[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 131 (Tuesday, October 8, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10077-S10108]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 AUTHORIZATION OF THE USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AGAINST IRAQ--
                                Resumed

  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the Levin 
amendment in terms of determining our action in Iraq.
  As a graduate of West Point, the Presiding Officer knows how great a 
decision it is for the U.S. Congress to decide about war. Now this 
Senate is considering the gravest decision we will ever be called upon 
to make, which is to give the President unlimited authority to go to 
war, to make a decision to send American military men and women in 
harm's way. I say to my constituents, to the people of this country, 
and to the military, I take this responsibility very seriously.
  I have listened to the President and his advisers make their case. I 
have consulted with experts and wise heads. I have participated in 
hearings and briefings as a Member of the Senate, and particularly as a 
member of the Intelligence Committee. I have listened very intently to 
my own constituents. I know that the decision we are about to make will 
affect the lives of America's sons and daughters, and the future of the 
United States of America.

  But first, let me say a word about our troops. Each and every member 
of our military is part of the American family. Their service is a 
tremendous sacrifice and also a great risk. These are ordinary men and 
women, often called upon to act in a very extraordinary way, and they 
have never failed us. Whatever the Nation asks them to do,

[[Page S10078]]

I know they will do it with bravery, fortitude, and gallantry.
  Therefore we, all Americans, owe them a debt of gratitude. But we owe 
them even more. The Congress owes it to them to choose the wisest, most 
prudent course in this matter. As Senators, we must keep in mind the 
men and women of our military.
  That is why I support Senator Levin's resolution on Iraq. I support 
that because it meets my principles. Have all diplomatic and other 
nonmilitary means been exhausted? The Levin resolution turns to the 
United Nations and its Security Council to make a decision in terms of 
the enforcement of its own resolutions. It calls for international 
legitimacy, international cooperation, international support, and, I 
might add, international resources. It urges the Security Council to 
fill President Bush's request to demand Iraqi disarmament and to 
authorize the use of a multinational military force if Iraq refuses to 
comply. If the U.N. refuses to act under the Levin amendment, Congress 
would then promptly consider whether America should act alone.
  Senator Levin's is not the only resolution before the Senate. As I 
have looked at all of them, I asked questions. First, what really is 
Saddam Hussein's intent?
  Second, does he have the means to accomplish this intent? Does he 
have weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological, and nuclear?
  Third, how grave and imminent is the threat? Is the Iraqi threat best 
met by a unilateral approach or a vigorous international response?
  Finally, what are the consequences of our action? What will our 
military face in Iraq? What will be the impact on Iraq and the Middle 
East? What does this mean to the war on terrorism?
  These are the kinds of questions I am asking myself so I can make a 
wise decision.
  But make no mistake, I firmly believe that Saddam Hussein is 
duplicitous, deceptive, and dangerous. I despise him. Saddam is a 
brutal, totalitarian dictator and history shows us how dangerous Iraq 
is under his rule. He invaded Kuwait and used chemical weapons against 
his own people. I do believe he has developed chemical and biological 
weapons, and I also believe he is pursuing nuclear weapons, defying the 
will of the international community and also denying the agreement that 
he made at the end of the gulf war.
  I also really do not believe Saddam is going to change. The question 
then is, what does this mean for the future? I think Iraq does have the 
grim and ghoulish means to carry out its evil plans. I think if we look 
at declassified CIA reports and the British white paper, we can see 
that Iraq does continue to develop and produce and stockpile chemical 
and biological weapons, and is trying to get the technology and 
materials to produce nuclear weapons. So these threats cannot and must 
not be ignored.
  Therefore, what is the best way to proceed? My analysis further 
indicates that Saddam Hussein just doesn't threaten the United States 
or our assets or our people abroad. He threatens the entire region. He 
also threatens treasured allies. And because the threat is greater than 
ourselves, we must bring the international community with us, to share 
the responsibility and the burden of stopping these threats.

  This is why I support the Levin amendment. It is our best chance to 
forge a vigorous international response, and to also have the backing 
of a multinational military response.
  The Levin amendment requires four things. It urges the U.N. Security 
Council to promptly adopt a resolution demanding access to U.N. 
inspectors to destroy Iraq's missiles and weapons of mass destruction. 
We know that works. When the inspectors were in Iraq, they destroyed 
more weapons of mass destruction than we did during the gulf war.
  The Levin amendment authorizes member states to use necessary and 
appropriate force if Iraq refuses to comply. I understand the use of 
force might be necessary. It also very clearly asserts and affirms the 
U.S. right to self-defense.
  It authorizes the President to use armed force to fulfill the U.N. 
Security Council resolution, provided the President determines that 
diplomacy was tried and exhausted first. It also tells us not to 
adjourn so Congress can further consider action if the U.N. fails.
  That is what we are looking at. The consequences of committing 
American troops to war in Iraq are very serious and they must be 
carefully reviewed.
  The question is, will our American troops be welcomed with flags or 
will they be welcomed with land mines? Our troops could face an Iraqi 
military entrenched in cities instead of the open desert warfare of the 
gulf war. Iraq could use chemical and biological weapons right on our 
troops as we are engaged in battle. They could also do this against 
their own Iraqi civilians.
  This is why I believe America should not face these threats alone. If 
we go in, we should not go in by ourselves. If the threat is so real, 
the world should take it seriously and then vote to be able to come 
with us.
  Mr. ALLARD. Will the Senator yield?
  Ms. MIKULSKI. When I finish, yes.
  America cannot face this situation alone. The support and cooperation 
of allies would enable us to share the risks and the cost. We need 
international legitimacy, international support, and international 
manpower.
  What happens when we win the war? Military victory is only the start 
of U.S. engagement in Iraq. Fostering a new regime could take decades. 
Most people don't realize that Iraq is an artificial construct, formed 
in 1920 by a League of Nations mandate after the first World War. Iraq 
has no unifying history or culture or religion or language: Its 
population is deeply divided on ethnic and religious lines.
  The end of Saddam Hussein could mean the start of a civil war. 
Fostering the creation of new government in Iraq will not be easy. 
There is no real opposition group ready to take over because Saddam's 
totalitarian regime does not tolerate opposition.
  If Saddam is overthrown--we have to be prepared for what happens 
next. Will American troops become an army of occupation or will Iraq 
fall into chaos and civil war?
  America cannot face this situation alone. The support and cooperation 
of allies would enable us to share the risks and the costs.
  War on Iraq could also have unintended consequences for the Middle 
East. Some optimists see war in Iraq leading to democratization and 
peace in the Middle East. They predict the overthrow of undemocratic 
regimes in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Syria and other countries. But there is 
a real risk that attacking Iraq would unify Arab countries and the 
wider Muslim world against us. We are already seeing signs of 
cooperation between Sunni and Shi'ite extremists and terrorist groups.
  A mandate from the United Nations would mean the international 
community against Saddam instead of the United States against Iraq. 
Other countries in the region would join our coalition, rather than 
obstructing or opposing us.
  I also worry that unilateral action could undermine the war on 
terrorism. Some special forces are already being withdrawn from the 
efforts to hunt al-Qaida in Afghanistan. Intelligence resources would 
be re-directed to cover Iraq, reducing our focus on Afghanistan and 
Pakistan. Arab and Muslim states may reduce their intelligence 
cooperation against al-Qaida and other terrorist groups. The focus of 
our top military and civilian leaders could shift away from bin Laden 
and al-Qaida. There are other issues.
  An international coalition helps address the impact of war in Iraq on 
the war on terrorism. By sharing the burden during and after a war, 
more of our troops and resources can pursue the war on terrorism by 
keeping together the global coalition against terrorist groups.
  I want to conclude by thanking President Bush for engaging in 
intensive diplomacy at the U.N. I know the Bush administration is being 
aggressive at the U.N. and in the key states, including Russia, China, 
and France. I applaud the President for this.
  President Bush also made it clear that the U.N. has a responsibility 
to address Iraq's threat to international peace and security. I 
absolutely agree with him on this. But also I agree we have to get the 
United Nations Security Council authorization to form an international 
coalition.
  We cannot fail to act if action is necessary, but we must take the 
time to

[[Page S10079]]

see if we can minimize the danger and also build a coalition to share 
the risk. An international coalition would do that.
  The Senate faces difficult decisions on how to address the Iraqi 
threat. I believe the Levin amendment is by far the strongest option. 
It endorses the President's speech to the United Nations, strengthening 
the U.S. position in multilateral diplomacy and authorizing the use of 
force only if authorized by the U.N. Security Council without ruling 
out the possibility that Congress will authorize the unilateral use of 
force if that decision becomes necessary. Most importantly, the Levin 
resolution presents the best hope for the United States to achieve 
international support and a multinational military coalition to address 
the Iraqi threat to peace and security.
  Therefore, I look forward to voting for the Levin amendment. I urge 
my colleagues to join me in doing that because I believe the way to 
deal with this issue is international support and a multinational 
military coalition, should force be necessary.
  Before I yield the floor, I turn to the Senator from Colorado, who 
had a question.
  Mr. ALLARD. I say to the Senator from Maryland, I did have a 
question. I just finished a bipartisan press conference with the 
Secretary of State. He said the diplomats, our negotiators at the 
United Nations, felt they needed the strongest position possible in 
order to make their negotiations end in a successful way. I was struck 
by your comments and your support for the Levin amendment. I wonder if 
you could respond to his comments that we just had, about 12:30 or so.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I say to the Senator, I did not hear his comments at 
the press conference.
  I applaud Secretary Powell. I think his is a vigorous effort to try 
to resolve the situation through diplomatic means, to send a message to 
Saddam that he should voluntarily disarm and let the inspectors in.
  That might not work. But it is then up to the U.N., as the President 
said when he spoke to them, to take responsibility; to therefore 
authorize action to enforce their own resolutions so the United States 
of America is not doing this all by ourselves. It is not America versus 
Saddam. It should be the international community against Saddam 
because, I think you would agree, he is a despicable cad.
  Mr. ALLARD. I would agree with that. But I think the point was being 
made, if we have a strong resolution, it would be less likely we would 
be out there by ourselves. If we had some weaker position, and we went 
in----
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Going where, sir? Going to the U.N. or going back to 
Saddam? I am sorry, who is negotiating with whom? Are you talking about 
the U.N. negotiating with Saddam or Secretary Powell negotiating within 
the U.N.?
  Mr. ALLARD. I am talking about Secretary Powell and our diplomats 
negotiating within the United Nations, negotiating with members of the 
Security Council. The feeling is we need to have a strong resolution in 
order to make those negotiations successful.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. I see. I thought you were talking about sending a 
message to Saddam. No. I understand. I believe the Levin amendment is a 
pretty muscular amendment, saying back to the U.N., you passed those 
resolutions, you should really step up to those resolutions, and 
putting the pressure back on them; and also saying, we are not going to 
adjourn until we hear what you are going to do. And we will be ready to 
respond promptly.
  So I think the Levin amendment is a fairly muscular amendment.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I will now yield to the Senator from New 
Hampshire, a good friend, and somebody who does a great job. I yield to 
him 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Colorado. I 
appreciate his courtesy, and I appreciate his leadership on the most 
important resolution. His leadership has had an integral impact on how 
this resolution was designed, and he has been a leader on addressing 
what is obviously the major national security issue which we confront 
as a Nation today.
  I--like many Americans, hopefully--have followed the debate in this 
Chamber. I have been interested in the tenor and tempo of the debate. I 
believe it has obviously been serious and substantive in its approach 
to how we address the question of this resolution, which will authorize 
the President to take such action as is necessary in order to protect 
our Nation relative to Iraq, and to work with the United Nations in 
that undertaking.
  One of the things, however, I have also noted is there is almost a 
sophistry being presented here. For example, I heard one presentation, 
talking about whether or not we were pursuing preventive war versus 
preemptive war, in which there was almost a rather nice dissertation of 
what I would call political science 101 on the difference between 
preemptive war and preventive war, and whether or not we, as a Nation, 
had a right to pursue a preventive war versus a preemptive war.
  I would simply point out we are at war. We are not initiating war. We 
are not in the process of striking an enemy by whom we have not been 
struck. Two Embassies in Africa were attacked. Hundreds of people died. 
An American ship in Yemen was attacked. Many sailors died. And, of 
course, on September 11, thousands of Americans died in America as a 
result of an attack.

  We are at war. We did not ask for it. We did not initiate it, but we 
have no choice but to respond to it. In responding to it, we must have 
our eyes open. We are a Nation which inherently believes in the better 
nature of people. We inevitably give people the benefit of the doubt. 
It is our culture, and it is one of our strengths. Regrettably, in this 
war, giving people the benefit of the doubt--people who have a track 
record of either hating us, attacking us, or confronting us 
militarily--may end up costing us even more lives.
  I think we need to review the enemy's purpose. Let's begin with al-
Qaida and bin Laden, and use his own words.
  bin Laden, in an interview that was published in January 1999--it 
originally appeared in Time--made the following statement:

       Hostility toward America is religious duty.

  He went on to say, in February 1998:

       The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies, 
     civilians and military, is an individual duty of every 
     Moslem, who can do it in any country in which it is possible 
     to do it.

  ``Civilians and military.''
  He went on to say:

       We, with Allah's help, call on every Moslem, who believes 
     in Allah and wishes to be rewarded, to comply with Allah's 
     order to kill Americans and plunder their money.

  And most recently, in a tape recently released just a week ago:

       The youth of Islam are preparing something to strike fear 
     in your hearts----

  Referring to America----

       and will target the vital sections of your economy until 
     you renounce your injustice and hostility.

  This is an enemy who has called to arms the people who believe in him 
and follow him for the purposes of killing Americans as defined by his 
own language: ``civilian and military.'' That is the enemy we confront 
in al-Qaida.
  And what is the relationship to Iraq?
  First off, we must look at the history of our relationship and of 
Iraq's relationship in the area of military activity. Saddam Hussein 
has attacked his neighbors, neighboring nations twice. He has 
mercilessly--mercilessly--suppressed his own people, especially the 
Kurdish minority within Iraq. He has invaded Iran and Kuwait.
  He has also developed and used weapons of mass destruction. ``Weapons 
of mass destruction'' is a terribly antiseptic term. But what it means 
is, he is essentially willing to spread disease which will kill 
thousands--tens of thousands--of people in order to obtain his purpose. 
And he has done it. He has used biological weapons. He has used 
chemical weapons against the Iranians and against the Kurdish people in 
his own country, killing literally thousands of people.
  Of course, we went to war with Iraq in the early 1990s. So our 
history with Iraq is significant, as we recognize they are governed by 
an outlaw and, as a result, have been a nation functioning outside of 
the civil discourse of organized nations.
  But why is it important we confront them at this time and in this 
context?

[[Page S10080]]

It is important because of the weapons of mass destruction which they 
have. If this were the world prior to 1980, let us say, when weapons of 
mass destruction were not so readily available, or nations which had 
them were governed by governments which had at least some modicum of 
responsibility, then you might not look at a tyrant such as Hussein and 
say you needed to do anything: Let him, regrettably, do his harm to his 
neighbors and his nation. It is not affecting us.
  The problem is, after September 11, we, as a country, cannot take 
such an isolationist view, for we know there is an enemy out there 
called al-Qaida that has stated, unequivocally, their purpose is to 
kill Americans and destroy our society and culture. And we have seen 
them take action to do that on September 11, and in Africa at our 
Embassies, and at the USS Cole.
  We also know there is another nation out there, run by a tyrant, who 
is a murderous individual, who has weapons which are capable of 
exacting massive--massive--amounts of damage and loss of life, if used.
  The threat, obviously, is that the two should be joined or that the 
tyrant should just unilaterally use these weapons. Why is that threat 
legitimate? It is legitimate because there is significant common sense 
which tells us that it may be joined.
  There have been reports not by American news media or by American 
intelligence services but by Arab sources which have made it clear that 
there is a cross-fertilization between the Hussein government and al-
Qaida. Reports appearing in a Karachi newspaper, the Ummat, on November 
22 carried an article saying that Saddam Hussein has offered asylum to 
the top Taliban and al-Qaida leadership, including Osama bin Laden and 
Mullah Omar. In this regard, a delegation led by a senior official in 
the Iraqi Government, Taha Hussein, met with Mavlana Jalal ud-Din 
Haqqani--I hope I pronounced that correctly, but considering his 
purposes, I don't really care--in Qatar and conveyed Saddam Hussein's 
offer to him.
  If the report is true, then it is at least the second time Saddam 
Hussein has offered bin Laden asylum. A report in the Christian Science 
Monitor cited Arab sources which it considered to be legitimate that, 
according to Hassan Mohammed, who claims to have worked for two decades 
for Iraq intelligence services, graduates of an Iraqi school were 
intimately involved in training both Assad al Hassan and al-Qaida 
cells, and the quote is:

       My information is that the Iraqi Government was directly 
     supporting al-Qaida with weapons and explosives.

