strength be wielded
to spread liberty through the world--has been barely
acknowledged by a policy apparatus that continues to
cultivate old and new autocratic allies in the Middle East
and Asia. Does George Bush really subscribe to the doctrine
issued in his name? Ask Hosni Mubarak, or Pervez Musharraf.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. I thank our distinguished colleague for an excellent
contribution to this debate. He has a remarkable way of tying it to the
reality of the present day and the present time and also looking toward
the future. So, again, I thank him for his participation and hope he
can perhaps return to the floor in the future.
I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks, an op-ed piece
that appears today, Monday, October 7, in the Wall Street Journal,
authored by our distinguished colleague Joe Lieberman, whose name
appears in the first place on the resolution that is before the Senate,
be printed in the Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See Exhibit 1.)
Mr. WARNER. I read the following excerpt:

It is time to authorize the use of our military might to
enforce the United Nations resolutions, disarm Iraq, and
eliminate the ongoing threat to our security, and the
world's, posed by Saddam Hussein's rabid regime.

Later he asks the question, Why now? He replies:

For more than a decade we have tried everything--diplomacy,
sanctions, inspections, limited military action--except war
to convince Saddam Hussein to keep the promises he made, and
the U.N. endorsed, to end the Gulf War. Those steps have not
worked . . .
So my answer to ``why now?'' is, ``Why not earlier?'' And,
of course, that question has new urgency since September 11,
2001.

Further, he quotes from former Secretary of Defense Jim Schlesinger,
under whom I was privileged to serve as Secretary of the Navy. Senator
Lieberman states:

As former secretary of defense Schlesinger recently told
the Senate Armed Services Committee, ``Vigorous action in the
course of an ongoing conflict hardly constitutes preventive
war.''

Exhibit 1

[From the Wall Street Journal, Oct. 7, 2002]

Our Resolution

(By Joe Lieberman)

The most fateful and difficult responsibility the
Constitution gives to members of Congress is to decide when
the president should be authorized to lead the men and women
of the U.S. military into war. We are now engaged in such a
debate regarding Saddam Hussein's belligerent dictatorship in
Iraq.
Although I disagree with many other aspects of President
Bush's foreign and domestic policy, I believe deeply that he
is right about Iraq, and that our national security will be
strengthened if members of both parties come together now to
support the commander-in-chief and our military. That's why I
have cosponsored the Senate resolution that was negotiated
with the White House. It is time to authorize the use of our
military might to enforce U.N. resolution, disarm Iraq, and
eliminate the ongoing threat to our security, and the world's
posed by Saddam Hussein's rabid regime.

responsibility

Making the case for such action is a responsibility to be
shouldered by those of us who have reached these conclusions.
If we do so convincingly, not long will the American people
and our allies better understand our standards for
engagement, but governments around the world who defy the
dictates of the U.N. to make weapons of mass destruction or
to support terrorists will appreciate how painful the
consequences of their brutality and lawlessness can be.
In that spirit, let me now address a few of the most
critical questions my Senate colleagues and many American are
asking.
Why has military action against Saddam become so urgent?
Why not give diplomacy and inspections another chance? Why
now?
For more than a decade we have tried everything--diplomacy
sanctions, inspections, limited military action--except war
to convince Saddam to keep the promises he made, and the U.N.
endorsed, to end the Gulf War. Those steps have not worked.
In 1998, Bob Kerry, John McCain, and I sponsored the Iraq
Liberation Act declaring it national policy to change the
regime in Baghdad. The act became law, but until recently
little has been done to implement it. In the meantime, Saddam
has not wavered from his ambition for hegemonic control over
the Persian Gulf and the Arab world: He has invested vast
amounts of his national treasure in building inventories of
biological and chemical weapons and the means to deliver them
to targets near and far. Saddam once told his Republican
Guard that its national honor would not be achieved until
Iraq's arm reached out beyond its borders to ``every point in
the Arab homeland.''
So, my answer to ``Why now?'' is, ``Why not earlier?'' And,
of course, that question has new urgency since Sept. 11,
2001.
Won't a war against Iraq slow or stop our more urgent war
against terrorism?
To me, the two are inextricably linked. First, remember
that Iraq under Saddam is

[[Page S10014]]

one of only seven nations in the world to be designated by
our State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism,
providing aid and training to terrorists who have killed
Americans and others. Second, Saddam himself meets the
definition of a terrorist--someone who attacks civilians to
achieve a political purpose. Third, though the relationship
between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime is a subject of intense
debate within the intelligence community, we have evidence of
meetings between Iraqi officials and leaders of al Qaeda, and
testimony that Iraqi agents helped train al Qaeda operatives
to use chemical and biological weapons. We also know that al
Qaeda leaders have been, and are now, harbored in Iraq.
Saddam's is the only regime that combines growing
stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and a record of
using them with regional hegemonic ambitions and a record of
supporting terrorists. If we remove his influence from the
Middle East and free the Iraqi people to determine their own
destiny, we will transform the politics of the region. That
will only advance the war against terrorism, not set it back.
Why should we launch a strike against a sovereign nation
that has not struck us first?
We should and will soon have a larger debate about the
president's new doctrine of pre-emption, but not here and
now, because the term is not apt for our current situation.
We have been engaged in an ongoing conflict with Saddam's
regime ever since the Gulf War began. Every day, British and
American aircraft and personnel are enforcing no-fly zones
over northern and southern Iraq; the ongoing force of about
7,500 American men and women in uniform costs our taxpayers
more than $1 billion a year. And this is not casual duty.
Saddam's air defense forces have shot at U.S. and British
planes 406 times (and counting) in 2002 alone.
As former Secretary of Defense James Schlesinger recently
told the Senate Armed Services Committee, ``Vigorous action
in the course of an ongoing conflict hardly constitutes
preventive war.''
Why not have two congressional resolutions, one now
encouraging the U.N. to respond to President Bush's call for
inspections without limits, and another one later authorizing
U.S. military action if the U.N. refuses to act?
This is sometimes described as the way to stop ``go-it-
alone'' action by the U.S. unless and until absolutely
necessary. But I believe that the best way to encourage
forceful U.N. action, so that we never have to ``go it
alone,'' is for Congress to unite now in authorizing the
president to take military action, if necessary. I am
convinced that if we lead decisively, others will come to our
side, in the U.N. and after. If we are steadfast in pursuit
of our principles, allies in Europe and the Middle East will
be with us.
Why not just authorize the president to take military
action to disarm the Iraqis instead of giving him a ``blank
check''?
Our resolution does not give the president a blank check.
It authorizes the use of U.S. military power only to ``defend
the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq'' and to ``enforce all
relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions
regarding Iraq.''
There are 535 members of Congress who have the
constitutional responsibility to authorize American military
action, but there is only one commander-in-chief who can
carry it out. Having reached the conclusion I have about the
clear and present danger Saddam represents to the U.S., I
want to give the president a limited but strong mandate to
act against Saddam. Five hundred and thirty-five members of
Congress cannot wage war; we can only authorize it. The rest
is up to the president and our military.

a record of strength

We in Congress have now begun a very serious debate on
these questions and others. Each member must act on values,
conscience, sense of history and national security. When it
is over, I believe there will be a strong majority of
senators who will vote for the bipartisan resolution that
John Warner, John McCain, Evan Bayh and I have introduced. I
am equally confident that a strong majority of Democrats in
the Senate will support it. In doing so, they will embrace
the better parts of our party's national security legacy of
the last half century. From Truman's doctrine to prevent
communist expansion to Kennedy's ``quarantine'' of Cuba to
prevent Soviet missiles from remaining there, to Bill
Clinton's deployment of American forces to the Balkans to
stop genocide and prevent a wider war in Europe, Democrats
should be proud of our record of strength when it counted the
most.
Each of the Democratic presidents above tried diplomacy,
but when it failed, they unleashed America's military forces
across the globe to confront tyranny, to stop aggression, and
to prevent any more damage to America or Americans. That is
precisely what our resolution would empower President Bush to
do now.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I will use my 15 minutes to speak on the
Iraq resolution at a subsequent time. I will speak today on something I
think is extremely important to what we are doing militarily around the
world; that is, as a result of an article I saw in today's Washington
Post, and I am sure it is running all over the world.
Mr. WARNER. Could I ask my colleague, could your very important
colloquy which I will have with you on this subject appear in a place
elsewhere in the Record?
Mr. REID. I want it at this point. Sorry, but I really do. I think
this is important to what we are doing today, I say to my friend, the
distinguished Senator and my good friend from Virginia.
This headline reads: ``Bush Threatens Veto of Defense Bill.''
I cannot believe the President is involved in this--maybe some of the
people around him--I cannot believe the President would do this. I
cannot accept that. I cannot accept George W. Bush, a person I have
found to be very sensitive to people--I hope my feelings are warranted.
We have statements from the same article:

David S.C. Chu, Undersecretary of defense for personnel and
readiness, said VA disability compensation is intended not to
supplement military pensions.
``We're going to rob Peter to pay Paul.''

He was speaking for the President of the United States on this very
important issue, saying:

``We're going to rob Peter to pay Paul''--``and the
question is, should Peter really lose here?''

This is legislation I authored and others have supported over the
years to allow military retirees to receive not only their retirement
benefits from the military but also their disability benefits. That is
all this is. Somebody who is in the U.S. military, who is disabled, can
receive that pension in addition to their retirement benefits. The law
now says you can't. I say that is wrong.
If you retire from the Department of Energy or Sears & Roebuck and
have a disability pension from the military, you can draw both
pensions. Why shouldn't you be able to if you retire from the military?
I am troubled with this administration's opposition of concurrent
receipt of retirement pay and disability pay for disabled military
retirees.
America's veterans have long been denied concurrent receipt based on
an antiquated law that in effect says if you have 20 years in uniform
you cannot draw your disability.

This ``robbing Peter to pay Paul'' troubles me. As we speak today,
starting at 2:45 today until 2:45 tomorrow, 1,000 World War II veterans
will die. A number of those have disabilities, and they are entitled to
receive those disability benefits as a result of their service in the
military. They are entitled to that. But not legally.
This law which has passed the Senate on two separate occasions--
passed the House this year--is being threatened by the President. He is
not going to OK this bill.
I held a press conference with Senator Warner and Senator Levin last
year saying they fought a good fight, and we were sorry we could not
get it done. I will not accept that this year; neither are the veterans
of this country. I know how dedicated Senator Warner and Senator Levin
are to the military of this country. Don't let them be bamboozled by
this administration saying he will veto the bill.
I dare them to veto the bill based on disability benefits to
veterans, 1,000 of whom are dying every day, World War II veterans. Not
all 1,000 will draw benefit. They have exaggerated how man people will
draw these benefits. But there are some.
And now I see a proposal in the same article, the distinguished
Senator from Arizona saying maybe we will compromise and say those who
have a service-connected disability can draw their benefits.
If you are in battle--at most, there are 10 percent during a conflict
with military people on the front lines in combat--if someone gets shot
and their shoulder is ruined, they should be entitled to the benefits.
If someone is not in the front lines, but in the back lines, or even in
America, not over in a foreign country, and they fall off a truck and
ruin their shoulder, they are entitled to those benefits just like
someone who was shot. They are doing their best to represent our
country, and they are just as important. If you did not have those
people behind the lines, you would not have the people on the front
lines able to fight.
Career military retired veterans are the only group of Federal
retirees required to waive their retirement pay to

[[Page S10015]]

receive disability. Other Federal retirees get both disability and
retirement pay.
Some officials have been quoted in recent newspaper articles stating
that retirement pay is two pays for the same event. Come on, get real,
Mr. President. These people say this is doubledipping. These statements
are simply untrue--or people do not know what they are talking about.
Military retirement pay and disability compensation are earned from
entirely different purposes. Therefore, a disabled veteran should be
allowed to receive both.
Current law ignores the distinction. Military retired pay is earned
compensation for the extraordinary demands and sacrifices inherent in a
military career. It is a reward promised for serving two decades or
more under conditions that most Americans would find intolerable. When
a person goes into the military, they are expecting to draw retirement
pay. When they go in the military, they are not expecting to come out
disabled. But it happens. Veterans disability compensation is
recompense for pain, suffering, and loss of earning power caused by a
service-connected illness or injury. Few retirees can afford to live on
their retired pay alone, and a severe disability makes the problem
worse, limiting or denying postservice working life.
The Presiding Officer of this body is the chairman of the Veterans'
Affairs Committee, and on a daily basis he deals with the problems, the
burdens of veterans in our country. No group of people have more
problems than veterans. Whether you are a World War II veteran, Korean
war veteran, or a Vietnam veteran, you have problems. We have people
from all those conflicts, plus others who have served in recent years
who have disabilities. They are entitled to this. It has passed the
Senate. It is the will of the people of this country. It is the will of
the Senate. For, now, the President--his representative, a Mr. Chu--to
come in and say:

The President is not going to support this legislation. It
would be robbing Peter to pay Paul.

What is that supposed to mean? We are not going to be able to buy a
tank or airplane? Instead, we are going to have to give the money to
somebody like Senator Inouye, who has lost an arm, or Senator Cleland,
who has lost three limbs?
A retiree should not have to forfeit part or all of his or her earned
retired pay as a result of having suffered a service-connected
disability. There are those who have suggested a compromise for limited
concurrent receipt to only combat-injured military retirees. I don't
accept that. Many of our veterans have not been injured in combat, but
they are no less injured or any less deserving of fair compensation.
This is simply bowing to the administration's threat of a veto.
Likewise, the administration's assertion that if the concurrent
receipt passes, ``1.2 million veterans could qualify'' for extra
benefits is simply not credible. The Department of Defense and
Department of Veterans Affairs previously informed Congress about
550,000 disabled retirees would qualify if the Senate concurrent
receipt plan were approved. So where do they come up with another
700,000 people?
The administration's argument that funding benefits for America's
disabled veterans would hurt current military personnel is misleading.
Congress is not cutting funding for those who are now serving our
country in order to provide benefits for those from previous
generations who served loyally and made tremendous sacrifices. Congress
will appropriate the money to pay for that.
Enacting this concurrent receipt legislation will not cause current
service members to live in substandard quarters, as some say, in a
misguided attempt to turn one generation of patriots against another.
Moreover, at a time when our Nation is calling upon our Armed Forces to
defend democracy and freedom, we must be careful not to send the wrong
signal to those in uniform. All who have selected to make their careers
in the United States military are now facing an additional unknown risk
in our fight against terrorism. If they were injured, they would be
forced to forego their earned retired pay in order to receive their VA
benefits. In effect, they would be paying for their own disability
benefits from their retirement checks unless this legislation is passed
overwhelmingly.
If the President vetoes this bill because of this, how many Senators
are going to come here and vote to sustain that veto? I don't think
very many. Who would they rather have on their backs? The President or
the veterans of this country? I know from Nevada, I would rather have
the President on my back than those veterans--and they are right.
At a time when our Nation is calling on our Armed Forces, we need to
do this. We must send a signal to these brave men and women the
American people and Government take care of those who make sacrifices
for our Nation. We have a unique opportunity this year to redress the
unfair practice of requiring disabled military retirees to fund their
own disability compensation. It is time for us to show our appreciation
to these people.
Finally, the assertion the veterans who would benefit from concurrent
receipt are already doing well financially is ridiculous. NBC, the
National Broadcasting System, recently aired three news stories in
which they documented the dire situation veterans are facing today. The
Pentagon has acknowledged its studies of retiree income included
extremely few seriously disabled retirees.

