[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 132 (Wednesday, October 9, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10145-S10162]
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 senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:
A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 45) to authorize the use of
United States Armed Forces against Iraq.
Pending:
Lieberman/Warner Modified Amendment No. 4856, in the nature
of a substitute.
Graham Amendment No. 4857 (to Amendment No. 4856), in the
nature of a substitute.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. The Senate now turns to the resolution, it is my
understanding.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. WARNER. The leadership has indicated there have been expressions
of interest to speak this morning from Senator Feingold for
approximately 30 minutes; Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison for 30 minutes;
the Presiding Officer, Senator Leahy, for 20 minutes; and Senator
Grassley for 20 minutes.
Further, we have expressions on this side by about half a dozen other
Members who would hope to speak during the course of the day and the
afternoon, but we will await announcement of names and times until the
other side indicates the expression of interest on their side.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, what is the pending business before the
Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. I am advised it is the Graham second degree
amendment.
Mr. McCAIN. I thank the President for informing me of what the
pending business is before the Senate. I urge my colleagues to come and
speak on behalf or in opposition to the Graham amendment so we can
dispose of that amendment. It is my intention to move to table the
Graham amendment after a reasonable length of time for my colleagues to
come and speak for or against that amendment, which is my right, as is
any Senator's right, but I want to make sure every Senator has the
time, if they so wish, to speak on the pending business.
I see my dear friend from Wisconsin in the Chamber. I know he is
talking about the overall issue. We need Senators to speak on the
Graham amendment. I am sure my friend from Wisconsin and my colleague
from West Virginia would be glad to speak, but we need to dispose of
the pending Graham amendment and move on to other amendments.
I understand by 1 p.m. all amendments have to be filed. So let us
move on and dispose of the Graham amendment.
I yield the floor.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, in debating this resolution on which we
spent so much time and so much thought, we are making one of the most
important decisions we have ever faced. The decision to send American
troops into battle is not one we take lightly and I don't take lightly.
There is much at stake for this Nation. There is much at stake for
the State of Nevada. Thousands of men and women in Nevada would
undoubtedly be called to support or directly serve in a military
conflict with Iraq. Our pilots from Fallon Naval Air Station and Nellis
Air Force Base are considered the best aviators in the world. I know
they would be asked to play a leading role in eliminating the threat
posed by Saddam Hussein.
I am personally very grateful for the contributions that would be
made by the National Guard and Reserve forces not only from Nevada but
from across our country. These heroic citizen soldiers are such an
integral part of the American military. We simply could not succeed
without them. We must be mindful that their sacrifices are great
because they leave their families and civilian occupations behind and
become citizen soldiers. They serve proudly on behalf of our Nation.
When called upon, they do not complain. They did not question the need
to act. They did not ask why.
However, we must explain that these brave men and women are the
reason for making this life-and-death decision. Therefore, I rise today
to explain to one man why I intend to vote and how I intend to vote.
That man is President George W. Bush. I say, President Bush, your
father may recall that a decade ago I was the first Democrat in this
body to publicly support his request for congressional authorization to
make war to free Kuwait. At that time, I compared Saddam Hussein to
Benito Mussolini. My position has not changed, although I believe our
continued efforts have degraded Hussein from a second-grade dictator to
a third-rate thug.
In 1991, I said I thought the constitutional role of the Chief
Executive is to make war. That is our role--halt or prevent an unjust
or unwise conflict. I stated my strong belief that the President must
be able to use the diplomatic corps and the Marine Corps with equal
facility, subject only to our power to force a halt to actions taken
contrary to the national interests.
President Bush, I intend once again to vote to give you that power on
a geographically limited basis, but I do so with more reluctance
because the situation has changed. We do not, as we did 10 years ago,
face a dictator who successfully invaded a tiny and relatively
defenseless neighbor.
We have not enlisted, as your father did so magnificently, the whole
world to fight by our side. We have not yet convinced our people or the
world that international law is on our side, or that we are champions
of the new world order envisioned by your father in which the power of
a nation is measured by the strength of its moral values and not by the
size of its Armed Forces.
President Bush, the core ideal which motivated the Founding Fathers
was that this would be a nation of laws not men. As such a decent
respect to the opinions of mankind requires that we should declare the
causes which impel our action. Our quarrel with Iraq is not about one
two-bit tin-horn dictator. Rather, it is, and it ought to, be explained
as a question of the rule of law.
I am voting you this power, Mr. President, because I know this nation
would be justified in making war to enforce the terms we impose on Iraq
in 1991, if we have to. But I am also voting you this power secure in
the knowledge that no President of the United States of whatever
political philosophy, will take this nation to war as a first resort
alternative rather than as a last resort.
I found most encouraging your speech on Monday when you said war was
not inevitable.
I urge you Mr. President to continue to make the case to the American
people and to the world. The international coalition you have started
to build is critical, not only for military and cost-sharing reasons,
but also to assist in the rebuilding of Iraq.
Your father chose not to carry our fight into the cities of Iraq in
1991, and we have to live with his decision. He gave the Iraqi
leadership a chance to reenter the community of peaceful nations.
Saddam Hussein has squandered that opportunity.
We stopped the fighting based on an agreement that Iraq would take
steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further
aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction.
It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach
of the armistice which renders
[[Page S10146]]
it void and justifies resumption of the armed conflict. President Bush,
if you believe the time has come to use force, this resolution
authorizes you to do so. I trust you will use this force wisely.
I have not doubt that is Iraq continues to refuse to abide by its
agreement the nations united in 1991 will again support enforcement in
the United Nations. But Mr. President, the rule of law matters, and so
does a decent respect for opinion of the rest of the world. As
President of the United States you are the leader of the free world;
you are not its ruler.
I will support the Lieberman amendment. But I have said enough,
President Bush, and I have said it to explain my vote to you, to the
people of Nevada, to the people of this Nation, and to the world. I
have confidence, sir, that you will do the right thing.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, what is the regular order?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is for Senators to debate
the Graham amendment to S.J. Res. 45. Senators will be recognized as
they seek to speak, as they so appropriately do.
Mr. FEINGOLD. My understanding was there was an order entered whereby
I would be recognized at this point.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. It was not a unanimous consent request, but
the distinguished Senator from Virginia had mentioned others would be
coming. Of course, the Senator from Wisconsin now has the floor and he
is in control of his time.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair.
Mr. BYRD. Will the distinguished Senator yield for a question?
Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield for a question.
Mr. BYRD. This Senator has to go downtown and speak around noon. Does
the Senator intend to speak a considerable length at this point?
Mr. FEINGOLD. Not that long. I will be concluded in time for the
Senator to speak prior to that.
Mr. BYRD. Prior to that time?
Mr. FEINGOLD. Yes, sir.
Mr. BYRD. I wonder if I might ask unanimous consent to follow the
Senator from Wisconsin?
Mr. WARNER. I say to my colleague that Senator Reid, the assistant
Democrat leader, working with us, established the order. In
consultation with Senator Reid, if he wishes to come back and suggest
to us an amendment to what he had in mind, certainly we will take into
consideration the desire of the Senator from West Virginia. But at this
time, I feel the leadership has established this, and I would not be at
liberty to agree to anything else.
Mr. BYRD. If the Senator will yield further without losing the floor?
Mr. FEINGOLD. Yes.
Mr. BYRD. If and when Senator Reid comes back to the floor and
attempts to change the list----
Mr. REID. I am here.
Mr. BYRD. I was about to say, I was hoping I might be considered on
the list and be able to follow the statement by Mr. Feingold.
Mr. REID. Without the Senator from Wisconsin losing his right to the
floor, could we answer a few questions that are pending? I was watching
the proceedings from my office.
It is my understanding there is an order that is now in effect. Could
the Chair announce what that is?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
Mr. REID. It is my understanding, under the order, we have four
Senators who are set to speak, and they have been given time. Senator
Feingold is first. The Republican is Senator Hutchison of Texas, to
speak for 30 minutes, as I recall. Then Senator Leahy speaks for 30
minutes, and then Senator Grassley speaks. That is as far as we went
this morning.
Mr. McCAIN. Is there a unanimous consent in effect?
Mr. REID. That order has already been entered.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair was in error before. There is a
unanimous consent that was granted this morning before the present
occupant took the chair, giving the allocated times to Senator
Feingold, Senator Hutchison, Senator Leahy, and Senator Grassley in the
order as described by the senior Senator from Virginia.
Mr. REID. Yesterday, we tried to line up Senators and give specific
times, but it did not work. So what we decided to do, with the consent
of the two leaders, is to line up a couple on each side. We hope that
works better than yesterday. Yesterday we had a little bit of downtime
because some people did not speak long enough, some people spoke too
long. So if the Senators from Arizona and West Virginia wish to get in
the queue, I think that is totally appropriate.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator from Nevada will yield, I stated earlier
the pending business before the Senate is the Graham amendment. The
Graham amendment should be dispensed with. That is why I hope any
Senator who supports or opposes the Graham amendment would speak on it
because I intend to move to table the Graham amendment, which is my
right. So when we line up people to talk, I am all for that, but I
would seek recognition at some time--sooner rather than later--so we
could dispose of the Graham amendment. We need to move forward on this
issue, I say to my friend from Nevada.
Mr. REID. The Senator from Arizona is totally correct. I have been in
touch with the Senator from Florida, and he needs to come and speak.
Otherwise, his motion is going to be tabled because it is not only the
Senator from Arizona but others have the same thing in mind. As we all
know, once that motion is made, it is nondebatable. From what I have
been able to determine, it is likely that motion would prevail.
I would like to hear from the Senator from West Virginia. Does the
Senator from West Virginia wish to speak after the four we have lined
up?
Mr. BYRD. I have an engagement downtown. I had hoped to speak
immediately following Mr. Feingold. I would have to say to my friend
from Arizona my remarks are on the general subject. They are not
precisely on the point with respect to the Graham amendment.
May I make a parliamentary inquiry? I ask if the Senator will yield
for that purpose?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin has the floor.
Mr. FEINGOLD. I do not want to lose my right to the floor at this
point. Can the Senator from West Virginia pose a question to me?
Mr. BYRD. I would like to make a parliamentary inquiry of the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield for that purpose?
Mr. FEINGOLD. If I retain my right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The
Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator for yielding for the
inquiry. Is there a motion to invoke cloture before the Senate?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two cloture motions were filed yesterday, on
the resolution itself and on the Lieberman substitute amendment.
Mr. BYRD. If I might ask, until what time today are Senators in a
position to offer amendments in the first degree to the cloture motion
on the Lieberman amendment?
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under rule XXII, a 1 p.m. filing deadline is
imposed on the first-degree amendments.
Mr. BYRD. I wonder if Senators would yield consent to allow Senators
to file first-degree amendments until a later point today. For example,
my own situation is such, I have so many things going on, including a
conference on the Defense appropriations. I also have other problems
that would impinge upon my ability to offer an amendment by 1 p.m.
Could all Senators have a little longer than that today?
Mr. REID. If I may, with the permission of the Senator from
Wisconsin, I will respond to the Senator from West Virginia. I will be
happy, while Senator Feingold is speaking, to see if we can work with
both sides to see if that is possible. We will do that.
You are scheduled to speak for how long, Senator?
Mr. FEINGOLD. Thirty minutes.
Mr. REID. And I say to my friend from Arizona, we have heard from
Senator Graham from Florida. He was ready to come anytime today, but
because we lined up the speakers, he did not come. We will make sure he
has an opportunity to speak on his amendment and that you are
recognized.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we can rearrange the Senators on our side
because the Senator from Arizona made
[[Page S10147]]
the point last night, Senator Graham came in--we were here--
unexpectedly, laid that amendment down, and indicated to this Senator
that he was going to pursue it early in the morning.
Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Virginia it is not his fault. He is
anxious to speak.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the time to which the Senator
from Wisconsin is entitled still be in effect.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin for his
kindness and courtesy.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, many have spent months reviewing the
issue on advisability of invading Iraq in the near future, from
hearings and meeting on the process and the very important role of
Congress to the difficult questions of substance, including foreign
policy and military implications. After my own review and carefully
listening to hundreds of Wisconsin citizens in person, I spoke on the
floor on Thursday, September 26. I indicated my opposition to the
original draft use of force authorization by the President. I also used
that opportunity to raise some very important questions to which I
needed answers before supporting a narrower and more responsible
resolution.
Now, after many more meetings and reading articles and attending
briefings, listening to my colleagues' speeches, and especially
listening to the President's speech in Cincinnati on Monday, I still do
not believe the President and the administration have adequately
answered the critical questions. They have not yet met the important
burden to persuade Congress and the American people we should invade
Iraq at this time.
Both in terms of the justifications for an invasion and in terms of
the mission and the plan for the invasion, the administration's
arguments do not add up. They do not add up to a coherent basis for a
new major war in the middle of our current challenging fight against
the terrorism of al-Qaida and related organizations. Therefore, I
cannot support the resolution for the use of force before the Senate.
My colleagues, my focus today is on the wisdom of this specific
resolution, vis-a-vis Iraq, as opposed to discussing the notion of an
expanded doctrine of preemption, which the President has articulated on
several occasions. However, I associate myself with the concerns
eloquently raised by Senator Kennedy and Senator Byrd and others that
this could well represent a disturbing change in our overall foreign
and military policy. This includes grave concerns about what such a
preemption-plus policy will do to our relationship with our allies, to
our national security, and to the cause of world peace in so many
regions of the world where such a doctrine could trigger very dangerous
actions with very minimal justification.