  There are more and more reports like this. It is also logical, 
logical because Osama bin Laden and his people have made it clear that 
those who consider us an enemy are their allies. Therefore, Iraq is a 
natural ally to them, and vice versa.
  So the possibility that a weapon of mass destruction which has been 
developed--and we know they have been developed within Iraq, biological 
and chemical weapons--could fall into al-Qaida hands or people 
representing the same concepts of al-Qaida is distinct.
  We also know that Iraq is moving forward with a nuclear program, that 
they wish to have a nuclear bomb, and that they may well have it, if 
they are able to get fissile material within a year; if not, within 3 
or 4 years. They are much further down the road toward obtaining 
nuclear weapons than we even anticipated when we had the war with them 
in the early 1990s. That was terminated then but has been restarted.
  So what are we to do about this? The U.N. has passed 16 resolutions, 
the basic purpose of which is to try to disarm Saddam Hussein and his 
government, specifically in the area of weapons of mass destruction. 
There is no civilized nation today that does not understand the threat 
that is represented by having a government headed by a tyrant such as 
Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction.
  So the U.N. has made a conscientious effort to address this with 
these 16 resolutions. Of course, Saddam Hussein has ignored those, lied 
about what he is doing, and he ejected the inspectors, which leads us 
to the point we are at today.
  This resolution has as its fundamental purpose the disarmament of 
Saddam Hussein, taking away his weapons of mass destruction. If, as a 
corollary to that, a regime change occurred in Iraq, that would be for 
the betterment of the world, I suspect. But the vital purpose here is 
to terminate the capacity to have and to use weapons of mass 
destruction, either by Iraq or by a client of Iraq or by an ally of 
Iraq or by al-Qaida specifically.

  It is a totally legitimate national security purpose that we should 
pursue. The President has outlined the need to accomplish this. What he 
has essentially said, and appropriately so, is that we will support the 
U.N. effort to accomplish this. But if the U.N. is unable to accomplish 
it, then our national security is so important, so overriding, that we 
should take action with our allies to accomplish this. That is the only 
reasonable approach when you confront a threat of this significance.
  There are some in this body who have essentially said we should 
pursue what I call the good intentions approach. That is an American 
trait--that we do give people the benefit of the doubt. But the good 
intentions approach in this area--hoping that things will work out 
through a policy of containment--has not worked.
  We know for a fact that Hussein and his people have ignored the 16 
resolutions and that they are developing weapons of mass destruction, 
and they actually possess them. We know for a fact that they may well 
use them. To wait and rely on good intentions would be an error of 
policy which might lead to the death of many Americans. We can't afford 
that risk. We must insist, as the President has said, on the 
disarmament of the Hussein regime; specifically, the disarmament of 
their weapons of mass destruction, in a manner which is absolutely 
confirmable, where we know without question that it has occurred and 
that those weapons have not been moved into other places of hiding or 
into other hands, which may cause greater harm.
  What the resolution before us does is give the President the 
authority to accomplish those goals. To fail to give the President the 
authority to accomplish those goals would be, in my opinion, an act of 
gross negligence, a failure of our responsibility as a government to 
defend our people.
  We are at war. We have been attacked. Americans have been killed. And 
if Mr. bin Laden and his people have their way, more will be killed.
  If we are to defend ourselves, we must be assured that the most 
threatening weapons they can use will not be used against Americans. 
Therefore, we must take action relative to Iraq. This resolution 
empowers the President to accomplish that. That is why I intend to vote 
for it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I congratulate the Senator from New 
Hampshire for a very fine statement. I notice that our colleague from 
North Carolina has arrived in the Chamber, and we have Senator Jeffords 
scheduled to speak at 3. I ask the Senator from North Carolina, does he 
need a minute or two to make a comment?
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Chair, but I cannot use the time now.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I was speaking to the manager of the bill, 
Senator Allard. He is scheduled to speak after Senator Jeffords, who is 
not here. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Allard be recognized for 
20 minutes and that Senator Jeffords follow him.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Colorado is recognized.
  Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. President, today, I rise in strong support of S.J. Res. 46, the 
bipartisan joint resolution to authorize the use of the U.S. Armed 
Forces against Iraq.
  First, I want to praise the President for his leadership and for 
reaching out to all Members of this body. I am proud

[[Page S10081]]

to be an original cosponsor of S.J. Res. 46 with Senators Lieberman, 
McCain, Warner, Bayh, Domenici, Helms, Hutchison, Landrieu, and Miller. 
These Senators are leaders of the Senate, and I am proud to be 
associated with them on this important matter.
  Also, I want to commend the leadership of the other body for their 
leadership in brokering this agreement between the administration, the 
Senate, and the House.
  I know this debate will be vigorous in nature and serious in tone, 
which is exactly how such a debate should take place. One of our most 
solemn duties as Senators is when we are called upon to cast a vote on 
whether to send our men and women in uniform into harm's way. Quite 
simply, this is one of the most serious votes any Member will make.
  I remember, as a new Member of Congress in 1991, one of my first 
votes was whether to go to war in the Persian Gulf. Just like in 1991, 
voting on this resolution will be a tough vote. But that is why we are 
here--to take a stand, state what we believe, and make the tough votes. 
In the end, I hope this debate will show that the Senate, despite any 
disagreements, is united in its resolve against Saddam Hussein.
  Mr. President, the United States has basically been at war with Iraq 
ever since the Persian Gulf conflict. In April 1991 and August 1992, 
the northern and the southern no-fly zones were established in order to 
enforce United Nations Resolution 688. Since then, U.S., British, and 
coalition aircraft patrolling these no-fly zones have been fired upon 
by Iraq more than 2,500 times and over 400 times this year alone. 
However, despite the daily threat in the no-fly zones, our pilots have 
only fired back in response 44 times.
  Saddam Hussein has repeatedly defied sixteen United Nations 
resolutions which were designed to ensure that Iraq would no longer be 
a threat to international peace and security. Plus, the United Nations 
Security Council has issued 30 statements regarding Saddam Hussein's 
violations of these 16 resolutions. At this time, I ask unanimous 
consent that a list provided by the White House of the 16 United 
Nations Security Council Resolutions and a list of Council statements 
regarding the violations be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  U.N. Security Council Resolutions and Council Statements Regarding 
                               Violations


        defied un security council resolutions by saddam hussein

     UNSCR 678--November 29, 1990
       Iraq must comply fully with UNSCR 660 (regarding Iraq's 
     illegal invasion of Kuwait) ``and all subsequent relevant 
     resolutions.''
       Authorizes UN Member States ``to use all necessary means to 
     uphold and implement resolution 660 and all subsequent 
     relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and 
     security in the area.''
     UNSCR 686--March 2, 1991
       Iraq must release prisoners detained during the Gulf War.
       Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf 
     War.
       Iraq must accept liability under international law for 
     damages from its illegal invasion of Kuwait.
     UNSCR 687--April 3, 1991
       Iraq must ``unconditionally accept'' the destruction, 
     removal or rendering harmless ``under international 
     supervision'' of all ``chemical and biological weapons and 
     all stocks of agents and all related subsystems and 
     components and all research, development, support and 
     manufacturing facilities.''
       Iraq must ``unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop 
     nuclear weapons or nuclear-weapons-usable material'' or any 
     research, development or manufacturing facilities.
       Iraq must ``unconditionally accept'' the destruction, 
     removal or rendering harmless ``under international 
     supervision'' of all ``ballistic missiles with a range 
     greater than 150 KM and related major parts and repair and 
     production facilities.''
       Iraq must not ``use, develop, construct or acquire'' any 
     weapons of mass destruction.
       Iraq must reaffirm its obligations under the Nuclear Non-
     Proliferation Treaty.
       Creates the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) to 
     verify the elimination of Iraq's chemical and biological 
     weapons programs and mandated that the International Atomic 
     Energy Agency (IAEA) verify elimination of Iraq's nuclear 
     weapons program.
       Iraq must declare fully its weapons of mass destruction 
     programs.
       Iraq must not commit or support terrorism, or allow 
     terrorist organizations to operate in Iraq.
       Iraq must cooperate in accounting for the missing and dead 
     Kuwaitis and others.
       Iraq must return Kuwaiti property seized during the Gulf 
     War.
     UNSCR 688--April 5, 1991
       ``Condemns'' repression of Iraqi civilian population, ``the 
     consequences of which threaten international peace and 
     security.''
       Iraq must immediately end repression of its civilian 
     population.
       Iraq must allow immediate access to international 
     humanitarian organization to those in need of assistance.
     UNSCR 707--August 15, 1991.
       ``Condemns'' Iraq's ``serious violation'' of UNSCR 687.
       ``Further condemns'' Iraq's noncompliance with IAEA and its 
     obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
       Iraq must halt nuclear activities of all kinds until the 
     Security Council deems Iraq in full compliance.
       Iraq must make a full, final and complete disclosure of all 
     aspects of its weapons of mass destruction and missile 
     programs.
       Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors immediate, 
     unconditional and unrestricted access.
       Iraq must cease attempts to conceal or move weapons of mass 
     destruction, and related materials and facilities.
       Iraq must allow UN and IAEA inspectors to conduct 
     inspection flights throughout Iraq.
       Iraq must provide transportation, medical and logistical 
     support for UN and IAEA inspectors.
     UNSCR 715--October 11, 1991
       Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors.
     UNSCR 949--October 15, 1994
       ``Condemns'' Iraq's recent military deployments toward 
     Kuwait.
       Iraq must not utilize its military or other forces in a 
     hostile manner to threaten its neighbors or UN operations in 
     Iraq.
       Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors.
       Iraq must not enhance its military capability in southern 
     Iraq.
     UNSCR 1051--March 27, 1996
       Iraq must report shipments of dual-use items related to 
     weapons of mass destruction to the UN and IAEA.
       Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA inspectors and 
     allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
     UNSCR 1060--June 12, 1996
       ``Deplores'' Iraq's refusal to allow access to UN 
     inspectors and Iraq's ``clear violations'' of previous UN 
     resolutions.
       Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and 
     allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
     UNSCR 1115--June 21, 1997
       ``Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow 
     access'' to UN inspectors, which constitutes a ``clear and 
     flagrant violation'' of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
       Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and 
     allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
       Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted 
     access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to 
     interview.
     UNSCR 1134--October 23, 1997
       ``Condemns repeated refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow 
     access'' to UN inspectors, which constitutes a ``flagrant 
     violation'' of UNSCR 687, 707, 715, and 1060.
       Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and 
     allow immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
       Iraq must give immediate, unconditional and unrestricted 
     access to Iraqi officials whom UN inspectors want to 
     interview.
     UNSCR 1137--November 12, 1997
       ``Condemns the continued violations by Iraq'' of previous 
     UN resolutions, including its ``implicit threat to the safety 
     of'' aircraft operated by UN inspectors and its tampering 
     with UN inspector monitoring equipment.
       Reaffirms Iraq's responsibility to ensure the safety of UN 
     inspectors.
       Iraq must cooperate fully with UN weapons inspectors and 
     allows immediate, unconditional and unrestricted access.
     UNSCR 1154--March 2, 1998
       Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons 
     inspectors and allow immediate, unconditional and 
     unrestricted access, and notes that any violation would have 
     the ``severest consequences for Iraq.''
     UNSCR 1194--September 9, 1998
       ``Condemns the decision by Iraq of 5 August 1998 to suspend 
     cooperation with'' UN and IAEA inspectors, which constitutes 
     ``a totally unacceptable contravention'' of its obligations 
     under UNSCR 687, 707, 715, 1060, 1115, and 1154.
       Iraq must cooperate fully with UN and IAEA weapons 
     inspectors, and allow immediate, unconditional and 
     unrestricted access.
     UNSCR 1205--November 5, 1998
       ``Condemns the decision by Iraq of 31 October 1998 to cease 
     cooperation'' with UN inspectors as ``a flagrant violation'' 
     of UNSCR 687 and other resolutions.
       Iraq must provide ``immediate, complete and unconditional 
     cooperation'' with UN and IAEA inspectors.
     UNSCR 1284--December 17, 1999
       Created the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and 
     Inspections Commission (UNMOVIC) to replace previous weapon 
     inspection team (UNSCOM).

[[Page S10082]]

       Iraq must allow UNMOVIC ``immediate, unconditional and 
     unrestricted access'' to Iraqi officials and facilities.
       Iraq must fulfill its commitment to return Gulf War 
     prisoners.
       Calls on Iraq to distribute humanitarian goods and medical 
     supplies to its people and address the needs of vulnerable 
     Iraqis without discrimination.


               additional un security council statements

       In addition to the legally binding UNSCRs, the UN Security 
     Council has also issued at least 30 statements from the 
     President of the UN Security Council regarding Saddam 
     Hussein's continued violations of UNSCRs. The list of 
     statements includes:
       UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 28, 1991.
       UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 5, 
     1992.
       UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 19, 
     1992.
       UN Security Council Presidential Statement, February 28, 
     1992.
       UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 6, 1992.
       UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 11, 1992.
       UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 12, 1992.
       UN Security Council Presidential Statement, April 10, 1992.
       UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 17, 1992.
       UN Security Council Presidential Statement, July 6, 1992.
       UN Security Council Presidential Statement, September 2, 
     1992.
       UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 23, 
     1992.
       UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 24, 
     1992.
       UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 8, 
     1993.
       UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 11, 
     1993.
       UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 18, 1993.
       UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 28, 1993.
       UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 23, 
     1993.
       UN Security Council Presidential Statement, October 8, 
     1994.
       UN Security Council Presidential Statement, March 19, 1996.
       UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 14, 1996.
       UN Security Council Presidential Statement, August 23, 
     1996.
       UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 30, 
     1996.
       UN Security Council Presidential Statement, June 13, 1997.
       UN Security Council Presidential Statement, October 29, 
     1997.
       UN Security Council Presidential Statement, November 13, 
     1997.
       UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 3, 
     1997.
       UN Security Council Presidential Statement, December 22, 
     1997.
       UN Security Council Presidential Statement, January 14, 
     1998.
       Source: White House.
  Mr. ALLARD. After the Persian Gulf conflict, the international 
community levied economic sanctions and established the ``Oil for 
Food'' program. However, these sanctions have largely eroded due to the 
lack of resolve by the international community and the reality of 
Iraq's substantial illicit trade. Turkey and Jordan import Iraqi oil 
via truck routes, Iran escorts oil tankers through territorial waters, 
an Iraq-Syrian pipeline is the largest export method of Iraqi oil, with 
an Iraq-Jordan pipeline scheduled to be operational in 2005.
  The United States attempted to garner support for ``Smart Sanctions'' 
in early 2001, but this attempt met tepid reception by the 
international community. Russia, China, and France have negotiated 
substantial contracts with Iraq which would be executable upon lifting 
of U.N. sanctions. Under the Oil for Food program, food import levels 
exceed and oil revenue is comparable to pre-Gulf war levels. The 
program experiences periodic progressive adjustments in its export 
ceiling in response to growing international concern about the Iraqi 
humanitarian condition.
  However, Saddam Hussein consistently circumvent's the economic 
sanctions and attempts to thwart the oil for food program. Saddam's 
regime has exported thousands of barrels of oil each day in violation 
of UN resolutions and he completely disregards the humanitarian well-
being of his own people. By illegally exporting this oil, he has 
deprived the Iraqi people billions of dollars in food and medicine 
which would have been allowed under the program.
  The living conditions of the Iraqi people are intolerable. Saddam 
Hussein has expanded his violence against women and children, withheld 
food and medicine from his own citizens, and violated the basic human 
rights of the Iraqi people.
  Mr. President, some have blamed the oil for food program and the 
economic sanctions for these conditions. But let us be very clear, the 
reason for these intolerable conditions and why we are debating this 
topic today lay at the feet of Saddam Hussein and his regime. To quote 
Secretary of State Powell from a Foreign Relations Committee hearing on 
September 26, ``Iraq stands guilty. It convicts itself by its 
actions.''
  The threat of Saddam Hussein is real and is growing. Iraq enjoys a 
sizable military advantage over all Gulf States except Iran. Iraq's 
424,000 military personnel outnumber the combined personnel total of 
all U.S. Gulf allies. Iraq continues to pursue weapons of mass 
destruction, and is attempting to acquire a nuclear capability. 
According to recent reports, it is estimated that if Iraq were to 
obtain fissile material then Saddam Hussein could build a nuclear bomb 
within months. United Nations Special Commission has identified gaps in 
accounting for Iraq's current chemical stockpiles and capabilities and 
has not accounted for hundreds of tons of chemical precursors and 
1000's of delivery warheads. UNSCOM also reported that Iraq has 
understated their declarations regarding the extent of its biological 
agents.
  Again, I would like to quote Secretary Powell from the same hearing, 
when he stated:

       We can have debates about the size and nature of the Iraqi 
     stockpile. We can have debates about how long it will take 
     them to reach this level of readiness or that level of 
     readiness with respect to these weapons. But no one can doubt 
     two things: one, they are in violation of these resolutions--
     there's no debate about that; and secondly, they have not 
     lost the interest to develop these weapons of mass 
     destruction. Whether they are one day, five days, one year or 
     seven years away from any particular weapons, whether their 
     stockpile is small, medium or large, what has not been lost 
     is the interest to have such weapons of mass destruction.