For too long America's disabled military retirees have been unjustly
penalized by concurrent offset, and they are demanding action be taken
now, not in the future. With such strong bipartisan support on both
sides of the Congress, these men and women do not understand the
opposition of the administration. As I say, I hope the President
doesn't know what is going on.
Let me say again to my friend, the Senator from Virginia, who is on
the floor--I have spoken to him today. I have spoken to Senator Levin
today. I think this is so important we do this. At a time when our
country finds itself in crisis, what could be wrong with a veteran
getting retirement pay and disability pay at the same time? They are
two separate earnings, one for being hurt, one for spending a lot of
time in the military.
I have worked hard on this. I appreciate the support of the Senator
from Virginia and the Senator from Michigan. But I am saying here we
can't let this opportunity pass. We would be letting down people whom
we should not be letting down.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to commend my distinguished
colleague and friend on this particular issue. Among the group of us,
you have been primarily the leader. My recollection is this is about
the fourth year we have brought this up for attention and really asked
the Senate to focus upon it. This year it was a direct focus upon it by
the Senate and the House, and both Chambers put a provision in their
bill.
Mr. REID. I would also say to my friend from Virginia, not only that,
but the House--we don't have a budget here, but the House budget
includes this. They didn't include----
Mr. WARNER. Yes.
Mr. REID. They included it to 60 percent disabled. They have the
dollars budgeted in the House. They did that. So the answer is
absolutely correct.
I vote for these defense budgets. I am for a strong military. I
remind everyone here in this Iraq season we are in, I was the first
Democrat to announce publicly to support the first President Bush. I
had no problem doing that. I want a good, strong military. But I think
part of that is rewarding these people for having been injured. Why
should we take their retirement away from them because they have been
injured? There is no reason.
Mr. WARNER. I say to my colleague, we are now, as you know, in
conference. Senator Levin and I work daily on this with our two
colleagues from the House, Chairman Stump and Ike Skelton. This has not
been resolved as yet.
We, of course, have to take notice of what is stated here. Presumably
the statement in the Pentagon, by Mr. Chu, would not have been made had
there not been some consultation with the staff of the President. I
don't know the extent this has been brought to his attention. After
all, he has been among

[[Page S10016]]

the staunchest defenders of the men and women of the Armed Forces--
past, present and for the future.

So I say to my friend, I will join him and others and continue to try
to work this issue in our conference. But I believe your statement at
this time, I say to my colleague, comes at a critical moment. Because
that decision could be made, indeed, today, tomorrow, the next day, as
to how, finally, to constitute the provisions of the House-Senate
conference document which would then be brought back to both Chambers
for vote.
So I take to heart your comments. I will share them with our
conferees. I express again my appreciation to you for your staunch--
staunch defense of our veterans. I humbly say, modestly: I am a
veteran. As a matter of fact, I would not be here had it not been for
what the military did for me. I have often said they did a lot more for
me than I ever did for them in my modest service. But I assure you, I
am contemporary with the World War II generation, and you are
absolutely right. One thousand a day are departing.
I have met with them. They have been among the more vigorous, to try
and bring forth congressional action on this, as have any number of
veterans' groups and groups associated with our military.
I say to my friend, your message is timely. We should take it to
heart and do our very best.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I can say to my friend, the ``gentleman''
from Virginia--and certainly he is the epitome of a gentleman--I
appreciate very much his remarks.
Mr. DORGAN. Will the Senator from Nevada yield for 2 brief questions?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield?
Mr. WARNER. I have no objection, of course, but we are proceeding on
the Iraq resolution. Following colleagues' comments and questions to
our distinguished Democratic whip, we will return to, I believe,
Senator Kyl to be recognized.
Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, I am mindful there are others waiting to
speak. But when I learned Senator Reid was going to speak today, I was
going to ask him a couple of questions on this issue. I will just be 2
to 3 minutes, if I can ask the indulgence of my colleagues.
Mr. DOMENICI. If the Senator will yield, can I ask for the record
that I follow Senator Kyl?
Mr. WARNER. Certainly I have no objection. I think that is very
helpful.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is ordered without objection.
Mr. REID. And following Senator Dorgan, Senator Kyl be recognized for
15 minutes and Senator Domenici for 15 minutes.
Mr. DORGAN. I wanted to say to the Senator from Nevada, he has raised
a very important issue at this point. Twenty-three of us in the Senate
sent a letter to the authorizing committee on this subject, saying
those soldiers who have earned a retirement should receive it, and
those same soldiers who are entitled to a disability payment should
receive that as well. It is that simple. Senator Reid of Nevada has
made the case. It is just a very simple issue of equity.
What I wanted to do is point out that NBC News did a story recently.
I don't know whether the Senator mentioned this on the floor of the
Senate. Hank Nix, from Ozark, AL, 52 years ago was shot in the chest.
He took a bullet leading his platoon. He earned a Silver Star. He is
now talking about having to move from their home because of what is
called a broken promise. The Government is reducing his retirement pay
because he is not allowed to collect both his disability--he is 100
percent disabled, he took a bullet in the chest leading his platoon in
the Korean war, but he is not allowed to collect the retirement he
earned and a disability payment he is due. Why? Because there is a
quirk in the law that applies only to disabled soldiers and no other
Federal worker. About half a million soldiers are in this circumstance.

It is, in my judgment, totally unforgivable that we don't fix this.
It has been around for a long while. Many of us have talked about it on
the floor of the Senate. I know the Senator from Virginia is in support
of fixing it, as are, I think, most of our colleagues.
I appreciate the fact that the Senator from Nevada brought this to
the floor today because this is critically important. If we are going
to get it fixed, now is the time to get it fixed. A military career is
filled with hardships, family separations, and sacrifices, and all too
often being put in harm's way. There are promises made to those folks
who wear America's uniform, and then we are not keeping the promise
with respect to this issue.
Finally, let me say this: I have, as many of my colleagues have since
September 11, 2002, visited military bases in Central Asia,
Afghanistan, and elsewhere. You can see the pride in the eyes of those
soldiers--men and women--who are fighting terrorism on behalf of our
country. You know and they know we have an obligation to keep our
promise to our veterans.
George Washington said it 200 years ago. I will not repeat the quote
that has been repeated many times on the floor of this Senate. But when
we send young men and women to war to defend freedom, we have an
obligation to keep our promises to them. One of those promises is to
say: If you earn a retirement, we will pay you that retirement. If you
are disabled because of your service to our country, you are entitled
to that disability payment. It is just that simple.
I appreciate the Senator from Nevada bringing it to the floor.
Mr. REID. I appreciate very much having worked with the Senator from
North Dakota on this most important issue as we have on a number of
issues.
My point is, the conferees must not cave in on this. Let them veto
this issue. We will override the veto. This isn't something that is,
oh, well, we will see. As I said, let everyone here in the Senate
decide whom they want to support--the President's people or the
veterans of their States. This is an issue on which conferees cannot
let us down.
Mr. DORGAN. The President threatened a veto today--or the White House
did, apparently. They said they cannot afford this. We can't afford not
to do this. You just have to keep the promises here. I am talking about
our country. We must keep our promise to veterans. I hope he will not
veto. If he does, it will be overridden, I believe, by a very large
margin here in the Senate.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Feinstein). The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KYL. Madam President, I support S.J. Res. 45 authorizing the use
of force against Iraq.
Perhaps the most difficult decision one can make as a Member of this
body is to vote to send American troops into harm's way. It forces one
to consider every question, every possibility, and every option short
of war. But this does not mean we should eschew action simply because
we have not yet tried every other option. Some threats must be dealt
with before implausible alternatives are allowed to play out because of
the consequences of delay. Preemption may be the only logical course of
action in some situations. A nation need not allow itself to be struck
to be justified in acting to protect itself.
With these principles in mind, we can evaluate the need to authorize
the use of force against Iraq. Actually, use of force against Iraq has
already been authorized by both the United States and the United
Nations. And the United States and Great Britain are already using
force on a weekly basis.
Notwithstanding his obligations to allow aerial inspections in the
no-fly zones, Saddam Hussein regularly attempts to shoot down our
unarmed reconnaissance planes, and we either react by destroying the
offending anti-aircraft site or seek to discover and destroy it before
it can fire--preemption. No one questions our right to do this.
Two facts can, therefore, be established: No. 1, Saddam Hussein is
not willing to allow unconditional inspections as he claims. He is not
doing it now. No. 2, his continued violation of the United Nations
resolutions requires a military response. That is assuming the
resolutions were intended to be enforced when they were adopted. Delay
in doing so only degrades our claim of authority to act and makes more
difficult the task.
No one can argue that the United States and the international
community have not exhausted the full range of legal, diplomatic, and
other alternatives to try to compel Saddam Hussein to obey all of the
terms of the cease-fire to which he agreed at the end

[[Page S10017]]

of the gulf war. His continuing defiance of that agreement, including
his desire to acquire nuclear weapons and his support of terrorism,
presents a real and growing threat to U.S. national security. We have
now reached a juncture where the risks of inaction outweigh the risks
of action.
Those who oppose the authorization of force usually define the test
as whether there is an immediate threat, asking, Why do we have to act
now? But I submit this is the wrong question. Our intelligence will
never be good enough to allow us to calibrate our action to a threat
just a few days or a few weeks away. We simply do not know enough to do
that. We cannot wait until we are sure that Iraq has a nuclear weapon
and is about to use it because it is unlikely we will ever have that
evidence, and it will be too late when we do.
I find it ironic that some of the people insisting on this standard
are also some of the loudest critics of our intelligence failures
before September 11, arguing that we should have known an attack was
imminent and we should have taken action to prevent it. If September 11
had not happened, my guess is that these same people would be urging
caution, arguing that since we haven't yet ``connected all the dots,''
any preemptive action at that time would be too risky and premature.

Moreover, action is warranted now because there is no realistic hope
that the United Nations resolutions and Saddam's promises to us at the
end of the gulf war will otherwise be enforced, and each month that
passes increases the danger.
Finally, Iraq is another front in this war on terror. Eliminating
Saddam's threat will give us greater latitude in other actions we will
have to take, and it will create a more willing group of allies in the
region. For some of these countries to throw in with us, they need to
know that we are absolutely committed to winning and that they are
better off joining the winning side than continuing to pay tribute to
terrorists in order to protect their regimes from terrorists.
While there is much about Iraq's capabilities we do not know, there
are also some things we do know. No one, for example, can doubt the
extent of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. The only question is when
and how he will use them and how long it will be before he can add
nuclear weapons to his existing chemical and biological capabilities.
In recounting Iraq's nasty capabilities, it is useful to remind
ourselves that Baghdad has continued to pursue the development of these
weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them in violation
of numerous U.N. resolutions. There are 13 such resolutions.
During the 7 years that the United Nations Special Commission--
UNSCOM--inspectors were present in Iraq, Saddam Hussein went to great
lengths to obstruct inspections to conceal his stockpiles and continue
his programs under cloak of secrecy. It has now been 4 years since
United Nations inspection teams last set foot in Iraq. We have evidence
that Saddam has used that time to enhance his weapons and his
development programs. I need not detail that evidence here. It has been
amply discussed in a variety of open and closed sources of information
provided by the administration, and it includes everything banned by
the United Nations--chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and the
means of delivering them.
In addition, Saddam Hussein has demonstrated proclivity to use force
to achieve his objectives--twice against his neighbors. And his
aggressive ambitions have already led him to deploy the devastating
weapons if his stockpiles. He used chemical weapons against Iran. He
again used them against his own Kurdish population. And he has launched
ballistic missiles against four neighbors. He is devoting enormous
resources of his country to upgrade his threat, which is not an action
of one who only wants to survive.
There should be little doubt that Saddam Hussein will use his weapons
of mass destruction again either to back up a threat to harm us if we
stand in the way of some future aggression or in actual attack against
us or our allies, including, potentially a terrorist type attack on our
homeland. A recent article by Kenneth Pollack in the Arizona Republic
amplifies this point. In the article, Pollack concludes, ``. . . there
is every reason to believe that the question is not one of war or no
war, but rather of war now or war later--a war without nuclear weapons
or a war with them.''
Saddam Hussein's abuse of the Iraqi people is also deplorable, not to
mention a violation of a U.N. resolution passed just after the Gulf
War, resolution 688. His hideous treatment of Iraqi men, women, and
children is documented. A report published by Human Rights Watch in
1990 described the shocking brutality of the Iraqi regime:

Large numbers of persons have unquestionably died under
torture in Iraq over the past two decades. Each year there
have been reports of dozens--sometimes hundreds--of deaths,
with bodies of victims left in the street or returned to
families bearing marks of torture. . . . The brazenness of
Iraqi authorities in returning bodies bearing clear evidence
of torture is remarkable. Governments that engage in torture
often go to great lengths to hide what they have done. . . .
A government so savage as to flaunt its crimes obviously
wants to strike terror in the hearts of its citizens. . . .

And, as Iraqi citizens starve, Saddam has illegally used oil revenues
from the U.N. oil-for-food program to rebuild his military
capabilities, including his weapons of mass destruction. Then, of
course, Saddam blames the United States and the United Nations for the
suffering of the Iraqi people.
Finally, there is Saddam Hussein's support for international
terrorism. In his address to the Nation following the September 11
attacks, President Bush presented the countries of the world with two
unambiguous options. He said: ``Every nation in every region now has a
decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the
terrorists.'' Saddam Hussein made his decision.
Iraq was the only Arab-Muslim country that failed to condemn the
September 11 attack. In fact, the official Iraqi media stated on that
day that America was ``reaping the fruits of [its] crimes against
humanity.'' We know that Iraq has hosted members of al-Qaeda. And
National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice has commented specifically
on Iraq-al-Qaeda ties.

``We clearly know,'' she said, ``that there . . . have been contacts
between senior Iraqi officials and members of al Qaeda. We know too
that several of the [al Qaeda] detainees, in particular some high-
ranking detainees, have said that Iraq provided some training to al
Qaeda in chemical weapons.''
And Iraq has supported other terrorists. For example, Abu Abbas, the
mastermind of the 1985 Achille Lauro hijacking and murderer of American
Leon Klinghoffer, lives in Baghdad. The notorious Abu Nidal lived in
Baghdad from 1974 to 1983, and then again recently until he was gunned
down earlier this year. And Saddam Hussein has provided over $10
million to the families of Palestinian homicide bombers.
Now, the question is, what has the international community been doing
about all of this? The answer, Madam President, is not much. The much-
touted doctrine of deterrence only works if agreements are enforced.
Saddam obviously has not been deterred because no one has been willing
to stop him from continuing his unlawful activities.
Saddam Hussein has failed to live up to his cease-fire obligations.
The U.N. has failed to enforce them. President Bush described it
succinctly in his speech before the United Nations:

Just months after the 1991 cease-fire, the Security Council
twice renewed its demand that the Iraqi regime cooperate
fully with inspectors, condemning Iraq's serious violations
of its obligations. The Security Council again renewed that
demand in 1994, and twice more in 1996, deploring Iraq's
clear violations of its obligations. The Security Council
renewed its demand three more times in 1997, citing flagrant
violations; and three more times in 1998, calling Iraq's
behavior totally unacceptable. And in 1999, the demand was
renewed yet again.