I want to be clear about something. None of this is to say that I
don't agree with the President on much of what he has said about the
fight against terrorism and even what he has said about Iraq. I agree,
post-9/11, we face, as the President said, a long and difficult fight
against terrorism. We must be very patient and very vigilant, and we
must be ready to act and make some very serious sacrifices.
With regard to Iraq, I agree, Iraq presents a genuine threat,
especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction, chemical,
biological, and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam
Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as
the President argues. And I support the concept of regime change.
Saddam Hussein is one of several despots whom the international
community should condemn and isolate with the hope of new leadership in
those nations.
Yes, I agree; if we do this Iraq invasion, I hope Saddam Hussein will
actually be removed from power this time. I agree, we cannot do nothing
with regard to Saddam Hussein in Iraq. We must act. We must act with
serious purpose and stop the weapons of mass destruction and stop
Saddam Hussein. I agree, a return to the inspections regime of the past
alone is not a serious, credible policy.
I also believe and agree, as important and as preferable as U.N.
action and multilateral solutions to this problem are, we cannot give
the United Nations the ability to veto our ability to counter this
threat to our people. We retain and will always retain the right of
self-defense, including self-defense against weapons of mass
destruction. When such a threat requiring self-defense would present
itself--and I am skeptical that is exactly what we are dealing with
here--then we could, if necessary, act alone, including militarily.
These are all areas where I agree with the administration. However, I
am increasingly troubled by the seemingly shifting justifications for
an invasion at this time. My colleagues, I am not suggesting there has
to be only one justification for such a dramatic action, but when the
administration moves back and forth from one argument to another, it
undercuts the credibility of the case and the belief in its urgency. I
believe this practice of shifting justifications has much to do with
the troubling phenomenon of many Americans questioning the
administration's motives in insisting on action at this time.
What am I talking about? I am talking about the spectacle of the
President and senior administration officials citing a reported
connection to al-Qaida one day, weapons of mass destruction the next
day, Saddam Hussein's treatment of his own people on another day, and
then on some days the issue of Kuwaiti prisoners of war.
For some of these, we may well be willing to send some 250,000
Americans into harm's way; for others, frankly, probably not.
These litanies of various justifications--whether the original draft
resolution discussions or the new White House resolution, or,
regrettably throughout the President's speech in Cincinnati--in my view
set the bar for an alternative to a U.S. invasion so high I am afraid
it almost locks in--it almost requires--a potentially extreme and
reckless solution to these problems.
I am especially troubled by these shifting justifications because I
and most Americans strongly support the President on the use of force
in response to the attacks on September 11, 2001. I voted for S.J. Res.
23--the use of force resolution--to go after al-Qaida and the Taliban
and those associated with the tragedies of September 11, and I strongly
supported military actions pursuant to S.J. Res. 23. But the relentless
attempt to link 9/11 and the issue of Iraq has been disappointing to me
for months, culminating in the President's singularly unpersuasive
attempt in Cincinnati to intertwine 9/11 and Iraq, to make the American
people believe there are no important differences between the
perpetrators of 9/11 and Iraq.
I believe it is dangerous for the world--and especially dangerous for
us--to take the tragedy of 9/11 and the word ``terrorism'' in all their
powerful emotion and then too easily apply them to many other
situations--situations that surely need our serious attention, but are
not necessarily the same as individuals and organizations who have
shown a willingness to fly suicide planes into the World Trade Center
and into the Pentagon.
Let me say the President is right, we have to view the world, the
threats, and our own national security in a very different light since
9/11. There are shocking new threats. But it is not helpful to use
virtually any strand or extreme rhetoric to suggest the new threat is
the same as other preexisting threats.
I think common sense tells us they are not the same. They cannot so
easily be lumped together as the President sought to do in Cincinnati.
I have reviewed the intermittent efforts to suggest a connection of
9/11 and Saddam Hussein, or suggest the possibility such a connection
has developed since 9/11. I want to be very clear. In fact, if there
was a connection in planning for the 9/11 attacks by Saddam Hussein or
his agents and the perpetrators of 9/11 and al-Qaida, I have already
voted for military action. I have no objection. But if it is not, if
this is premised on some case that has supposedly been made with regard
to a subsequent coalition between al-Qaida and the Iraqi government, I
think the President has to do better. He has to do
[[Page S10148]]
better than the shoddy piecing together of flimsy evidence that
contradicts the very briefings we have received by various agencies. I
am not hearing the same things at the briefings I am hearing from the
President's top officials.
In fact, on March 11 of this year, Vice President Cheney, following a
meeting with Tony Blair, raised the possibility of weapons of mass
destruction falling into the hands of terrorists. He said:
We have to be concerned about the potential marriage, if
you will, between a terrorist organization like al-Qaida and
those who hold or are proliferating knowledge about weapons
of mass destruction.
In March, there was a potential marriage.
Then the Vice President said on September 8, without evidence--and no
evidence has been given since that time--that there are:
``Credible but unconfirmed'' intelligence reports that 9/11
ringleader Mohammad Atta met in Prague with senior Iraqi
intelligence officials a few months before the 9/11 attacks.
We have seen no proof of that.
Finally, the Secretary of Defense follows on September 27 of this
year, and says:
There is ``bulletproof evidence'' of Iraqi links to al-
Qaida, including the recent presence of senior al-Qaida
members in Baghdad.
I don't know where this comes from. This so-called ``potential
marriage'' in March is beginning to sound like a 25th wedding
anniversary at this point.
The facts just aren't there. At least they have not been presented to
me in the situations where they should have been presented to me as an
elected Member of this body. In other words, the administration appears
to use 9/11 and the language of terrorism and the connection to Iraq
too loosely--almost like a bootstrap.
For example, I heard the President say in Cincinnati that Iraq and
al-Qaida both regard us as a common enemy. Of course they do. Who else
are we going to attack in the near future on that basis alone?
Or do we see an attempt to stretch the notion of harboring
terrorists? I agree with the President, if any country is actively
harboring and assisting terrorists involved in 9/11, we have to act
against them. But I don't think you can bring to the definition of
harboring terrorists the simple presence of some al-Qaida members
somewhere in Iraq. After all, apparently we have al-Qaida agents active
in our country as well. They are present in our Nation as well. How can
this be a sufficient basis on its own?
Therefore, without a better case for an al-Qaida connection to Saddam
Hussein, this proposed invasion must stand on its own merit--not on
some notion that those who question this invasion don't thoroughly
condemn and want to see the destruction of the perpetrators of 9/11 and
similar terrorist attacks on the United States.
Invasion of Iraq must stand on its own--not just because it is
different than the fight against the perpetrators of 9/11, but because
it may not be consistent with and may even be harmful to the top
national security issue of this country. And that is the fight against
terrorism and the perpetrators of the crimes of 9/11.
In fact, I am so pleased to see one of the most eloquent spokesmen on
this viewpoint here in the Senate Chamber, Senator Graham, who has done
a terrific job of trying to point out our top priorities in this area.
He said:
Our first priority should be the successful completion of
the war on terrorism. Today, we Americans are more vulnerable
to international terrorist organizations than we are to
Saddam Hussein.
I ask: Is this war against terrorism going so terribly well when we
see the possible explosion of the French tanker in Yemen, when we see
the tremendous difficulties in trying to pursue stability in
Afghanistan itself, and when we realize we are not certain at all
whether Mr. Osama bin Laden is alive or dead? Will the invasion of Iraq
encourage our allies and Islamic friends to help us in the fight
against terrorism, or just make them extremely nervous?
I met with a group of African Ambassadors the other day in my role as
chairman of the Africa Subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee.
They told me various people were placing bets on what country would be
next after Iraq under this new doctrine the President is putting
forward. Will this idea of invading Iraq at this time, on this case, on
these merits, help or hurt cooperation in our fight against terrorism,
against the known murderers of Americans who are known to be plotting
more of the same?
I am especially dismayed at the weak response to the potential drain
on our military capability and resources in our fight against
terrorism, if we go forward with this invasion at this time. The
administration likes to quickly say, whenever asked whether we can do
this and fight the war against terrorism--they just simply say we can
do both. There is no proof. There is no real assurance of this.
I find these answers glib, at best.
When former Secretary of State Kissinger was asked in this regard, he
said:
It is not clear to me what measures that are required in
the war against terrorism would be interrupted or weakened by
the actions that may be imposed on us if it is not possible
to do away with the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction
in Iraq by other means.
That is the only explanation the former Secretary of State gave us on
this tough question.
But let's look at what the current Secretary of State, Colin Powell,
said in response to a similar question. He said:
So the campaign against terrorism is going in full swing.
And I don't see why there is a suggestion that somehow, if we
had to undertake this mission, it would be at the expense of
the campaign against terrorism.
That is all he said. Now, that is a pretty weak reassurance, to me,
that such an enormous undertaking will not call into question some of
our other military efforts and priorities.
What about what we are doing in Bosnia? What about what we are doing
in Kosovo? What about all the resources stretching from the Philippines
all the way to portions of the former Soviet Union, to the Middle East,
to parts of Africa, that are being employed in the fight against
terrorism? What about the fact we are using our National Guards and
Reserves, many times within our country, to protect our own citizens at
public events with regard to the challenge of the fight against
terrorism?
All of this, and an invasion of Iraq, too? I wonder. As mighty as we
are, I wonder if we are not very close to being overextended. Invasion
of Iraq in the next few weeks or months could, in fact, be very
counterproductive. In fact, it could risk our national security.
In any event, I oppose this resolution because of the continuing
unanswered questions, including the very important questions about what
the mission is here, what the nature of the operation will be, what
will happen concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as the
attack proceeds and afterward, and what the plan is after the attack is
over.
In effect, we are being asked to vote on something that is unclear.
We do not have the answers to these questions. We are being asked to
vote on something that is almost unknowable in terms of the information
we have been given.
In my judgment, the issue that presents the greatest potential threat
to U.S. national security--Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass
destruction--has not been addressed in any comprehensive way by the
administration to date. Of course, I know we don't need to know all the
details, and we don't have to be given all the details, and we
shouldn't be given all the details, but we have to be given some kind
of a reasonable explanation.
Before we vote on this resolution, we need a credible plan for
securing WMD sites and not allowing materials of concern to slip away
during some chaotic course of action. I know that is a tall order, but
it is a necessary demand.
As I said, I agree with the administration when it asserts that
returning to the same restricted weapons inspection regime of the
recent past is not a credible policy for addressing the WMD problem in
Iraq. But there is nothing credible about the ``we will figure that out
later'' approach we have heard to date.
What if actors competing for power in the post-Hussein world have
access to WMD? What if there is chaos in the wake of the regime's fall
that provides new opportunities for non-state actors, including
terrorist organizations, to bid on the sinister items tucked away in
Iraq?
[[Page S10149]]
Some would say those who do not unquestionably support the
administration are failing to provide for our national security. But, I
am sure of this: these issues are critical to that security, and I have
yet to get any answers.
We need an honest assessment of the commitment required of America.
If the right way to address this threat is through internationally
supported military action in Iraq, and Saddam Hussein's regime falls,
we will need to take action to ensure stability in Iraq and to help the
country on the road to reconstruction.
This could be very costly and time-consuming. It could involve the
occupation--the occupation--of a Middle Eastern country. Now, this is
not a small matter: the American occupation of a Middle Eastern
country. Consider the regional implications of that scenario: the
unrest in moderate states, the calls for action against American
interests, the difficulty of bringing stability to Iraq so we can
extricate ourselves in the midst of regional turmoil.
We need much more information about how we propose to proceed so we
can weigh the costs and benefits to our national security.
In Afghanistan, the Government of President Karzai works under
constant threat, and instability plagues the country outside of Kabul.
Many Afghan people are waiting for concrete indicators that they have a
stake in this new Taliban-free future. The task is daunting, and we
only have just begun that task.
What demands might be added in a post-Saddam Iraq?
I do believe the American people are willing to bear high costs to
pursue a policy that makes sense. But right now, after all of the
briefings, after all of the hearings, and after all of the statements,
as far as I can tell, the administration apparently intends to wing it
when it comes to the day after, or, as others have suggested, the
decade after. I think that makes no sense at all.
So, Mr. President, I believe to date the administration has failed to
answer the key questions to justify the invasion of Iraq at this time.
Yes, September 11 raises the emotional stakes and raises legitimate
new questions. This makes the President's request understandable, but
it does not make it wise.
I am concerned the President is pushing us into a mistaken and
counterproductive course of action. Instead of, in his words, this
action being ``crucial to win the war on terrorism,'' I fear it could
have the opposite effect.
So this moment--in which we are responsible for assessing the threat
before us, the appropriate response, and the potential costs and
consequences of military action--this moment is of grave importance.
Yet there is something hollow in our efforts. In all of the
administration's public statements, its presentations to Congress, and
its exhortations for action, Congress is urged to provide this
authority and approve the use of our awesome military power in Iraq
without knowing much at all about what we intend to do with it.
We are about to make one of the weightiest decisions of our time
within a context of confused justifications and vague proposals. We are
urged to get on board and bring the American people with us, but we do
not know where the ship is sailing.