  Secretary Powell also made it clear that we aren't alone in our 
concern regarding the threat of Saddam Hussein. Referencing Arab 
leaders and their thoughts regarding Saddam, Secretary Powell added, 
``There is no question in their minds that he's a threat to regional 
stability and peace. There is no question in their minds that he is a 
threat to the region and has demonstrated previously his willingness to 
use weapons of mass destruction. And there is no doubt in their minds 
that he continues to have the intent to develop these weapons of mass 
destructions.''
  So what now--what do we do? Do we hope that Saddam Hussein goes 
gently into the night or do we finally stand up to this dictator and 
let the world know that Saddam Hussein can no longer thumb his nose at 
the international community.
  We only need to go back a few weeks to see Saddam's duplicity. On 
September 16, 4 days after the President's speech at the U.N., the 
Iraqi government announced it would unconditionally allow the return of 
U.N. inspectors. However on September 20, Iraq backpeddled on its 
previous announcement by stating that the definition of ``unconditional 
access'' means no ``presidential sites'' and 24 hours notice before any 
inspection.''
  My reaction to this new definition of ``unconditional'' by Iraq is 
best summed up in an October 3 Denver Post editorial when it stated, 
``Saddam, there you go again.''
  I ask unanimous consent that the entire article entitled ``Saddam 
Must Open Palaces'' be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  [From the Denver Post, Oct. 3, 2002]

                        Saddam Must Open Palaces

       Saddam, there you go again. Pardon the paraphrasing of 
     Ronald Reagan, but Saddam Hussein's offer to allow weapons 
     inspectors back into his country under current United Nation 
     rules--the same rules he has willfully and flagrantly 
     violated for years--is pure smoke-and-mirrors diplomacy.
       Under those rules, Saddam's palaces would be off limits to 
     inspectors.
       Any inspection of Iraq must be unfettered. Otherwise, 
     what's the point?
       It's simply Saddam trying to stay one step ahead of the 
     United States, with catch-me-if-you-can stall tactics.
       The Iraqi dictator has been spending billions since the 
     Persian Gulf War building what the U.S. government believes 
     to be dozens of mammoth desert palaces. Meanwhile, his people 
     starve. (Saddam cleverly blames

[[Page S10083]]

     U.N. sanctions for keeping food and medicine out of his 
     country, yet somehow finds the marble and gold to build 
     palaces.)
       Who's he trying to fool?
       Well, France, Russia and China for starters. Those three 
     permanent, voting members of the U.N. Security Council have 
     not yet backed the United States' push to require open 
     weapons inspections, destruction of any weapons of mass 
     destruction and the use of military force if Iraq doesn't 
     comply.
       President Bush was right in going to the United Nations to 
     remind its members how Saddam has consistently and brazenly 
     laughed off its rules.
       It was a big step toward building a much-needed world 
     consensus for striking Iraq. But if getting U.N. Security 
     Council approval requires us to work under old rules, such as 
     those where palaces are off limits, the world, and those 
     three countries, must know the United States will act without 
     them.
       The U.N. can't fall for Saddam's old tricks.
       Congress on Wednesday was moving forward with a strongly 
     worded resolution that gives Bush authority to attack Iraq if 
     diplomatic measures fail.
       Bush, in turn, must certify to Congress before an attack, 
     or within 48 hours, that diplomatic and other peaceful means 
     alone aren't enough to protect Americans.
       ``We will not leave the future of peace and the security of 
     America in the hands of this cruel and dangerous man,'' Bush 
     said Wednesday from the White House Rose Garden.
       As he spoke, he was flanked as usual by Republicans, but 
     also by what seems to be a growing number of Democrats.
       Perhaps it's the approaching election. Or perhaps, as we 
     hope, it's the morning briefings with congressional leaders 
     where Bush is privately detailing why he considers Iraq an 
     imminent threat.
       For whatever reason, one of his potential rivals in 2004 
     strongly foreshadowed Wednesday that soon both parties will 
     be singing with ``one voice,'' as Bush predicted last week.
       Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., said the administration has 
     exhausted all non-military means to disarm Saddam.
       ``They've not worked,'' he said. ``The moment of truth has 
     arrived for Saddam Hussein. This is his last chance.''
       We've heard that before. Let's hope this time it's true.

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I wish to quote a few passages from the 
editorial:

       Any inspection of Iraq must be unfettered. Otherwise, 
     what's the point? It's simply Saddam trying to stay one step 
     ahead of the United States, with catch-me-if-you-can stall 
     tactics.

  Later in the editorial it states:

       President Bush was right in going to the United Nations to 
     remind its members how Saddam has consistently and brazenly 
     laughed off its rules. It was a big step toward building a 
     much-needed world consensus for striking Iraq. But if getting 
     U.S. Security Council approval requires us to work under old 
     rules, such as those where palaces are off limits, the world, 
     and those three countries (France, China, and Russia), must 
     know the United States will act without them. The U.N. can't 
     fall for Saddam's old tricks.

  I hope the United Nations Security Council will devise a new tough 
resolution which will demand ``unconditional and unfettered'' access to 
all sites. I do not want to have to use force to disarm Saddam Hussein. 
However, I also will not allow the United Nations or any permanent 
member of the Security Council with veto power, to control our national 
security policy. And that is why I support this resolution.
  S.J. Res 46 does not advocate force, but it does not preclude it. It 
uses force as the last resort, the very last. The resolution basically 
states that the President is granted authority to use force if he 
determines that:

       (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or 
     other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately 
     protect the national security of the United States against 
     the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to 
     lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security 
     Council resolutions regarding Iraq, and
       (2) 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 nations, 
     organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed 
     or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 
     11, 2001.

  I believe Secretary Powell clarified the administration's position 
even further regarding the use of force during the September 26 hearing 
by stating, ``Yes, he [the President] wants the authority to carry out 
those resolutions where he believes force is the appropriate way to get 
implementation of those resolutions. I think it unlikely the President 
would use force--if he [Saddam Hussein] complied with the weapons of 
mass destruction conditions, it seems very unlikely that anybody would 
be using force to comply with any of the other resolutions.''
  Much of this debate is about when to pass this resolution. Should we 
pass a resolution before the United Nations acts or should we wait 
until after the United Nations acts? I believe this Senate should act 
prior to the United Nations to show that we speak with one voice in the 
importance of disarming Saddam Hussein. I agree with Secretary Powell 
and former Secretary of State Albright when they both stated that the 
United States would be in a much better position to prevail in the 
United Nations if the administration had a congressionally approved 
resolution in their pocket.
  Passing this resolution in no way precludes the United Nations from 
acting, nor should it lessen the resolve of this administration to gain 
such support, but I believe a vote on this resolution will show our 
resolve to the world that we want the United Nations to act. However, 
if the United Nations is determined to follow the same course it has 
over the last 10 years, then Saddam Hussein must understand that the 
United States will act alone. On August 20, 1998, President Clinton 
addressed the Nation and said, ``The risks of inaction to America and 
the world would be far greater than action, for that would embolden our 
enemies, leaving their ability and their willingness to strike us 
intact.'' I do not want us to use force, but I also cannot and will not 
sit idly by and hope that Saddam Hussein does nothing while the U.N. 
talks, and talks, and talks.
  I believe President Bush summed up our task at hand during his speech 
last night in Cincinnati when he stated:

       We did not ask for this present challenge, but we accept 
     it. Like other generations of Americans, we will meet the 
     responsibility of defending human liberty against violence 
     and aggression. By our resolve, we will give strength to 
     others. By our courage, we will give hope to others. By our 
     actions, we will secure the peace, and lead the world to a 
     better day.

  Mr. President, I end on a personal note about this Senate. As I look 
across the aisle and see the ``Conscience and Historian of the 
Senate'', the wonderful senior Senator from West Virginia--with whom I 
find it a honor to serve--and as I see Members of this Senate debate 
and disagree on this resolution, it is during these debates I am in awe 
of this great country and this great institution. Unlike so many other 
nations, we can debate war and peace and at the end of the day there is 
no fracture in the fiber of democracy that makes America great. It is 
this which we all wish for Iraq and for the Iraqi people. I look 
forward to the day when real democratic elections occur and when the 
voices of the Iraqi people, which have been silenced for too long, will 
be heard.
  Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Vermont who is speaking 
next.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Kohl). The Senator from Vermont is 
recognized.
  Mr. JEFFORDS. I thank my good friend.
  Mr. President, I have come to discuss, not unexpectedly, the 
situation in Iraq and what our country ought to do in response to that 
threat.
  As has happened many times before when faced with a potential threat 
to our national security and to the security of our allies, we must 
carefully evaluate that threat, and decide how best to deal with it.
  It is imperative we not make a rash decision that will have lasting 
consequences for generations to come.
  I am very disturbed by President Bush's determination that the threat 
from Iraq is so severe and so immediate that we must rush to a military 
solution. I do not see it that way.
  I have been briefed several times by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, CIA 
Director Tenet, and other top administration officials. I have 
discussed this issue with the President. I have heard nothing--
nothing--that convinces me that an immediate preemptive military strike 
is necessary or that it would further our interests in the long term.
  Saddam Hussein's desire to acquire weapons of mass destruction is of 
grave concern. Based on the information that has been provided to me by 
this administration, I believe this threat is best dealt with in the 
context of the United Nations.
  The U.N. must move aggressively to ensure unfettered inspections and 
bolster its efforts to stop the proliferation

[[Page S10084]]

of materials that can be used in the production of weapons of mass 
destruction.
  I urge the U.N. Security Council to take immediate and strong action 
to deal with Iraq and its infractions. Should Iraq fail to comply with 
the United Nations resolutions, it is incumbent on the United States to 
aggressively work with member nations to develop a means to bring Iraq 
into compliance.
  But at this time, I cannot in good conscience authorize any use of 
military force against Iraq other than in the context of a U.N. 
Security Council effort.
  If we receive information that the threat is more imminent, or if the 
United Nations' effort fails, then the President should come back to 
Congress for consideration of the next step.
  Providing the President with authorization at this time for 
unilateral U.S. military action would undercut U.N. Security Council 
efforts to disarm Iraq.
  We must ensure that any action we take against Iraq does not come at 
the expense of the health and strength of our Nation, or the stability 
of the international order upon which our economic security depends.
  I spoke at length on the Senate floor last week about pressing 
problems that will determine the future strength of our Nation:
  Grossly inadequate funding for education, declining access to 
affordable health care, degradation of our environment, and erosion of 
pension security for many hard-working Americans.
  Saddam Hussein is as bad a dictator as they come. His past actions 
speak volumes about his true intentions. But is the only solution to 
this dilemma a military solution? Experience tells us otherwise. Ten 
years of containment through enforcement of two no-fly zones and U.N. 
economic sanctions have prevented Saddam Hussein from rebuilding his 
military to any significant extent especially with respect to our 
security. His military strength remains significantly weaker than when 
he moved against Kuwait more than a decade ago.
  There is much speculation about his weapons of mass destruction 
program, but no evidence that he has developed a nuclear capability, 
and less that he could deliver it. While there is talk of cooperation 
between Iraq and al-Qaida, and I don't doubt that there has been some 
cooperation, I have not seen any hard evidence of close cooperation. 
There is, however, a great deal of evidence of Saddam's paranoia and 
his distrust of all but his closest inner circle. He has wiped out any 
viable political opposition and tightly holds all the reins of control. 
Even if he were to develop a nuclear capability, which he does not 
have, I have a hard time believing that Saddam Hussein would turn these 
weapons over to any organization, particularly a terrorist 
organization, after he has paid so dearly to acquire them.
  Our greatest problem, it seems to me, is that we have very little 
good intelligence on what is going on inside Iraq. We know that Saddam 
Hussein's intentions are bad, but we don't have a clear picture of what 
his capabilities actually are, or if a threat exists. Clearly, we need 
to get United Nations inspectors on the ground immediately. The 
inspectors must have unfettered access to all suspected sites in Iraq. 
This is proving to be a major challenge for the United Nations, but the 
United Nations is much more likely to succeed if the United States is 
squarely behind its efforts, and not standing off to the side, secretly 
hoping that it will fail.
  We should give the United Nations the opportunity to step forward and 
deal with Iraq and its infractions. In my estimation, the United States 
stands to gain much more if we can work with the United Nations to 
deliver a multilateral approach to disarming Iraq, even providing 
military force, if necessary. If the United Nations fails to press for 
the disarmament of Iraq or is blocked in its efforts, then I would 
expect the President to come back to Congress for further discussion of 
the alternatives.
  In view of this threat from Saddam Hussein, which I believe is 
missing, I urge the Congress not to adjourn sine die upon completion of 
its work this fall, but to be ready to return to session at any time 
prior to the New Year if further action against Saddam Hussein should 
become necessary.
  We must also work with the United Nations to stop the flow of those 
materials needed for producing weapons of mass destruction. There is a 
great deal more that we could do to tighten international 
nonproliferation regimes. Rather than supporting and empowering 
international efforts to stop the flow of nuclear materials and force 
greater transparency in chemical and biological commercial production 
facilities, the Bush administration has undercut these efforts and 
refused to participate in attempts to strengthen existing 
nonproliferation regimes. For example, last fall, at the Biological 
Weapons Convention review conference, the Bush administration scuttled 
efforts by our closest allies, most notably Great Britain, to 
strengthen the international biological weapons inspection regime.
  The administration has actively undermined efforts to monitor and 
verify the existing international moratorium on nuclear weapons 
testing.
  Additionally, we should be putting more resources into the Nunn-Lugar 
program, which has had some success at preventing the export from the 
former Soviet Union of nuclear weapons materials and scientific know-
how. Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to 
deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
  Just think of what progress we could make on nonproliferation if we 
were to put one fraction of the cost of a war against Saddam Hussein 
into efforts to prevent the emergence of the next nuclear, chemical, or 
biological threat. Strong efforts at strengthening international 
nonproliferation regimes would truly enhance our Nation's future 
security.
  In our preoccupation with Saddam Hussein, we must not lose sight of 
potential crises in several other areas of the world. The India-
Pakistan nuclear confrontation and the standoff over Kashmir have 
demanded a great deal of American effort during the past year. We 
cannot rule out a re-emergence of this nuclear threat. The conflict 
between Israel and the Palestinians continues to claim lives and 
threaten the stability of the region. Without U.S. prodding and even 
direct involvement, there is little chance that a peace process could 
resume there. War with Iraq could have an inflammatory effect upon that 
situation, and potentially risk the security of Israel as well. A war 
with Iraq would diminish our focus on bringing stability to 
Afghanistan, risking a return of anarchy to an area we have just given 
American lives to stabilize. While Pakistan has stood with us this 
year, a lessening of U.S. attention to Afghanistan could significantly 
undercut our influence in Islamabad. And the larger war on terrorism, 
our top concern just a few months ago, would take a back seat to a 
protracted war with Iraq and a major reconstruction effort. Yes, we 
must worry about Saddam. But we must not do so in a manner that reduces 
our ability to deal with these other threats.
  I fear that this administration is, perhaps unwittingly, heading us 
into a miserable cycle of waging wars that isolate our Nation 
internationally and stir up greater hatred of America. This cycle will 
generate more enemies, while undercutting our support from a broad 
coalition of allies--coalitions that have proven to be the hallmark of 
all successful peacemaking efforts in recent years.
  We owe it to the American people not to rush into a war, but to work 
with the institutions that we fought so hard to develop for just this 
eventuality. If multilateral efforts fail, then the President should 
come back to Congress for consideration of the next course of action. I 
cannot support a resolution that puts this Nation on a path to war 
without first exhausting diplomatic efforts. Now is the time to put the 
international system to work for us, and consider unilateral military 
action only as a last resort.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we are running ahead of time with our 
scheduled speakers. I have not had an opportunity to speak to the 
manager of the bill, but I have spoken to the staff. Senator Kennedy 
comes to speak automatically at 3:40. I ask unanimous consent that 
Senator Cleland be recognized at 3:30 for 10 minutes.