If nothing else, the decade following the Gulf War has illustrated
clearly the limits of U.N. diplomacy. But the U.S. does not have to
participate in this folly. Our word must mean something. If we fail to
force Saddam Hussein to comply with his obligations, we will have sowed
the seeds of even greater and more threatening action in the future.
Is it possible that we could avoid military actions by accepting
Iraq's offer to allow unlimited inspections? The answer, I submit, is
no. It would

[[Page S10018]]

have been hard enough for UNSCOM, but it has been replaced by a new
entity negotiated between Secretary General Kofi Annan and Iraq in
1998. Unlike UNSCOM, this new entity, the U.N. Monitoring,
Verification, and Inspection Commission, known as UNMOVIC, is staffed
by U.N. employees, rather than officials on loan from member
governments.
The inspectors--who are not even required to have expertise in
relevant weapon programs--will not be able to make effective use of
intelligence information. They can't receive intelligence information
on a privileged basis, and the information that they gather can't flow
back to national intelligence agencies, like our CIA. As Gary
Millholin, Director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms control
recently commented, ``This eliminates the main incentive for
intelligence sources to provide UNMOVIC with information in the first
place.'' Since most of what we learned during inspections was the
result of intelligence gathered from Iraqi defectors, it is doubtful
UNMOVIC could produce much of value.
The absurdity of this set-up can only be trumped by the absurdity of
believing that this commission could possibly succeed against a vicious
dictator who has spent the last 11 years perfecting the arts of
concealment and deception in a country the size of France. As David
Kay, former head of the U.N.'s nuclear inspection team, recently
remarked, ``The only way you will end the weapons of mass destruction
program in Iraq is by removing Saddam from power.''
Let me repeat that. This is from the former head of the nuclear
inspection team of the United Nations:

The only way you will end the weapons of mass destruction
program in Iraq is by removing Saddam from power.

Here is the bottom line on the international community's ability to
deal with the Iraqi threat: Since the end of the Gulf War, Saddam has a
nearly perfect record in violating U.N. Security Council resolutions.
The United Nations, in turn, has a nearly perfect record in failing to
enforce them.
It is time to end this whole charade. Knowing that diplomacy will
continue to fail, we have an obligation to act, and not allow diplomacy
to be used as a weapon by a brutal dictator. That is a lesson we should
have learned through our experiences with the likes of Hitler, Stalin,
Ho Chi Minh, and Slobodan Milosevic. Moreover, too much is at stake to
place American security in the hands of unaccountable bureaucrats at
the U.N.
It is time for military action that will terminate the regime of
Saddam Hussein and destroy his weapons of mass destruction. We cannot
be assured of peace unless this threat is removed.
Some observers still insist that we should try to contain Saddam
through the doctrine of deterrence. After all, they say, we relied on
deterrence to contain the Soviets for 50 years, and maybe that will
work against Saddam. Mr. President, perhaps we should be thankful that
we suddenly have so many new converts to deterrence, since many of
these same voices were 20 years ago arguing instead for a nuclear
freeze and unilateral U.S. disarmament. I'll remember their newfound
commitment to deterrence as we attempt to deal with China's growing
militarization in the coming months and years.
There are situations where deterrence can work. This is not one of
them for two reasons. First deterrence has a shelf life. If there is no
response to violations, a dictator is not deterred--the threat of
retaliation is no longer credible. The U.N. has done nothing and the
U.S. next to nothing. As a result, Saddam has not been deterred. In any
event, containment and deterrence do not apply well in this case.
President Bush was absolutely correct when he declared at West Point
that ``deterrence means nothing against shadowy terrorist networks with
no nation or citizens to defend;'' and, ``containment is not possible
when unbalanced dictators with weapons of mass destruction can deliver
those weapons on missiles or secretly provide them to terrorist
allies.''
While belatedly embracing deterrence, critics of force reject a
doctrine of preemption. Yes, they say, there have always been
situations where countries had to act with force to prevent some attack
on them, but that's different from an announced doctrine of preemption.
There are several answers. The first is: no it is not. Preemption
only applies to certain situations--like Iraq. Though Iran presents
many of the same circumstances as Iraq, there are differentiating
factors that make preemption less appropriate vis-a-vis Iran. There is
no ``outstanding warrant'' as with Iraq; regime change could come from
within Iran; and, militarily, force is much less an option--to name
three differences.
Second, it is senseless to require a ``smoking gun'' in order to act.
As Secretary Rumsfeld has said: ``A gun doesn't smoke until it's been
fired and the goal has to be to stop such an attack before it starts.''
Since September 11, this takes on a whole new meaning. Don't think
smoking gun--think World Trade Center and Pentagon.
As we stand here more than one year after 3,000 innocent civilians
perished at the hands of vicious terrorists, we need to ask ourselves,
do we really want to wait until another attack, perhaps one using
weapons of mass destruction? What opponents really mean is, wait until
just before such an attack, and only act if we're reasonably sure the
attack is coming. Obviously, we can't count on knowing that, and the
potential consequences are too great to risk it.
So the answer to that question is an emphatic no. September 11
changed everything, or at least should have changed everything, in the
way we approach these matters. September 11 moved us out of the realm
of international relations theory and into the realm of self-defense.
If the President decides to move against Iraq, it will be an act of
self-defense. And by voting to authorize the President to take that
action, this body will be authorizing an act of self-defense. Knowing
what we know, how could we explain inaction if we were subsequently
attacked?
What's more, it should be obvious that if Saddam acquires nuclear
weapons, it will give him the ability to deter us. We are already
hearing arguments against the use of force because of the potential of
Iraq using chemical or biological weapons against our forces. Consider
having this debate a few months or years from now after we've
ascertained that he definitely has a nuclear saber to rattle. This will
make a move against Saddam, or any other American action in the Middle
East, more dangerous, and in all probability, less likely. It is
Saddam's dream come true. He will be able to check our actions. So,
again, the time to act is now.
But, some critics say, we must wait for international approval. Mr.
President, I submit that the proponents of ``multilateralism,'' in
addition to willfully ignoring the fecklessness of the U.N. and certain
other countries, neglect the special leadership role that our country
plays in the world.
It is no accident that it devolved to us to end German imperialism in
World War I, stop Adolf Hitler in World War II, and defeat the forces
of international communism in the Cold War. It is no accident that the
oppressed peoples of the world look at us, rather than other countries
or the U.N., as their ray of hope. That is why we lead, and why we must
lead.
We are fortunate to have a President today who appreciates this.
While much of the rest of the world insists on burying its head in the
sand or clinging to failed approaches, President Bush understands that
now is the time to confront Saddam. And while others insist on a false
distinction between the Iraqi threat and the war on terrorism,
President Bush has, as Noemie Emery has written in The Weekly Standard,
connected the dots. In so doing, writes Emery, President Bush has, like
Harry Truman when the Soviets encroached on Greece and Turkey in the
1940s, perceived ``an ominous and enlarging pattern'' that demanded a
response. Emery continues, ``Several presidents have had to wage wars,
but only two, Bush and Truman, have had to perceive them, and then to
define them as wars.''
This is the essence of leadership. By perceiving that we can no
longer afford to be attacked before we act, President Bush's doctrine
of preemption allows us, where appropriate, to act first

[[Page S10019]]

against terrorist organizations and states.
Our use of force in self-defense against Iraq will also help liberate
the beleaguered people of Iraq. Aside from the moral imperative, there
are a number of tangible benefits to the United States that a more
democratic Iraq will bring.
First, if real democracy can take hold, it will dispel the notion
that the people of the Middle East are incapable of democratic
governance, just as Taiwan and the Philippines have destroyed the
``Asian values'' myth in recent years. It's notable that the scourge of
Islamic terrorism has been nurtured, not in democratic Muslim countries
such as Turkey, but in repressive dictatorships like Iraq, Iran, Syria,
and Saudi Arabia. A democratic regime in Baghdad will set an example
and hopefully spark other badly-needed changes in governments in the
region. And, in the long run, democracy will prove to be the antidote
to Islamic-based terrorism.
A democratic regime that follows our removal of Saddam Hussein will
also provide us with a new and reliable ally in this critical part of
the world. The war on terrorism will almost certainly entail additional
actions, and the intelligence, political support, overflight rights and
the like from an allied regime in Iraq could prove critical to those
efforts.
Lastly, a democratic Iraq will bring that nation's vast oil
production capabilities back onto the world market. This will help the
world economy by, among other things, lessening the ability of the
Saudis and others to manipulate oil prices.
While I support this resolution and support using force to rid the
world of Saddam Hussein, I do want to offer a few caveats.
First, our commitment to this effort must be total. Our goal here
must be nothing short of the destruction of the current Iraqi regime.
There is no other realistic way to permanently disarm Iraq of its
weapons of mass destruction. And providing our Armed Forces with
anything less than everything they need to accomplish that goal is
unacceptable. And that includes the support of our intelligence
community.
Second, after removing the regime, we must resist the temptation to
rush home. As I just stated, there are enormous benefits in helping
Iraq achieve democracy. However, it is most unlikely that Iraq can be
stabilized and democratized without a significant U.S. presence after
the defeat of Saddam.
There can be no questioning the fact that the U.S. occupation of
Germany and Japan after World War II was critical to forging those two
countries into the democracies they now are. I am not saying we need to
copy those examples precisely, but it would be short-sighted and
dangerous for us to leave a shattered Iraq on its own or in the hands
of the United Nations after the removal of Saddam.
Third, we must not undertake this struggle on the cheap. We should
make no mistake: this operation is going to require a great deal of
manpower, weapons platforms and equipment, possibly for quite some
time. Those forces need to come from somewhere, and our forces have
already been stretched thin by the profusion of peacekeeping missions
and the budget cuts of the 1990s.
Meanwhile, we need to maintain and, I would say, even augment our
deterrent posture elsewhere in the world. For example, last year's
Quadrennial Defense Review, mostly drafted before September 11, called
for increasing our carrier presence in the Western Pacific. This seems
to me to be quite necessary, given that we normally have only one
carrier--the Kitty Hawk--in that region, but two potential conflict
zones, Korea and Taiwan. Yet, when we began our operations in
Afghanistan last year, the Kitty Hawk was called to duty in the Arabian
Sea, leaving us with no carrier in the Western Pacific for months.
We will almost certainly face this situation again if we go to war
against Iraq, and it is not something that we should ignore. The
upshot, is that this body needs to come to grips with the need for a
defense budget that supports the cost of operations like Afghanistan
and Iraq, defense transformation and an adequate global force posture.
At current spending levels, we are going to come up short of that goal.
Last, but not least, I believe the administration needs to be very
careful in its diplomatic efforts to secure a new U.N. Security Council
resolution. That body includes the terrorist regime of Syria, Communist
China, which threatens our friends on Taiwan and sells fiber-optics to
Iraq, and Russia, which has forged close economic ties with Iraq over
the past decade. Principle, not expedience, must be our ultimate guide
in dealing with these countries that hold the votes to deny or
authorize U.N.-backed action.
If we need to make concessions to these regimes that undermine our
interests elsewhere--in Taiwan, for example--then it is not worth
securing their votes in the Council. Ultimately, we should be prepared
to defend our interests with or without the U.N.
Which bring me to my conclusion, Mr. President.
This resolution we are considering today, and this action the
President is contemplating in Iraq, is not about carrying out the will
of the United Nations or restoring its effectiveness. It is not about
assuring the world that the United States is committed to
``multilateralism.''
Section 3(a)(1) is the heart and soul of this resolution. It
authorizes the President to use the Armed Forces of the United States
to ``defend the national security of the United States against the
continuing threat posed by Iraq.''
That is what we are doing here today, defending our national
security.
It is a sobering, and humbling, task. But as members of the United
States Senate, it is our solemn duty.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I compliment our distinguished
colleague. I say to the Senator, even though you have given your
statement, I anticipate this debate in the Senate will continue for 2
days, and perhaps you will find the opportunity to revisit the floor
and, again, personally elaborate on your points.
Today, you have given a very important and timely historical context
of the events, and the sequence of those events. And you have placed
extremely important emphasis on what the U.N. is trying to do today, as
we are right here, in fashioning an inspection regime that is much
stronger than the one that is on the books from when Hans Blix was
appointed. But I am sure the Senator observed Hans Blix, after visiting
with Iraqi officials in Austria, said he would like to wait until the
Security Council acted.
So what we are looking forward to now is the evolving process of a
regime which I think has to meet the criteria established by our
President and the Prime Minister of Great Britain, and others, before
we can accept that as a workable solution. Would the Senator agree?
Mr. KYL. Madam President, I hope to have the opportunity to speak to
this issue again, but I will say two quick things in response to the
Senator from Virginia.
First, I note that Hans Blix has largely, it appears to me from news
media accounts, agreed with the position of the United States on what
would be necessary to conduct meaningful inspections that would result
in the disarmament of Saddam Hussein because, as he noted, the object
here is not inspections; the object is disarmament. And inspections
would be but a way to achieve that.
Secondly, as I said, I think that only the most naive would believe
that it is possible to have an effective regime, irrespective of what
kind of resolution were adopted, as long as Saddam Hussein is in power.
That is why I quoted the former U.N. inspection team leader David Kay,
who made the point, with which I totally agree, that as long as Saddam
Hussein is in power there, it is impossible to have disarmament of the
kind that was called for at the end of the gulf war.
Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague. Assuming the Security Council will
act, I will personally await the judgment of our President and that of
the Prime Minister of Great Britain with regard to the structure and
effectiveness, potentially, of such a new regime.
In this debate we have sort of gone back and forth in a very
effective discourse on the issues. I wonder if at this time I might ask
unanimous consent that the junior Senator from Virginia, Mr. Allen,
might follow our distinguished colleague, Mr. Domenici.