On Monday night, the President said in Cincinnati: ``We refuse to
live in fear.'' I agree. But let us not overreact or get tricked or get
trapped out of fear, either.
Mr. President, on the 11th of September, 2001, our country came under
attack, and the world suddenly seemed shockingly small and
unquestionably dangerous. What followed that horror continued to be
frightening and disorienting: anthrax attacks, color-coded threat
levels, report after report of terrorist cells seemingly everywhere.
In the weeks and months since September 11, Americans have had to
contend with these changes and to come to grips with the reality this
could happen again and there are forces planning to do us harm, and we
cannot unconditionally guarantee our own safety.
In this new world, we cannot help but sense the future is uncertain,
our world is disordered, unpredictable, up for grabs. So when our
leaders propose taking action, Americans do not want to resist. But
they are resisting this vague and worrisome proposal.
My constituents have voiced their concerns in calls, at town
meetings, in letters, and through e-mails or faxes. They are not
calling for Congress to bury its head in the sand. They are not naively
suggesting Saddam Hussein is somehow misunderstood. But they are asking
questions that bear directly on our national security, and they are
looking for answers that make sense. They are setting the standard,
just as they should do, in a great democracy.
Their standard is high. We should work together to develop a policy
toward Iraq that meets it.
I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The bill 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. The Senator from Texas is present in the Chamber. My
understanding is, she is next to be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is right. The Senator from Texas
is recognized.
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senators from Virginia,
Arizona, and Connecticut for all of the efforts being made to bring a
full debate on this issue to the Senate.
Congress has no greater responsibility under the Constitution than to
provide for our Nation's common defense. There is no decision we make
that requires more careful consideration than a decision to authorize
the use of armed forces and, in so doing, send America's sons and
daughters into harm's way.
Shortly after I was elected to the Senate, our Nation suffered
through the brutal battle in Mogadishu, Somalia. It left 18 of our
soldiers dead. Our mission was vague. There was no clear American
national security threat in Somalia. The President did not come to the
American people and explain the rationale for continued military
involvement.
The impact of this uncertainty became very clear to me soon after the
tragedy when I met a constituent on a flight from Washington, DC, to
Dallas.
He came up to me and said: Senator, my name is Larry Joyce. I am your
constituent.
I said: Hi, Larry, how are you doing? What were you doing in
Washington?
He said: I was burying my son in Arlington National Cemetery.
His son Casey had been killed in the street ambush that was depicted
in the book ``Black Hawk Down,'' also a movie.
Colonel Joyce said to me, with tears rolling down his face: Senator,
I am a military man. I served two tours in Vietnam. And now my son
Casey, on his first mission as an Army Ranger, is not coming home.
Senator, I can't tell you why.
I vowed that day that I would never vote to send an American into
battle unless I could answer that question. I want to be able to face
any parent and say: This is the national security interest of our
country, and that is why your child signed up and was willing to fight
and was sent to do so.
Since Somalia, I have come to the Senate floor to express grave
reservations about deployments to Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo. In each
case, I called on the President to come to Congress, make the case to
the American people, and outline the U.S. security interest.
After the tragic events of 9/11, President Bush sought and received
the authorization to use force to find and destroy the terrorists who
had launched that heinous crime. There was no question in my mind and
in the minds of most Members of Congress that our national security
demanded our support of the President.
Today, President Bush seeks congressional authorization to use
military force to deal with the threat Saddam Hussein poses with
weapons of mass destruction. We must answer the major question for
America: What is the U.S. security interest? Why Saddam? Why now?
It is a question I thought about as I sat among the hushed crowds at
the Pentagon's memorial service on September 11, 2002. It was a
poignant moment. I was surrounded by those who had suffered so much and
many who will ultimately bear the consequences of the decision we are
about to make.
[[Page S10150]]
I doubt there is anyone in America who doesn't feel as I do. If we
could have prevented 9/11, we certainly would have. We didn't have
warning, and we paid a heavy price.
It is this experience that has led President Bush to think in a
different way about protecting our homeland. I believe he doesn't want
to wait until an enemy is finished building his deadly arsenal and
ready to attack from a position of strength. It is one thing to turn
three commercial airliners into weapons of mass destruction. It is
another to have a nuclear missile ready to deploy or to arm an unmanned
aerial vehicle with anthrax ready to ship anywhere in the world.
Each generation of Americans has been called to defend our freedom.
Each time, our forefathers and mothers have answered the call. Our
generation's time of national trial has come. We are being called to
stop a new kind of enemy, different from any we have ever fought
before. This enemy is not just contained in one country or two, it is
spread throughout the world and even within our own borders. This enemy
purposely kills itself in order to harm others.
This enemy is patient, building resources and striking when and where
we are least prepared. This enemy uses a different method each time.
This enemy requires a new kind of defense. That is what the President
is attempting to build.
The cold war ended when the Iron Curtain and Berlin Wall came
tumbling down. The post-cold-war era ended when the World Trade Center
towers came crashing down. September 11 made it abundantly clear that
the strategy of deterrence alone is not enough.
The President recently released a new national security strategy. It
articulates a policy of preemption and dominance. Some fear that our
new national security strategy is too bold. A bold defense does not
cause calamities to occur, but a lack of action will. It is not our
defense strategy that will provoke attacks on the United States.
Rather, it is when we fail to act or fail to lead that our enemies
strike. It is when they think we have become soft and complacent that
they will kill innocent Americans again.
We have learned hard and valuable lessons these past few years. The
first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center occurred in 1993, a
bombing that killed 6 Americans and injured more than 1,000. What did
we do? In 1996, Hezbollah extremists bombed the United States military
barracks at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 American
servicemembers and injuring 500 others. What did we do? In 1998, al-
Qaida terrorists bombed the United States Embassies in Kenya and
Tanzania, killing and injuring hundreds. What did we do? In 2000, al-
Qaida terrorists again attacked Americans, this time bombing the U.S.S.
Cole in Yemen, killing 17 American servicemembers and injuring scores
more. What did we do?
Then came the devastating attacks of 9/11. Our Nation finally was
awakened. We put the pattern together to see the threat to the very
freedom that we cherish. We did do something. We took action against
our enemy swiftly and boldly after 9/11. Now we must follow through.
The President has asked for authority to meet this threat. Congress
gave him wide latitude to root out terrorism. We and our allies are
doing that job in Afghanistan, the home base of al-Qaida.
We have liberated millions and millions of innocent Afghanis from the
cruel Taliban regime.
Now the President is asking for authority to go into Iraq. Why Iraq?
Why now? Because we have learned the lessons of complacency. We have
learned the lessons of not being prepared.
The President has solid information that with a small amount of
highly enriched uranium, Iraq could have a nuclear weapon in less than
a year. We know Iraq already has the means to deliver it. He has hard
intelligence that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons and small,
unmanned aerial vehicles to disseminate them, potentially killing
thousands of people anywhere in the world. The President is saying:
``Do we wait for the attack, or do we take steps to prevent it?'' Our
post-9/11 defense strategy demands that we prevent it.
Saddam Hussein has fired on coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly
zones over Iraq 2,500 times since the Gulf War. Saddam Hussein has
rewarded the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. He has attempted
to assassinate the former U.S. President who led the international
coalition that defeated him in the Gulf War. His No. 1 enemy is the
United States of America.
So if all diplomatic efforts fail, and if the U.N. weapons inspectors
are not allowed unfettered access to suspected sites, our President
wants to be able to take away Saddam Hussein's means to destroy us and
our allies.
It is our responsibility to give the President the authorization he
needs. The question of whether the security of the United States is
threatened has been answered. The answer is yes.
It is with a heavy heart and a realization of the consequences that I
will vote yes. But it would be a burden I could not carry to vote no
and then, a year or 2 from now, see a preventable attack kill thousands
more innocent Americans or our allies.
Mr. President, we are going to meet this test of our generation. We
are going to protect the freedom and the way of life that has become
the beacon to the world of the way life should be. We can do no less.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
Mr. REID. Has the Senator completed her statement?
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the
statement of Senator Grassley, Senator Graham of Florida be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to object. Senator McCain will
address the Chair.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator to repeat that.
Mr. REID. I said that following the statement of the Senator from
Iowa, Mr. Grassley, Senator Graham be recognized. Based on our
conversations, following that, the Senator from Arizona would like to
be recognized.
Mr. McCAIN. That is fine.
Mr. REID. I add to the request, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, might I at this juncture complete my
statement to express strong support for the remarks made by the
distinguished Senator from Texas. She has been very much involved in
the planning for this resolution, and I very much appreciate her
remarks.
(Mr. REID assumed the Chair.)
Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you. I say to the Senator from Virginia that I
appreciate that. We have worked together on this resolution to try to
ensure that the President has the authorization he needs and that
Congress plays its constitutional role. I appreciate all the
cooperation on both sides of the aisle to make this happen.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, pending the arrival of Senator Leahy, I
ask unanimous consent for a colloquy with Senator Specter and
Lieberman. I imagine Senator Leahy will be here shortly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I had discussed briefly with the Senator
from Connecticut a couple of questions, and I would like to engage him
in a colloquy. The first relates to the difference in language between
the 1991 resolution authorizing then-President Bush to use force, which
says in pertinent part:
The President is authorized to use United States Armed
Forces, pursuant to resolutions of the UN, in order to
achieve implementation of those Security Council resolutions.
Now, that is different from the authorization in the current
resolution, which says:
The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the
United States as he determines to be necessary and
appropriate.
The current resolution might be called a subjective standard, which
gives substantially greater latitude to President Bush to use force
``as he determines to be necessary and appropriate.'' This language is
very much
[[Page S10151]]
subjective as contrasted with the 1991 language, which is more
objective, authorizing the President to use force to achieve
implementation of certain Security Council resolutions.
I ask the Senator from Connecticut if the intent here, in trying to
develop some legislative history, notwithstanding the language in the
present resolution, is really about the same--or is the same--as the
1991 resolution.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania
for his thoughtful question. The intent is the same, although we may
have a different understanding of what that intent is. I will say that
the operative language here may be somewhat different because the
circumstances that engendered the resolution of Congress in 1991 are
different than now. Then, we had a specific act, which was the Iraq
invasion of Kuwait. Resolutions have been passed by the U.N. so that
there was specifically reference in the authorizing resolution that
Senator Warner and I were privileged to cosponsor in 1991.
Now we have a totality of circumstances, including the repeated
violation of some of those same resolutions, but others calling for
inspections, calling for the destruction of weapons of mass destruction
that Saddam Hussein has. In fact, in the initial suggestion of a
resolution drafted by the White House, there was an enumeration of
specific U.N. resolutions, and Members of Congress negotiating--I
believe from the other body--preferred to have the term that we have in
there now, giving the President the power to use the Armed Forces to
enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions.
In either case, I think what is involved here is an understanding
both in the 1991 resolution and in this one that Congress, using its
authority under article I of the Constitution to declare war, authorize
military action, does so and sets the parameters, but that ultimately,
according to article II, it is the President who is the Commander in
Chief of the Army, Navy, United States militia of the several States,
when called into the actual service of the United States. Implicit in
that has to be the understanding that the President will use the force
that he determines to be necessary and appropriate.
As I said yesterday, with the authority to give the President comes
accountability. So, bottom line: There are two different circumstances
that engender slightly different resolutions. In each case, Congress is
fulfilling its responsibility to authorize military action, ultimately,
within the parameters set forth in both resolutions. You have to give
the President, as Commander in Chief, the authority to make decisions
that he deems to be necessary and appropriate in the defense of our
national security, and then be held accountable for those decisions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Leahy is now recognized for up to 30
minutes.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, was the Senator from Pennsylvania seeking
further time?
Mr. SPECTER. I ask, Mr. President, the Senator from Vermont if I may
pose one more question.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I suggest the regular order.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time will come off Senator Leahy's time.
Mr. LEAHY. I will have no objection to that provided the time is not
taken from the time the Senator from Vermont has reserved.
Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, how long will it take?
Mr. SPECTER. Probably less than the time to inquire about it. I will
ask the question in a minute or less.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized
for up to 1 minute.
Mr. SPECTER. The question I have for the Senator from Connecticut is
on the expansive whereas clauses. One of these clauses refers to
repression of the civilian population of Iraq. I ask whether the
resolution intends to give the President the power to use force to cure
those kinds of matters, which are separate from the issues of weapons
of mass destruction, and whether the issue on weapons of mass
destruction is satisfied, so that the UN resolutions are satisfied, and
whether the clause on authorization relating to defending the national
security interests of the United States will be satisfied with the
resolution of the weapons of mass destruction without picking up the
whereas clause on regime change.
I think that is less than a minute, Mr. President.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I probably should let the Senator from Arizona respond
because he will do it much more quickly than I.
Mr. LEAHY. Again, Mr. President, I ask this not be deducted from the
time available to the Senator from Vermont.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I will try to do this within a minute
and perhaps give time for Senator Specter to clarify this. The whereas
clauses, the preamble, speak for themselves. It suggests a totality of
circumstances that lead the sponsors of the resolution to want to
authorize the President, if all else fails, to take military action
against Iraq under Saddam Hussein.