[[Page S10085]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, the Senator from Connecticut will speak 
for the next 10 minutes or so, and then we will be on schedule for our 
3:30 speaker.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, as one of the four lead sponsors of the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute resolution, I appreciate very 
much the thoughtfulness of my colleagues in addressing the resolution 
we put forward, including those who have expressed reservations or 
objection to it. I will take a few moments to respond to a few of 
those, as time allows.
  One of the concerns expressed was that our resolution essentially 
provides the President with a blank check and, at its worst, according 
to the critics, is in derogation of the Constitution of the United 
States.
  Respectfully, I object to both of those descriptions. Let me take the 
first, which is the question of the Constitution. The Constitution says 
in article I, among the powers enumerated in section 8 that the 
Congress of the United States is to have, is the power to declare war. 
That is stated. Incidentally, in the same clause there are other 
powers: To grant letters of marque and reprisal and make rules 
concerning captures on land and water.
  Though the Congress of the United States, for various reasons, has 
not formally declared war since December of 1941, that is the effect of 
the resolution before the Senate, to authorize the President to take 
military action to put American troops into combat, into war. That is 
the extent of the description in the Constitution.
  The authority that would be given to the President under our 
resolution is entirely within that constitutional grant to the 
Congress, which is to give the President the authority to defend the 
national security of the United States--and again, no blank check 
here--against the continuing threat posed by Iraq. It is targeted to 
that particular point, based on the conclusions about Iraq's danger to 
the United States stated in the preamble or the whereas clauses. 
``And''--not ``or''--and this authority is given not only to protect 
the security of the United States against the threat imposed by Iraq 
and to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions 
regarding Iraq.
  So one may disagree with the conclusions that those who are 
sponsoring this resolution have reached about the clear and present 
danger Iraq under Saddam Hussein represents to America's national 
security, but I respectfully do not think anyone can convincingly claim 
this resolution is in any sense unconstitutional. It is well within the 
authority granted to the Congress under article I of the Constitution. 
Nor is it, in any sense, a blank check. It is circumscribed by the 
terms I have just described, ``and''--not ``or''--two grounds of 
authority. It is not a blank check. It is a check that can only be 
spent within the parameters set out in those two clauses.
  I might add, the Congress also is given by the Constitution the power 
to appropriate funds. That is the ultimate power that Congress has, to 
make sure this is not a blank check either in terms of what the money 
can be spent for or how much money can be spent.
  Questions have been raised about the urgency of this matter and the 
timing of the request by the President for this authority. I said 
earlier today and I will say briefly again that in the case of this 
Senator, I have believed now for more than a decade that we have been 
much too patient--in fact, have been in error at the end of the Persian 
Gulf war for not moving to remove Saddam Hussein from power when his 
military was in disarray. We knew what his goals were, what his record 
was. We knew by statements he made that he had the ambition to be the 
leader of the Arab world, the modern-day Saladin, to have Baghdad 
become the capital of the Arab world, of the Persian Gulf. That, of 
course, would be terrible for the Arab world, terrible for the world, 
and terrible particularly for the United States of America.

  Over the last decade, for those who believe we are acting 
precipitously in passing and offering this resolution, we have tried 
everything else to get Saddam Hussein to keep the promise he made at 
the end of the gulf war. We have tried sanctions, embargoes, 
inspections, trade restrictions, the Oil for Food Program, even limited 
military action. None of them has worked.
  I repeat briefly some of the history. In February of 1991 after the 
Iraqi military was vanquished in the Persian Gulf war, Saddam Hussein, 
effectively to preserve his leadership of that country, signed an 
agreement accepting all U.N. Security Council resolutions passed after 
his invasion of Kuwait as a condition for the termination of 
hostilities. That included Resolution No. 687 which required that 
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction be ``destroyed, removed or rendered 
harmless.'' In that Resolution 687, it goes on to require that 
inspectors be allowed into Iraq.
  Saddam Hussein systematically withheld information, used every 
available method of deception. I have an article from Time magazine of 
September, 1995, 7 years ago, which describes how much we knew about 
the deception that Saddam Hussein--the cheating and retreating, as the 
article said, that Saddam Hussein had gone through to frustrate the 
will of the United Nations and how much we have learned in admissions 
that were made as the United States mobilized forces to invade Kuwait: 
That the Iraqis had admitted they had begun filling 191 bombs and Scud 
missile warheads with deadly biological agents such as anthrax and 
botulism toxin, which were to be mounted on missiles, planes, and drone 
aircraft and dropped on enemy troops, fewer than half of whom had 
received the appropriate germ warfare vaccinations.
  One Iraq report, reading from the article in Time magazine 7 years 
ago, stated that shortly before invading Kuwait in August of 1990, 
Saddam ordered a crash program to have a nuclear weapon built by April 
of 1991.
  Interestingly, a month before this article was printed in Time 
magazine, Baghdad rushed to give some documents to the U.N. to jump 
ahead of Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamel al-Majid, who had defected. 
He had been a senior general in charge of the nuclear and biological 
weapons program. Hussein, according to the article, knew he could not 
keep him quiet, so he decided to try to make points with the U.N. by 
producing a flood of information. It was devastating in its content in 
terms of the deadly toxins of which he was developing an enormous 
inventory.
  Of course, we know since the inspectors were ejected in 1998 and 
Saddam has now had, after his deception of the years that preceded, 4 
years to build up his inventory which our intelligence and allied 
intelligence confirm has grown, remains, and is today more threatening 
and more powerful in terms of weapons of mass destruction, 
unconventional, than he had ever been before.
  I want to go back to one final quote. On February 15 of 1991, as we 
had won a victory in the gulf war, Saddam said:

       Every Iraqi child, woman, and old man knows how to take 
     revenge. They will avenge the pure blood that has been shed, 
     no matter how long it takes.

  That is undoubtedly why Saddam tried to assassinate former President 
Bush in 1993. That is why our State Department continues to designate 
Iraq under Saddam as a state sponsor of terrorist groups that have 
killed Americans. That is why we cannot rest until he is disarmed, 
which is the purpose of this resolution--disarm or face military 
action.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Georgia is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I find it the height of irony in the 
midst of our discussion on potential war with Iraq and potential use of 
force and committing young Americans into harm's way--and I indicated 
my support yesterday for the bipartisan resolution that would authorize 
the use of force to go after weapons of mass destruction in Iraq--I 
find it ironic in the midst of this debate about whether to commit 
American forces to a national objective somewhere in the world, that in 
the Washington Post yesterday an article was entitled ``New Pension 
Benefits Imperil Defense Bill. In Cost-Conscious Move, Bush Vows to 
Veto Entire Budget if Item Isn't Eliminated.''
  The message in the article is disturbing to me because the item 
referred to is something called concurrent receipt.

[[Page S10086]]

  I might say currently under law there is an untenable situation 
where, if someone has served 20 years in the American military and 
additionally gets wounded in that service, they cannot draw their 
retirement which they have earned and their disability compensation 
which they are entitled to, concurrently. They cannot do that. So I 
find it ironic in the midst of the time when the President is calling 
upon us to authorize the use of force somewhere in the world, he is 
opposing the use of concurrent receipt or the ability of our troops, 
our servicemen and women who have served 20 years or more and get 
wounded in that effort, to draw those entitlements concurrently. He 
opposes that and has threatened to veto the almost $400 billion defense 
authorization bill because of that one item. That is unconscionable.
  This article says the President has threatened to veto the defense 
authorization bill for fiscal year 2003 in order to block the Defense 
Department from paying veterans and military retirees the very 
compensation they have earned.

  I am puzzled. I am flabbergasted by the President's position and the 
veto threat. He goes on television one night and threatens war to 
accomplish our national objectives, and the next moment says he is 
going to veto the entire defense authorization bill which would help 
pay for that very war because he doesn't agree with the Senate's 
position here, where we stand foursquare behind those who have gone in 
the military, served more than 20 years, and gotten wounded.
  I can't understand it. Surely, with all the benefits and quality-of-
life provisions we have in our laws supporting our military families, 
and authorizing weapons systems, and passing, as we passed in this 
body, a defense authorization bill of $393.4 billion--that the 
President has threatened to veto this package over a question that 
ought to be a nonstarter, a no-brainer, is very alarming. The fact is, 
if somebody serves in the American military 20 years or more and gets 
wounded in that service, what they are actually entitled to is not 
authorized.
  I challenge anyone who opposes the repeal of the concurrent receipt: 
Just what are we talking about here? What is the cost to our military 
personnel who put their lives on the line? And what is the cost to our 
Nation when nobody else wants to do that because we are not giving them 
their just due? We have to address this issue and protect our military 
retirees and veterans. To ignore it is actually the height of 
hypocrisy, and dishonors the very men and women who serve in uniform.
  How can we as a Nation, in good conscience, in a matter of hours, ask 
our military men and women to put their lives on the line in the future 
if they know this country will not take care of them?
  That is idiotic. The defense authorization bill is in conference 
between the House and the Senate. It is my hope we can find the right 
compromise that will make sure we take care of our veterans and 
retirees. I urge that the House and Senate adopt legislation that will 
address this issue, and I ask the President and the Secretary of 
Defense rethink their position and stand up for our veterans and 
military retirees who are unfairly affected by the current law. We need 
to change it.
  This body stood foursquare behind them. As a matter of fact, one of 
my combat veterans in this great body here, fellow Vietnam veteran 
Senator John Kerry from Massachusetts, he and I and others are sending 
a letter to the President of the United States, urging him to recant 
that position on threatening to veto the very defense authorization 
bill we will need to go to the very war he is trying to crank up.
  I see this as the height of irony. At one moment we are threatening 
to put our young Americans into harm's way. At the other moment the 
President said he is going to veto the entire defense authorization 
bill because of one item. What is that one item we are paying at the 
request of this great body? Those who serve 20 years or more and get 
wounded, they get their just due.
  I appreciate my colleague, Senator Reid from Nevada, for pushing this 
issue and bringing it to national attention as the chairman of the 
Personnel Subcommittee in the Armed Services Committee. We feel very 
strongly in our committee and in the Armed Services Committee of this 
body on this issue.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CLELAND. I yield.
  Mr. REID. I worked on this situation a long time. I appreciate the 
Senator from Georgia coming, lending your prestige, I underscore that, 
on this very important issue. As the Senator said, this is a simple 
issue, whether someone who has put in his time in the military, whether 
it is 10 or 20 or whatever years it is--20 or 30--whatever it is, and 
then, I say to my friend from Georgia, the distinguished Senator, then 
finds himself, because he has a disability--it could be 100 percent or 
whatever percent disability--he has to make a choice. He can't get both 
pensions, both of which are earned.
  If there were ever an example of how a country owes this to these 
people, this is it. I say to my friend from Georgia, thank you very 
much. The Senator from Georgia, I know, as I do, goes to VFW halls and 
the other veterans' organizations, and we see there large numbers of 
World War II veterans. I am not happy to say this, but a thousand are 
dying every day. These men--and very few women, from World War II; as 
we went back, there were more women involved--deserve this. As in 
Korea. I have a friend the Senator from Georgia knows, who was my high 
school teacher, the Governor of the State of Nevada, who lost a limb in 
Korea. He had to make a choice. He cannot do both. He spent time in the 
Air Force, in the Marines, in the Army and, under this goofy law he 
cannot draw both pensions if, in fact, he was entitled to them.
  This is just senseless. So I appreciate very much the Senator from 
Georgia recognizing the importance of this and lending his prestige.
  No one can come and speak on veterans' matters with more authority 
than the Senator from Georgia. I say to the Senator, not only have you 
received injuries, but you are also the person who ran the Department 
of Veterans Affairs. You have seen it from all sides. I appreciate very 
much your being here, helping on this legislation the conference 
committee must approve. It is simply just unfair if they do not.
  Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. CLELAND. I do.
  Mr. BIDEN. I apologize for not hearing the Senator's entire remarks. 
On what I heard at the end, I fully concur.
  Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator use his microphone?
  Mr. BIDEN. I beg your pardon.
  Does the Senator actually believe the President would veto this? I 
mean, the President speaks so glowingly and lovingly--and I believe he 
means it--about our veterans and our responsibilities and our 
obligations. If you laid out to the American people what we are talking 
about here, they would understand this just does not make sense.
  Most people--who are not veterans, who are not disabled, who do not 
participate in any way--I think assume the law is as you and Senator 
Reid and myself and others are trying to change it.
  I ask the Senator, A, do you really believe the President would veto 
this? And, B, what is the real reason for the veto? I mean, is there 
something I am missing here?
  Mr. CLELAND. The Senator is right in his sense of being absolutely 
dumbfounded by this. I am absolutely perplexed. I would certainly hope 
the President of the United States, the Commander in Chief, would not 
veto a defense authorization bill worth $394 billion, that this body 
passed, on a spurious issue that it costs money to pay those who fight 
our wars. It sure does, especially those who get wounded in our wars. 
It sure does. If we can find the money for war, certainly we can find 
the money to take care of those who fight our wars. It is just as 
simple as that to me.
  So I thank the Senator from Delaware for his question.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I could, because I have been aligned 
with the distinguished Senator from Nevada, Senator Levin, and others 
on both sides of the aisle, together with our colleague from Georgia, 
about this concurrent receipt--this Senator knows of no time the 
President of the

[[Page S10087]]

United States has directly spoken to this issue. Thus far, only the 
individuals who are working in the budgetary matters at OMB have. As 
you mentioned yesterday, I say to the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Chu, who 
is a principal adviser to the Secretary of Defense, had made comments.
  At this point in time I find no foundation to associate the President 
personally with this decision. Furthermore--and then I will yield right 
away--being an active member of the conference of the four principals 
between the House and the Senate, the targets are moving back and 
forth. There is the Senate version, there is the House version, and 
there is the amended Senate version. There is also one Senator McCain 
and I have talked about, and that is, should we move forward on 
concurrent receipts, we would do it in the context of the Purple Heart 
winners and those who have injuries that are directly associated with 
having served in combat zones. That may not be to the liking of all of 
us, but all types of options are being explored.
  I know at this time no basis of fact that the President is personally 
involved.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I do not know what is the proper procedure 
at this time. The Senator from Georgia has the floor. But with the 
permission of the Chair and the Senator from Georgia, I would like to 
direct a question to my friend, the distinguished ranking member of the 
Armed Services Committee.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. The Senator will recall yesterday, on the floor, I said, I 
do not think the President knows what the people are saying. I think if 
the President really knew what people were saying--we are robbing Peter 
to pay Paul on people who have injuries, people who are disabled 
because of their service in the military--I do not think the President 
would do that. I hope not. That is what I heard coming from the 
distinguished Senator from Delaware, that I do not think this is 
President Bush's personality; at least I hope not.
  I say, though, to my friend, as I said yesterday, I really do believe 
a person who is injured in combat--and I cannot speak from experience, 
as can my friends, such as Senator Kerry, Senator Inouye, and Senator 
Cleland, what combat is like. I do not really know. But I do know 
people who have disabilities in the military. No matter how they 
received those disabilities, I believe they are entitled to that 
disability payment. I think it may be an easy way out for some to just 
say: Well, if you are injured in combat, you are entitled to your 
disability pay, but if you are injured on the back lines by a tank 
running over you, or a truck hitting you, or falling off a truck doing 
work to take care of those people on the front lines, then you are not. 
But I say, whether that person is 3,000 miles away or 30,000 miles away 
from the front lines, I think they are entitled to that compensation 
for disability just as well as someone else. That is a comment I make 
to my friend from Virginia prior to your making a decision in that 
conference.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I say to my good friend he is very correct 
and accurate, as always, in what he stated yesterday as not being 
associated to the President personally.
  I say to the Senator, I associate myself with your goal of having 
broader concurrent receipts. But I am faced, as the ranking member of 
the committee, with the reality of the situation. We will have to 
ascertain exactly: Is there a line at which the executive branch will 
accept some version of concurrent receipts? And we just have to bring 
that back to our colleagues.
  Because if we were to experience a veto--I am not suggesting in any 
way it has been communicated other than through the staff to this 
Senator--our bill would go down. Twelve months of work by the Armed 
Services Committee would go down. Many benefits, pay raises for the men 
and women of the Armed Forces, new weapons--it all goes down on this 
one issue.
  I say to the Senator, I share with you--I find it very hard to think 
that could come about. But, nevertheless, all of us having been here 
many years, under several Presidents, know there are junctures in 
conferences when this does happen. It is our responsibility--and I 
assume it--to try and ascertain, is there some form? And then we bring 
it back to our colleagues. If there isn't, then I think we should all 
recognize the situation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, if I could respond very quickly.
  Senator Byrd has been here--and I say this with dignity and respect--
and he has given us so many lectures on the Constitution. I have 
listened. I believe in the Constitution. We are a separate and equal 
branch of Government. The President cannot tell us what happens in 
conference. He can offer his opinion.
  I say this, as I said yesterday, the President cannot sustain a veto 
on this matter. He cannot sustain a veto. I would put up before this 
body, any time, my veterans compared to the people who surround the 
President.
  So I say to my friend from Virginia, a man of courage, integrity, 
and, as I said yesterday, a gentleman, hang in there. We are the third 
branch of Government. We deserve to be able to do what we have passed 
in this body. We cannot let the administration cow us on this because 
we are right. If he vetoes it, we will override the President.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak 2 minutes 
on this point--just 2 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I have been here 30 years. This is the most 
ridiculous thing I have ever heard. This is absolutely mind-boggling. 
This is brain dead. We have a roughly $400 billion defense bill. We may 
be asked to go to war. And some bureaucratic functionary, somewhere in 
the bowels of OMB--if that is what is to be believed--is suggesting 
that we hold up this bill because they do not want to allow disabled 
veterans to have concurrent receipt of their disability and their 
military pension. That is brain dead.
  And, Mr. President--you are not listening; but I hope your staff is 
listening--stop this. Stop this. Stop this. It makes no sense, Mr. 
Chairman, to yield to blackmail that they'll veto this bill when the 
Senate has overwhelmingly voted for concurrent receipt. If you yield to 
this, Mr. Chairman, I will be dumbfounded--dumbfounded. I know you've 
worked a whole year. I have worked a whole year, and up to 8 years, on 
legislation.
  But I can't believe you'd even listen to somebody who would say this. 
Why wouldn't you pick up the phone and call up the President and say: 
Mr. President, is this the deal? Is this the deal? Tell me straight up, 
boss. What is the deal? Because if it is, it is outrageous.
  So I suggest we just pick up the phone and call the President. You 
have a close relationship with him. Call him. Ask him. Ask him. I pray 
to God he would not even think of saying to you: No. I will veto a $400 
billion bill at the same time while nailing the veterans. Call him. 
Phone home.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, point of parliamentary inquiry: What is 
the business currently pending?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Lieberman amendment.
  Mr. REID. Parliamentary inquiry, under the order now before the 
Senate, we are on the Lieberman amendment. It is my understanding the 
Senator from Massachusetts is entitled to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is entitled to 
the floor.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Florida.