[[Page S10020]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I have 15 minutes, I believe.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator may proceed. He does.
Mr. DOMENICI. Madam President, I would like to talk about the Iraqi
situation for a small portion of my 15 minutes.
The more I have been reading about this, the more I have been
studying it, the more I come to an answer that I have to make as to
whether I will give the President authority to use our military forces
along with other countries so as to avoid the use of weapons of mass
destruction by Saddam Hussein. I have to ask myself a question: How is
he most apt to disarm? What is most apt to make him disarm? Talk?
Resolutions? I think not.
When we are finished, a huge majority of the Senate will say this is
not necessarily a question of war or peace.
This could be a question of whether an America armed for war, with
the full knowledge on the part of Saddam Hussein that we are armed for
war, and the President has the authority, might that bring about
disarmament on the part of Saddam Hussein sooner than any other means
that we know about thus far as we look at the Middle East and its
various problems.
I ask unanimous consent to speak as in morning business on the
American economy.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The remarks of Mr. Domenici are printed in today's Record under
``Morning Business.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized under
the unanimous consent agreement for 15 minutes.
Mr. ALLEN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to
speak for up to 30 minutes.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. ALLEN. Madam President, I rise to address the most pressing and
difficult issue facing our Nation today. Over the course of the next
few days, we will be debating in the Senate and we will vote on the
most serious responsibility the U.S. Constitution delegates to
Congress, which is authorizing the use of military force against
another nation.
I have only been here for about a year and a half. I passed in the
hallway the senior Senator from Virginia, John Warner, who told me,
``This is the first time you will have to do this.'' He said he has
been through this experience seven times. I am sure he takes the same
sort of care and consideration each time. But for me, this is the first
time I have had to face such a question and such an issue as to where I
stand.
It is my view the use of military force to resolve a dispute must be
the last of all options for our Nation. Before entering into such a
decision, it is absolutely necessary Government officials sincerely and
honestly are confident they exhausted all practical and realistic
diplomatic avenues and understand the short-term as well as the long-
term ramifications and implications of such actions.
Exercising our best judgment based on the evidence of the threat, we
must look at the consequence not only on the international community,
but, more importantly, on the effect such action would have on the
people of our country.
In considering the use of military action, my thoughts immediately
turn to the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia. While the use of
Armed Forces affects all Americans, it has traditionally had a
significant impact on Virginia. The Commonwealth is home to literally
tens of thousands of brave men and women who risk their lives to defend
the freedoms we enjoy. The prospect of war places the lives of many of
these men and women in jeopardy, and it means constant anxiety and fear
for their families, wherever they may be based--whether in the U.S. or
overseas, whether on land or on the seas.
I know from my experience as Governor how we rely heavily on the
National Guard and Reserves whenever military action is necessitated,
especially in the past decade. Military action will call up more
Reserves and more of the National Guard when they are protecting our
safety. It will disrupt those families and businesses and communities
all across our great land.
This is not a decision I come to easily or without prayers for
guidance and wisdom. The use of our Armed Forces means lives are at
risk. The history of military action shows there are frequently
unintended consequences and unseen dangers whenever the military is
utilized. Fiscally, military action is expensive and can cause unrest
both in the U.S. and international markets. When considering these
outcomes, it is obvious using force to resolve the dispute is the least
desirable and the last option for our country. But military action must
remain an option for our diplomatic efforts to have any credibility or
success.
I have listened and read comments from constituents and people all
over this country, sincere words from the Religious Society of Friends
and Pax Christi. They are well-meaning in pointing out their sentiments
and the risks involved. However, we must weigh these risks and probable
outcomes in the context of the threat Iraq poses to the U.S. and to our
interests. I agree with the President, and the CIA, and the Department
of Defense, and the State Department, that Iraq and Saddam Hussein's
regime are a credible threat to the United States and our interests and
our allies around the world. Because that threat is present and real, I
believe the dangers will become substantially greater with continued
inaction by the international community, or the United States acting in
concert with allies.
The ``whereas'' clauses of the resolution we are debating effectively
spell out good reasons, and reasons I look at for authorizing the
President to use military action, if necessary. Saddam Hussein has
continually, brazenly disregarded and defied resolutions and orders to
disarm and discontinue his pursuit of the world's worst weapons. To
bring an end to the Gulf War and Saddam's violent attempt to occupy
Kuwait, the Iraqi leader unequivocally agreed to eliminate chemical,
biological, and nuclear weapons programs, as well as putting severe
limits on his missiles and the means to deliver and develop them. Since
that armistice was reached in 1991, it has been consistently and
constantly breached by Saddam's regime, and has not been enforced at
all by the U.N. for the past 4 long years.
Can one imagine a nuclear weapon in the hands of Saddam Hussein?
Let's not forget this is a head of state who has demonstrated his
willingness to use chemical weapons on other nations and his own
citizens with little or no reservation.
If the current Iraqi regime possessed a nuclear weapon, it would
drastically alter a balance of power in an already explosive region of
the world. Such a capability would renew Saddam's quest for regional
dominance and leave many U.S. citizens, allies, and interests at great
peril.
This man has no respect for international laws or rules of
engagement. I share President Bush's fear that increased weapons
capability would leave the fate of the Middle East in the hands of a
tyrannical and very cruel dictator.
Most dangerous, currently, is not his desire to have nuclear weapons,
but stockpiling of chemical weapons, the stockpiling of a variety of
biological weapons; and also his missile range capabilities, that far
exceed U.N. restrictions.
There is another concern not only that he has stockpiled biological
and chemical weapons and the means of delivering them, but also the
justifiable and understandable fear that he could transfer those
biological or chemical agents to a terrorist group or other
individuals. After all, Saddam Hussein is the same heartless person who
offers $25,000 to families of children who commit suicide terrorist
acts in Israel.
The goal of the United States and the international community needs
to be disarmament. Saddam Hussein must be stripped of all capabilities
to develop, manufacture, and stockpile these weapons of mass
destruction, meaning chemical, biological agents, and the missiles and
other means to deliver them by himself or by a terrorist subcontractor.
If regime change is collateral damage of disarmament, I do not
believe there

[[Page S10021]]

is anyone in the world who will mourn the loss of this deposed
dictator. True disarmament can only be accomplished with inspection
teams that have the ability to travel and investigate where they deem
appropriate. To ensure they have full access to inspections is a key
component of what the President of the United States is trying to get
the United Nations to do.
We are trying to get full and unimpeded inspections. It would be
appropriate for us to say noncompliance would result in forced
disarmament.
The U.S. and the world cannot afford to have this mission undermined
by wild goose chases and constant surreptitious, conniving evasion and
large suspect areas being declared by Saddam to be immune from
inspection.
I commend President Bush for recognizing the importance of including
all countries in this effort. His statement to the United Nations on
September 12, 2002, clearly and accurately spelled out the dangers Iraq
poses to the world. By placing the onus on the United Nations, the
President has given that international body the opportunity to re-
establish its relevance in important world affairs, and finally enforce
the resolutions that its Security Council has passed for the last
eleven years.
Passing a new resolution will increase the credibility of the United
Nations, which has steadily eroded since the mid 1990s. The Security
Council has an obligation to provide weapons inspectors with the
flexibility to accomplish their mission. This can only be realized if a
resolution is passed with consequences for inaction or defiance.
That is why as the United Nations debates a new and stronger
resolution against Iraq, the United States must be united in our
resolve for disarmament. Passing a resolution authorizing our President
to use military force in the event that diplomatic efforts are
unsuccessful sends a clear message to the international community that
Americans are united in our foreign policy.

I respectfully disagree with the premise that the President must
first petition the United Nations before asking Congress for authority.
I question: How can we expect the United Nations to act against Iraqi
defiance if the U.S. Government does not stand with our President and
our administration's efforts to persuade the United Nations and the
international community to enforce their own resolutions?
It is right for us to debate the resolutions before the Senate, to
voice concerns and sentiments in support or opposition. Each Member
will take a stand and be accountable, and when the debate concludes, I
respectfully ask my colleagues, when a resolution is agreed to, stand
strong with our troops, our diplomats, and our mission. From time to
time, one sees elected officials who moan in self-pity about having to
make a tough decision that may not be popular. Well, I know the vast
majority of the Senators, regardless of their ultimate position on this
issue, can make tough decisions with minimal whimpering. Senators have
all been elected by the people of their States to exercise judgment
consistent with principles and promises.
As the Senate debates the merits of each resolution, it must be
prepared for the possibility of continued inaction by the United
Nations. Americans cannot stand by and cannot cede any authority or
sovereignty to an international body when the lives and interests of
U.S. citizens are involved.
I believe it would be a grave mistake for the United Nations to shirk
its responsibility regarding Iraq; however, a consensus might not be
reached with all nations on the U.N. Security Council. If that
circumstance arises, the United States and the President will have a
duty to garner as much international support as is realistically
possible.
Blissful, delusional dawdling, wishful thinking, and doing nothing is
not an option for the United States. However, continuing the diplomatic
work in face of the Security Council veto is necessary not only for
diplomacy, but to gain allies to help shoulder the logistical and
operational burdens that would be a part of any military campaign.
It is true the United States can disarm Saddam Hussein alone.
However, as we continue to pursue the venomous, vile al-Qaida
terrorists and other terrorist supporters, we would greatly benefit
from allied support in these extended efforts. I believe we will see
more allies join this effort to disarm Saddam Hussein's regime. Britain
will not be our sole teammate in this effort. As other countries begin
to understand the severity of the threat, they will recognize it is in
their best interest to disarm Iraq.
The UK along with Spain, Italy and some countries from the Middle
East have supported our position. Kuwait, Qatar, and the Saudis have
also indicated that maybe they will not send troops in, but have
offered logistical bases that would be helpful for our tactical air
strikes.
We do not want to make this a war against a particular group or
certain religious beliefs. We must guard against any rhetoric or
statement that is targeted against Muslims or Arabs. Our mission is to
protect the United States, its allies, and interests by upholding
internationally agreed-upon resolutions to disarm Iraq of biological,
chemical, nuclear, and missile technologies. I urge the President to
make absolutely clear that in the event we have to seek support from
allies, that we continue to do so in the Middle East.

As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I have participated
in committee meetings and top secret briefings and analyzed this issue
very closely, and with questions. After reviewing the several
resolutions offered by our colleagues, I believe the best way to
provide the President with the authority and the support he may need is
by passing the authorization for use of military force against Iraq.
This resolution, introduced and offered by Senator Warner and Senator
Lieberman, as well as Senator McCain and others, gives the President
the authority and flexibility to ensure the protection of the United
States. I am particularly pleased that the resolution will task the
President with determining that diplomatic means will not adequately
protect the national security of the United States. This determination
will ensure the United States is exhausting every diplomatic option
before authorizing the use of our Armed Forces.
I refer to section 2 on page 7 of the resolution and those clauses
therein: Where the Congress of the United States supports the efforts
of the President to strictly enforce United Nations Security Council
resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts. It
also encourages the President to obtain prompt and decisive action by
the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of
delay, evasion, and noncompliance, and promptly and strictly complies
with all relevant security resolutions.
I interpret this as also, in dealing not just with the United
Nations, but also garnering allies in the process.
I will continue to listen intently to the debate on all the
resolutions regarding Iraq. However, I truly and sincerely believe that
Senate Joint Resolution 46, which I referenced earlier, will provide a
sense of the Senate that the Congress, and most importantly, in our
reflection in representation, a reflection that Americans are united
behind our President and we support efforts to garner allied and U.N.
support in the event that diplomatic options fail to disarm Saddam
Hussein.
We all know that Saddam Hussein is a vile dictator with regard for
only his own survival. He compromises the well-being of all Iraqis in
his efforts to maintain power and accumulate wealth. History shows the
Iraqi leader only responds when there is a gun put to his head. Sweet
talking will not do any good with this man.
Now we are seeing this phenomenon play out as he allows weapons
inspections to resume only after intense, consistent pressure from the
international community. But even then what we are seeing again is the
same shell game of conditions and prevarications that led to the
departure of inspectors 4 years ago. We must not allow him to continue
with these ploys of deception.
I do not believe any American welcomes the prospect of deploying our
brave men and women for military action. However, standing strong and
united as a country, together with our President, our diplomats, and
our defense forces, and in favor of congressional authority to use
force if it is absolutely necessary, is the best way to ensure Saddam
Hussein is disarmed and military conflict is actually avoided.

[[Page S10022]]

The greatest responsibility of this Government and its officials is
to protect and ensure the national security of the United States and
our citizens. We know Saddam Hussein poses a threat to our country, and
it is incumbent upon every Member of this body to help neutralize that
threat. I am hopeful this problem will be resolved peacefully, through
international diplomacy. But in the event those efforts fail, I do not
want our President to be hobbled without the authority to protect the
citizens of the United States of America.
Therefore, when my name is called, I will stand with President Bush,
stand with our diplomats, stand with our troops and support this
serious and necessary resolution, which is designed to save innocent
American lives.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.
Mr. STEVENS. Madam President, I think this is one of the most serious
issues I have ever addressed on this floor, and I thank Lindsay Hayes
and Karina Waller, who are with me today, for their help in preparing
this statement.
There are few of us still around who lived through events which led
to World War II. I was in high school, as a matter of fact, and I
studied Hitler's actions month after month in history class. I vividly
remember watching the world appease Hitler while he pursued an
aggressive military policy aimed at dominating the world.
The current situation reminds me of the agreements we studied in high
school which were made after World War I. Hitler just waved them away.
When Hitler flaunted the terms of the Versailles Peace Treaty, France
and Britain did nothing to enforce it. When Hitler occupied the
Rhineland and the Anschluss in Austria, no nation tried to stop him.
Instead, the world repeatedly gave into an obnoxious, aggressive leader
to avoid war.
When I was a senior in high school many of my friends left school to
enlist. I left Oregon State College in December of 1942. Only seven of
us in the Senate today served during World War II, but as one who
fought in China, the ``Forgotten War,'' I see the next Hitler in Saddam
Hussein.
Senator Warner, Senator Inouye, Sam Nunn, and I also experienced the
horror of the gulf war firsthand. In 1991, in an Israeli defense
conference room we were told a Scud had been fired at Tel Aviv, which
is where we were, and it could be carrying chemical or biological
agents. Gas Masks were passed around the room and we waited about 20
minutes before being told that the Scud had fallen. The next morning we
went to locate the Scud and found that it had been grazed by a Patriot
missile. It had hit an apartment complex.
This was quite an interesting experience to Senator Inouye and I
because several years before this incident Senator Dan Inouye and I had
demanded that the anti-aircraft Patriot be modified to become an anti-
missile system, and we were in Israel witnessing the use of that
Patriot system.
Over 20 years ago, the Israelis saved the world a great deal of pain
when they destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor. That action delayed an
Iraqi bomb by at least 15 years, and that raid also made Hussein more
cautious. Today he has spread out and carefully concealed his military-
weapons infrastructure to make destruction of those weapons more
difficult.
We seek peace.
We abhor war.
We work to assure our military capacity is second to none because we
believe in this new world no nation has time to re-arm. We must be
ready instantly to defend our interests at home and abroad or perish.
Our President is right to shake Hussien's cage. The Middle East is a
tinder box, but only one nation has the ability to ignite the entire
world, and that is Iraq.
Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to expand beyond his borders again
and he cannot continue developing weapons of mass destruction.
President Bush has an important role as the leader of the free world
as he repeatedly states there is a menace in Iraq and it is growing.
This is the most serious situation we have faced since World War II.
Since the end of the Persian Gulf war, our forces have been enforcing
the United Nation's mandate that there should be two no-fly zones in
Iraq. Our planes fly patrols for the United Nations, over those no-fly
zones daily and have been shot at almost every day. We cannot allow
this continued risk to the lives of our own pilots.
The threat of weapons of mass destruction was real during the Persian
Gulf war. It is even more real today. Five years ago, weapons
inspectors were forced out of Iraq. Based on classified briefings I
have received I have no doubt that Saddam Hussein has used this
opportunity to expand his weapons program.
Iraq has not accounted for hundreds of tons of chemical precursors
and tens of thousands of unfilled munitions canisters. It has not
accounted for at least 15,000 artillery rockets previously used for
delivering nerve agents or 550 artillery shells filled with mustard
gas. When inspectors left Iraq in 1998, the regime was capable of
resuming bacterial warfare agent production within weeks. Hussein has
had time to produce stockpiles of anthrax and other agents, including
smallpox, and he is not afraid to use these weapons.
He has used weapons of mass destruction against Iranians, against his
own people, and, I believe, against some of our military in the gulf
war.
When Hussein begins blackmailing his neighbors and using his
resources, The world will face an impossible situation. If Hussein's
weapons program continues unchecked our allies--his neighbors--face an
unconventional threat of immense proportions--a threat more horrible
than all Hitler's legions.