Clearly--and what the President has said and what the sponsors of the
resolution have said--the focus of our concern is the weapons of mass
destruction and the means to deliver them. As we said yesterday, this
resolution is intended to send a message to Saddam: Disarm, as you
promised to do 11 years ago at the end of the gulf war, or we will use
force to disarm you with our allies and the international community.
Nonetheless, the other conditions describing the totality of Saddam's
brutality--violation of international law, invasion of his neighbors,
et cetera--are stated in the preamble and consistent with what I said
in response to the earlier question.
The President, as Commander in Chief, is given the authority, the
responsibility, and accountability to enforce all relevant U.N.
Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. I do not think anyone
expects the President to take military action against Iraq if,
hopefully, and in some sense miraculously, Saddam disarms, destroys his
ballistic missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles, allows inspections
without any restrictions. Under those circumstances, it is hard to
imagine the President would authorize military action, for instance, in
regard to some of the lesser U.N. resolutions as generally understood
by this body.
Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator from Connecticut.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized for up
to 30 minutes.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have enjoyed this colloquy and would
yield further, but I know there are other Senators awaiting their turn
to speak.
On September 26, I spoke at length in this Chamber about the
important issue before us. I voiced my concerns and the concerns of a
great many Vermonters--in fact, a great many Americans from whom I have
heard. I spoke about the President's plan to send Americans into battle
to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
Many Senators have also expressed their views on this difficult
decision. As I prepared to speak 2 weeks ago, I listened to Senator
Bingaman urge the administration to seriously consider a proposal for
``coerced inspections.'' After I finished speaking, Senator Johnson
voiced his support for providing the President with the broad authority
he seeks to use military force against Iraq.
The opportunity and responsibility to have this debate is one of the
cornerstones on which this institution, and indeed this country is
built. Some have suggested that expressing misgivings or asking
questions about the President's plan to attack Iraq is somehow
unpatriotic. Others have tried to make it an election year issue on
bumper stickers or in TV advertisements.
These attempts are misguided. They are beneath the people who make
these attempts and they are beneath the issue. This is an issue of war.
An issue of war should be openly debated. That is a great freedom of
this Nation. We fought a revolution to have such debates.
As I and others have said over and over, declaring war is the single
most important responsibility given to Congress. Unfortunately, at
times like this, it is a responsibility Congress has often shirked. Too
often, Congress has abdicated its responsibility and deferred to the
executive branch on such matters. It should not. It should pause and
read the Constitution.
In the Senate, we have a duty to the Constitution, to our
consciences, and
[[Page S10152]]
to the American people, especially our men and women in uniform, to ask
questions, to discuss the benefits, the risks, the costs, to have a
thorough debate and then vote to declare war or not. This body, the
Senate, is supposed to be the conscience of the Nation. We should
fulfill this great responsibility.
In my 28 years in the Senate, I can think of many instances when we
asked questions and took the time to study the facts. It led to
significant improvements in what we have done here.
I can also remember times when Senators in both parties wished they
had taken more time to carefully consider the issues before them, to
ask the hard questions, or make changes to the legislation, despite the
sometimes overwhelming public pressure to pass the first bill that came
along.
I know following the Constitution is not always politically expedient
or popular. The Constitution was not designed to be politically
expedient, but following the Constitution is the right course to take.
It is what we are sworn to do, and there is no question that having
this debate, which really began some months ago, has helped move the
administration in the right direction.
Today, we are considering a resolution offered by Senator Lieberman
to authorize the use of force. Article I of the Constitution gives the
Congress the sole power to declare war. But instead of exercising this
responsibility and voting up or down on a declaration of war, what have
we done? We have chosen to delegate this authority and this burden to
the executive branch.
This resolution, like others before it, does not declare anything. It
tells the President: Why don't you decide; we are not going to.
This resolution, when you get through the pages of whereas clauses,
is nothing more than a blank check. The President can decide when to
use military force, how to use it, and for how long. This Vermonter
does not sign blank checks.
Mr. President, I suppose this resolution is something of an
improvement. Back in August the President's advisors insisted that
there was not even any need for authorization from Congress to go to
war. They said past resolutions sufficed.
Others in the administration argued that the United States should
attack Iraq preemptively and unilaterally, without bothering to seek
the support of the United Nations, even though it is Iraq's violations
of U.N. resolutions which is used to justify military action.
Eventually, the President listened to those who urged him to change
course and he went to the United Nations. He has since come to the
Congress. I commended President Bush for doing that.
I fully support the efforts of Secretary Powell to negotiate a
strong, new Security Council resolution for the return of weapons
inspectors to Iraq, backed up with force, if necessary, to overcome
Iraqi resistance.
Two weeks ago, when the President sent Congress his proposed
resolution authorizing the use of force, I said that I hoped his
proposal was the beginning of a consultative, bipartisan process to
produce a sensible resolution to be acted on at the appropriate time.
I also said that I could envision circumstances which would cause me
to support sending U.S. Armed Forces to Iraq. But I also made it clear
that I could never support the kind of blank check resolution that the
President proposed. I was not elected to do that.
I commend Senator Daschle, Senator Hagel, and others who tried hard
to work with the administration to craft a bipartisan resolution that
we could all support.
But while the resolution that we are considering today is an
improvement from the version that the President first sent to Congress,
it is fundamentally the same. It is still a blank check. I will vote
against this resolution for all the reasons I have stated before and
the reasons I will explain in detail now.
Mr. President, there is no dispute that Saddam Hussein is a menace to
his people and to Iraq's neighbors. He is a tyrant and the world would
be far better without him.
Saddam Hussein has also made no secret of his hatred of the United
States, and should he acquire a nuclear weapon and the means to deliver
it, he would pose a grave threat to the lives of all Americans, as well
as to our closest allies.
The question is not whether Saddam Hussein should be disarmed; it is
how imminent is this threat and how should we deal with it?
Do we go it alone, as some in the administration are eager to do
because they see Iraq as their first opportunity to apply the
President's strategy of preemptive military force?
Do we do that, potentially jeopardizing the support of those nations
we need to combat terrorism and further antagonizing Muslim populations
who already deeply resent our policies in the Middle East?
Or, do we work with other nations to disarm Saddam, using force if
other options fail?
The resolution now before the Senate leaves the door open to act
alone, even absent an imminent threat. It surrenders to the President
authority which the Constitution explicitly reserves for the Congress.
And As I said 2 weeks ago, it is premature. I have never believed,
nor do I think that any Senator believes, that U.S. foreign policy
should be hostage to any nation, nor to the United Nations. Ultimately,
we must do what we believe is right and necessary to protect our
security, whenever it is called for. But going to war alone is rarely
the answer.
On Monday night, the President spoke about working with the United
Nations. He said:
To actually work, any new inspections, sanctions, or
enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different.
America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that
helps keep the peace. That is why we are urging the Security
Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough,
immediate requirements.
I could not agree more. The President is right. The status quo is
unacceptable. Past U.N. resolutions have not worked. Saddam Hussein and
other Iraqi officials have lied to the world over and over and over. As
the President points out, an effort is underway in the U.N. Security
Council--led by the United States--to adopt a strong resolution
requiring unconditional, unimpeded access for U.N. weapons inspectors,
backed up with force if necessary.
That effort is making steady progress. There is wide acceptance that
a new resolution is necessary before the inspectors can return to Iraq,
and this has put pressure on the other nations, especially Russia and
France, to support our position.
If successful, it could achieve the goal of disarming Saddam without
putting thousands of American and innocent Iraqi lives at risk or
spending tens of billions, or hundreds of billions, of dollars at a
time when the U.S. economy is weakening, the Federal deficit is
growing, and the retirement savings of America's senior citizens have
been decimated.
Diplomacy is often tedious. It does not usually make the headlines or
the evening news. We certainly know about past diplomatic failures. But
history has shown over and over that diplomatic pressure cannot only
protect our national interests, it can also enhance the effectiveness
of military force when force becomes necessary.
The negotiations are at a sensitive stage. By authorizing the use of
force today, the Congress will be saying that irrespective of what the
Security Council does, we have already decided to go our own way.
As Chairman and sometime Ranking Member of the Foreign Operations
Subcommittee for over a decade, I have received countless letters from
Secretaries of State--from both Democratic and Republican
Administrations--urging Congress not to adopt legislation because it
would upset ongoing negotiations. Why is this different?
Some say the President's hand will be strengthened by Congress
passing this resolution. In 1990, when the United States successfully
assembled a broad coalition to fight the gulf war, the Congress passed
a resolution only after the UN had acted. The world already knows that
President Bush is serious about using force against Iraq, and the votes
are there in Congress to declare war if diplomatic efforts fail and war
becomes unavoidable.
More importantly, the resolution now before the Senate goes well
beyond what the President said on Monday about working through the
United Nations. It would permit the administration to take precipitous,
unilateral action without following through at the U.N.
[[Page S10153]]
Many respected and knowledgeable people--former senior military
officers and diplomats among them--have expressed strong reservations
about this resolution. They agree that if there is credible
evidence that Saddam Hussein is planning to use weapons of mass
destruction against the United States or one of our allies, the
American people and the Congress would overwhelmingly support the use
of American military power to stop him. But they have not seen that
evidence, and neither have I.
We have heard a lot of bellicose rhetoric, but what are the facts? I
am not asking for 100 percent proof, but the administration is asking
Congress to make a decision to go to war based on conflicting
statements, angry assertions, and assumption based on speculation. This
is not the way a great nation goes to war.
The administration has also been vague, evasive and contradictory
about its plans. Speaking here in Washington, the President and his
advisors continue to say this issue is about disarming Saddam Hussein;
that he has made no decision to use force.
But the President paints a different picture when he is on the
campaign trail, where he often talks about regime change. The Vice
President said on national television that ``The President's made it
clear that the goal of the United States is regime change. He said that
on many occasions.''
Proponents of this resolution argue that it does put diplomacy first.
They point to section 4, which require the President to determine that
further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone will not adequately
protect the national security, before he resorts to military force.
They say that this ensures that we will act only in a deliberative way,
in concert with our allies.
But they fail to point out that the resolution permits the President
to use unilateral military force if he determines that reliance on
diplomacy along.
. . . is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant
United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq .
. .''
Unfortunately, we have learned that ``not likely'' is a wide open
phrase that can be used to justify just about anything. So let us not
pretend we are doing something we are not. This resolution permits the
President to take whatever military action he wants, whenever he wants,
for as long as he wants. It is a blank check.
We have the best trained, best equipped Armed Forces in the world,
and I know they can defeat Iraq. I hope, as we all do, that if force is
used the Iraqi military surrenders quickly.
But if we have learned anything from history, it is that wars are
unpredictable. They can trigger consequences that none of us would
intend or expect. Is it fair to the American people, who have become
accustomed to wars waged from 30,000 feet lasting a few weeks with few
casualties, that we not discuss what else could happen? We could be
involved in urban warfare where large numbers of our troops are killed.
And what of the critical issue of rebuilding a post-Saddam Iraq,
about which the Administration has said virtually nothing? It is one
thing to topple a regime, but it is equally important, and sometimes
far more difficult, to rebuild a country to prevent it from becoming
engulfed by factional fighting.
If these nations cannot successfully rebuild, then they will once
again become havens for terrorists. To ensure that does not happen, do
we foresee basing thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq after the war, and
if so, for how many years? How many billions of dollars will we spend?
Are the American people prepared to spend what it will take to
rebuild Iraq even when the administration is not budgeting the money
that is needed to rebuild Afghanistan, having promised to do so? Do we
spend hundreds of billions in Iraq, as the President's Economic Adviser
suggested, while not providing at home for homeland defense, drought
aid for farmers, education for our young people, and other domestic
priorities?
Who is going to replace Saddam Hussein? The leading coalition of
opposition groups, the Iraqi National Congress, is divided, has
questionable support among the Iraqi people, and has made little
headway in overthrowing Saddam. While Iraq has a strong civil society,
in the chaos of a post-Saddam Iraq another dictator could rise to the
top or the country could splinter along ethnic or religious lines.
These are the questions the American people are asking and these are
the issues we should be debating. They are difficult issues of war and
peace, but the administration, and the proponents of this resolution,
would rather leave them for another day. They say: vote now! and let
the President decide. Don't give the U.N. time to do its job. Don't
worry that the resolution is a blank check.
I can count the votes. The Senate will pass this resolution. They
will give the President the authority he needs to send United States
troops to Iraq. But before the President takes that step, I hope he
will consider the questions that have been asked. I hope he considers
the concerns raised by former generals, senior diplomats, and
intelligence officials in testimony before Congress. I hope he listens
to concerns raised privately by some of our military officers. Above
all, I hope he will listen to the American people who are urging him to
proceed cautiously and not to act alone.
Notwithstanding whatever disagreements there may be on our policy
toward Iraq, if a decision is made to send troops into battle, there is
no question that every Member of Congress will unite behind our
President and our Armed Forces.
But that time has not yet come. Based on what I know today, I believe
in order to solve this problem without potentially creating more
terrorists and more enemies, we have to act deliberately and not
precipitously. The way the United States responds to the threat posed
by Iraq is going to have consequences for our country and for the world
for years to come.
Authorizing a U.S. attack to overthrow another government while
negotiations at the United Nations are ongoing, and before we exhaust
other options, could damage our standing in the world as a country that
recognizes the importance of international solutions. I am afraid that
it would be what the world expects of a superpower that seems
increasing disdainful of international opinion or cooperation and
collective diplomacy, a superpower that seems more and more inclined to
``go it alone.''