                Amendment No. 4857 To Amendment No. 4856

  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
  My purpose is to offer an amendment to the Lieberman amendment which 
is in the nature of a substitute. I send the amendment to the desk.
  Mr. WARNER. Could I inquire of the leader, before he departs the 
floor, regarding the order that is in now, we are dealing with matters 
relating to debate on Iraq; the nature of this substitute amendment is 
what?
  Mr. GRAHAM. It will add an additional authority to the President 
relative to the use of force.
  Mr. WARNER. This is an amendment to the matter that is pending before 
the Senate?

[[Page S10088]]

  Mr. GRAHAM. It is an amendment to the matter pending before the 
Senate, yes.
  Mr. WARNER. I see. Could I ask my colleague: We have been trying to 
work in a very cooperative way, Senator Lott and Senator Daschle, 
Senator Reid and myself, on the timing of these things. Has this matter 
been taken to the leadership?
  Mr. GRAHAM. I have discussed it with Senator Daschle.
  Mr. WARNER. And his views on it are?
  Mr. GRAHAM. I do not know what his views are.
  Mr. WARNER. I see. Could I ask the distinguished majority whip about 
the procedure at this point in time? I know on this side we have tried 
very hard to stay within the framework, although it is not clearly 
established, but the framework as to how this Iraq debate would go on 
and the timing of the introduction.
  Mr. REID. I would say to my friend from Virginia, the Senator from 
Florida wants to offer the amendment and then leave the floor.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I will not debate the amendment.
  Mr. REID. He has a right sometime today to offer the amendment. The 
Senator from Connecticut is aware of his wishing to offer this. He has 
a right to offer it, but it is just a question of when he would do it.
  Mr. WARNER. I don't dispute the rights. I am just trying to stay 
within the framework of the guidance being given by our respective 
leadership on the management of this matter.
  Mr. REID. The reason he did it this way is so we would not interrupt 
the order in effect.
  Mr. WARNER. Then the amendment would become the pending business, 
would it not?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment.
  Mr. WARNER. I asked the question as to whether or not it would become 
the pending business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment will be reported, and it will 
become the pending business.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  Mr. WARNER. Is that the desire then?
  Mr. REID. I guess we should have mentioned it to you. I apologize we 
didn't do that. I think there was wide knowledge he was going to do 
this sometime today.
  Mr. WARNER. I am asking then if I might just have time to consult 
with our leadership, recognizing the Senator has a right, so I could 
get such instructions as my leader may wish to contribute.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding the clerk is going to 
report the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 4857 to amendment No. 4856.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To provide substitute language that includes an authorization 
 for the use of the United States Armed Forces to defend the national 
   security of the United States against the threat posed by certain 
                    foreign terrorist organizations)

       In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the 
     amendment, insert the following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization 
     for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq and International 
     Terrorists Resolution''.

     SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

       The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by 
     the President to--
       (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security 
     Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable 
     to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
       (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security 
     Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, 
     evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies 
     with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

     SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

       (a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the 
     Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be 
     necessary and appropriate in order to--
       (1) defend the national security of the United States 
     against the continuing threat posed by Iraq;
       (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council 
     Resolutions regarding Iraq; and
       (3) defend the national security of the United States 
     against the threat posed by the following terrorist 
     organizations:
       (A) The Abu Nidal Organization.
       (B) HAMAS.
       (C) Hizballah.
       (D) Palestine Islamic Jihad.
       (E) Palestine Liberation Front.
       (b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the 
     exercise of the authority granted in paragraph (1) or (2) of 
     subsection (a) to use force, the President shall, prior to 
     such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but 
     not later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make 
     available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and 
     the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination 
     that--
       (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or 
     other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately 
     protect the national security of the United States against 
     the continuing threat posed by Iraq, or (B) is not likely to 
     lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security 
     Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
       (2) 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 nations, 
     organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed 
     or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 
     11, 2001.
       (c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
       (1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with 
     section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress 
     declares that this section is intended to constitute specific 
     statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of 
     the War Powers Resolution.
       (2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this 
     resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers 
     Resolution.

     SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

       (a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, 
     submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this 
     joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the 
     exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of 
     planning for efforts that are expected to be required after 
     such actions are completed, including those actions described 
     in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act 
     of 1998).
       (b) To the extent that the submission of any report 
     described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of 
     any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution 
     otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to 
     the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War 
     Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a 
     single consolidated report to the Congress.
       (c) To the extent that this information required by section 
     3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by 
     this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the 
     requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

  Mr. REID. Senator Graham will speak on this at a later time. The 
Senator from Virginia, the manager of the bill, will ask for 2 minutes 
now. Regarding the order in effect that was gotten earlier today, I ask 
unanimous consent that we eliminate the times when the Senators are to 
appear. It just hasn't worked. Somebody finishes 10 minutes early, or 5 
minutes late, and it throws everything off kilter.
  So I ask unanimous consent that following the statement of the 
Senator from Virginia, Senator Wellstone be recognized for 5 minutes, 
and Senator Kennedy for 15 minutes; that we then have a Republican 
Senator for 20 minutes; Senator Carper for 20 minutes; a Republican for 
30 minutes; and then that we have Senator Dodd for 30 minutes and a 
Republican for 30 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I have just been handed the amendment of 
the distinguished Senator from Florida. I have looked it through. We 
will have a debate on it in due course. I must bring to the attention 
of the Senate that in the course of the drafting of the resolution by 
my good friend from Connecticut, myself, Senator McCain, and

[[Page S10089]]

Senator Bayh, we took into consideration a lot of things and counseled 
with the administration.
  The point I wish to make is that, at first glance, this amendment 
seems to restore, in some sense, the original words of S.J. Res. 45, 
which I read:

       The President is authorized to use all means that he 
     determines to be appropriate, including force, in order to 
     enforce the United Nations Security Council resolution 
     referenced above, to defend the national security interests 
     of the United States against a threat posed by Iraq . . .

  This is the key part:

       . . . and restore international peace and security in the 
     region.

  My recollection is that, in the negotiation, the Democrat side of the 
aisle was strongly in opposition to that last phrase in S.J. Res. 45 
and, therefore, Senator Lieberman and I and others took it out when we 
drafted ours, S.J. Res. 46. I just make that observation, and I find it 
a bit perplexing. Nevertheless, I have had the opportunity to state my 
point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida is recognized.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
  Mr. WARNER. I yield the floor on this. Under the time agreement, our 
two colleagues are to speak. I suggest the Senator address the Chair as 
to his desire.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, it was our intention to maintain the 
amendment in all respects, other than adding the language that begins 
on page 2 at line 23 and runs through page 3 at line 4. That was our 
sole intent in offering the amendment in the form that we have done so. 
If there had been negotiations of which we were unaware that altered 
the underlying amendment, at the appropriate time it would be my 
intention to offer an amendment to make it conform to the proposal that 
adds what yourself and others have currently agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. At the appropriate time, we will address that. I thank my 
colleagues.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I rise to speak for a short time today 
about the Iraq resolution, and tomorrow I will have a chance to speak 
at greater length. I thank Senator Kennedy for allowing me to precede 
him. I also tell my colleague from Georgia that his speech on the 
concurrent receipt was powerful and, having spent the whole day with 
veterans yesterday, is absolutely right. It is critically important 
that this defense appropriations bill go through with that provision.
  Mr. President, I did not have a chance to hear the President speak 
last night, but I read the transcript. I think it is important that the 
President focus on obtaining international support. The military option 
should only be considered as the last option. I believe that people 
were glad to hear that last night in Minnesota and in the country.
  The problem is that the actual resolution before us goes in a 
different direction. What this resolution does is give the President 
the authority for a possible go-it-alone, unilateral military strike 
and ground war. I think this would be a mistake. We should not go it 
alone.
  There is a critical distinction between going it alone and taking 
action in conjunction with our allies. Our focus should be going to the 
United Nations Security Council and asking for a resolution that makes 
it clear to Saddam Hussein that he must disarm. Saddam must give arms 
inspectors unfettered access. And, if he does not comply with this new 
UN resolution there will be consequences, including the use of 
appropriate military force. But we must do this together with our 
allies. We must bring the international community on board. This 
resolution allows for a preemptive, unilateral strike, which I believe 
would be a huge mistake.
  When Secretaries Kissinger and Albright testified before the Foreign 
Relations Committee, I asked both of them about the consequences of 
going alone versus working with the international community. First I 
asked: Shouldn't the goal be disarmament, and shouldn't we make every 
effort to try to make disarmament happen before taking military action?
  They both were in agreement. Secretary Kissinger said: Yes, we need 
to play this out.
  No one trusts Saddam Hussein. Everybody knows he is a brutal 
dictator. That is not the point. The point is how to proceed; how to do 
this the right way. The focus should be on disarmament and getting the 
support of our allies in the international community.
  I do not think we should be approving a preemptive, unilateral strike 
by the United States, going it alone, or only with Great Britain.
  I asked the former secretaries what the differences would be. They 
spelled out hugely different consequences between our going it alone, 
if, in fact, military action was necessary, versus taking action with 
our allies.
  The former secretaries made the following points. If we take 
unilateral military action Saddam Hussein will have a better chance of 
uniting the world community against us, rather than vice versa. 
Moreover, there could be grave consequences in the Near East and South 
Asia that could include energizing other radical elements and 
increasing support for al-Qaida. Would this not play into the hands of 
the radicals? This is a big question if we go it alone.
  What about our men and women, our sons and daughters who would be put 
in harm's way? What would the consequences be on the ground for them if 
we go it alone versus with our allies?
  What about this war against terror? As a father and grandfather of 
six children I take al-Qaida very seriously. Unfortunately 
international terror is a part of the world in which we now live. Will 
we have the same international cooperation to fight international 
terror if we go it alone? In many parts of the world we need the 
cooperation, assets, and on-the-ground intelligence of our allies for 
the continued war on terror. I think going it alone, a preemptive 
military strike, perhaps a ground war, could very well undercut that 
effort.
  Mr. President, I have one more point. I am not going to talk at 
length about my interaction with people in Minnesota over the last 
several days since I announced my opposition to the first resolution, 
but I will tell my colleagues this: Many people have come up to me, and 
I had great discussions with people in Minnesota. I cannot thank them 
enough.
  I do not really know what the breakdown is in terms of X percentage 
this way or that way, but I will say that the people in Minnesota and 
our country are worried about this issue. They are worried about us 
going it alone. They are worried about what might happen to our sons 
and daughters in Iraq. They far prefer we work together with our 
allies. They far prefer we have international support and that the 
focus be on disarmament.
  I believe that is the direction in which we should go. That is not 
what this resolution before us asks us to do. Therefore, I will vote no 
on this resolution.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I commend President Bush for taking his 
case against Iraq to the American people last evening, and I agree with 
the President that Saddam is a despicable tyrant who must be disarmed. 
As many of us had hoped, the President has now clearly given the Iraqi 
regime an opportunity to avoid war. The President himself says he has 
not yet decided war will be necessary. In this situation, it would be 
wrong for Congress to act now to authorize the President to go to war 
before the steps the President has outlined are exhausted.
  The most solemn responsibility any Congress has is the responsibility 
given the Congress by the Constitution to declare war. We would violate 
that responsibility if we delegate that responsibility to the President 
in advance before the President himself has decided the time has come 
for war.
  The President acknowledged last night there are major risks in going 
to war. I do not believe these risks have been adequately described to 
the American people.
  General Wesley Clark, the former Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, 
told the Armed Services Committee on September 23 if you are talking to 
the mothers and the loved ones of those who die in that operation in 
Iraq, you

[[Page S10090]]

want to be sure using force and expending American blood and lives and 
treasure is the ultimate last resort, not because of the sense of 
impatience with the arcane ways of international institutions or 
frustrations from the domestic political process of allies.
  As the Senate continues to debate the use of military force against 
Iraq, we must do all we can to assess the potential costs of such a war 
in blood and treasure. The American people deserve to know what a 
conflict in Iraq might be like. They deserve to know how many 
casualties there might be. They deserve to know the true preparedness 
of our troops to fight in a chemical or biological environment. If they 
are in the National Guard or Reserves, they deserve to know how a 
conflict in Iraq will affect them and whether they are likely to be 
called up for duty.
  Many Reservists who were initially recalled for the war in 
Afghanistan have been either demobilized or extended for a second year. 
They are concerned about what the impact of war against Iraq will have 
on their families and on their jobs. Many employers, who are struggling 
in the current sagging economy, are also deeply concerned about the 
stability of their workforce. These patriotic Americans are willing to 
sacrifice, but they deserve to know all reasonable alternatives to war 
have been exhausted.
  None of us can foresee the course of events that will unfold if we go 
to war. Before Congress acts, the administration has an obligation to 
explain to the Congress and the American people the potential 
consequences of war. As of now, it has not.
  The President is asking Congress to delegate its constitutional power 
to declare war before he has decided we need to go to war, but he has 
not adequately explained what this war will look like. How many ground 
troops will be required? How many casualties can we expect to suffer? 
How well can we respond to the use of chemical or biological weapons 
against our troops? How will postwar occupation and reconstruction in 
Iraq be conducted? How will our ongoing military operation in 
Afghanistan be affected, and what will the impact be on the overall war 
against terrorism?
  Today, our service men and women are helping to combat terrorism in 
Afghanistan, the Philippines, the Nation of Georgia, and elsewhere 
around the world.
  Our purpose is clear; defend our country against the clear and 
compelling threat to our security posed by al-Qaida. I strongly support 
the President in the war against al-Qaida and the al-Qaida terrorists. 
I am proud of the achievement of our Armed Forces in the war against 
terrorism.
  Some argue that America's vastly superior military force can easily 
defeat the Iraqi army, but many of us are concerned that the very 
strength and success of our Armed Forces in the gulf war and in 
Afghanistan will lull America into thinking if war with Iraq becomes 
necessary, it will be a bloodless war with few casualties.
  The gulf war was fought in the desert a decade ago with an 
overwhelming superiority of forces in a strong coalition of the United 
States and other nations. They achieved one of the most decisive 
victories in the history of warfare. The experts I have consulted 
believe that a new war with Iraq will not be as easy, especially if we 
do not have the support of a coalition of nations.
  Some defense analysts contend the Iraqi regular army is plagued with 
low morale and poor equipment and may well surrender at the first sight 
of American might. Other experts believe, however, that unlike the 
regular Iraqi army, up to 100,000 Republican Guard and special 
Republican Guard troops of Iraq will defend Baghdad and remain fiercely 
loyal to Saddam Hussein.
  Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution believes the Iraqi 
Republican Guard forces could make a U.S. military attack very 
difficult. He estimates that our military casualties could be as high 
as 5,000. By comparison, in the gulf war, just under 400 U.S. service 
members lost their lives.
  Many believe our Armed Forces may need to occupy Baghdad, which has 
over 5 million residents. Testifying before the Armed Services 
Committee on September 23, GEN Joseph Hoar, former commander in chief 
of the U.S. Central Command, discussed the potential horrors of urban 
warfare. He said in urban warfare you could run through battalions a 
day at a time. All of our advantages of command and control, technology 
and mobility are, in part, given up and you are working with corporals, 
sergeants, and young men fighting street to street. It looks like the 
last 15 minutes of the movie ``Saving Private Ryan.''
  Despite the risks of urban warfare, the administration has avoided 
questions about how a military operation in Iraq may unfold. We have 
not been told how many ground troops we will need or, again, how many 
casualties we can expect. The Joint Chiefs should provide Congress with 
casualty estimates for a war in Iraq as they have done in advance of 
every past conflict. These estimates should consider Saddam's possible 
use of chemical or biological weapons against our troops.
  Unlike the gulf war, many experts believe Saddam would resort to 
chemical and biological weapons against our troops in a desperate 
attempt to save his regime if he believes he and his regime are 
ultimately threatened.
  In the September 19 hearing before the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, General Myers, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
cited a long list of improvements that have dramatically increased the 
combat effectiveness of our forces since the gulf war. He said our 
troops now have improved ability to protect themselves against chemical 
or biological attacks.
  However, the General Accounting Office published a report on October 
1 which clearly suggests that our forces are not adequately prepared 
for a chemical or biological attack. The report concluded that although 
the Defense Department has taken significant actions to provide such 
protection, serious problems persist. This is what the GAO report 
found: Chemical and biological defense training continues to be a 
problem; medical readiness of some units to conduct operations in a 
contaminated environment remains questionable; some units are 
critically short of required protective gear.