The President needs our support to form a coalition that can confront
this crisis. We must grant President Bush the same powers that Congress
has given his predecessors.
We must pass this resolution now or our children, or our
grandchildren, are going to shed a monstrous amount of blood to deal
with this threat in the future.
Hussein will use these weapons if he is not stopped now. He will
become a Hitler. He will continue as Hitler started--dominating one
country after another. With the weapons he has, he need only to
threaten their use, or to use them as he did in Iran. Then ours will be
a terrible dilemma: how does the world deal with a madman who has
weapons against which the world cannot defend?
If any Senator has doubts about this resolution, I ask them to ask
themselves this question: is Saddam Hussein really ready to become part
of the family of nations again? Can anyone on this Senator floor answer
that question ``Yes''?
The U.N. has told Hussein that he must disarm 16 times. Sixteen times
he has defied that body. He has lied. He has not once complied. Between
1991 and 1998, Iraq practiced a series of deceitful tactics designed to
prevent U.N. inspectors from completing inspections. The same course of
action will bring the same results.
As I have traveled at home, I am often asked ``How do we know Hussein
is so bad?'' Our intelligence agencies have developed an enormous
amount of evidence on his activities, his use of weapons of mass
destruction, and his lies and deceptions. Unfortunately, this
information is mostly classified to protect sources and methods by
which the information was acquired.
As one of the Senate who is briefed on a regular basis I believe our
intelligence agencies understand the nature of the threat Iraq poses.
However, while it is likely that Iraq has large amounts of biological
and chemical weapons, our knowledge of their ability to deliver those
agents against long-range targets outside of Iraq is limited.
To assure the formation of a coalition to contain Hussein, we must
pass this resolution.
The President must have this authority. We want the U.N. to demand
full inspections before this threat becomes even greater. This
Congressional authorization to use force if necessary will send a
message to the United Nations: Congress is united. We stand behind our
Commander in Chief.
In 1945 the world community gathered together to denounce the
atrocities committed by Hitler and form the United Nations. That action
made a commitment to protect succeeding generations from the scourge of
war

[[Page S10023]]

and promised such horrors would never again take place. Now it is
incumbent upon the United National to fulfill that promise. The U.N.
must send a message that the international community will not tolerate
regimes which commit genocide against their own people, employ weapons
of mass destruction against other countries, and harbor terrorists.
The world community must confront this Iraqi threat. This resolution
gives the President the support he needs to convince the U.N. to join
in building that coalition.
United States policy must be clear. Should the United Nations fail to
live up to its promise, this resolution authorizes the President to
take the necessary steps to protect the United States and ensure the
stability of the world community.
With this authority the President may state clearly to members of
other nations: Are you with us? Do you support our determination to
face this threat now?
We are not alone, Great Britain and other nations are already
supporting our President.
A new history of international courage can be written now. This
generation need not endure a long and bloody world war if our leaders
stand together and state clearly: the world will not condone defiance
and deception, we will not allow a dictator to rise from the ashes of
defeat to menace the world with awesome weapons.
I support our Commander in Chief.
I shall vote for the administration's bipartisan resolution.
Our Nation is the last real superpower. The burden of that status is
that every nation in the world must know we will use our military
force, if necessary, to prevent tyrants from acquiring and using
weapons of annihilation.
It is my belief that with this authority President Bush may prove
that determination to the United Nations and there will be a coalition
that will bring peace through strength to the Middle East.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Carper). The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. I thank our distinguished colleague from Alaska. It was
very helpful for him to make references to his knowledge of the pre-
world War II days. He had a very distinguished career in World War II
as a member of the Army Air Corp and as a pilot. I had a very modest
one at the tail end, just in training, in the Navy. But both of us
remember that period very well.
The Senator emphasized quite forcibly the need for the United Nations
to face up to this. Having lived through that period, we remember the
League of Nations. We remember the blatant attack by the Italian
military under the leadership of Mussolini against then Abyssinia, now
referred to as the nation of Ethiopia, and how the league began to look
at that situation, and look at it and look at it and look at it and did
nothing, and then the aggression during the attacks by Japan on China.
The Senator recalls these periods in history. Eventually the league
went out of business. It fell into the dust bin of history and in some
small vestige was absorbed into the United Nations.
I have a strong view, and I think our President has made reference to
this, that unless the United Nations lives up to its charter and
assumes the responsibility of enforcing its own Security Council
resolution, that organization, too, could fall into the dust bin of
history, not unlike the League of Nations.
Does the Senator share those views?
Mr. STEVENS. I certainly do. I share deeply the views of the Senator
from Virginia. It does seem to me that we should have learned a lesson
from the period of World War II. It took a terrible attack upon Pearl
Harbor to bring us to the point where we were willing to enter that
war. Our Nation was part of the group trying to brush Hitler under the
rug, thinking somehow or another this would go away. But President
Roosevelt, to his great credit, had the courage to stand up and try to
find ways to help those who were willing to stand in Hitler's way.
Now is the time to recognize that once a person becomes President of
the United States and becomes Commander in Chief, there is an awesome
responsibility, and particularly after the events of September 11 of
last year, we have to recognize that as Commander in Chief he needs our
support. Politics in my mind has always stopped at the water's edge. We
ought to be united behind our President when he is dealing with
problems such as Saddam Hussein. We certainly ought to be united in
terms of voicing the sentiment that the United Nations must stand up
and be counted this time.
Sixteen times. How many times does he have to go to the well before
he finds out that he must comply with these U.N. mandates? There is
enough evidence out there now that Saddam Hussein has failed to comply
with the mandates that give rise to a world coalition to contain him.
We thought we already had.
We have our Coast Guard stopping ships going into the station. We
have pilots flying over the two no-fly zones every day. And on the
ground he has palaces all over the place and will not let anyone know
what is in them.
Mr. WARNER. Might I add that those pilots to whom the Senator
referred, American and Great Britain, were shot at 60 times in just the
month of September alone and they have been at it now for over a
decade. It is the only enforcement of any resolution undertaken by any
of the member nations. It is the United States, Great Britain, and at
one time France. They have now discontinued. That is the only
enforcement of any resolution.
Mr. STEVENS. I have spoken to those young pilots at the Prince Sultan
airbase in Saudi Arabia and at our offices in Kuwait and even in
London. Many of our own pilots who flew those missions day in and day
out did not reenlist. They just got tired of the stress of flying over
the no-fly zone and being shot at daily by missiles that are capable of
downing their aircraft.
Thank God we have some of the systems to defend against those
missiles, but the U.N. has absolutely had blinders on. They have not
even seen that. Both British and American pilots are shot at daily by
this person. Why? Because they are flying over no-fly zones. They have
every right under international law to be there because Saddam Hussein
agreed they could be there.
Mr. WARNER. In writing.
Mr. STEVENS. In writing.
He is shooting missiles at them every day.
It is high time we did away with that concept that the area of
Baghdad is off limits. If they down an airplane, I don't think there is
any question in the world we should declare war against them because he
has violated the United Nations agreement he entered into himself. The
idea of allowing him to shoot at pilots day in and day out with
impunity is totally beyond my comprehension.

Mr. WARNER. The purpose of this resolution is to prevent a pilot from
being downed. If we are resolute in this Chamber, if we clearly show,
not only to the American public but to the whole world, that we stand
arm in arm with our President, no daylight between us which can be
exploited by Saddam Hussein and perhaps weak nations--if we are arm in
arm, it is the extent to which this United Nations is more likely to
fulfill its obligations under the charter and, hopefully, devise a
resolution which can bring about an inspection regime which has teeth
in it this time, and make it very clear if Saddam Hussein's regime does
not live up to it, then member nations such as ours and others in the
coalition can utilize and resort to force.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator is absolutely correct. The
real problem is until the members of the United Nations know we mean
business, they are not going to come and join a coalition. It takes
money, it takes time, it takes commitment, it takes internal debates
like this in every democracy. But the necessity is there for us to tell
the world we are ready. We are ready to bring an end to this man's
deceitful action against the world. But until we do, who is going to
join a coalition until they know the superpower is really in there? We
have to put our money on the table first. We have to put our hand out
there to anyone who is ready to join this coalition, to say: We are
there. Are you with us or not? If you are not, then you are not part of
history, as far as I am concerned. History will read the nations who
stood together and stopped Saddam Hussein, saved the world, as well

[[Page S10024]]

as those who joined with us in World War II saved the world.
I think this threat is even worse, though, than the one we faced. It
is the most awesome thing possible, the more I learn about these
weapons he has, weapons of mass destruction that can be deployed and
used in so many ways. To think a person is there who has been willing
to use them against Iran, against his own people, the Kurds. I still
believe some of the problems our people had in the Persian Gulf war
came from his testing some of those weapons. There is no question in my
mind.
Mr. WARNER. My colleague is absolutely right. Now with the
transportability of some of those weapons of mass destruction, and if
he were to place them in the hands of the international terrorist
ring--I don't say he hasn't done it already. We don't have the specific
knowledge--that is an imminent danger to the United States.
But you concluded on history. I would like to read one brief
statement. June 1936, Haile Selassie, Emperor of Abyssinia--Ethiopia
today--in an appeal to the League of Nations.

I assert that the problem submitted to the Assembly today
is a much wider one. It is not merely a question of the
settlement of Italian aggression. It is a collective
security. It is the very essence of the League of Nations. It
is the confidence that each state is to place in
international treaties. It is the value of promises made to
small states that their integrity and their independence
shall be respected and ensured. It is the principle of
equality of states on the one hand, or otherwise the
obligation laid upon small powers to accept the bonds of
vassalship. In a word, it is international morality that is
at stake. Do the signatures appended to a treaty have value
only insofar as the signatory powers have a personal, direct
and immediate interest involved?

The rest is history. The League did nothing but debate and debate and
did nothing. And this country perished.
We are at that juncture now, I say respectfully to the United
Nations. Will they fall into the dustbin of history as did the League?
I thank my colleague.
Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, the Senator and I are of another
generation. There is no question about that. I never thought I would
live to see the day I would say there is no question in my mind this is
a greater threat than what we faced when we were young. But we had
time. There was time to adjust. Even in the Persian Gulf war, we had
time to take the actions that were necessary to evict Saddam Hussein's
likes from Kuwait.
But now it is not a matter of time. I am convinced the clock is
ticking on the world as far as this threat is concerned. These are
weapons of mass destruction. Even one of them should lead a person to
have some fear. The only thing we can do is to join together with the
world.
Someone said to me the other day we can't do it alone. Whoever said
that is absolutely right. This is not something one nation can do
alone. But this is something where one nation can lead. That is what is
happening right now. We must lead. We must form this coalition, and we
must convince the U.N. to be a part of that coalition and to be firm.
And this time--this time, to know either they enforce those mandates
that come from the U.N., or we will lead the world to enforce them. It
must be done.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we thank our colleague. The advancement of
technology is what makes things different. The advances of technology
are what underlies this doctrine of preemptive strike, which our
President says must be addressed now, not only by our Nation, but other
nations that wish to protect themselves and their own security. That is
a very important issue, and I give great credit to this President for
having the courage to bring to the forefront of the world--not just the
United States, but the forefront of the world--the threats we face with
now rapid technology and the development of weapons of mass
destruction.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I want to praise my two learned, worthy
colleagues who have done so much through the years to make sure our
country is free and many areas of the world are free as well. I want to
associate myself with their remarks.
I was particularly impressed with the remarks of the distinguished
Senator from Alaska, whom we all revere and respect, and, I might add,
particularly with the remarks of the distinguished Senator from
Virginia. I was very aware of the Abyssinia problem--now we call it
Ethiopia. I think his point is well taken. I would just like to
associate myself with the remarks of both of my dear colleagues.
I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to use such time as I need.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, this week, as we know, we debate the most
serious topic Congress can ever face, whether we will authorize the
President to use force to address a looming threat to our national
security. Right here and now I wish to say I will support this
President, should he determine we need to deploy the military of the
United States to force Iraq into compliance with the resolutions of the
international community requiring it--transparently and permanently--to
disarm itself of weapons of mass destruction.
If this requires the removal of Saddam Hussein from power, as I
believe it will, I will support this President's policy of regime
change, and I respectfully urge my colleagues to join me. It may be
early in our Senate debate on this resolution, but we have been
discussing our policy options for years. The President and his advisers
have regularly consulted with us, with our allies, with the
international community, and with the American public. As a result, I
believe this administration will act with a coalition of willing
nations, fully within the boundaries of international law, with the
support of this Congress, and with the support and prayers of the
American people.
I am honored to have served the people of Utah for 26 years. Utahans
are a patriotic people. Almost all, Republicans and Democrats, will
support the President of the United States when he makes his final
determination the vital interests of this country are at risk and we
must take military action to protect those vital interests. Tonight the
President will make that case before the American people, and we will
all listen intently to his words.
As a Senator who represents the interests of Utah but also the
interests of our country, I know a decision on the use of force is the
most serious consideration I can make because the costs may be measured
by the ultimate sacrifice of good Americans. I make this decision with
the deepest of study and prayer, and I offer my prayers to support any
President who must make such a final decision.
President Bush has acted conscientiously and openly in determining
his administration's policy toward Iraq. I do not understand criticisms
of this administration as being secretive, unilateral, militaristic,
and uncooperative. From my perspective, none of these adjectives
represent an objective reality. President Bush has warned us of the
threat from Saddam Hussein's Iraq since he stepped into the national
spotlight during the Presidential campaign. I was there. He has been
expressing what most observers, expert analysts, and honest brokers
have long recognized.
Iraq has broken all of its pledges to cooperate with the
international community and disarm;
Iraq has refused to allow international inspectors since 1998;
Iraq has never completely accounted for materials used for weapons of
mass destruction, specifically biological and chemical weapons, since
its defeat in 1991;
Iraq has violated every U.N. resolution passed since 1991;
Iraq has repeatedly fired on U.S. and allied aircraft patrolling the
northern and southern ``no-fly'' zones;
Saddam Hussein has continued to threaten his neighbors and has never
ceased his hostile rhetoric toward the United States;
And, Iraq has never proven to the international community that it has
abandoned its pursuit of nuclear weapons.
In fact, as a member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence,
I can tell you Iraq has never really abandoned that.
Charges that the President has been unilateralist are completely
unfounded. The pace of diplomatic activity conducted by administration
officials in the capitals of our friends and

[[Page S10025]]

allies, as well as in Geneva and in New York, is as active as any
administration's diplomacy in modern times. Every day there is another
respectful consultation, as the President's Secretaries of State and
Defense, and the National Security Adviser's team, have repeatedly
demonstrated.