What a dramatic shift from a year ago, when the world was united in
its expressions of sympathy toward the United States. A year ago, the
world would have welcomed the opportunity to work with us on a wide
agenda of common problems.
I remember the emotion I felt when I saw ``The Star Spangled Banner''
sung by crowds of people outside Buckingham Palace in London. The
leading French newspaper, Le Monde, declared, ``We are all Americans.''
China's Jiang Zemin was one of the first world leaders to call
Washington and express sympathy after September 11.
Why squander the goodwill we had in the world? Why squander this
unity? If September 11 taught us anything, it is that protecting our
security involves much more than military might. It involves
cooperation with other nations to break up terrorist rings, dry up the
sources of funding, and address the conditions of ignorance and despair
that create breeding grounds for terrorists. We are far more likely to
achieve these goals by working with other nations than by going it
alone.
I am optimistic that the Administration's efforts at the U.N. will
succeed and that the Security Council will adopt a strong resolution.
If Saddam Hussein refuses to comply, then force may be justified, and
it may be required.
But we are a great nation, with a wide range of resources available
to us and with the goodwill of most of the world. Let us proceed
deliberately, moving as close to our goal as we can by working with our
allies and the United Nations, rather than writing a blank check that
is premature, and which would continue the trend of abdicating our
constitutional authority and our responsibility.
Mr. President, that trend started many years ago, and I have gone
back and read some of the speeches the Senators have made. For example,
and I quote:
The resolution now pending is an expression of American
unity in this time of crisis.
[[Page S10154]]
It is a vote of confidence . . . but is not a blank check
for policies that might in the future be carried on by the
executive branch of the Government without full consultation
by the Congress.
Do these speeches sound familiar? They were not about Iraq. They were
spoken 38 years ago when I was still a prosecutor in Vermont. At the
end of that debate, after statements were made that this resolution is
not a blank check, and that Congress will always watch what the
Executive Branch is doing, the Senate voted on that resolution. Do you
know what the vote was? 88 to 2. It passed overwhelmingly.
In case everyone does not know what resolution I am talking about, I
am talking about the Tonkin Gulf resolution. As we know all too well,
the Tonkin Gulf resolution was used by both the Johnson and Nixon
administrations as carte blanche to wage war on Vietnam, ultimately
involving more than half a million American troops, resulting in the
deaths of more than 58,000 Americans. Yet, even the Tonkin Gulf
resolution, unlike the one that we are debating today, had a sunset
provision.
When I came to the Senate, there were a lot of Senators, both
Republicans and Democrats, who had voted for the Tonkin Gulf
resolution. Every single Senator who ever discussed it with me said
what a mistake it was to write that kind of blank check on the
assurance that we would continue to watch what went on.
I am not suggesting the administration is trying to mislead the
Congress about the situation in Iraq, as Congress was misled on the
Tonkin Gulf resolution. I am not comparing a possible war in Iraq to
the Vietnam war. They are very different countries, with different
histories, and with different military capabilities. But the key words
in the resolution we are considering today are remarkably similar to
the infamous resolution of 38 years ago which so many Senators and so
many millions of Americans came to regret.
Let us not make that mistake again. Let us not pass a Tonkin Gulf
resolution. Let us not set the history of our great country this way.
Let us not make the mistake we made once before.
I yield the floor.
Mr. WARNER. Madam President, late last night in a colloquy between
myself and the Senator from Oregon, the Senator from Oregon read into
the Record portions of a letter addressed to Senator Graham, chairman,
Select Committee on Intelligence, signed by George Tenet. I ask
unanimous consent that that letter be printed in the Record today,
followed by a statement issued by Mr. Tenet bearing on his
interpretation and intent in writing that letter.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
Central Intelligence Agency,
Washington, DC, October 7, 2002.
Hon. Bob Graham,
Chairman, Select Committee on Intelligence, U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: In response to your letter of 4 October
2002, we have made unclassified material available to further
the Senate's forthcoming open debate on a Joint Resolution
concerning Iraq.
As always, our declassification efforts seek a balance
between your need for unfettered debate and our need to
protect sources and methods. We have also been mindful of a
shared interest in not providing to Saddam a blueprint of our
intelligence capabilities and shortcoming, or with insight
into our expectation of how he will and will not act. The
salience of such concerns is only heightened by the
possibility for hostilities between the U.S. and Iraq.
These are some of the reasons why we did not include our
classified judgments on Saddam's decisionmaking regarding the
use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in our recent
unclassified paper on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction.
Viewing your request with those concerns in mind, however, we
can declassify the following from the paragraphs you
requested.
Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of
conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against
the United States.
Should Saddam conclude that a US-led attack could no longer
be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained
in adopting terrorist actions. Such terrorism might involve
conventional means, as with Iraq's unsuccessful attempt at a
terrorist offensive in 1991, or CBW.
Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting
Islamist terrorists in conducting a WMD attack against the
United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by
taking a large number of victims with him.
Regarding the 2 October closed hearing, we can declassify
the following dialogue.
Senator Levin: . . . If (Saddam) didn't feel threatened,
did not feel threatened, is it likely that he would initiate
an attack using a weapon of mass destruction?
Senior Intelligence Witness: . . . My judgment would be
that the probability of him initiating an attack--let me put
a time frame on it--in the foreseeable future, given the
conditions we understand now, the likelihood I think would be
low.
Senator Levin: Now if he did initiate an attack you've . .
. indicated he would probably attempt clandestine attacks
against us . . . But what about his use of weapons of mass
destruction? If we initiate an attack and he thought he was
in extremis or otherwise, what's the likelihood in response
to our attack that he would use chemical or biological
weapons?
Senior Intelligence Witness: Pretty high, in my view.
In the above dialogue, the witness's qualifications--``in
the foreseeable future, given the conditions we understand
now''--were intended to underscore that the likelihood of
Saddam using WMD for blackmail, deterrence, or otherwise
grows as his arsenal builds. Moreover, if Saddam used WMD, it
would disprove his repeated denials that he has such weapons.
Regarding Senator Bayh's question of Iraqi links to al-
Qa'ida, Senators could draw from the following points for
unclassified discussions:
Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and al-
Qa'ida is evolving and is based on sources of varying
reliability. Some of the information we have received comes
from detainees, including some of high rank.
We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between
Iraq and al-Qa'ida going back a decade.
Credible information indicates that Iraq and al-Qa'ida have
discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression.
Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of
the presence in Iraq of al-Qa'ida members, including some
that have been in Baghdad.
We have credible reporting that al-Qa'ida leaders sought
contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD
capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has
provided training to al-Qa'ida members in the areas of
poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.
Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians,
coupled with growing indications of a relationship with al-
Qa'ida, suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will
increase, even absent US military action.
Sincerely,
John McLaughlin
(For George J. Tenet, Director).
____
Statement by DCI George Tenet, October 8, 2002
There is no inconsistency between our view of Saddam's
growing threat and the view as expressed by the President in
his speech. Although we think the chances of Saddam
initiating a WMD attack at this moment are low--in part
because it would constitute an admission that he possesses
WMD--there is no question that the likelihood of Saddam using
WMD against the United States or our allies in the region for
blackmail, deterrence, or otherwise grows as his arsenal
continues to build. His past use of WMD against civilian and
military targets shows that he produces those weapons to use
not just to deter.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized for 20
minutes.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, before I give my reasons for my vote
on this resolution, I would like to point out some ironies and
inconsistencies in some positions of some of my colleagues.
It is not unusual for Senators to be inconsistent in positions taken,
but in recent weeks we have had some colleagues blaming the
administration for not responding to the pre-9/11 warnings of possible
terrorist attacks on the United States. I am talking about the warnings
of whether or not the CIA and the FBI had information about that and
whether or not the President had access to that information. The
insinuation is that maybe the President knew more than what he did and,
why didn't he do something about 9/11?
It seems to me the same colleagues are now refusing to support the
President's call to disarm Saddam Hussein. The President is trying to
preempt Saddam Hussein from unleashing on Americans his weapons of mass
destruction. Yet my colleagues who are inconsistent in this way
apparently want the President to wait until we are attacked again. I
ask, if you were expecting preemption before September 11, 2001, why
wouldn't you expect the President to preempt an attack on the United
States today?
[[Page S10155]]
I come to the floor today to share my thoughts concerning the
resolution before the Senate. Again we find ourselves in the midst of
an important debate with one of the most important decisions that many
Senators will make in our lifetime. The issue of war and peace involves
the threats to the lives of the men and women we send to battle. This
issue may even involve threats to the American civilian population, as
well.
It was just a little more than a decade ago that many Members were
here making similar decisions in regard to the Persian Gulf war.
As many of my colleagues may remember, I was just one of two Senate
Republicans who opposed the resolution authorizing military action
against Iraq in 1991. I voted against that resolution because I
questioned the timing of military action while diplomatic measures and
economic sanctions had just been started. I felt they needed a chance
to work. Opposing the resolution was a difficult decision, but one that
I have never regretted.
While today's decision is not one to be taken lightly, it stands in
stark contrast to that of 1991. While I opposed that resolution for the
reasons I stated, I intend to support the compromise resolution before
us because I believe the time to hold Saddam Hussein accountable is
past due.
But, this is not the first time since 1991 that Congress has approved
a resolution approving military action against Iraq.
In 1998, by unanimous vote by the Senate and an overwhelming 407-6
vote in the House, Congress approved a resolution, and subsequently
President Clinton bombed Iraq in December of 1998.
Let us see how forthrightly the Senate spoke at that time about the
dangers of Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
I speak from page 2 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. It says in
section 3:
It should be the policy of the United States to support
efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from
power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a democratic
government to replace the regime.
It is pretty clear we knew about the threat of Saddam Hussein under a
Democratic President--President Clinton--with a bipartisan action by
consensus of this body. Why should anybody be surprised if President
Clinton and the Senate, in a bipartisan way, would be expressing the
same concern 4 years later?
What was the basis of that overwhelming vote? Primarily, it was
because Iraq has kicked United Nations weapons inspectors out, as they
did in 1998. Today we have a lot of intelligence information saying it
is a far more dangerous situation today, and particularly for the
United States.
Thousands of Americans were killed in that 9/11 attack by terrorists.
Iraq is aligned with those terrorists, and Iraq is building weapons
of mass destruction. We must, therefore, respond appropriately.
One of the most pressing concerns expressed by my constituents over
the past few months is that of timing. The question: Why now? The
question: Why can't we continue to pursue inspections and other
diplomatic measures? They are legitimate questions. Many of my
colleagues will answer this differently than I will. But the response
for me is quite simple. I believe the actions by Saddam Hussein over
the past 10 years builds a strong case why firm action is needed and
why we cannot afford as a Congress delaying a decision any longer.
None of this precludes inspections or diplomatic missions. But these
alternatives demand full cooperation by Iraq if a military response is
to be withheld.
However, during the past 10 years, the international community has
worked with Iraq through diplomatic efforts, various inspection
regimes, economic sanctions, and even limited military force in an
effort to encourage Saddam Hussein to abide by the very resolutions he
agreed to at the end of the gulf war. He agreed to follow these within
the rule of law--the international rule of law. We can legitimately
expect any person to agree to follow those agreements.
Yet Saddam Hussein has consistently and convincingly evaded and
defied those obligations he agreed to.
In the spring of 1991, the United Nations Security Council agreed to
Resolution 687, which required Saddam Hussein to destroy his chemical
and biological weapons and to unconditionally agree not to acquire or
develop nuclear weapons. That same resolution also demanded Iraq not
develop or acquire any weapons of mass destruction. However, the CIA
reported Iraq is continuing to develop and acquire chemical and
biological weapons.
The report states since the United Nations weapons inspectors left in
1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort and invested even
more heavily in biological weapons.
In addition, the CIA estimated Iraq could develop nuclear weapons in
the near term with the proper supply of material.
United Nations Resolution 687 also required Saddam Hussein to end his
support for terrorism and to prohibit terrorist organizations from
operating inside the borders of Iraq.
Yet there is clear evidence Iraq has provided safe haven to a number
of prominent, international terrorists. Iraq has provided assistance to
terrorist organizations whose sole purpose is to disrupt and prevent
peace efforts in the Middle East.
Most importantly, fleeing al-Qaida members now reside in Iraq. Of
course, it is only a matter of time before these two enemies of the
United States join forces--and maybe they already have.
Altogether, Saddam has defied at least 16 United Nations resolutions
during the past decade. He has manipulated U.N. weapons inspectors,
tortured and repressed Iraqi people, supported international
terrorists, and violated United Nations economic sanctions.
So he continues to thumb his nose at the world, and particularly the
rule of law under the international regimes we all respect.
The issue is as much about protecting people as it is about enforcing
the international rule of law. But enforcing international rule of law
is one way to eliminate chaos so people can live peacefully.
Will the United Nations take a stand in defense of their very own
resolutions and hold Saddam Hussein accountable? Will the United
Nations resolutions, which seek to provide peace and security in the
region, continue to be unenforced?
This resolution before the Senate then asks the United Nations: Does
the organization want to be relevant during the 21st century, an
instrument of peace in this century, or does it somehow want to fade
away as the League of Nations did because of its failures in Abyssinia
in the 1930s?