  One Air Force wing has only 25 percent of the protective masks 
required and only 48 percent of required patient decontamination kits.
  If Prime Minister Blair is correct in saying that Iraq has the 
capability to launch chemical or biological warheads in 45 minutes, 
what sense does it make to put our soldiers in the path of that danger 
without exhausting every reasonable means to disarm Iraq short of war?
  We do not know whether the military will be able to adequately 
protect our service men and women from a chemical or biological attack, 
and this issue should be explained to the American people.
  The Wall Street Journal reported last week that in addition to 
chemical and biological chemical deficiencies, there are other notable 
gaps in the Pentagon's planning. Civilians working at port facilities 
in the Persian Gulf region, where our forces will be unloading 
warfighting equipment, have not all received the proper protective gear 
or training for a chemical and biological attack.
  The Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs have 
not adequately answered such questions about the military operation in 
Iraq. They both say there will be risks to a conflict, but they have 
not adequately and fully discussed those risks with Congress and the 
American people.
  The Bush administration has also repeatedly claimed that we can fight 
a war in Iraq without undermining the war against terrorism, but last 
year, on June 21, 2001, testifying before the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, Secretary Rumsfeld cited significant problems in military 
readiness. He said we have underfunded and overused our forces, and we 
are steadily falling below acceptable readiness standards. Yet last 
month, on September 19, when asked about military readiness in the 
Armed Services Committee hearing, Secretary Rumsfeld said recent 
defense budget increases, coupled with the recall of reservists and 
shifts in the assignment of existing personnel, have reduced the stress 
on our forces.
  He did not explain how the budget increases, which only recently took 
effect, could have reversed the starkest estimate of readiness he 
provided to the Armed Services Committee last year. In fact, experts 
say that most of the growth in operations and maintenance spending over 
the past decade

[[Page S10091]]

have been for infrastructure-related programs, not military readiness.
  General Myers, in his September 19 testimony, agreed that the U.S. 
military was stretched in some key areas. He said if our operations on 
the war on terror are expanded, we will be required to prioritize the 
deployment of unique units in high demand such as special operation 
forces and combat rescue forces. He also said our coalition partners 
may facilitate our combined operations by having similar units of 
forces. That, of course, assumes we will have a coalition in terms of a 
potential conflict.
  Before the Senate Armed Services Committee 2 weeks ago, the Chairman 
of the Joint Chiefs admitted that because of the high demand placed on 
some of our forces that coalition partners are necessary to mitigate 
the risk of war in Iraq.

  Two weeks ago, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs admitted that because 
of the high demand on some of our forces that coalition partners are 
necessary. The way we are going to get the coalition forces is by going 
to the United Nations and gaining their support for the disarming of 
Saddam, and if action is necessary in the future.
  War against Iraq may well undermine the ongoing war against al-Qaida 
and our continuing operation in Afghanistan by draining resources from 
our Armed Forces that are already stretched thin. In Afghanistan, U.S. 
forces continue to search villages, caves, and potential hideouts. The 
searches are now being conducted by the 82nd Airborne, not the elite 
special operation forces which are being recalled in preparation for a 
potential invasion of Iraq.
  Many of us in the Senate are aware of these concerns with the 
Reserves and National Guard. We have heard them firsthand. Already, the 
Nation has mobilized and demobilized thousands of reservists and 
National Guardsmen to support the current war on terrorism. 
Massachusetts reservists and reservists from across the country are 
providing training, intelligence, and security support around the 
world.
  Almost 1,500 National Guardsmen from Massachusetts alone are deployed 
to support the war on terror. Citizen soldiers are now serving in 
critical security positions throughout the United States and in 
Afghanistan. They have distinguished themselves for their patriotism 
and superior service. They have proven ready to meet the challenge of 
fighting the war on terrorism, despite outdated equipment and funding 
shortfalls.
  The phenomenal performance of our forces in the war on terrorism 
attest to their resolve. But how long can we sustain this high level of 
operation? Approximately 11,000 of our reservists from across the 
Nation have been recalled for a second year to support the war on 
terror. This is the first time in decades that we have needed to take 
this measure to enhance our military strength. Not even in the gulf war 
did we recall reservists for over a year. If we open a second front in 
Iraq, we may be forced to recall even more.

  Additionally, due to critical shortages of special operations 
personnel, pilots, intelligence specialists, and security personnel, 
another 22,000 service members, a number about as high as the entire 
gulf war, have been involuntarily retained on active duty as part of 
the current war on terrorism. If we embark upon a premature or 
unilateral military campaign against Iraq or a campaign with only Great 
Britain as our ally, our forces will have to serve in even greater 
numbers for longer periods of time with graver risks.
  There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein is a despicable tyrant. The 
international community must work together to disarm him. But the war 
against terrorism and our wider interests in the region and the world 
demand a course that relies on war only as a last resort after all 
reasonable alternatives have been fairly tried.
  I have no doubt our forces will prevail in any conflict with Iraq. 
But Congress and the American people deserve to know the true risk of 
war with Iraq. The administration has the responsibility to state what 
the real costs of such a war may be. We need that information now, 
before--not after--Congress exercises its constitutional responsibility 
to declare war.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. If I could ask my colleague a question. It seems to me 
the risk is only magnified by the passage of time--whether it is weeks, 
months, or years--if we do not act.
  I draw to my colleagues' attention what the President said in 
addressing the Nation last night:

       Approving this resolution does not mean that military 
     action is imminent or unavoidable.

  I paraphrase that he has not sought by this a declaration of war. War 
is the last option. The decision has not been made.
  Continuing, the President said:

       The resolution will tell the United Nations and all nations 
     that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make 
     the demands of the civilized world mean something.

  Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator of Iraq that 
his only choice is full compliance and the time remaining for that 
choice is limited.
  I draw the Senator's attention to a document entitled ``Joint 
Resolution'' distributed by the chairman of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee and the chairman of the committee on which my distinguished 
colleague and I serve. While this document is not at the desk, it 
purports to be in the form of an amendment and is under some 
consideration. I presume that because that is what was distributed by 
my good friend and colleague, Senator Levin.
  From page 4, I read the following:

       Authorization for use of United States Armed Forces 
     pursuant to a new United Nations Security Council resolution.

  The question I ask for my colleague is in regard to section A:

       Pursuant to a resolution of the United Nations Security 
     Council described in section 22, after the enactment of this 
     Joint Resolution and subject to subsection B, the President 
     is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States in 
     destroying and rendering harmless weapons of mass 
     destruction, [et cetera.]

  I read that as putting in the hands of the United Nations a veto on 
the actions taken by this body, a veto on the President's ability to 
use, as he has been given by the Constitution, the Armed Forces of the 
United States to protect at any time he deems necessary the security of 
America.
  Does the Senator support such a concept that the United Nations would 
have a veto at any time in this situation? The President has gone to 
the U.N. asking that they take action to enforce the 16 resolutions 
that have been ignored by Saddam Hussein, defied by Saddam Hussein, and 
they are now looking at a 17th, a framework for perhaps a new 
inspection regime, but this current draft of a proposed amendment 
implies that the U.N. has to act before our President can utilize the 
forces given to him by the Constitution of our country.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator has asked a number of questions in his 
comments. I will do my best to respond.
  As the Senator has rightfully pointed out, the President has not 
decided on the course of war. If the President has not decided that we 
have an imminent threat from Saddam Hussein, we have a serious threat. 
It is a very important threat. For all the reasons that have been 
outlined on the floor during the course of this debate about Saddam 
Hussein, we understand that. But the President of the United States has 
not made a judgment that it is an imminent threat to the United States.
  He has not made a judgment that he is prepared to go to war today. If 
that is so, which is what he stated last night, why in the world are we 
saying, in the Senate of the United States, we will give him this power 
when he has not made up his mind he wants to use it, without any 
limitation on time--no sunset of this? That is No. 1. So I am opposed.
  Second, on the question of the Senator from Virginia, in referring to 
the Levin amendment, that conforms with the constitutional authorities 
I have discussed, that we have done in other periods. That does not 
happen to be my position. I believe in a two-step approach. I believe 
the Security Council should have a tough resolution with unfettered 
inspections and we ought to galvanize the international community. I 
personally believe the way we galvanize the international community is 
by demonstrating we believe the international community has the 
responsibility and obligation to take action.
  I believe if we go ahead and take action as being proposed by the 
Senator

[[Page S10092]]

from Virginia, that will be unilateral, where the President says: I 
have not made up my mind whether there is a necessity for war. I am not 
even prepared to say we are in an imminent threat. If we had an 
imminent threat from Saddam Hussein, he obviously would have a 
responsibility to take action in order to protect the American people.
  What we are saying to the Security Council is: We are just going to 
have something over here on the side in case you people up there are 
not going to be serious.
  I would like to challenge the Security Council the way the President 
of the United States did. I commend President Bush for finally going to 
the Security Council, challenging the Security Council. That is the way 
to go. The Security Council takes every step, uses every opportunity, 
and finally comes back and says: There is no alternative, there is an 
imminent threat.
  We should be at our desks at that time in making the judgment we will 
have to make about committing American forces--a two-step approach for 
those reasons.
  I have difficulty in accepting the concept that we are going to 
effectively give to the President of the United States the authority 
when he has stated, as the good Senator stated, he has not made up his 
own mind.
  Lastly, part of the trouble we have been in over the period--and I 
have great respect for my colleague, and he knows he is my friend and 
colleague--the debate has been about the resolutions, but not about the 
war. We are debating the resolutions. My good friend from Florida is 
talking about changing the resolutions. We ought to be talking about 
what the implication is going to be in terms of the conflict and the 
war. The American people ought to understand that more clearly. That is 
an issue where the administration has failed the American people.
  What are the best estimates?
  What should we expect are going to be needed in terms of the forces?
  What is the best judgment in terms of how Saddam Hussein will react?
  What will be the enormous impact it will have in our battle against 
terror around the world?
  What will it do in terms of inflaming the Muslim world if the United 
States has a go-alone policy, which this resolution will permit?
  Will it be effectively a breeding area for al-Qaida terrorists?
  We ought to be debating those issues. We do not do that. We have been 
debating the technicalities of these resolutions.
  I know the Senator has--as I have--listened to many debates, not only 
on the technicalities but the broad issues of war and peace as well. 
But it is my regret that we are going to be faced with a cloture motion 
here to try to insist on a vote on this in another 2 days when we have 
just barely talked about the issues of war and peace and haven't had 
that kind of informed debate and haven't had that kind of information 
that is available to us. That is part of my deep concern about where we 
are on the floor of the Senate now.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his kind remarks. 
Indeed, we have worked together many times. We work together.
  I strongly differ. I think our President has clearly said--first 
before the United Nations and as late as last night--that there is 
imminent danger to our Nation from Saddam Hussein and his possession of 
weapons of mass destruction. We clearly have a difference on that.
  I strongly believe that this resolution, if it is to be brought 
before the Senate, will place a veto power in the hands of the United 
Nations. I cannot be a part of that. I will certainly oppose it as 
strongly as I know how.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Would the Senator be willing to change the words? I 
don't have it here. Would he be willing to change the words to include 
``an imminent threat'' from the language that is included in the 
resolution which talks about a grave threat or continuing threat?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will say at this point in time, Senator 
Lieberman and I, and Senators McCain and Bayh drafted this resolution 
after listening to the suggestions of many Senators on both sides of 
the aisle. At this point in time, if any Senator has talked about 
changes, then the format by the Senator from Florida I expect should be 
followed by way of a formalization of the amendment. But at this point 
in time, we have other colleagues who are anxious to speak.
  I will give three quotes from President Bush's speech to the Nation 
last night about the imminent threat posed by these weapons of mass 
destruction:

       In 1995, after several years of deceit by the Iraqi regime, 
     the head of Iraq's military industries defected. It was then 
     that the regime was forced to admit that it had produced more 
     than 30,000 liters of anthrax and other deadly biological 
     agents. The inspectors, however, concluded that Iraq had 
     likely produced two to four times that amount. This is a 
     massive stockpile of biological weapons that has never been 
     accounted for, and is capable of killing millions . . .
       Alliances with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to 
     attack America without leaving any fingerprints . . .
       We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a 
     growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that 
     could be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons 
     across broad areas. We are concerned that Iraq is exploring 
     ways of using UAVs for missions targeting the United States.

  Mr. WARNER. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I have listened with a great deal of 
interest to this presentation. I think there are a couple of clear 
points one can make in response, and then I will comment.
  We have been dealing with Saddam Hussein with our men and women in 
uniform for 12 years. We have been occupying positions in the Middle 
East. We have been flying over the regions that Saddam has. We are 
flying the no-fly zones in the north and south of Iraq. We had weapons 
inspectors in there for the 12 years, until they were kicked out 4 or 5 
years ago. After Saddam was kicked out of Kuwait, after there was a 
United Nations agreement, and after basically he agreed to an 
armistice, and after inspectors, he said: I will take out all weapons 
of mass destruction, and I will turn them over to the international 
community. And he has not done that. We know that. He has failed to do 
that.
  We have had economic sanctions against Iraq for a period of years 
now. They have not worked. There is such a sieve in the region that he 
is able to get oil out and goods in without any problem.
  We have worked with the United Nations. We had some 16 resolutions 
that passed through the United Nations. It is as if some of the debate 
on the floor is that we are just now starting to try to deal with 
Saddam Hussein, when I think you have to look back over the past 12 
years. We have been dealing with this dictator and this despot for 12 
years in every way conceivable.
  I think the conclusion most people have is that 12 years ago we 
should have gone into Baghdad and removed him at that time. That is the 
real conclusion people come to. Yet, for reasons of the Congress or the 
international community--whoever you want to say in that point of 
time--there was no agreement to kick him out.
  Since that time, it has not changed. He is the same guy who has these 
weapons of mass destruction. It has just gotten worse in that period of 
12 years.
  I would analogize it to having cancer. If you have cancer, you have a 
couple of options: You can deal with it. You can go in and have surgery 
to remove the big areas that are spreading. You can try to contain it 
for a period of time through different therapies. Or you can ignore it 
and just say: It does not affect me today. I am fine today.
  Saddam Hussein has chemical weapons. He has biological weapons. He is 
working on nuclear weapons. He has missile capacity to deliver all of 
these.
  That is the cancer that exists. We can say we feel fine today; we are 
fine. What if he decides to launch any one of those? What if he does it 
not at military targets but at civilian targets, at one of our allies, 
or even at us? Are we fine then? I can just see us having a commission 
after that period of time asking: Why didn't we catch these terrorists? 
We were working on Iraqi soil before they attacked the United States. 
We should have gone in there. Did we not know enough? Were we not 
sufficiently concerned about it in a similar way that we are having 
hearings now about why we didn't do things prior to September 11? Did 
we see the

[[Page S10093]]

clues and the situation building up prior to the Twin Towers and the 
Pentagon being hit? Did we not see this coming?
  Let us apply that same standard to Saddam Hussein and the nexus he 
provides between the weapons of mass destruction and terrorists. They 
are clearly there. I just articulated the weapons of mass destruction 
that he has. He is also working on such things as smallpox. We think he 
may be trying to do something with that. He is working on all sorts of 
things. Yes. Weapons of mass destruction.

  What about the terrorist connection that is there? Abu Nidal's 
organization was headquartered there for a period of time. He just 
died, or he was killed recently, for whatever reason. Al-Qaida 
leadership is in Iraq. Hussein has worked closely with a number of 
terrorist organizations in and on his soil. They are there. You have 
the mix of these two sitting side by side--a toxic mix that the United 
States cannot countenance.
  I respect a number of people who think this isn't the way we do 
things. Democracies have real difficulty declaring war. That is a very 
good thing. This is just something we don't like. We want somebody to 
come and hit at us first, before we go on to war. You can look through 
the history of the United States and the acts where we were hit and 
then we responded. That is the way we are most comfortable in dealing 
with these tough, difficult issues about whether you go to war with a 
foreign nation. It is good that we wrestle with that and with this 
situation.
  It is like in the old television show ``Gunsmoke.'' At the end of the 
``Gunsmoke'' episode every week, it ended the same way: Matt Dillon 
walks out on the main street of Dodge City. The bad guy walks out on 
the street on the other end. They stare at each other for a little 
while. The bad guy has a chance to walk off, if he wants to. He also 
gets to draw first. He draws first. Then Matt Dillon draws. The bad guy 
goes down. There is a sense of fair play and honor about that. There is 
a set of rules. The bad guy gets to shoot first, but you are going down 
in the process. If you are going to do that; you have a chance to walk 
away. If you decide not to, that is your choice.
  That is the way we like to do things, because there is a sense of, Do 
we really want to bother somebody else to this degree? Is this the 
right thing to do?
  Saddam Hussein doesn't operate that way. The terrorists today don't 
operate with those same sorts of rules of decorum in operation, and the 
rules of boxing, if you will.
  These are people who don't go out on Main Street with Matt Dillon. 
They sneak around behind buildings and try to get at innocent people 
and women and children. They don't go straight at our military. They 
attack people in civilian positions. Their object is to disrupt. It is 
not to protect a nation state. It is not to confront the military. It 
is to kill as many civilians as they can.
  Can we afford, in that type of atmosphere and that new way of 
operating, to have terrorists force us to sit back and say: OK? Are we 
going to wait until somehow they attack us, or try to get botulism in 
our food supply, or try to get anthrax into a broad area of the United 
States, or one of our allies, or try to make a weapon with smallpox, 
and then we will go at them?
  The cost of doing that is to spread a cancer; the deaths of many 
people. This is not something we can countenance. It is not something--
when my primary duty and the primary duty of the elected Members of 
this body is to provide for the national defense--that we can 
countenance. It is not something we can do.
  I want to read from some testimony Henry Kissinger gave 2 weeks ago 
before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
  I ask unanimous consent that his entire testimony be printed in the 
Record after my comments.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, former Secretary Kissinger is probably 
one of the best minds, if not the best mind, in foreign policy in the 
world. He dealt with the cold war. He was directly involved in that, 
and he has been a very astute student. And now he is a student of what 
takes place today in the war on terrorism that we have. Listen to just 
a couple paragraphs of what he says about these weapons of mass 
destruction in the hands of a country that also works with and provides 
support and housing for terrorists. He says this:

       If these capabilities remain intact--

  That is, weapons of mass destruction--

     they will become an instrument--actual and symbolic--for the 
     destabilization of a volatile region.