The President's speech before the United Nations 1 day and 1 year
after September 11 was the most eloquent and forceful presentation of a
U.S. President before that body.
His appeal was ethical and it was logical. He stood before the body
of the international community and he said:

The United States stands with you behind the resolutions
that are the core reason for this body's existence.
If this body is to mean anything, the President logically
implored, then this body must stand behind the resolutions
that Iraq is flaunting today.
Never before has a President made such a dramatic and
persuasive appeal before the U.N.
Never before has the U.N. been confronted with such a clear
choice: Stand by what you say . . . . . . or stand aside in
irrelevance.

The President has consulted with every Member of Congress, and with
most of us many times.
His representatives have dutifully and constructively testified
before numerous of our committees, and they have always been available
for more discussions when needed.
While the Constitution gives the foreign policy-making prerogative to
the executive branch, I have always thought it sound judgment that a
President voluntarily seek support and authorization from the U.S.
Congress.
Clearly, that is what this President has done with numerous
consultations over the past weeks, including discussions that have
culminated in this resolutions we will debate this week.
This administration has respectfully included the public in this most
serious of deliberations. Virtually all of these presentations,
testimonies, and speeches have been done in the public eye.
While a few congressional briefings have had to be conducted in
closed settings due to the necessary review of classified materials,
the arguments and most of the evidence for the determination of this
administration's policy on Iraq have been there for the public to
judge.
The President's speech tonight will crystalize for the American
people the important decision before us.
In the past 2 weeks, there have been a few partisan eruptions.
I believe we should never shirk from debate, and I believe that the
matters of war and peace must be thoroughly debated as long as we
recognize that, in the world of human affairs, there is no perfect
wisdom, particularly of how the future will unfold.
But let us not presume there are limits to good faith.
There is not a single Democrat or Republican who glibly supports a
decision that may have the consequence of shedding blood.
And there is no Democrat or Republican who would ever seek to
jeopardize the national security of this country by refusing to engage
a threat that is looming.
The decision to go to war cannot, must not, ever be a function of
politics.
In 1996, I warned that Osama bin Laden was a threat to this country.
Bin Laden's activities had been of concern to a few prior to this. But,
in that year, a number of interviews and articles with this man led me
to conclude that he had large and evil intentions. I believed that he
would distinguish himself from other terrorists by taking his
grievances out of his homeland and his region and that some day--at a
time we could not predetermine--he would be a threat to this country.
I cannot raise this point with any pride. I warned about bin Laden,
and many good people in the intelligence and law enforcement agencies
began to respond to this growing threat.
For reasons the historians will someday study, based in part on the
inquiries we have already begun, we did not stop bin Laden. And he
brought the terrorism war home to us.
Two years later after I first warned about bin Laden, he attacked two
U.S. embassies in the same morning, destroying buildings, and killing
American diplomats and their families, as well as hundreds of Africans
in Nairobi and Dar es Salaam.
A few days later, the President addressed the Nation, telling us he
had responded to the Africa attacks by bin Laden with cruise missiles
against Sudan and Afghanistan.
While some raced to criticize him for ``wagging the dog'' trying to
distance himself from the unfolding drama of his personal troubles I
personally spoke out and approved of the President's initiative.

I was in Salt Lake at the time. Because I had raised bin Laden so
many times and had become thoroughly involved in trying to help the
President with some of his problems, they interviewed me there, and I
said at that time that he did the right thing, but I also said he
should follow up and not just do it once.
We were attacked and the U.S. had to respond, because if we did not
respond, our passivity would invite further attacks.
I also urged the President not to let that be a single set of
strikes. I knew that any response we made short of eliminating the
threat of bin Laden would embolden bin Laden.
Since the days after September 11, I have often thought of those key
moments in the late 1990s. I do so not to cast blame. The lives lost in
New York, at the Pentagon, and in that Pennsylvania countryside will
always be a reminder of how we failed to anticipate, failed to respond,
failed to eliminate a threat we knew was out there.
But let these not be lessons lost.
The lives lost in New York, Washington, Pennsylvania, and in our
campaign in Afghanistan demonstrate that if we are not prepared to
engage an enemy before he strikes us then we must accept that we will
pay a cost for pursuing him afterward.
To me and to many Utahns and citizens throughout the Nation, the
lesson of September 11 is: do not wait for your enemy to attack--
especially when he has access to weapons of mass destruction.
If you have evidence of your enemy's capabilities and with Saddam
Hussein we do and if you have evidence of his enmity and with Saddam
Hussein we do--then do not err on the side of wishful thinking. With
enemies with the destructive capabilities of Saddam Hussein, we must be
hard-headed.
The administration has argued that Saddam's Iraq poses a threat, a
threat that must be eliminated. If we cannot eliminate the threat of
weapons of mass destruction through coercive, thorough and
comprehensive inspections backed by the threat of force supported by
the international community--then the U.S. must seek to build our own
coalition of willing nations to disarm Iraq by force and allow for a
regime that will replace Saddam and return Iraq to the community of
nations.
I believe the President should continue to work with the
international community to seek ways to disarm Iraq short of military
intervention. Military force should never be our first course of
action.
But I will not support a resolution that conditions our authorization
on actions by the United Nations.
Such a move would set a precedent over sovereign decisions conducted
by this country to defend its national interests.
Supporting such language would, in my opinion, infringe upon the
constitutional prerogative that resides with the President to conduct
and manage the Nation's foreign policy.
Congress must resist attempts to micromanage a war effort.
The resolution we debate today is an authorization. But, the timing
and modalities of action need to be--and must be controlled by the
administration, with consultation wherever possible, so long as that
consultation does not hamper the war effort.
Traditional geopolitics requires us to think about national security
in categories of our interests.
Our vital interests are defined as the security of our homeland and
our way of life; we must defend them at any costs, and we must be
willing to defend them alone, if necessary.
There are areas of vital national interest to this country, that if
they were threatened or succumbed to hostile control, would jeopardize
our homeland or our way of life.
They are: the Western Hemisphere; Japan; Europe; and the Persian
Gulf.
Saddam Hussein continues to threaten the stability of the Persian
Gulf. From this perspective, I believe that the frightening
capabilities of

[[Page S10026]]

Saddam's chemical and biological weapons pose a threat to the region,
and to the stability of the Gulf, and therefore to our vital national
interests.
In addition, nontraditional geopolitics recognizes that international
phenomena other than nation states must be considered when assessing
the national security of the United States.
Terrorism is the number one non-traditional threat to the U.S. today.
This may seem obvious after September 11. It was not obvious enough
before September 11.

The American people know that we are at war with al-Qaida.
The American people recognize that never again can we be complacent
about threats to this country and our interests.
And the American people understand that this war on al-Qaida cannot
be used as an excuse to ignore other grave threats, such as the threat
that Iraq continues to pose.
We should not assume that Saddam Hussein will politely stand in line
behind al-Qaida.
With the questions remaining about Iraq's weapons of mass
destruction, with too many suggestions of Iraq's ties with terrorists,
and with no question about Iraq's animosity to the United States, and
other countries as well, including many in the Middle East, should the
United States consider an option of doing nothing, or too little, as we
did with al-Qaida before September 11?
Perhaps, as a result of the diplomatic pressure building on Saddam
Hussein in recent days, his regime will comply with a forceful and
comprehensive international inspection regime.
However, we should not for a single moment forget Saddam's history of
obfuscation and delay. His record of noncompliance is 100 percent. Any
inspection regime which we agree to support must complete the actions
required in all Security Council resolutions, including the ones being
drafted now, that would demand compliance with inspections or face the
use of force.
Some have suggested that a war on Iraq would be the beginning of a
radical doctrine of preemption--that we are now setting a precedent for
unilateral military action against regimes that we find odious.
The idea of ``preemption'' is as old as Grotius, the father of
international law, who wrote in the 17th century.
U.S. policymakers have never foresworn the option of preemption, and
have never seen the U.N. Charter as restricting the use of preemption
in the event of a threat to our national security. There are many
examples of this thinking in both Republican and Democratic
administrations.
Recall that U.S. nuclear doctrine never adopted a no-first-use
policy.
Nor is the policy decision we are facing today opening up a new,
militaristic, and unilateral approach to dealing with other countries
with which we have conflicts.
Some have suggested that, if we authorize the use of force against
Iraq, we are automatically implying that we support the use of force
against the other two countries in the ``axis of evil'' termed by the
President.
Today, the administration is using diplomacy to control the ongoing
confrontation on the Korean Peninsula.
And while Iran remains a geopolitical threat, as it continues to fund
terrorists operating in the Middle East, and is extending its influence
in Afghanistan, the political foment within Iran is also providing a
challenge to that Islamic fundamentalist dictatorship, as more and more
Iranians seek to overthrow their corrupt and repressive tyranny.
Despite some leftist revisionist histories, America has always been
reluctant to use force overseas. As a democracy, we are imbued with
values of caution and respect for human rights, reluctance and a desire
to let other nations choose their own paths.

But the world changed for us on September 11, 2001.
The American people are patient, but we should never let that
patience be used against us. As the President has said, if we are to
wait until we have definite proof that Iraq intends to use weapons of
mass destruction against us, then it may be too late.
For too long, we were hesitant to attack al-Qaida, presuming that
they would never dare to attack us in the heart of our financial
center, at the core of our defense establishment, in the openness of
our commercial airways. We were wrong.
Can we accept the consequences of being wrong with Saddam Hussein's
Iraq?
If this Congress authorizes the use of force, and if the President
concludes that force is the only option in removing Saddam Hussein from
power and disarming Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, then I believe
that every member of this body will fully support our President and our
Armed Forces.
Iraq has been in a dangerous geopolitical limbo since Saddam Hussein
was ejected from Kuwait in 1991, and then left to oppress his people
over the ensuing decade.
If the United States must act to remove Saddam Hussein, we must be
committed to help reconstruct Iraq. This will take sustained policy
focus. The U.S. will, once again, pay for a large portion of the costs
of war. We would expect our allies to pay for a large portion of the
reconstruction.
U.S. policy must commit to the long-term stability of Iraq. We must
work with the various Iraqi ethnic groups to build their own vision of
a tolerant, educated, modern Iraq. Many of the Iraqi people have a
history of valuing education, modernity and multiethnic society. We
must commit to staying in Iraq until the basic institutions that will
provide long-term stability are built.
A stable, tolerant, modern Iraq may transform the Arab Middle East.
Other traditional states will have to explain to their own peoples why
they hesitate to grant democratic rights and privileges, basic human
rights, and respect for women, if an Iraqi government were to arise
from the repression of Saddam to blossom as an example of tolerance and
modernity.
If we commit to the liberation of the Iraqi people, and we assist
them in rising out of decades of Saddam Hussein's depredations, the
whole world will be able to see that the Arab world is not predestined
to tyranny, radical regimes, anti-Western hatred, willful ignorance.
I believe that this is President Bush's vision. The President
understands that the use of force against Saddam Hussein--if it comes
to this--will be the beginning of the end--not just of that dictator's
brutal reign, but also of nearly a century of Arab despotism.
I pray that Saddam Hussein capitulates to the international community
and allows unfettered and comprehensive inspections, and that he
removes himself from power or is removed by some brave Iraqi.
But if we are not so fortunate, I pray Godspeed for our men and women
in the military when they, once again, go beyond our shores to protect
those of us within them.
Mr. President, I again thank our very fine leader on our side and
others on the other side for their efforts in this regard, for the
support they have for this country, for our President, and for doing
what is right.
I personally respect the distinguished Senator from Virginia very
much. I have watched him through the years work with both sides, trying
to bring people together and to accomplish the best things for our
country. I personally express my respect for him here today.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank our colleague for his kind
comments, and also for his important statement he has delivered to the
Senate.
I want to pick up on one thing that the Senator mentioned, and there
has not been as much discussion as yet on this subject. It is a very
important one.
The President has repeatedly said the use of force is the last
option. But should that be taken, and there be force used by presumably
our country, Great Britain, and hopefully others in the coalition, then
the responsibility devolves upon those nations, primarily those who use
force--again, hopefully, the United Nations would take a strong role,
but that remains to be seen--in trying to reestablish, for the people
of Iraq, against whom we hold no animosity--the people--a nation
bringing together the factions in the north, the Kurds, and the
Shi'ites in the south, and hold that country together.
But I find, in studying, as my astute colleague will undoubtedly
believe, as we look at the situation in Kosovo, we