I want, and I hope all my colleagues want, the U.N. to be relevant. I
want the U.N. to lead. Its moral leadership is important. We have to
discourage tin-horn dictators from violating the rule of law. The time
for accountability is right now.
According to former President Clinton, in a speech on December 16,
1998:
Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed
against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and
we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the
future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will
make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will
develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and
he will use them.
That is what President Clinton said in a speech on December 16, 1998.
Former President Clinton's words are very applicable to the situation
now, even 4 years later.
I have also heard concerns from people who question this resolution,
saying that by supporting it, we are supporting preemptive military
action against a sovereign nation. However, for the last decade, the
United States and allied forces have patrolled no-fly zones in northern
and southern Iraq to protect Kurdish and Shiite minority populations
from Saddam Hussein, and all the while they have been fired upon by
Iraq's military.
These are American pilots. Some of them have been Iowans because over
the past 6 years the Iowa Air National Guard has completed five 90-day
missions and will likely be needed for a sixth mission before the end
of this year. And as the President stated earlier this week, the
American and British pilots have been fired upon more than 750 times.
In a sense, we have been involved in military action in Iraq since the
1991 gulf war. So what is contemplated by this resolution cannot be
described as preemptive.
[[Page S10156]]
Some of my constituents have also questioned the effect this will
have on our war on terrorism. I believe that forcing Iraq to disarm is
part of the war against terrorism and is consistent with the war on
terrorism. Iraq has already been labeled by previous administrations as
a state sponsor of terrorism. Iraq is one of seven nations to be
designated by our own State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism.
And given Iraq's support for international terrorists and its support
for efforts to provide safe haven for al-Qaida, it is clear that this
effort should not be seen as separate from the war on terrorism but
very much an integral part of the war on terrorism.
It is because of our obligations to enforce international law, and to
disarm this threat to our national security and to the security of the
entire world, that I have decided to support the resolution offered by
Senator Lieberman and Senator Warner.
A decade ago, as I said, I opposed war with Iraq because I believed
we had not exhausted all alternatives available at that time. Today, I
support this resolution because we have exhausted all other remedies,
unless somehow Saddam Hussein has a change of heart. After years of
evasion, after years of defiance, the time has come to stand firm and
enforce the resolutions to disarm Iraq. Or, on the other hand, it is
time for Saddam Hussein to repent and fully cooperate. But his track
record in that regard is not very promising.
It is important to keep in mind that this resolution before the
Senate does not guarantee military action, nor do I think it should.
But it does authorize the use of United States military forces to
defend the national security of the United States against this
continuing threat posed by Iraq and to enforce all relevant U.N.
resolutions regarding Iraq. In other words, this is as much about
enforcing the rule of law as a policeman in Washington, DC, would
enforce the domestic rule of law to prevent chaos and to encourage law-
abiding citizenry, as it is about military action, at least from my
standpoint.
Most importantly, this resolution makes clear that if the United
Nations fails to ensure full compliance with international law, we will
not sit quietly and let this tinhorn dictator ignore the rule of law.
At the same time, we will be sending the message to other tinhorn
dictators around the world that they had better not violate the
international rules of law.
The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, dispelled notions of
America's invincibility, it placed greater demands on our Government to
protect and defend American citizens, and it put more demand on
American citizens themselves to look out for their own safety, as a
Jerusalem-type terrorist bombing could happen in New York City or
Washington, DC, as much as it happens in Jerusalem.
My resolve is stronger than ever to win the war on terrorism, protect
U.S. citizens, secure the homeland, and, most importantly, defend
American values and our way of life. By supporting this resolution, we
will send a strong signal to the United Nations, as well as our friends
and allies around the world, that we will not sit idly by and allow a
ruthless dictator to violate international law and threaten the
security of that region and, in fact, impact the whole world. This
resolution says to the world community that America stands together,
committed to the rule of law and the security of all nations.
So, Madam President, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution
offered by our colleagues, Senator Lieberman and Senator Warner.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I believe there is an order. I ask
unanimous consent that I be able to speak for a moment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Iowa for his
strong and thoughtful statement and for his expression of intention to
vote for this resolution--all the more significant, as he pointed out,
because he was one of two Republican Members of the Senate to vote
against the similar resolution prior to the gulf war. And I think his
support--a respected and solid Member of the Senate, as he is--gives
encouragement to those of us who are the sponsors of this resolution
that when the final roll is called, we will enjoy the broad bipartisan
support that I truly believe this resolution deserves and the moment
requires.
I thank my colleague and the Chair.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Madam President, I alert Members that at 1:30 or a quarter
to 2, thereabouts, there will be a vote. Knowing that the Senator from
Arizona usually does not speak for long periods of time, it will
probably be closer to 1:30. There will be a vote on the Graham
amendment, the pending amendment.
Mr. McCAIN. Madam 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. GRAHAM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I rise in support of an amendment which
I have offered which will increase the authority of the President of
the United States to use force to protect the people of the United
States.
This amendment will designate a set of international terrorist
organizations for whom the President does not now have the authority to
use force as within the range of his authority.
There has been a lot of discussion over the past several months about
connecting the dots, seeing a pattern out of what might appear to be
isolated independent events. It is always easier to do that after the
disaster, after September 11, than it is before. I consider us today as
standing before the event has occurred, and I think we can begin to see
the pattern of the dots today. What are those dots? What is that
pattern?
First, a new element has been added to our assessment of national
security risk. That is the element of what is the risk to Americans in
the homeland. When we went to war in Korea, we did not ask the
question: What will this mean to our people at home? We did not ask
that question in Vietnam. We did not ask that question when we voted
together to authorize the President to use force in the Persian Gulf.
This is a new phenomenon in the paradigm of American and national
security consideration.
The second dot is, who poses the greatest risk inside the homeland?
In my judgment, it is those nations, organizations, and persons who
possess three primary characteristics: One, access to weapons of mass
destruction; two, a hatred for the United States; and three, a
significant presence of trained operatives within the United States. It
is that triumvirate which makes our enemy lethal.
The third dot, that we have the opportunity to reduce the risk of
that triumvirate. We can do it by rolling up the terrorists here at
home, or we can do it by cutting off the support which the terrorists
are receiving from abroad. I suggest we ought to be doing both.
If we are going to effectively attack over there, it requires we have
the resources, a strategy, and the authorization to use the force
against our enemy over there.
The next dot is a surprising dot. It is essentially a void. Unlike
many Members of this Chamber--and I will cite one who just a few
moments ago gave a speech in which he implied the President of the
United States today has the authority to take on international
terrorists who meet these requirements: Access to weapons of mass
destruction, hatred of the United States, and a significant presence
inside the United States of America. The answer is, no, the President
today does not have such authority. In my judgment, the Congress should
grant this authority and do so concurrent with the granting to the
President his power to use force in Iraq, because it is that act of
giving the authority to commence war in Iraq that is going to raise the
risk of those terrorists among us attacking.
Those are the dots I see. That is the sequence I think the dots lead
us to.
There is one thing we agree upon, and that is that Saddam Hussein is
an evil man. He is a tyrant. He has used
[[Page S10157]]
chemical and biological weapons on his own people. He has disregarded
United Nations resolutions calling for inspections of his capabilities
and research and development programs. His forces regularly fire on
American and British jet pilots enforcing the no-fly zones in the north
and south of his country. And he has the potential to develop and
deploy nuclear weapons, a potential that we need to monitor closely.
Saddam Hussein lives in a tough neighborhood. It is a neighborhood in
which the United States has a number of commitments and threats. The
underlying resolution suggests Saddam Hussein is the ultimate bully,
the baddest dog in this rough neighborhood, and that taking him out now
and for good is in the Nation's highest priority.
I respectfully disagree. And in so disagreeing, I am, or at least I
was, joined by the President of the United States and the Secretary of
Defense.
Less than 13 months ago, 9 days after the terrorist attack of
September 11, the President declared our top national priority to be a
war on terrorism. This is what he said:
Our war on terror begins with al-Qaida but it does not end
there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global
reach has been found, stopped and defeated.
In his State of the Union speech on January 29 of this year,
President Bush restated our priority:
Our nation will continue to be steadfast and patient and
persistent in the pursuit of two great objectives. First, we
will shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans, and
bring terrorists to justice. And, second, we must prevent the
terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological or
nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the
world.
That is what the President said on January 29.
Just Monday of this week, on the anniversary of the commencement of
the war in Afghanistan, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld
recommitted himself to the war on terrorism. The Secretary repeated the
statement he had made one year earlier:
Our objective is to defeat those who use terrorism
and those who house or support terrorists. The campaign
will be broad, sustained, and we will use every element of
American power.
The Secretary of Defense proceeded to say:
Today, Afghanistan is no longer a safe haven for
terrorists, but there is no question that free nations are
still under threat. Thousands of terrorists remain at large
in dozens of countries. They're seeking weapons of mass
destruction that would allow them to kill not only thousands
but tens of thousands of innocent people. Our objective in
the global war on terror is to prevent another September
11th, or an attack that is far worse, before it happens.
The war on terrorism did not begin in Afghanistan. For us, it began
in the United States of America on September 11th, 2001. It began and
it continues in our homeland. As we assess the many challenges faced by
the United States--and Saddam Hussein is clearly among those
challenges--we must ask: What is our greatest responsibility? In my
opinion, the answer is easy: Securing the peace and safety of the
homeland or our great Nation.
And what is the most urgent threat to our peace and security? In my
judgment, it is that shadowy group of international terrorists who have
the capabilities, the materials, conventional and weapons of mass
destruction, the trained core of zealots united by their hatred for the
United States, and the placement of many of those bombthrowers so they
are sleeping among us, waiting for the order to assault.
For the better part of 2 years, 19 of those killers took silent
refuge in the sanctuary of the United States, silent refuge until they
struck us on September 11. Three thousand twenty-five innocent lives
later, we have learned the bitter lesson of the power of those who live
dual lives in our communities. To the outside they were appearing to be
unexceptional, while they were prepared to do the most unimaginable
evil. Those who committed mass murder left behind a much larger number
of terrorists, continuing their dual existence of duplicity.
How many of these are there, Mr. President? What are the skills they
possess? What are their plans and intentions? Why are they so driven by
hatred? The answer is we know only dimly.
Unfortunately, our ability to tear out these weeds from our home
garden is limited because the attention we have paid to understanding
this enemy next door has been grossly inadequate.
The Inspector General at the Department of Justice issued a report
just last month, in September. That report concluded:
The Federal Bureau of Investigation serves as the Federal
Government's principal agency for responding to and
investigating terrorism.
But the IG report went on:
The FBI has never performed a comprehensive, written
assessment of the risk of a terrorist threat facing the
United States.
So we arm for battle with a shield of ignorance at home.
Unfortunately, one of the realities of the startup of the proposed
Department of Homeland Security is that, for at least a transition
period, Americans will be even more vulnerable in the homeland.
Agencies such as the Coast Guard, Border Patrol, Immigration Service,
which will play a key role in protecting our perimeter defenses, will
be distracted as organizational relationships of decades or more are
reshuffled. And a final increased vulnerability is the likelihood that,
if war starts and intensifies in Iraq, this very conflict thousands of
miles away could spark a wake-up call to action from the sanctuaries of
the Middle East and Central Asia to the sleepers in your hometown.
Mr. President, I refer you to the front-page story in today's
Washington Post, which talks about the possibility of counterattacks in
the United States after a war commences in Iraq.
The first prong of our defense here in the homeland, which is to root
out the terrorists among us--both because of the instability of the
days through which we are and will be living and our lack of
preparation through the quality of intelligence we need--is not a
shield that should give us great hope.
Thus, the importance of a second strategy for disrupting and
decapitating the enemy among us--attacking them at their source, just
as we have done with such devastating effectiveness against al-Qaida in
Afghanistan. One of the reasons the anticipated second, third, and
fourth wave of terrorist acts have not occurred since September 11 is
the military assault we began on October 7, 2001, has largely
dismantled the command-and-control operations of al-Qaida, making it
more difficult for them to support and provide financing and logistics
to their large number of operatives in the United States.
I believe we need to adopt a similar strategy of disruption and
dismantlement. What is it going to take to do so? First, it is going to
require the President of the United States have the authority to use
that necessary force to dismantle, as he said in his State of the Union
speech, the terrorist camps, terrorist plans, and the command-and-
control centers of these organizations. Here we come to a point of
widespread confusion, and that is the President already has this
authority.
On Sunday afternoon, a prominent foreign policy spokesman appeared
immediately after Senator Shelby and myself on a talk show and, in
passing in the hallway, she said, ``I support the position that you
have taken that we need to go after these international terrorists, but
doesn't the President already have the authority to do so?'' I quickly
explained that the answer was no. I think she was stunned at the
vulnerability we have and by the limited authority the President has.
Our colleague, the Senator from Texas, today in her remarks implied
she thought the President of the United States had the authority to
attack international terrorism broader than those who are directly
linked to the events of September 11.
If I might say, the very language of the resolution we are
considering today carries the same inference.
The language of the resolution states that:
Acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the
United States and other countries continuing to take the
necessary actions against international terrorists and
terrorist organizations, including those who planned,
authorized, committed, or aided in the terrorist attack that
occurred on September 11.