  There he is speaking of the entire Middle East.

       And if Saddam Hussein's regime survives both the Gulf War 
     and the anti-terrorism campaign, this fact alone will 
     compound the existing terrorist menace.

  He points out in this statement that he thinks going at Iraq will 
have a very positive impact on terrorism, and if we do not go at Iraq, 
our war against terrorism will just devolve into an intelligence 
operation, and that would be the likely continued status of it.
  He handles another argument. I will read another quote from Secretary 
Kissinger:

       It is argued that dealing with weapons of mass destruction 
     in Iraq weakens the war against terrorism. The opposite is 
     more likely to be true. Eliminating such weapons in Iraq is 
     an important aspect of the second phase of the anti-terrorism 
     campaign. It demonstrates American determination to get at 
     the root causes and some of the ultimate capabilities of what 
     is, in essence, a crusade against free values.

  That is what Secretary Kissinger goes on to say in this presentation. 
He argues that this is an essential part of the war against terrorism, 
if we are to effectively deal with this terrorist threat and the 
problem that we have. And not to overrepeat this, but I do not think 
one can overrepeat it. It is a little bit like a doctor's prescription 
dealing with your health where you are, and here are the possible 
problems you have.
  Here is what we know that Saddam Hussein has.
  Gaps identified by UNSCOM in Iraqi accounting and current production 
capabilities strongly suggest that Iraq maintains stockpiles of 
chemical agents, probably VX, sarin, cyclosarin, and mustard.
  UNSCOM reported to the U.N. Security Council in April 1995 that Iraq 
had concealed its biological weapons program and had failed to account 
for 3 tons of growth material for biological agents.
  In 2001, an Iraqi defector reported visiting some 20 secret 
facilities in Iraq for chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons.
  Saddam continues to pursue nuclear weapons, and has used chemical 
weapons against his own people, as well as his neighbors.
  I do not think I need to remind people about what he has done in his 
region. He has attacked Iran, invaded Kuwait, and he has launched 
missiles at Saudi Arabia and Israel. That is why we will have had, and 
have today, strong allies in the region opposed to Saddam Hussein 
continuing.
  I want to look at the positive, the upside of dealing with Saddam 
Hussein. We have a lot of difficulty, a lot of potential problems to 
deal with, but what happens if you get Saddam Hussein out of power?
  I think there are significant, positive steps moving forward in that 
region.
  It is interesting to note that from 1920 until the late 1950s, Iraq 
had a constitutional monarchy, a bihouse parliament that had authority 
over budgets and ministers. They have a history of some democracy. It 
was not the level of democracy we have, but they have that in their 
historical background.
  Ten percent of the world's oil supplies are located in Iraq. They 
have an educated urban population. They will embrace and encourage and 
move forward with democracy on a rapid basis. Now, it is not going to 
be completely free of any hitches, but I think the potential in 
developing an active, vibrant, working democracy in Iraq is 
significantly greater and higher than what we are seeing in the 
situation in Afghanistan, which is moving forward but with a lot of 
difficulty. They do not have the natural resources to build. They do 
not have a historical basis of democracy with which to work. They have 
a number of warlords in the area, which does not exist in Iraq.
  There is reason to believe that the upside potential with Iraq, and 
the

[[Page S10094]]

spread of democracy and human rights and religious freedoms and 
pluralism will be significant in Iraq. And that will spread throughout 
that region. These are a set of values, of human values, for which the 
United States stands and has stood for years, and we have been very 
positive in this. Yet we have not pushed this set of values generally 
in that region of the world, in the Islamic region of the world.
  There is something like 49 countries and 2 democracies in that region 
of the world. And a number of people wonder why there is the push for 
human rights, democracy, and religious freedom everywhere else and not 
there. And we have kind of hemmed and hawed and ``well, I don't know,'' 
and we have allies there, and we are dependent on the oil, and we don't 
want to upset things in the region.
  The truth is, we need to stand for the things there that we stand for 
everywhere else. And if we do that, and push that in Iraq, it is going 
to be a flower that will bloom there in the desert. It is going to show 
the way to a number of countries. It is going to involve the people. 
And the people are going to be able to grow and possess that beauty of 
liberty that they seek and know and want. We will be able to help put 
it forward and move it into action in that region.
  These are very difficult times for us. There are difficult times in 
the region. But I think the question clearly before us is whether we 
should move forward. I think the answer is definitely yes, that we 
should move forward.
  This is a time for us to be very humble and wise about what we need 
to do and definite about how we move forward. We do not make this 
choice lightly, nor without the understanding that with this action 
comes difficult consequences to some of our finest citizens in the 
Armed Forces and potentially of terrorist attacks to our allies and to 
us.
  We would do well to remember the words of Psalm 140:

       Grant not, God, the desires of the wicked one; do not grant 
     his conspiracy fruition. . . .As for the head of my 
     besiegers, let the mischief of their own lips bury them.

  Once again, we have come to deal with a very difficult situation 
where we are called upon to stand up to the threats of evil and 
tyranny--something we have had to do many times in the history of this 
wonderful Nation. As daunting as this is, it is not a responsibility we 
can shirk. Saddam has made the case against himself. He has buried 
himself with his own lips and his own actions. We cannot ignore this. 
And we should not put off for another year, or a few, a difficult 
matter that will only get worse. If we do not take this action now, we 
are unlikely to any time in the near future. Now is the time for us to 
act.
  I support the bipartisan resolution authorizing the President to use 
force in Iraq. I hope all the American public is praying for us, and 
praying about this for wisdom, for protection, for limited loss of 
life, and for the right thing to be done.
  This is a tough moment. It is a different stage for us. It is a ways 
and means of handling something we have not done in the past where we 
go in and try to take care of a situation before it kills many people. 
We need those prayers for wisdom and wise action.
  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution, this bipartisan 
resolution authorizing the President to use force in Iraq.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

Statement of The Honorable Henry A. Kissinger Before the Senate Foreign 
                Relations Committee, September 26, 2002

       Mr. Chairman, Congress is considering one of the most 
     consequential expressions of its views since the end of the 
     Cold War: what action the United States should take to deal 
     with the threat posed by illegal stockpiles of weapons of 
     mass destruction in Iraq and their potential growth. 
     President Bush has reaffirmed America's commitment to a 
     cooperative would order by asking the United Nations to 
     rectify Iraq's defiance of a large number of U.N. resolutions 
     mandating the destruction of these stockpiles as well as 
     Iraq's flagrant breach of its pledge to do so as a condition 
     for the suspension of the Gulf War in 1991. But were the 
     world community, by fudging its response, to opt for the risk 
     of a greater threat in the future, can American and a 
     coalition of the like-minded acquiesce in stockpiles of 
     weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Thus the Committee will 
     need to consider not only the risk of action but also the 
     consequences of inaction.
       The Iraqi stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction will be 
     growing in an international environmental in which their 
     danger merges with the threat of terrorism. For on September 
     11, 2001, the world entered a new period in which private, 
     non-state organizations undertook to threaten national and 
     international security by stealth attacks. The controversy 
     about preemption is a symptom of the impact of this 
     transformation. At bottom, it is a debate between the 
     traditional notion of sovereignty of the nation-state 
     prevalent since the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648 and the 
     adaptation required by both modern technology and the nature 
     of the terrorist threat.
       Osama bin Laden's base was on the territory of a national 
     state, though his was not a national cause. Highly 
     disciplined operatives are scattered around the globe, some 
     on the soil of America's closest allies and even within 
     America itself. They enjoy financial and organizational 
     support from a number of states--most frequently from private 
     individuals ostensibly not under the control of their 
     governments. Bases for terrorists have been established in 
     several countries, usually in areas where the governments can 
     plausibly deny controls are actually not in control, such as 
     in Yemen, Somalia, or perhaps Indonesia and Iran.
       Having no territory to defend, the terrorists are not 
     subject to the deterrent threats of the Cold War; having as 
     their aim the destruction of social cohesion, they are not 
     interested in the conciliating procedures and compromises of 
     traditional diplomacy.
       Unlike the previous centuries, when the movement of armies 
     foreshadowed threat, modern technology in the service of 
     terror gives no warning, and its perpetrators vanish with the 
     act of commission. And since these attacks are capable of 
     inflicting catastrophic damage, traditional notions of 
     sovereignty have to be modified with respect to countries 
     that harbor terrorist headquarters or terrorist training 
     centers. The problem of preemption is inherent in the nature 
     of the terrorist challenge.
       The accumulation of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq in 
     violation of U.N. resolutions cannot be separated from the 
     post-Afghanistan phase of the war against terrorism. Iraq is 
     located in the midst of a region that has been the hotbed of 
     the special type of global terrorist activity from which the 
     attack on the United States was organized. And the 
     consequences of weapons of mass destruction have many 
     similarities to those of terrorism. They can be used without 
     warning; their impact is catastrophic. In some circumstances, 
     their origin can be uncertain. If the world is not to turn 
     into a doomsday machine, a way must be found to prevent 
     proliferation--especially to rogue states whose governments 
     have no restraint on the exercise of their power.
       Cold War principles of deterrence are almost impossible to 
     implement when there is a multiplicity of states, some of 
     them harboring terrorists in position to wreak havoc. The 
     Cold War world reflected a certain uniformity in the 
     assessment of risk between the nuclear sides. But when many 
     states threaten each other for incongruent purposes, who is 
     to do the deterring, and in the face of what provocation? 
     This is especially true when that which must be deterred is 
     not simply the use of weapons of mass destruction but the 
     threat of them.
       Suicide bombing has shown that the calculations of jihad 
     fighters are not those of the Cold War leaders. The concern 
     that war with Iraq could unleash Iraqi weapons of mass 
     destruction on Israel and Saudi Arabia is a demonstration of 
     how even existing stockpiles of weapons turn into instruments 
     of blackmail and self-deterrence. Procrastination is bound to 
     magnify such possibilities.
       The existence and, even more, the growth of stockpiles of 
     weapons of mass destruction in Iraq poses a threat to 
     international peace and stability. The issue is not primarily 
     whether Iraq was involved in the terrorist attack on the 
     United States. The challenge of Iraq is essentially 
     geopolitical and psychological. Its policy is implacably 
     hostile to the United States, to neighboring countries, and 
     to established rules that govern relations among nations. It 
     possesses growing stockpiles of biological and chemical 
     weapons, which Saddam Hussein has used in the war against 
     Iran and on his own population. Iraq is working again to 
     develop a nuclear capability. Saddam Hussein breached his 
     commitment to the United Nations by preventing the operation 
     of the international inspection system he had accepted on his 
     territory as part of the armistice agreement ending the Gulf 
     War. There is no possibility of a direct negotiation between 
     Washington and Baghdad and no basis for trusting Iraq's 
     promises to the international community. By what reasoning 
     can the world community--or America--acquiesce in this state 
     of affairs?
       If these capabilities remain intact, they will become an 
     instrument--actual and symbolic--for the destabilization of a 
     volatile region. And if Saddam Hussein's regime survives both 
     the Gulf War and the anti-terrorism campaign, this fact alone 
     will compound the existing terrorist menace.
       By its defiance of the U.N. Security Council resolutions 
     requiring it to give up weapons of mass destruction, Iraq has 
     in effect asserted the determination to possess weapons whose 
     very existence compounds the terrorist threat immeasurably. 
     Global terrorism cannot flourish except with the support of 
     states that either sympathize or acquiesce in its actions. To 
     the extent that

[[Page S10095]]

     these countries observe the flouting of U.N. resolutions, the 
     weakening of international norms, and the defiance of 
     America, they feel less restrained in acquiescing in or 
     ignoring terrorist activities. For the nations of the world 
     to accept the existence of growing stockpiles of weapons of 
     mass destruction where the new form of terrorism has been 
     spawned is to undermine restraint with respect not only to 
     weapons proliferation but to the psychological impulse toward 
     terrorism altogether.
       The campaign in Afghanistan was an important first step. 
     But if it remains the principal move in the war against 
     terrorism, it runs the risk of petering out into an 
     intelligence operation while the rest of the region gradually 
     slides back to the pre-9/11 pattern, with radicals encouraged 
     by the demonstration of the world's hesitation and moderates 
     demoralized by the continuation of an unimpaired Iraq as an 
     aggressive regional power. In short, the continuation of 
     illegal proliferation, the global dangers which it involves, 
     the rejection or infeasibility of a viable inspection system, 
     and the growth of terrorism require action, preferably 
     global, but as an ultimate resort of America's, together with 
     those countries prepared to support it.
       It is argued that dealing with weapons of mass destruction 
     in Iraq weakens the war against terrorism. The opposite is 
     more likely to be true. Eliminating such weapons in Iraq is 
     an important aspect of the second phase of the anti-terrorism 
     campaign. It demonstrates American determination to get at 
     the root causes and some of the ultimate capabilities of what 
     is, in essence, a crusade against free values. Enforcing U.N. 
     resolutions in Iraq does not compete with the capabilities 
     needed to pursue the second phase of the anti-terrorism 
     campaign. In all likelihood, such action will strengthen it 
     by additional deployments to the region.
       Nor should it weaken the cooperation of other countries in 
     the anti-terror campaign. Assisting in this effort is not a 
     favor other countries do for the United States but ultimately 
     for themselves. And what exactly will they decline to support 
     without risking their entire relationship to the United 
     States? The fight against terrorism will take many years. To 
     wait for its end before acting is to guarantee 
     that stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction multiply.
       At the same time, while reserving the option to act in 
     concert with only the nations it can convince, the United 
     States is wise to appeal to cooperative action of the world 
     community. As the most powerful nation in the world, the 
     United States has a special unilateral capacity and, indeed, 
     obligation to lead in implementing its convictions. But it 
     also has a special obligation to justify its actions by 
     principles that transcend the assertions of preponderant 
     power. It cannot be in either the American national interest 
     or the world's interest to develop principles that grant 
     every nation an unfettered right of preemption against its 
     own definition of threats to its security. The case for 
     enforcement of established resolutions should be the opening 
     move in a serious effort of consultation to develop 
     fundamental principles that other nations can consider in the 
     general interest.
       The United Nations is therefore challenged to come with a 
     control system that eliminates existing weapons of mass 
     destruction in Iraq--together with procedures to prevent 
     their being rebuilt. the control system must go far beyond 
     the inspection system negated by Saddam Hussein's evasions 
     and violations. It must prevent any possibility for local 
     authorities to harass informants or to impede free access to 
     the inspectors. It should be backed by standby authority and 
     perhaps a standby force to remove any obstacle to 
     transparency. Moreover, any system of inspection must be 
     measured against the decline in vigilance that accompanied 
     the previously flawed system's operation. Nor can it be 
     achieved at the price of lifting sanctions while Sad Dam 
     Hussein stays in office. For that would provide the Iraqi 
     regime with the means of rearmament as a reward for ending 
     its violations. Indeed, the rigorous measures required to 
     implement the U.N.'s own resolutions are almost surely 
     incompatible with Hussein's continuation in power.
       In the end, enforcement of U.N. resolutions should be 
     coupled with a program of reconstruction for Iraq. Because of 
     the precedent-setting nature of this war, its outcome will 
     determine the way U.S. actions will ultimately be viewed. And 
     we may find more nations willing to cooperate in 
     reconstruction than in enforcement, if only because no 
     country wants to see an exclusive position for America in a 
     region so central to international political and economic 
     stability.
       Reconstruction will require dealing with how to preserve 
     the unity and ensure the territorial integrity of a country 
     that is an essential component of any Gulf equilibrium. A 
     federal system to enable the Shiite, Sunni, and Kurdish 
     ethnic groups of Iraq to live together without domination by 
     one of them is surely appropriate. But any serious planning 
     would have to consider the means to prevent autonomy from 
     turning to independence, which, in the case of the Kurds, 
     would put Turkish support for the military phase at risk. And 
     all this would have to take place in the context of a 
     government capable of resisting pressures from the remnants 
     of the old regime or from neighboring countries determined to 
     destabilize the emerging system.
       The United States has put forward a reasoned definition of 
     the dangers: the possession of weapons of mass destruction by 
     governments that have demonstrated their willingness to use 
     them, have professed hostility toward America or its allies, 
     and are not restrained by domestic institutions. Can the 
     world community reject that definition of the danger?
       However the issue of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is 
     resolved, the longer-range goal must be to devise a system 
     for dealing with new attempts by additional countries to 
     acquire weapons of mass destruction or biological and 
     chemical weapons. We are only at the beginning of the threat 
     of global proliferation. The nations of the world must face 
     the impossibility of letting such a process run unchecked. 
     The United States would contribute much to a new 
     international order if it invited the rest of world, and 
     especially the major nuclear powers, to cooperate in creating 
     a system to deal with this challenge to humanity on a more 
     institutional basis.
       Congress has an opportunity to vindicate a system of 
     international order. I urge you to give the President the 
     authority to enforce the appropriate U.N. resolutions 
     together with the world community if at all possible, in 
     concert with like-minded nations if necessary.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. We have had excellent cooperation in the management of 
this very important matter. Senators have been forthcoming. I note that 
the Presiding Officer is now scheduled to speak. Is there a means by 
which we could accommodate him? I would be happy to sit in the Chair. 
But I also observe the presence of another Senator who immediately 
follows the distinguished Senator. We could perhaps flip.
  If I might suggest that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is prepared to recognize the Senator 
from Montana.
  Mr. WARNER. We will recognize the Senator from Montana then.
  Mr. President, while we are waiting for the Senator from Montana to 
address the Senate, I want to thank our colleague, Senator Brownback, 
for an excellent statement. I was privileged to follow it, and it is an 
important contribution to this debate.
  I thank my colleague.
  Mr. BROWNBACK. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Virginia.
  I thank my good friend from Delaware, whose kindness and generosity 
is as good as the size of his State is small, in allowing me to speak 
now. And I understand the Presiding Officer may get some relief in a 
little bit and will be able to make his statement.
  As we get into a debate such as this, every time we spend a lot of 
time going over and saying about the same thing. We know who Mr. 
Hussein is.