[[Page S10027]]

had to come in there with other nations and help establish the economy,
and we are still there. Indeed, in South Korea, how well you know we
have been there now over 50 years.
It seems to me there are several points with regard to Iraq which
differentiate the responsibilities of our Nation and other nations
following such hostility, as hopefully will not occur, but should they
occur; that is, Iraq, at one time, was an absolute extraordinary
nation, a nation of well-educated people, a nation which had a number
of natural resources, primarily petroleum, from whence to gain a
revenue flow.
So far as I can determine, much of that infrastructure of
intellectual people and well-educated, hard-working people and, indeed,
the oil that is present there, once it is properly cared for and put in
the competitive world market, it seems to me that the dollars involved
would be, comparatively speaking, much less because of the natural
resources, and the problem of reconstructing a government, hopefully,
would not be as challenging as maybe some say because of the presence
of such a fine citizenry, almost all of whom, not all, have been
severely depressed by Saddam Hussein and the brutality of his regime.
Does the Senator share those thoughts?
Mr. HATCH. I do. Our intelligence shows that the Iraqi people know
they are repressed, that there are many of them who wish things would
change, but there is such repression that they are afraid to strike
out, afraid to speak out, or afraid to react in ways other than the way
the current leadership in Iraq wants them to react.
This is a very important country. It has tremendous resources,
resources that are fully capable of helping that country to resuscitate
itself, to reconstruct. Those resources are being ripped off of the
Iraqi people right now by Saddam Hussein and others around him. They
are being spent on matters that really do not benefit the country of
Iraq, and they are being spent on matters that do not uplift the
aspirations and hopes of the people in Iraq.
As we all know, there is no question that if we could get rid of this
repressive regime, Iraq could become a real player in the Middle East
and help everybody in the world to understand that Islam is not a
religion of destruction. It is not a religion of warfare in particular.
It is a very good religion with tremendous ethics and responsible
approaches towards life and towards living in the world community.
Nor do I agree with some of our critics in the evangelical movement
in this country who have been outspoken in their criticism of Islam,
blaming the radical elements of Islam, who are not the majority, for
many of the things that are going on, that are reprehensible, including
the Osama bin Laden group, al-Qaida, and so many other terrorist
groups.
The Senator is absolutely right. We believe, and our intelligence
shows, that Iraq could become a major player in world affairs, a major
construct for good, if it had different leadership and if the people
had the privilege of democratic principles.
I thank my colleague because he has been pointing out all day, as he
has served here, very important nuances upon which every one of us
should take more time to reflect.
Mr. WARNER. I thank my distinguished colleague. He has many years of
experience in the Senate. His wisdom is being brought to bear on this
critical issue. All of us feel a weight on our shoulders, the
importance of this debate, and the importance of the vote we will cast.
If there was ever a vote that would be clearly a matter of conscience
between all of us, this is it.
Mr. HATCH. I thank my colleague.
Mr. WARNER. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
Mr. WARNER. I see our valued colleague on the Senate Armed Services
Committee. I look forward to hearing his remarks.
Mr. NELSON of Nebraska. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from
Virginia for the opportunity to be here today and for his close
attention to these matters of war and these matters of peace that so
often come before us on the U.S. Armed Services Committee, and for his
counsel and wisdom. I thank him so much.
I rise today to discuss our Nation's Iraq policy, and the resolution
we are now debating. This resolution could give the President the power
to send the United States Armed Services into a military conflict with
Iraq.
As I am sure most of my colleagues will agree, for the U.S. Congress
there is no more important debate than one that involves a decision
that may lead to loss of life of our brave men and women in uniform.
It is without question that Saddam Hussein poses a threat to the
Middle East, our allies in the region, and our international interests
that include rebuilding Afghanistan and making peace between the
Israelis and Palestinians.
Saddam has refused to comply with United Nations resolutions that
were the basis for a cease-fire during the Persian Gulf war in 1991. He
agreed to those terms in order to prevent the multinational coalition
from proceeding into Iraq and removing him from power by force.
Throughout most of the 1990s Saddam was held in check through U.N.
weapons inspectors, a naval blockade and United States and allied air
patrols over the southern and northern areas of Iraq.
During that time the U.N. inspectors uncovered Saddam's chemical and
biological programs and dismantled those they located. However, since
1998, Saddam has not allowed U.N. weapons inspections.
Now, nearly 4 years have passed with no outside reporting on progress
made in Saddam's chemical, biological, or nuclear programs. Moreover,
we know that Saddam recently attempted to purchase aluminum rods used
to refine uranium. These rods could be used to develop materials for
nuclear weapons.
President Bush and his advisers have determined that Saddam Hussein's
quest for weapons of mass destruction must end now. The President said
in his speech before the U.N. that Saddam poses an immediate, unchecked
threat to our Nation and our allies, and unless we act now his arsenal
will only grow.
Any resolution on action involving Iraq that the United States
Congress would approve must focus on the imperative of disarmament of
Iraq.
By disarming Saddam and removing his nuclear, biological and chemical
capability, he will pose no strategic threat to the United States or
our allies. Saddam would be contained.
If, in order to disarm Iraq, we need to use military force that
results in the removal of the current regime, then we should do so.
Saddam Hussein must know that the United States will support President
Bush's use of force to remove him, if he does not comply with orders to
disarm and destroy all weapons of mass destruction.
The President has suggested that ``regime change'' may be the only
way Iraq will comply with the 16 existing U.N. resolutions. However, a
resolution whose primary focus is ``regime change'' does not address
the fact that the next regime in Iraq, even if it is more friendly to
the United States, would inherit all weapons systems and programs that
the United States did not destroy.
Additionally, if we pursue ``regime change'' as an objective, we will
severely limit our ability to form a multinational coalition of support
as President Bush's father did so successfully during the gulf war.
Our allies worldwide have expressed support for disarming Saddam, but
little enthusiasm for regime change.
Alone among President Bush's advisers, Secretary of State Colin
Powell has suggested that putting weapons inspectors back in and making
sure they can do their job is the proper avenue to pursue.
The heart of this resolution should outline precisely what access
weapons inspectors should be afforded as they inspect the Iraqi
military capabilities. It should demand complete transparency of
Saddam's military inventory, and unrestricted and unfettered access to
all of Iraq by U.N. weapons inspectors, including the presidential
palaces.
In concert with a focus on disarmament, a congressional resolution
should also strongly urge the President to exhaust all diplomatic
efforts within and outside the United Nations. Total disarmament of
Iraq should be a multinational effort.
Nevertheless we must reserve the right, and give the President the
authority, to act unilaterally provided

[[Page S10028]]

the presence of an immediate and grave threat to the United States.
This congressional resolution should not give the President an
immediate and unconditional pass to wage war, but should place an
emphasis on his diplomatic effort to resolve the issue of disarmament
without loss of life.
If Saddam's defiance leads to war, we must also focus on what will
need to be accomplished after the war in order to ensure stability in
the region.
More thought must be given to the effort that will be required to
maintain peace and provide for the Iraqi people in the event that
Saddam fails to resolve this issue peacefully.
We seek no quarrel with the people of Iraq and the international
community must be prepared to assist them. It is an endeavor that the
United States should not undertake alone which, in my opinion,
strengthens the need for any use of force to be multilateral.
As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I have heard many hours
of testimony from administration officials outlining their case for
war. But I fear we have not yet heard enough about what Iraq will look
like when the smoke clears.
I am willing to debate and support a resolution that has the
characteristics that I have mentioned, but there needs to be equal
debate and thought into how we will leave Iraq and what kind of
commitment we are willing to give.
This resolution will serve as Saddam's last chance at a peaceful
conclusion to his years of defiance of international law if it meets
these conditions: The primary objective of the United States is the
disarmament of Iraq rather than regime change; the United States will
work to establish international support and cooperation and exhaust all
diplomatic avenues before going it alone in Iraq; and the United
Nations weapons inspectors will be allowed unfettered access to inspect
Iraqi weapons systems and facilities and they will be supported by
armed U.N. troops.
With these objectives, the United States will demonstrate that we
seek a peaceful and diplomatic solution, but if diplomacy fails the
United States will take every measure necessary to defend our country,
our allies, and our interests. This is our responsibility to our
national security, our international interests, our citizens, and the
people of the world.
I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Nelson of Nebraska). The Senator from
Virginia is recognized.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank our colleague for his contribution
to this debate. Listening to him, as I have to all the others who have
spoken today, underscores the importance of each Senator hoping to
contribute to this debate.
My understanding is the leadership will announce shortly the
intention to have periods tomorrow that this debate can take place. I
hope we will experience tomorrow as robust and important debate as we
have had today on the floor.
I yield the floor, and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, the order that has been guiding us all day
continuing until 4 o'clock was the time be equally divided between the
two leaders, and that Senators have up to 15 minutes to speak on the
Iraq resolution. We have done a good job in doing that.
I ask unanimous consent that any Senators who wish to come yet today,
before we adjourn for the evening, still be guided by the 15-minute
limitation. Senator Daschle and I have spoken about this, and I am sure
Senator Lott would agree--although I have not spoken with him--that we
would be well advised that Tuesday we are going to be very busy, with a
lot of people speaking. Senators who wish to speak would be well
advised to notify their respective cloakrooms. So people will not have
to wait all day for their turn, we can set up a sequence. If an equal
number of Democrats and Republicans wish to speak, we will alternate,
and that way we can have an orderly debate and move on to the ultimate
disposition at a subsequent time.
Mr. WARNER. I think I can speak for our leadership on that. That is a
constructive observation. I am sure my distinguished colleague would
think almost all 100 Senators will want, at one point in time prior to
the vote, to express themselves on this important issue. So that will
result in a considerable amount of the Senate's time. It is the most
important thing before us. I think that is wise counsel.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, Senator Byrd asked me if I would clear a
unanimous consent request in regard to this matter with him. So I ask
that everyone be recognized for 15 minutes, and I am sure he will agree
to a reasonable time. I don't have his permission now. So I will
reiterate my unanimous consent request, with the exception of Senator
Byrd.

I also ask Senators who wish to speak to get word to their
cloakrooms, and we can set up a time for them to speak during the day.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is
so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have just been advised possibly someone
on our side might want some additional time, and the matter will be
managed here by the designees, the respective leaders. I have offered
to work with Senator Lott, and he accepted that offer. There may be
others who want more time. We will try to facilitate the management of
the floor.
My point is those Senators who might desire to exceed 15 minutes, I
am sure the Senate will consider why they need that additional time.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, as usual, our staff saw a possible problem
with this. So what I think would be best to do is just not worry about
Senator Byrd. We will have this limitation apply for the rest of the
evening and until 12:30 tomorrow when we go into the party conferences.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that any further speeches
tonight on the Iraq matter be limited to 15 minutes, and that when we
come in tomorrow morning to go on the Iraq matter, the speeches be
limited to 15 minutes until 12:30.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is my understanding it will be around
10 o'clock.
Mr. REID. It will be 9 or 10 o'clock.
Mr. WARNER. I thank our colleague.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am going to depart the floor. I see no
colleague on either side wishing to address further the debate on Iraq,
although the opportunity has been offered.
I ask unanimous consent at the conclusion of my brief remarks an
article that appeared today in the Washington Post be printed in
today's Record.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
The article is well composed in the sense it asks eight questions of
those participating in the Iraqi debate about issues at the heart of
what we are discussing. I hope by including it in the Record it is more
readily available to colleagues as they work on their remarks. These
are the very questions I encountered this weekend and last weekend as I
traveled in my State. I daresay, other Senators will be asked these
questions by their constituents and therefore this article is very
helpful.
I will not pick up without specifically pointing to those provisions
which prompt me to do so. I pick up comments to the effect by others
that if Saddam Hussein does this, then everything will be one way or
the other. If he does not do that, then this will happen, one way or
the other. I call it the doctrine of giving Saddam Hussein the benefit
of the doubt. I urge colleagues to think about that because we are
dealing with an individual who is

[[Page S10029]]

extremely complex, at the least. People are trying to read his mind.
Speaking for myself, I have no capability of reading his mind. Nor do I
ever predicate action I take or support on what he might do if he does
this. I can't follow that line of reasoning. Therefore, I do not
subscribe to giving the benefit of the doubt to Saddam Hussein.

What dictates my views about this man is the clear record that he
used poison gas against his own population, his own citizens of Iraq.
It is reputed, and I think it is well documented, he has actually
beheaded individuals who have stood up to disagree with him. So I
somehow feel he has not earned a place in leadership that you can, in
any way, pontificate about, or figure out what he might do. I think we
have to decide as a free Nation what we are going to do, and urge the
United Nations to lay that out very clearly in a resolution that leaves
no doubt, gives no benefit of the doubt to him as to what he might do.
We should plan a course of decisive action because our very future is
dependent upon, hopefully, the United Nations taking such actions as
are necessary, clearly, to enforce their resolutions and such
additional resolution--and I hope it is only one--as they may devise.
I yield the floor.

Exhibit 1

Debate Over Iraq Focuses on Outcome--Multiple Scenarios Drive Questions
About War

(By David Von Drehle)