The fact is the only group the President has authority to use force
against is those who planned, authorized, committed, or aided in the
terrorist attack that occurred on September 11. The
[[Page S10158]]
President specifically was denied the authority to take on the other
terrorist groups who, in my judgment, represent the greatest threat
inside the American homeland today.
Let me just give a little bit of history. On September 12, President
Bush requested robust authority to launch a full-scale war on terror.
He sent to the Congress a proposed resolution which stated:
The President is authorized to use all necessary and
appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or
persons he determines planned, authorized, harbored,
committed, or aided in the planning or commission of the
attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, and
to deter and preempt any future acts of terrorism or
aggression against the United States.
That is what the President asked for on September 12, 2001. But
Congress demurred. They only granted the President the power to use
necessary force related to those nations or organizations and persons
which were determined to be connected to the tragedy of September 11.
Al-Qaida was not only our bull's-eye, it was the totality of the
target. Two days after the Congress gave the President this limited
authority, President Bush, on September 20, expanded the scope of the
war:
In a joint session of Congress, our war on terror begins
with al-Qaida, but it does not end there. It will not end
until every terrorist group of global reach has been found,
stopped, and defeated.
From that point until today, Mr. President, the stated mission of the
United States in the war on terror has fallen well beyond the authority
we have given to the President of the United States to deliver on that
mission.
The President continues:
. . . to be limited to those nations, organizations, and
persons who can be indicted as conspirators and participants
in September 11.
This limited authority to use force has made it possible for America
and our allies to crush the Taliban and severely cripple al-Qaida. The
amendment I offer would extend that power to the President to use
necessary force through the next still vigorous and violent band of
terrorists.
Against whom would the President by this amendment be given power to
use force? The State Department has identified 34 international
terrorist organizations, approximately two-thirds of which are in the
region of the Middle East and central Asia. They list five, in addition
to al-Qaida, that have these characteristics: They currently receive
support from a state that possesses weapons of mass destruction; they
have a history of hating and killing Americans; and they have the
ability today to strike within the United States of America.
Who are these groups? I will name them and then talk about the A
team: The Abu Nidal organization, Hamas, the Islamic Resistance
Movement, the Palestine Islamic Jihad, and the Palestine Liberation
Front.
Who is the A team? The A team is Hezbollah, ``the party of God.''
Hezbollah was formed in 1982 in response to the Israeli invasion of
Lebanon. This organization, which is based primarily in Lebanon and
Syria and financed from Iran, is a radical Shi'a group which takes its
ideological inspiration from the Iranian revolutions and teachings of
Ayatollah Khomeni.
Hezbollah formally advocates the ultimate establishment of Islamic
rule in Lebanon and liberating all occupied Arab lands, including
Jerusalem. It has expressed as a goal the elimination of Israel.
Although closely allied with and closely directed by Iran, the group
may have conducted operations that were even beyond those approved by
the Government of Iran.
While Hezbollah does not share the Syrian regime's secular
orientation, the group has been a strong tactical ally in helping Syria
advance its political objectives in the region.
What are some of the activities of Hezbollah? It is known or suspect
to have been involved in numerous anti-U.S. terrorist attacks,
including the suicide truck bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in
April of 1983; the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in October 1983; the
U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut in September of 1984; three members of
Hezbollah are on the FBI's list of the 22 most wanted terrorists for
the hijacking of TWA flight 847 during which a U.S. Navy diver was
murdered; elements of the group are responsible for the kidnaping and
detention of U.S. and Western hostages.
The group also attacked the Israeli Embassy in Argentina in 1992 and
is suspect in the 1994 bombing of the Israeli Cultural Center in Buenos
Aires, and the Senator from Texas stated, in her judgment, they were
also responsible for Khobar Towers.
This group receives a substantial amount of financial, training,
weapons, explosives, diplomatic, and organizational aid from Iran and
receives diplomatic, political, and logistical support from Syria.
Hezbollah has a significant presence of its trained merchants of death
placed in the United States of America.
Mr. President, you will note that several of these organizations
gravitate around one axis of evil: Iran. And not surprisingly.
Yesterday, October 8, former FBI Director Louis Freeh testified
before the joint inquiry on the attacks of September 11 which are being
conducted by the House and Senate Intelligence Committee. Mr. Freeh
cited the conclusions of the National Commission on Terrorism that:
Iran remains the most active state supporter of terrorism.
The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Ministry of
Intelligence and Security have continued to be involved in
the planning and execution of terrorist acts. They also
provide funding, training, weapons, logistical resources, and
guidance to a variety of terrorist groups, including the
Lebanese Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad,
and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.
My amendment says that those five groups should also be brought
within the ambit of evil that the President of the United States should
be entitled to use force against to protect the security of the people
of the United States of America.
What strategy should be used against the designated international
terrorist groups? The decision will be left to the President. The
Congress invested its confidence in the judgment of the President on
September 18 of last year when it gave him the power to use force
against the Taliban and al-Qaida. If the underlying resolution is
adopted, he will have the authority to use force against Iraq.
This amendment will give the President the next stage of powers which
he will be required to have in order to wage war on terror and to do so
to a successful conclusion. The President would have the authority and
the subsequent accountability to use these three authorities in
whatever sequence and with whatever impact he deems to be in our
national interest.
In this stage on the war on terror, the President has already
fashioned a war plan: To take out the training camps, the incubators
from which in the 1990s thousands of youth were given the skills and
the determination to be hardened assassins; to attack the terrorists'
plans, to disrupt and dismantle.
Many of these operations, and particularly the training camps, are
flourishing today in the orbit of Iran. We should empower the President
to take those acts that are going to be necessary to protect the
security of the United States.
Director Freeh, in his remarks yesterday, spoke of the need for a
full arsenal of weapons to triumph over terrorists. Director Freeh
said:
We must recognize the limitations inherent in a law
enforcement response. As we see at this very moment in
history, others, to include Congress, must decide if our
national will dictates a fuller response.
I am not prepared to say the only response I want against these five
organizations that have access to weapons of mass destruction, that
have a history of killing Americans and have a capability to do so here
at home because of a significant presence of their operatives among us,
that we are going to tell the President of the United States that he
does not have the authority to attack with force these terrorists
groups where they live and to disband and dismantle their capability of
continuing to provide support to their agents in the United States.
I believe our national will and our obligation to the security of the
American people, especially their security on our native soil, demand a
fuller response to meet this fuller challenge.
I conclude by saying that I am not optimistic about the prospects for
this amendment, but I am deeply concerned, and I am deeply saddened. I
am concerned in part because I see us making life-and-death decisions
without
[[Page S10159]]
consideration because we do not have access to what might be critical,
and I would suggest determinative, information. I believe the national
security interests are being put at risk by this information not being
available.
I am saddened because I fear the action we are going to take will
increase the risk at home without increasing our capability to respond
to that risk.
I have been described as a cautious man. I will accept that label. I
do not see the world as a simple set of blacks and whites. I see the
world as a complex of grays. That leads to caution. I believe that
caution today is to recognize that we are not dealing with one evil, as
evil as Saddam Hussein might be. We are dealing with a veritable army
of evils.
We must be prepared to respond to that army of evils. I believe the
step we can take today is to give to the President of the United States
the opportunity to exercise his judgment as to whether he believes it
would be appropriate to use U.S. force against these five international
terrorist groups which represent, in my judgment, the most serious
urgent threat to the interests of the United States of America,
including a threat to Americans at home.
I urge the adoption of this amendment.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Florida for
the thoughtful statement he has made. I agree with so much he has said,
certainly about the threats that are represented by the terrorist
groups cited in his amendment, but I want to explain why I have
reluctance about the amendment. It is for reasons that are both
procedural and substantive.
The resolution offered by Senator McCain, Senator Warner, Senator
Bayh, myself, and others--including the occupant of the Chair, the
Senator from Georgia--is the result of a detailed, open, and sincere
process of negotiation between Members of both Chambers, both parties,
and the White House.
This is not to say it is a perfect document, but in responding to the
threat to our national security posed by Iraq under the leadership of
Saddam Hussein, it represents our best effort to find common ground to
dispatch our constitutional responsibility and to provide an
opportunity for the broadest bipartisan group of Senators to come
together and express their support of action to enforce the United
Nations resolutions that Saddam Hussein has constantly violated, and in
so doing endangered his neighbors, his people and, of course, the rest
of the world, including us. We have a well-worked-over and finely
calibrated document.
In his amendment, the Senator from Florida has opened new territory,
and I am reluctant to see that added to this resolution, all the more
so since the new territory he opens up was considered in the immediate
aftermath of the attacks against us on September 11 when the initial
resolution in which the President sought to have authority to take
action against terrorists generally--not just those who had planned,
authorized, committed, or aided terrorist attacks that occurred on
September 11 of last year--was rejected or was opposed by a large
number of Members of the Senate, including particularly those on the
Democratic side, and in that sense the amendment offered by the Senator
from Florida may well reopen concerns expressed by many Senate
Democrats about granting too much authority to the President at this
point.
Let me get to the essence of what is said. Clearly, I agree with what
the Senator has said, and I agree wholeheartedly with his description
of the terrorist groups he has cited, specifically five in number, and
the extent to which they represent a threat to the areas in which they
operate, as well as the American people.
I respectfully disagree with him that the President of the United
States would not be authorized, without this action, to take action
against any of these groups--the Abu Nidal organization, Hamas,
Hezbollah, Palestine Islamic Jihad, Palestinian Liberation Front--if
the President, as Commander in Chief, concluded that any one of those
groups or its members posed a threat to the security of the American
people or any group of Americans. It seems to me that is inherent in
the authority given to the President, as Commander in Chief, under
article II, section 2 of the Constitution, followed by other
descriptions of the authority that the President has in that regard,
and not just the general constitutional authority but the specific acts
of this Congress that have dealt with terrorism and have established a
counterterrorism center at the Central Intelligence Agency,
counterterrorism programs in the FBI, counterterrorism activities in
the Department of Defense and the Department of State, all of them
funded by Congress.
Implicit in that is not that the money was funded just to study or
investigate but that there is a presumption that if all of those
programs produce evidence that any one of those groups is seeking to do
damage to any one of the American people or group of Americans, then
the President is authorized implicitly, inherently, in his authority as
Commander in Chief to take action against them. In fact, as has been
testified to publicly, the Special Operations Forces of our military,
an extraordinary group we are fortunate to have in our service, has
been working on programs together with the intelligence community and
various nations around the world to watch--using the term ``watch'' in
the broadest sense of the term--and be prepared to take specific
action, not just court action.
After September 11, we have made a transition to understanding that
terrorists are at war with the United States so there are times when
the best defense we can give is not to build a case in court but to
take military action to stop the terrorists from striking before they
ever do.
So while I appreciate and support the concerns of the Senator from
Florida, my own conclusion is that they would do some damage to the
broad support that otherwise will come together for the resolution that
we have introduced that deals with the immediate problem of Saddam
Hussein, and that in the end it is not necessary because the President,
as Commander in Chief, has the inherent authority, under the
Constitution and the laws of the United States, to take exactly the
action that the Senator's amendment would specifically authorize him to
do.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I associate myself with the remarks of our
distinguished colleague from Connecticut and therefore I will not
elaborate given the shortage of time.
I say to my colleague from Florida, I am very impressed by his
statement today. I think there is merit to be found. I draw the
Senator's attention to Public Law 107-40. As the Senator recalls, that
is the amendment that the Congress adopted on September 14, 2001, and
that dealt with the authorization for use of military force against
those responsible for the recent attacks against the United States.
It seems to me that particular statute and that body of law is the
place where an amendment like that of the Senator from Florida should
be placed, and I say that with all due respect.
My further added observation is that our Secretary of State is now
busily engaged at the United Nations with regard to the possible
framework of a possible 17th resolution. The draft amendments before
the Senate and the House of Representatives are indeed the subject of
those discussions.
At this time, to broaden that base could well in some respects
jeopardize the efforts on behalf of the United States and others to
craft a tough resolution directed clearly at the weapons of mass
destruction, Saddam Hussein, and those surrounding his regime.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. GRAHAM. I will reserve a few moments to close when others who
wish to speak on this motion to table have completed their remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I inform my friend from Florida, under the
normal procedures, as soon as I made a motion to table, the vote would
begin. But if the Senator from Florida would like for me to ask
unanimous consent for him to speak up to how many minutes he would like
to before the vote, I would be pleased to propound that.
[[Page S10160]]
Does the Senator from Connecticut want to speak again?
Mr. LIEBERMAN. I ask for an additional 2 minutes.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator
from Connecticut be permitted to speak for 2 minutes without my losing
my right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. From the text of the resolution we have submitted in
section 4(b) after our authorization, we require, as soon as feasible,
but not later than 48 hours after exercising such authority--that is,
directly deploying forces of the United States--that the President has
to make available to the Congress his determination that--and there are
two sections he has to report. The material section is this: The
President has to declare to Congress that pursuant to this resolution--
which is to say deploying forces for the purpose of enforcing U.N.
resolutions against Iraq in protecting the national security of the
American people against Iraq--is consistent with the United States and
other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against
international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those
nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed,
or aided terrorists in the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
I stress that this is not limited to those terrorists who acted
against us on September 11.