Congress plans this week to debate a joint resolution that
would give President Bush broad powers to disarm Iraq--
including the authority to invade the country and depose
President Saddam Hussein.
The resolution is expected to pass easily, in part because
leading Democrats want to get the issue of war behind them,
and in part because there is widespread agreement on Capitol
Hill that Hussein must be dealt with. ``We begin with the
common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to
the peace and stability of the Middle East,'' said Sen. Carl
M. Levin (D-Mich.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee.
There is also general agreement that if it comes to war,
the United States will win.
But beyond this first level of agreement lie major disputes
over important questions--about the alternatives to war, the
timing and, most of all, the outcomes. The debate in Congress
is likely to distill these disputes.
And although these questions may not be answerable without
a crystal ball--experts have already debated them without
researching consensus in congressional hearings, op-ed and
journal articles, speeches and interviews--they frame the
risks and the assumptions of the U.S. approach.
Here are eight of the most important questions:
(1) Can Hussein be ``contained'' and ``deterred''?
For more than 50 years of the Cold War, the United States
faced an enemy armed with thousands of high-yield bombs
mounted on sophisticated missiles and managed to avoid a
direct military confrontation. How? By ``containing'' the
enemy--that is, trying to prevent communist expansion--and
``deterring'' attacks with threats of apocalyptic
retaliation.
Some experts believe that this strategy, applied
aggressively, can work with Iraq. After all, continued
containment and deterrence is the U.S. policy for dealing
with Iran, which is widely believed to be more advanced in
nuclear capability and deeply involved in supporting
terrorists. Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser to
then-President George H.W. Bush, recently argued that
``Saddam is a familiar . . . traditional'' case, ``unlikely
to risk his investment in weapons of mass destruction, much
less his country, by handing such weapons to terrorists'' or
by using them for blackmail. ``While Saddam is thoroughly
evil, he is above all a power-hungry survivor.''
Hussein's behavior has not always squared with this view.
In 1993, he tried to use secret agents to assassinate George
H.W. Bush, and Iraqi guns routinely fire at allied aircraft
over the Iraqi ``no-fly'' zones. But proponents of continued
containment think there is a line that the Iraqi leader will
not cross for fear of the consequences.
This assumption drives the thinking of figures such as
Morton H. Halperin of the Council on Foreign Relations, who
advocates a policy of tougher weapons inspections and a more
effective embargo on trade with Iraq--``containment-plus,''
as he calls it. This strategy, ``if pursued vigorously . . .
will, in fact, succeed in preventing Saddam from using
weapons of mass destruction or supplying them to terrorist
groups,'' Halperin recently assured Congress.
But many people, President Bush among them, believe
deterrence is no longer enough after the Sept. 11 attacks--
not when weapons might be delivered secretly to fanatics
willing to destroy themselves in an attack. Sen. John W.
Warner (R-Va.), the ranking Republic on the Armed Services
Committee, put it this way: ``The concept of deterrence that
served us well in the 20th century has changed. . . . Those
who would commit suicide in their assaults on the free world
are not rational and are not deterred by rational concepts of
deterrence.''
(2) Is Hussein in league with al Qaeda?
Somewhere, there is a cold, hard answer to this question,
but so far, no one has publicly proved it one way or the
other. Though administration officials have charged that al
Qaeda operatives are living in Iraq, the same is believed to
be true of more than 50 other countries. Daniel Benjamin,
former director of counterterrorism for the National Security
Council, recently argued that secular Iraq and fundamentalist
al Qaeda are natural rivals, not co-conspirators.
But if the answer is yes, it strengthens the case for
moving quickly.
``We must remove threats such as those [posed by] Saddam
Hussein, al Qaeda and other terrorist groups,'' retired Air
Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney told a Senate hearing. The
same gaps in intelligence gathering that make it hard to know
whether Hussein deals with al Qaeda make it dangerous to
assume he doesn't, McInerney argued. ``We face an enemy that
makes its principal strategy the targeting of civilians. . .
. We should not wait to be attacked with weapons of mass
destruction.''
(3) Is disarmament possible without ``regime change''?
No one in the mainstream believes that Hussein will disarm
voluntarily, but some experts--including Secretary of State
Colin L. Powell--entertain the possibility that he will if it
is his last hope of survival.
That said, skepticism is very high that the Iraqi weapons
problem can be solved while Hussein runs the country. Charles
Duelfer, a veteran of previous weapons inspections in Iraq,
recently said, ``In my opinion, weapons inspections are not
the answer to the real problem, which is the regime.''
Finding and destroying offending weapons now would not
prevent the regime from developing new ones after the
inspectors have left.
Even many proponents of renewed U.N. weapons inspections
see them mainly as a tool for building international support
for war. As retired Gen. Wesley Clark, a former supreme
commander of NATO, put it: ``The closer we get to the use of
force, the greater the likelihood. And the more we build up
the inspections idea, the greater the legitimacy of the
United States effort in the eyes of the world.''
(4) In the event of war, what would Hussein's military do?
There are two scenarios: one ghastly, one hopeful.
In the first, his commanders fire chemical and biological
weapons into Israel, trying to ignite a pan-Arabic war, and
lob gas bombs at approaching U.S. troops. In the other, Iraqi
officers refuse to commit such futile war crimes in the face
of certain defeat and turn on the dying regime.
``Most of the army does not want to fight for Saddam,''
McInerney maintained. ``We are already seeing increasing
desertions from the regular army as well as the Republican
Guards.'' He cited reports from inside Iraq that Hussein has
arrested or executed scores of disaffected officers and won't
allow even some elite Republican Guard units into Iraq's
cities, for fear of a coup. ``That's why I think there will
not be urban fighting.''
But retired Gen. Joseph Hoar, a former commander in chief
of U.S. Central Command, sees it differently. ``The nightmare
scenario is that six Iraqi Republican Guard divisions and six
heavy divisions, reinforced with several thousand
antiaircraft artillery pieces, defend the city of Baghdad.
The result would be high casualties on both sides, as well as
the civilian community . . . [and] the rest of the world
watches while we bomb and have artillery rounds exploded in
densely populated Iraqi neighborhoods,'' Hoar testified
before Congress. ``It looks like the last 15 minutes of
`Saving Private Ryan.' ''
(5) What would the Iraqi people do?
Again, there are two scenarios (always with the possibility
that the truth is somewhere in between).
One emphasizes the relative sophistication and education of
the Iraqi population, and its hatred for Saddam Hussein.
These qualities, according to the optimists, would make the
Iraqis unwilling to defend him, grateful for the arrival of
American liberators and ready to begin building a new, pro-
Western country as soon as the smoke cleared. ``We shall be
greeted, I think, in Baghdad and Basra with kites and boom
boxes,'' Arab scholar Fouad Ajami of Johns Hopkins University
has predicted.
The aftermath of the war would not necessarily be chaos,
Duelfer has theorized. ``There are national institutions in
Iraq that hold the country together: the regular army;
there's departments of agriculture, irrigation; there's a
civil service.''
The pessimistic view emphasizes the deep divisions in Iraq.
There are Kurds in the oil-rich north, yearning for an
independent state. There are Shiite Muslims concentrated in
the South and seething at the discrepancy between their large
numbers and small influence in Iraq. For all their education
and institutions, Iraqis do not have experience with self-
government. Iraq might trade one despot for another.
In this scenario, the only thing that would prevent a messy
breakup of the former Iraq would be a long American
occupation--a prospect the Bush administration has been
reluctant to discuss.
(6) How will the Middle East react to the war and to the
subsequent peace?
This may be the most potent of the unanswered questions.
Here, there seems to be agreement that rank-and-file Muslims
won't like an American war in Iraq. Michael

[[Page S10030]]

O'Hanlon, a defense analyst at the Brookings Institution, has
referred to the ``al-Jazeera effect''--millions of Muslims
watching televised scenes of destruction and death, and
blaming the United States. Halperin is one of many who have
theorized that al Qaeda recruiters would be inundated.
``Certainly if we move before there is a Palestinian
settlement . . . what we will stimulate is a large number of
people in the Arab world who will be willing to take up a
terrorist attack on the United States and on Americans around
the world.''
Some experts predict that the regional reaction would then
go from bad to worse.
According to Geoffrey Kemp, director of Regional Strategic
Studies at the Nixon Center in Yorba Linda, Calif.,
``Iranians . . . worry about a failed or messy U.S. operation
that would leave the region in chaos. They would then be on
the receiving end for possibly millions of new Iraqi Shi'a
refugees.'' Mark Parris, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq's
northern neighbor, Turkey, has raised the specter of a war
between the Turks and the Kurds over the oil cities of Mosul
and Kirkuk. The fragile reign of Jordan's moderate King
Abdullah II would be shaken by an expected anti-American
reaction among that nation's many Palestinians. Said Kemp:
``The Saudis will ride it out, the Egyptians will ride it
out, the Qataris will--but we're all a little worried about
the king.'' Against this, there is a school of thought that
says a moderate government in Iraq could lead to
modernization and liberalization throughout the region. ``A
year after [Hussein falls], Iran will get rid of the
mullahs,'' McInerney recently predicted. ``The jubilation
that you see in Baghdad . . . will change the whole tenor of
the world, and the sum of all your fears will disappear, I
assure you.''
(7) Would a military campaign in Iraq help or hurt the war
on terrorism?
Sources as diverse as the conservative Weekly Standard
magazine and former president Bill Clinton scoff at the idea
that it would be too much to pursue al Qaeda and deal with
Iraq simultaneously, both saying: ``The U.S. can walk and
chew gum at the same time.'' However, former NATO commander
Clark worries about ``a diversion of effort'' on the part of
U.S. military and intelligence forces, and Halperin counsels
that there is a limit on the number of things government
bureaucracies can handle at once.
But the deeper problem, many believe, is that U.S. action
in Iraq could spoil the spirit of cooperation with many
nations--including many Arab nations--that is essential to
fighting terror.
To ``drive a stake in the heart of al Qaeda,'' Hoar
recently said, it is essential to have ``broad support from
our European allies and from our friends in the Arab world.''
Like many experts, he believes that a war in Iraq could dry
up that support like fire under a damp skillet.
On the other hand, retired Gen. John Shalikashvili, a
former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff--while insisting
on the importance of building more international support for
U.S. policy on Iraq--has argued that dealing with Iraq
cannot, ultimately, be separated from the war on terror. ``It
really falls under the same umbrella,'' he told a Senate
committee. ``The war against terrorism isn't just al Qaeda. .
. . It is also denying terrorists the means of getting to
weapons of mass destruction.''
(8) In the end, will the United States be more secure?
One's answer to this question is a sort of scorecard for
one's answers to the previous seven. If Hussein is indeed
impossible to deter and willing to engage in terror, if a new
regime is the only way to eliminate the threat he poses, and
if that can be done with a minimum of chaos and relatively
few bad consequences--then the case for war might seem
strong. Different answers to these questions can change the
equation dramatically.
In the coming debate, Americans will watch scores of
elected leaders wrestle with some or all of these disputes,
but if the resolution passes, as expected, they will
ultimately come to a final calculus on a single desk. As Sen.
John D. ``Jay'' Rockefeller IV (D-W. Va.) said last week:
``You don't have all the answers and you never will have all
the answers. . . . It rests in the hands of the president of
the United States.''
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, while the Senator from Virginia is still
on the floor, I wonder if he would be willing to have a brief
discussion on the resolution and the action before the United Nations?
Mr. WARNER. Yes, I would be privileged to do so.
Mr. SPECTER. Earlier today I had discussed the considerations on
conditioning authority for the President to use force on a United
Nations resolution which called for the use of force, very much like
the 1991 incident, contrasted with authorization by the Congress for
the President to use force unilaterally, without a United Nations
resolution, or perhaps with the assistance of Great Britain. The
disadvantage, to which I had referred earlier today, on having a
resolution which required U.N. action is that, in effect, we would be
subordinate or subject to a veto by China, which is undesirable;
France--undesirable; Russia--undesirable.
But the difficulty with authorizing the President to use force
unilaterally is it might set a precedent for other countries to say
they could do the same. While these analogies are not perfect, one
which comes to mind is China on Taiwan, or India on Pakistan, or the
reverse--Pakistan on India.
My question to one of the managers of the bill, one of the coauthors
of the bill, is: Do you see any problem at all on a precedent being
established if Congress authorizes the President to use force without a
U.N. resolution to use force, on justifying some action by some other
country like China and Taiwan, or Pakistan and India, or some other
situation in the future?
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my distinguished colleague,
speaking for myself--and I hope the majority of the Senate--in no way
should this Nation ever subordinate itself in its decision making with
respect to our national security, to actions or inactions by the United
Nations.
Let me just give a wonderful quote that I, in my research on this
subject, have referred to before. This was October 22, 1962, when our
Nation, under the leadership of President Kennedy, was faced with the
looming missile crisis down in Cuba. I know my colleague knows that
period of history very well.
Kennedy said the following:

This Nation is prepared to present its case against the
Soviet threat to peace and our own proposals for a peaceful
world at any time and in any forum in the Organization of
American States, in the United Nations, or in any other
meeting that could be useful, without limiting our freedom of
action.

That, to me, answers the question.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the citation by the Senator from Virginia
is a very impressive one, beyond any question, that some might think
there was some difference in circumstances between the imminence of a
possible attack in 1962, with the so-called Cuban missile crisis,
compared to the present time with respect to Iraq. I would be
interested to know what the Senator from Virginia was doing at that
time. I can tell the Senator from Virginia that was the one occasion
where my wife and I went out to the supermarkets and stocked up on
food, as did most Americans, and put them in the basement of our house.
The television was replete with maps showing the missile range from
Cuba to Philadelphia--the ones I particularly noted. They passed by
Virginia en route to Philadelphia.
I quite agree with the Senator from Virginia, we ought never
subordinate our sovereignty when we face that kind of a threat.
But I think the threat is significantly different with respect to
Iraq--although I concede the threat. But the point is missed, at least
somewhat, and that is whether U.S. unilateral action could set a
precedent for some other country taking unilateral action, such as the
ones to which I referred.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, any action by a strong, sovereign Nation
such as ours, which I say with humility is a leader in the world in so
many issues of foreign policy, can be used as a precedent. But I say to
my friend, what is the precedent of inaction? I have given some
comments about the League of Nations here earlier today. Throughout the
history of the League, it is documented inaction, from Mussolini's
attack on Abyssinia in the 1930s, to other operations militarily, naked
aggression--inaction.
So what is the precedent of inaction, if our President and our Nation
does nothing collectively with Great Britain, in the face of this
crisis? So, of course, it would be a precedent.
But the times have changed. I also put a list in the Record the other
day of some 13 instances where Presidents of our United States, going
back as far as 1901, have instituted--you might characterize it, as I
do, as preemptive; I certainly so characterize it--preemptive strikes
in the use of the military, the U.S. Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines.
Look here; it is documented: Panama, 1901; Dominican Republic, 1904,
1914 and 1965; Honduras, 1912; Nicaragua, 1926; Lebanon, 1958; Cuba,
the naval quarantine in 1962; Grenada, 1983; Libya, 1986; Panama--just
cause--1989; Somalia, 1992; Sudan and Afghanistan, August 1998; Iraq,
Desert Fox--you recall that one. The eve of Christmas.
I remember my good friend and your good friend, Bill Cohen, was
Secretary

[[Page S10031]]

of Defense. I went over and visited with him in his office as ranking
member of the Armed Services Committee, where we discussed the coming
Desert Fox operation, a form of consultation between the executive and
legislative branch. That was December of 1998.
Kosovo, there was preemption. I will hand this to the Senator. That
was March of 1999.
International law recognizes the concept of anticipatory self-
defense. That is a phrase known in international law--if a country is
imminently threatened.
I think the record at this point is replete with facts, where we
could be in imminent threat of the use of weapons of mass destruction
by Saddam Hussein, and more likely his surrogates--any one of which in
this international coalition of terrorists.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, without going through the entire litany,
I agree that those are all illustrations of anticipatory self-defense.
The Afghanistan missile attack on August 20 of 1998 was in response to
al-Qaida because of the destruction of our embassies in Africa at about
that time. I don't think you could call the Grenada incident a matter
of anticipatory self-defense. I don't think you can call it self-
defense at all. I think what the Senator from Virginia referred to is
not a case of anticipatory self-defense--action by the United States,
but not anticipatory self-defense. The quarantine of Cuba, as I said
before, certainly does qualify, but under very different circumstances.
But I thank my colleague from Virginia. During the course of the
coming days, I think we are going to have very extended discussions on
these issues as we debate this resolution.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my good friend we have been
fortunate to serve in this institution for many years together, and I
hope, with luck perhaps, a few more. But the Senator has always been
very careful, very thoughtful, and well prepared. While I haven't
always agreed with the Senator, it is not for lack of a strong case
that he has worked up on his side. I hope in due course he can see the
wisdom of joining in this resolution which I and three others--Senators
McCain, Lieberman, and Bayh--have put together. We really believe--and
it is the one which is before the House of Representatives right now--
that this is the wisest course of action for this Congress to take to
support the President, and do it in a way that leaves no doubt in
anyone's mind--Saddam Hussein or any other nations in the United
Nations--who are thinking that a different course should be taken.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Virginia for
those comments. We form a long-time mutual admiration society. The
Senator from Virginia was elected in 1978, and I was elected 2 years
later. So he has been here finishing up his 24th year, and I, 22. We
have worked together on many matters.
I am raising questions only because I think it is in the tradition of
what they call the world's greatest deliberative body. I am not sure
that is accurate. But when we face an issue of this sort, we ought to
be considering it very carefully. That is what I intended to do with
this very brief colloquy today along that line.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his kind remarks.
We have had a very healthy debate here for 4\1/2\ hours on Friday
afternoon--Senator Byrd, Senator Kennedy, Senator Dodd, and myself. We
resumed today with, I think, seven colloquies on both sides of the
aisle addressing this issue. I think we are going to perhaps even
exceed the thoroughness, the thoughtfulness, and the strength in the
debate we had in 1991 on a similar resolution that I dealt with at that
time, along with my distinguished friend and colleague, Senator
Lieberman.
I thank the Senator.
Mr. Specter. Mr. President, it is true that in 1991 we had a debate
which was characterized as historic. I recall the occasions when I was
in the Chamber with the Senator from Virginia seated over there on the
right-hand side. Senator Nunn was in the Chamber. We were debating that
extensively in the Chamber today. I think it will be reassuring to the
American people to see this kind of analysis and this kind of
discussion--that we are not rushing to judgement.
Mr. WARNER. They deserve no less. I thank the Senator.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.
(The remarks of Mr. Specter pertaining to the introduction of S. 3068
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills
and Joint Resolutions.'')

____________________