I see in this further support for the end goal, which the Senator
from Florida has, which is to make sure the war against Iraq does not
deter our war against terrorism and not just against al-Qaida but
against any terrorist group that threatens the people of the United
States, including the five the Senator from Florida enumerated.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my
remarks and making the motion to table the Graham amendment, Senator
Graham be recognized for up to 10 minutes, and immediately following
that, the vote occur on my motion to table.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Florida for his
thoughtful statement about the threat of terrorist organizations of
global reach posed to American national security. The Senator from
Florida has devoted much of his time and professional energies to
investigating the terrorist threat in great detail as chairman of the
Senate Intelligence Committee.
Again, I thank the Senator for the superb job he has done as chairman
of the Intelligence Committee in probably the most trying times this
country has experienced since World War II--from an intelligence
standpoint, perhaps the most difficult times. And I am grateful we have
a man of his caliber in a leadership role. He is an eloquent and
thoughtful spokesman on these issues.
I agree that ultimately the war on terrorism will not be won until we
have ended these groups' murderous activities and held them accountable
for killing American citizens.
However, I must oppose the amendment because it provides our
Commander in Chief with authority he has not requested. It is highly
unusual for Congress to provide the President the authority to use
military force to defend American security against a particular threat
when the President himself has not requested such authority.
For the President to determine that the terrorist organizations
listed in the Senator's amendment posed an imminent danger to the
United States, and if the President requested congressional
authorization to use military force to deal with that danger, I don't
doubt Congress would have full consideration or debate to provide that
authority.
It does seem unusual in a time of war, and in response to the
President's request for congressional authorization to confront a
threat he has identified as imminent, for Congress to identify and
grant the President the authority to use military force to confront a
different enemy.
The Graham amendment would increase beyond what was requested by the
administration the scope of authority provided to the President.
Including these groups in the resolution, unfortunately, muddies the
strong message the United States must send to the United Nations
Security Council and the world that we are intent on dealing with the
threat posed by Iraq.
The President wants a strong statement authorizing the use of force
against Iraq. He understands the value of an overwhelming congressional
vote to American diplomacy and to demonstrating American seriousness to
the world.
The pending resolution represents a carefully crafted, bipartisan,
bicameral agreement on providing the President with the authority to
use force against Iraq. This amendment is the product of negotiations
between the Speaker of the House, Congressman Gephardt, the Democrat
leader, and the White House. It was carefully crafted. We intentionally
introduced the exact same language so that when the other body passes
it and we pass it, it will be the exact same message. Modifying that
agreement could reopen issues that otherwise have been resolved and
would unnecessarily slow down consideration of a resolution that the
President has requested and made clear is an urgent priority for his
administration.
Yesterday, when asked about the amendment, Secretary Powell stated
that Congress should focus in on the threat posed by Iraq. The
Secretary also made clear the administration's desire that both Houses
of Congress pass identical resolutions to send a message to the world
that we are united in our resolve to confront Saddam Hussein and to
send a message to Iraq that we are serious about doing so.
The administration opposes the Graham amendment on procedural
grounds. The President has requested congressional authorization to use
all means necessary to protect American national security against the
threat posed by Iraq. For this body to supercede the President's
request by identifying other threats to American national security--I
could come up with a long list of such threats myself--would send a
confused message to the American people and the world as we come
together to end the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's regime.
Some have argued that the President's determination to hold Iraq to
account would undermine the global war against al Qaeda. I believe this
is a false argument, for as the president has said, Iraq and al Qaeda
are two faces of the same evil. The Graham amendment would expand our
global campaign to target not just al Qaeda but several of the most
sophisticated terrorist organizations on earth. I would assume that
anyone who worries about diversions from the war on terrorism would
vote against expanding that war at this time.
I want to stress, however, that ultimately the war on terrorism will
not be won until we have dealt with the threat posed by terrorist
groups with global reach such as Hezbollah. Hezbollah and other
organizations listed in the Graham amendment have killed Americans and
deserve no quarter. They ultimately represent a grave threat to
America--a threat that will not diminish until we have dismantled these
organizations and held them accountable for murdering Americans.
The pending resolution is not the proper vehicle for this debate. I
look forward to working with the Senator from Florida to address the
threat posed by Hezbollah and the other terrorist organizations he has
listed.
I urge my colleagues to support the request of our Commander in Chief
by tabling the Graham amendment.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from
the White House.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The White House,
Washington, October 9, 2002.
Hon. John McCain,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator McCain: Thank you for asking the
Administration's position on the Graham amendment to the Iraq
Resolution. The Administration opposes it.
The Lieberman-Warner-Bayh-McCain amendment represents a
carefully crafted bipartisan, bicameral agreement on
providing the President with use-of-force authority against
Iraq. The Graham amendment would
[[Page S10161]]
increase--beyond what was requested by the Administration--
the scope of authority provided to the President, and
introduce additional elements to the resolution. Modifying
the agreement now, as the Graham amendment would, could
reopen issues otherwise resolved and unnecessarily slow
consideration of this important resolution.
Sincerely,
Nicholas E. Calio,
Assistant to the President
for Legislative Affairs.
Mr. McCAIN. I say to my friend from Florida that the administration's
message is very clear that they do not disagree with his assessment of
the threat. He is held in the highest regard by all who have observed
his distinguished work as chairman of the Intelligence Committee.
I thank my friend from Florida for his contributions. I know that in
the days ahead he and I will be joining together with other Members of
this body in addressing the serious threats to American national
security which he has so eloquently described in his statement.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I appreciate the thoughtful remarks of the
Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Arizona. The Senator from
Arizona concluded with the hope that we may soon be working together on
expanding our efforts to reach those who threaten us here at home. I
only hope we will not have another 3,025 Americans unnecessarily
exposed to the risks that I see if we do not supplement this resolution
with the immediate authority of the President to use force against
those organizations which have access to weapons of mass destruction,
which have killed Americans, and which have substantial numbers of
operatives inside the United States of America at this hour. I invite
anybody to say Iraq doesn't meet those standards.
We are not talking about a threat 90 days from now. We are not
talking about a threat that may come a year from now if nuclear
material is made available. I am talking about a threat that can happen
this afternoon.
Let us trace the history of what Congress did. The President asked
for this authority on September 12, 2001. We denied it.
When I was in law school, one read the legislative history to try to
arrive at legislative intent. It seems to me, just as a first-year-law
legislative interpretation, that probably doesn't mean giving the
President authority beyond that which is specifically provided.
Therefore, the President of the United States, in my judgment, does not
have the authority today to use force against Hezbollah or these other
groups.
But even beyond the legal limits, let us talk about the pragmatics.
The President of the United States in his State of the Union Address on
January 29 said our first priority was terrorists--our first priority.
And do you know what the first priority of the first priority was? The
training camps. Why did he say that? Because those who were responsible
said if there was one major mistake we made in the 1990s, it was
allowing al-Qaida training camps to be a sanctuary where every year
thousands and thousands of young people were converted into hardened
assassins.
If that is the criticism we are going to have, because in the 1990s
we allowed that to go on month after month and year after year, what is
going to be our excuse today when similar training camps are in
operation in Iran, Syria, and Syrian-controlled areas of Lebanon? And
we are not going to give the President of the United States the
authority to use force against those camps? It is inconceivable to me.
The very fact that the President, recognizing this, has not acted
against those camps is, in my judgment, the strongest verification that
he doesn't think he has the authority to do so.
I believe it is not in our national interest to leave this question
ambiguous. We want to deter groups such as Hezbollah from continuing to
aid, or to provide aid, comfort, and support to their operatives who
are placed in the United States. Until we reach the point that we can
domestically, through law enforcement means and domestic intelligence,
locate and eradicate those operatives who are in this country, we must
pursue as aggressively as possible to cut off their support system.
I cannot believe we are saying we are not prepared today to make an
unambiguous decision. We don't want to have the Hezbollah going to
their lawyers and asking the question, What is the legislative
interpretation of what Congress did on September 18, 2001? Does it put
us under the gun? I don't want them to have that in their mind. I want
them to know, with the clearest method we can write in English and that
can be interpreted in all the languages these people speak, that we
mean they are under the gun, and they are under the gun now.
There has been a lot of discussion about urgency. Why do we need to
do things now? Why can't we wait for 60 days?
Let me tell you why we cannot afford to wait. We are taking an action
by authorizing the President to take action against Saddam Hussein. I
will stand first in line to say he is an evil person. But we, by taking
that action, according to our own intelligence reports--and, friends, I
encourage you to read the classified intelligence reports which are
much sharper than what is available in declassified form--we are going
to be increasing the threat level against the people of the United
States. I think we have a moral and legal obligation to at the same
time be taking what reasonable steps we can to confront that increased
vulnerability.
If you do not like what I am suggesting, if you do not think we ought
to give the President authority to use force against groups such as
Hezbollah, what do you think we ought to do? Or do you disagree with
the premise that we are going to be increasing the threat level inside
the United States?
If you disagree with that premise, what is the basis upon which your
disagreement is predicated? If you reject that, and believe that the
American people are not going to be at additional threat, then,
frankly, my friends--to use the term--blood is going to be on your
hands. I think we are going to be at substantially greater threat.
I think there are some things we ought to be doing now. We certainly
should be escalating the FBI intelligence and other efforts to root out
the terrorists who are among us. But we also ought to be attacking the
terrorists where they live because it is on the offensive--not the
defensive--in my judgment, that we are going to eventually win this war
on terror.
My friends, as I said, I am not optimistic about the adoption of
this. I recognize there are backroom deals made. This is what people
have come together on and locked down on, and say: We are locking down
on the principle that we have one evil, Saddam Hussein. He is an
enormous, gargantuan force, and that is whom we are going to go after.
That, frankly, is an erroneous reading of the world. There are many
evils out there, a number of which are substantially more competent,
particularly in their ability to attack Americans here at home, than
Iraq is likely to be in the foreseeable future.
But we are going to say we are going to ignore those and we are going
to allow them to continue to fester among us. I do not wish to be part
of that decision. I am concerned by those who see only one evil, who
believe we must all commit ourselves to the arrangement that has been
made by a few who have that view of the world. I urge my colleagues to
open there eyes to the much larger array of lethal, more violent foes
who are prepared today to assault us here at home.
I said in my closing remarks that I was concerned and saddened. I am
saddened because I know my colleagues would not knowingly place U.S.
lives in unnecessary peril. I am as sure as I have ever been of
anything in my life, the peril here in America caused by the action we
are about to take could be substantially reduced by giving to the
President of the United States the additional powers to send the
strongest possible message, and, if necessary, the force to eradicate
those who are evil and who have placed evildoers among us, and who are
prepared to awaken those evildoers to attack. The responsibility is
ours.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to table the----
Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question, first?
[[Page S10162]]
Mr. McCAIN. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Nevada.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have the greatest respect for the Senator
from Florida, but the Senator from Arizona and I came to the Congress
together. And I hope that my friend from Florida was not implying the
Senator from Arizona was involved in any backroom deals because I have
never known the Senator from Arizona to be involved in any backroom
deals.
Mr. McCAIN. I have been singularly unsuccessful in orchestrating any
backroom deals in the years I have served here, I say to my friend from
Nevada. And I thank him.
Mr. President, I move to table the pending Graham amendment and ask
for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question occurs on agreeing to the motion to table Graham
amendment No. 4857.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu)
is necessarily absent.
Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign) is
necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 88, nays 10, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 231 Leg.]
YEAS--88
Akaka
Allard
Allen
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Boxer
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Campbell
Cantwell
Carnahan
Carper
Chafee
Cleland
Clinton
Cochran
Collins
Conrad
Craig
Crapo
Daschle
DeWine
Dodd
Domenici
Dorgan
Durbin
Edwards
Enzi
Feingold
Feinstein
Fitzgerald
Frist
Gramm
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Harkin
Hatch
Helms
Hollings
Hutchinson
Hutchison
Inhofe
Inouye
Jeffords
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Kohl
Kyl
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lott
Lugar
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Miller
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (NE)
Nickles
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith (NH)
Smith (OR)
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Stevens
Thomas
Thompson
Thurmond
Voinovich
Warner
Wellstone
Wyden
NAYS--10
Baucus
Breaux
Byrd
Corzine
Dayton
Graham
Lincoln
Nelson (FL)
Rockefeller
Torricelli
NOT VOTING--2
Ensign
Landrieu
The motion was agreed to.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). The majority leader is
recognized.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wanted to inform my colleagues, after
consultation with the distinguished Republican leader, that it is our
intention, assuming we get cloture tomorrow--the cloture vote will be
cast on the resolution tomorrow--it would be my intent to stay in for
the full 30 hours, or whatever period of time would be required to
complete our work on the resolution.
I said at the beginning of the week, it would be my determination to
finish our debate on this resolution before the end of the week and
that is still my determination. So if cloture is achieved, we would go
for whatever length of time to accommodate Senators who wish to be
heard under the rules of cloture.
We would expect, therefore, a vote on final passage on the resolution
prior to the time we leave this week. I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, shortly I will yield to my distinguished
senior colleague, Mr. Thurmond, for not to exceed--what time does he
want?
Mr. NICKLES. Five minutes.
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to
my senior colleague, Mr. Thurmond, for not to exceed 5 minutes, without
losing my right to the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________