  I congratulate the President for an excellent speech on Monday night. 
Not only did it complement his words before the United Nations, some 
would construe the speech as a statement of war. I think that is not 
the case. I had an opportunity to hear our Secretary of State, General 
Powell, put it very well when he said it was ``a statement of what we 
intend to do.''
  We know and we have seen this man operate who claims the Presidency 
of Iraq, going way back to the time he attacked Iran, then his actions 
against a neighbor, Kuwait. And since then, Saddam Hussein has deceived 
the world for over a decade.
  He has violated 16 U.N. resolutions without consequence. He has 
stockpiled weapons of mass destruction and has a clear intention of 
obtaining nuclear weapons. His brutal regime has used these weapons on 
his own people. On one occasion this dictator used sarin, VX, and 
mustard gas agents to kill 5,000 innocent civilians in a single day.
  He has abused the U.N.-established Oil-for-Food Program, weaponizing 
his oil to finance his fanaticism. All this time he has bankrupted his 
own country. Saddam has amassed black market revenues of $6.6 billion 
since 1996. I tell the American people this is not an Oil-for-Food 
Program. It is oil for terror.
  Peace in our time, how long have we been kicking that phrase around? 
And it is still with us. It is in peril again and will be so long as 
Saddam Hussein is in power with the most destructive weapons in history 
in his hands.
  Evidence of Saddam Hussein's complicity in and sponsorship of 
international terrorism is ample. He praised the September 11 attacks, 
calling them ``God's punishment'' in his government-controlled press. 
Al-Qaida terrorists are known to be hiding and harbored in Iraq. He 
continues to play

[[Page S10096]]

host to networks and has ordered acts of terror on foreign soil. And 
the worst of all worlds, though, is that he paid Palestinian families 
of Palestinian suicide bombers $25,000 as a reward for mass murder.
  We know he violated U.N. sanctions and resolutions for inspections in 
that country, and now we are going back to the U.N. again for another 
resolution. There is one pitfall that we do not want to fall in again. 
By allowing new weapons inspections with conditions makes a mockery of 
our capacity for trust. He will exploit every opportunity to conceal 
and lie about what he has and where he has it--not only from us here in 
this country, but from the rest of the world. And the rest of the world 
should be outraged. What else is new?
  He has a known record. Rather than playing the role of appeasers with 
a terrorist regime, the world community must vigorously pursue 
enforcement and compliance of those United Nations resolutions. If the 
United Nations Security Council cannot enforce its own authority and 
prove itself relevant and effective, then President Bush has no choice 
but to take whatever action he deems necessary to protect America from 
avowed enemies.
  I understand fully the seriousness of committing our military, our 
men and women, in harm's way. I also understand the seriousness of the 
situation, not only just for Americans but for those freedom-loving and 
those freedom-desiring nations and societies around the world. I see a 
threat that overrides my fears and most of my concerns. We must act to 
depose a brutal regime and religious extremist who hates our freedoms 
and would do us harm.
  I know America's intent is never to dominate other nations but to 
liberate them. We have a strong historical track record there. Our 
intent today with Iraq should be no different--to bring liberty and 
democracy to the Iraqi people who suffer arbitrary imprisonment, 
execution, torture, starvation, gang rape, and mutilation at the hands 
of this tyrant.
  It is a changed world. It is a different time. Let me tell you that 
September 11 did not make it this way. September 11 gave us a horrible 
and graphic picture of the dangers of a changed and smaller world. No 
longer can we look the other way when the bully on the other side of 
the world pushes us and others around.
  By today's standards, Saddam Hussein has been the bully on the block, 
right here at home. No longer can the international community simply do 
nothing.
  How can we idly stand by and allow this monster to hide behind the 
veil of sovereign nation status? My conscience cannot allow it. There 
are no national boundaries when it comes to ferreting out and ending 
human injustice and suffering. We do have a responsibility to our 
fellow man. We always have. We also have an absolute right to defend 
ourselves.
  Monsters are not going to be given a free hand to inflict unending 
suffering and death upon their own people and others, nor shall they be 
allowed to export terrorism or provide solace for terrorists. As 
Americans, we have a moral and ethical obligation to assure that each 
global member conducts themselves in an acceptable manner. Depending 
upon the magnitude of the offense, the remedy is different.
  Saddam Hussein's oppressive regime has committed such severe 
atrocities that the world community can no longer stand idly by and do 
nothing. We cannot turn a blind eye.
  A new world requires a new philosophy regarding defense. This new 
philosophy has been evolving for over a decade, ever since the end of 
the cold war. Deterrence and containment no longer suffice.
  In this new age, this smaller world, we can no longer look the other 
way because a conflict is on the other side of the world. It is just 
like a conflict in our own neighborhood. There is no other side of the 
world anymore. It is just down the street.
  So not only do we have a right, but a duty to protect ourselves and 
freedom-loving people around the world. The world community needs to be 
involved in making sure our partners in the world community treat their 
citizens and other nations fairly and with respect. If nations fail to 
do this and rise to a certain level of threat, just like kids at home, 
these nations must be dealt with. This is an evolving sense of 
conscience, and mine cannot sit back and wait until there is another 
strike.
  Three-thousand people died on September 11, 2001. I do not want to 
see the tragic loss of American life again because of our inaction. It 
cannot happen to me, my children, or their children, or any innocent 
life.
  So what do we do with a leader who has so blatantly violated 16 U.N. 
resolutions over the last decade, has invaded neighboring countries, 
and has tortured and killed his own people? Do we sit idly by and 
watch? That has never been the American way. America has never stood 
paralyzed by inaction when its citizens are threatened. Does Saddam 
pose a threat to this country's livelihood and to the American people? 
I believe he does.
  September 11 also taught us another lesson--how fragile our freedoms 
are, especially when you inject fear. Also, we found out how fragile 
our economy was. He clearly has growing and increasingly sophisticated 
biological and chemical weapons capabilities, which strikes fear into 
the heart of every citizen on this planet. He has used them in the past 
and has the intent to use them again. He also actively continues his 
efforts to acquire nuclear weapons.
  To those who still do not see the link between Iraq and the terrorist 
attacks on America and American interests, I say look again. The 
absence of an obvious link does not mean that one link does not exist. 
To those of us who study and learn from history, there should be no 
question what we need and should do. Hussein is a monster and a threat 
to the United States as we know it. Congress must speak with one united 
voice. The Nation must speak with a united voice. The world community 
must speak with one united voice. Those who resist speaking with a 
strong, united voice have a very short memory. The security of this 
country is the responsibility of each and every one of us who live 
here. If this great Nation wants to stand by and pacify, I tell you we 
will get hit again.
  We have heard lots of speeches and seemingly a lot of logic that 
would say this is a wrong thing to do. I can remember when another 
President by the name of Theodore Roosevelt said, ``Speak softly, but 
carry a big stick.'' With Saddam Hussein, we have tried to speak softly 
and, so far, it has not worked. He has not responded to any U.N. 
resolution, sanctions, or even oil for food. So people like Saddam 
Hussein and Osama bin Laden, who hate Americans, hate our system, hate 
what free people have built here, will find a soft spot somewhere else 
at a later time--another vulnerability--and they will seize upon this 
opportunity to attack us once again.
  That is what a blind eye creates. So I will vote for this resolution. 
I would even like to see it stronger because I think it strengthens the 
hands of our Secretary of State as he maneuvers his way through 
developing a new resolution in the world community called the United 
Nations. It also sends a very strong message to the rest of the world 
that all of us have a responsibility when a cancer falls upon the face 
of our planet. I will vote for this one and even a stronger one if I 
could get it.
  Once again, speak softly, but carry a big stick.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. CANTWELL). The Senator from Oregon is 
recognized.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, I hold the Senate seat of the late Wayne 
Morse. Senator Morse lost his job in 1968, and many have attributed his 
loss to his outspoken opposition to the Vietnam war. Wayne Morse's 
election loss makes his words from that era no less true today.
  In a 1966 debate on the role of the Senate with respect to the great 
issues of war and peace, Senator Wayne Morse said:

       This is what the United States Senate is for. It is what 
     the Founding Fathers created the Senate to do--take the long-
     range view of actions prompted in national councils that may 
     be warped by some strong passion or momentary interest.

  It is the long-term interest of our country, Madam President, that 
Wayne Morse so presciently focused on in 1966 that leads me to outline 
the following conclusion that I have made with respect to the Iraq 
resolution.

[[Page S10097]]

  Saddam Hussein is the bad actor here and the United States of America 
is the good actor. I believe the authorization of a unilateral 
preemptive military attack based on the information now available will 
cause much of the world, unfortunately, to lose sight of this reality. 
This perception in a region racked by poverty and already marked by a 
deep mistrust in American foreign policy could foster decades, possibly 
even centuries of undeserved hatred of our great Nation that will 
threaten our children and our grandchildren.
  Protecting our children and grandchildren after a unilateral 
preemptive attack on Iraq will require a staggering financial 
commitment from our National Government. Given the pressing financial 
needs here at home for public safety, for education, for health, where 
are the funds going to come from after our Nation wins such an 
engagement with Iraq?
  Protecting our children and grandchildren after a unilateral 
preemptive attack on Iraq will require an American policy of energy 
independence--especially independence from Middle East oil. We are a 
long way from there, and on some issues, such as saving energy and the 
crucial transportation sector, it seems that now we have been going 
backward.
  Protecting our children and grandchildren after a unilateral 
preemptive attack on Iraq will require a plan for rebuilding confidence 
among many of the countries that stood with us during the gulf war 
conflict, but do not stand with us today. Many of those countries do 
not believe diplomatic and other steps have been fully exhausted. If 
our Government cannot convince them of that, it is certainly going to 
be tough to restore faith after a unilateral, preemptive attack.
  For many weeks now, I have waited and listened patiently, I feel, for 
the administration to make its case for the resolution. I serve on the 
Senate Intelligence Committee. I followed this issue very closely, and 
I believe neither partisan politics nor the pressures of an anxious 
public should be factored into a decision of this magnitude.
  Instead, I see my duty as an elected representative of the great 
State of Oregon to listen, to inquire dispassionately, and make the 
decision I believe to be in the best interest of Oregon and this great 
country, and leave the judgment to history and the voters as to whether 
I made that judgment in the right way.
  In approaching the decision about whether to vote to authorize the 
military option this measure calls for, I laid out some criteria on 
which to base my decision.
  My criteria were: If our security agencies were to provide me with 
compelling evidence of a significant threat to our domestic security if 
Hussein's Iraq is not defeated militarily, I would be willing to grant 
authority for the use of force. But I am unwilling to give my approval 
for a first-strike, unilateral attack until and unless there is 
assurance under the resolution that before such an attack, the 
administration exhausted all other reasonable means to accomplish our 
goals.
  Second, I am convinced it is essential to have a workable plan to 
contain the situation if Iraq attacks Israel and Israel enters the 
conflict.
  And third, I am concerned there has to be a showing such an attack 
will not make our Nation less safe by setting us back in the war on 
terrorism.
  The President has made a compelling case--I believe a sincere one--
regarding the danger posed by Iraq under the rule of Saddam Hussein, 
but his argument--and I say respectfully--does not meet the criteria I 
have laid out.
  First, I am not convinced, regarding a clear and present threat, 
Saddam Hussein currently imposes a clear and present threat to the 
domestic security of the Nation. While my service on the Senate 
Intelligence Committee has left me convinced of Iraq's support of 
terrorism, suspicious of its ties to al-Qaida, I have seen no evidence, 
acts, or involvement in the planning or execution of the vicious 
attacks of 9/11.
  While Iraq has aided terrorism for many years, there are any number 
of regimes who have aided terrorism, including some with far more 
direct links to Osama bin Laden's network of terror. In this regard, I 
note the first conclusion in the Central Intelligence Agency's 
declassified letter to Chairman Bob Graham of Florida dated October 7 
of this year which states that at present, Iraq does not appear to be 
planning or sponsoring terrorism aimed at the United States.
  Yet, had the administration met this threshold test, in my view, it 
has still not met the rest of what I consider to be prudent criteria. 
While the President has stated his desire to seek alternative means to 
accomplish his goals before beginning a military strike, to grant the 
President the authority to conduct a first-strike war before first 
witnessing the exhaustion of those efforts is to abdicate the 
obligations of this body in its most sacred role. The Founding Fathers 
surely envisaged a more challenging inquiry when granting the Congress 
the responsibility of authorizing armed conflict.

  On my second point, while I am not privy to the administration's war 
plans, I am of the belief the administration is satisfactorily 
preparing for a potential enlargement of the conflict with Israel or 
other allies. I am concerned this issue has not been adequately 
addressed.
  I do believe the administration needs to outline in further detail 
how they would address issues with respect to the enlargement of the 
conflict, and I want to make clear I do not believe that point has been 
addressed clearly and fully to date. The possibility this conflict 
would be enlarged with an attack on Iraq to one that involves Israel is 
one I think needs to be laid out and laid out clearly.
  Finally, and perhaps most importantly for my purposes, I reached the 
conclusion that pursuit of a first-strike war, absent any credible sign 
Saddam Hussein is preparing to wage war against our Nation or other 
nations, will leave this Nation less secure than before. I believe we 
have to look at greater length at these key questions, and I do not 
believe that has been done to date.
  It is the sacred duty of the Senate to focus and act upon the long-
term interests of our beloved Nation. Saddam Hussein is an extremely 
dangerous and extremely despicable man. Time and again, he has 
demonstrated that to his enemies, as well as his own people. He lives 
in a part of the world where there is no shortage of dangerous and 
despicable men who pose a threat to the security of the United States. 
In my service on the Senate Intelligence Committee, I have not seen 
satisfactory evidence he is any more despicable than the threat 
presented by Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran.
  In summary, those are the central questions. Making sure we have 
exhausted all of the diplomatic opportunities before one considers a 
first strike, making sure we are ready to deal with the region after a 
first strike and one that, in my judgment, we are clearly going to win, 
the unanswered questions of what happens when there is an attack on 
Iraq and the possibility of enlarging the conflict to Israel--these 
questions have not been addressed, and they have not been addressed 
fully.
  There is no question in my mind Saddam Hussein represents a very real 
threat to this country and to the world, but I do not want to, in the 
days ahead, compound the problems we already face with Hussein in the 
region by authorizing a unilateral, preemptive military strike at this 
time, and that is why I will oppose the resolution.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, while I disagree with the thesis of our 
distinguished colleague, the Senator from Oregon, I do respect his 
views on it. I wonder if I might engage him in a brief colloquy.
  This doctrine of preemptive attack unilaterally, clearly the Senator 
knows the President is diligently working with the United Nations, with 
the Secretary of State--the Secretary of State visited here with a 
group of us at midday today and held a press conference, and he 
indicated progress is being made. For the moment, we have to accord the 
administration at least clear support for trying hard to gain a 
coalition of nations and a new resolution in the Security Council which 
hopefully will be much stronger than anything we have seen before, and 
could act as a deterrent to the use of hostilities for a period of 
time, and hopefully, who knows, the regime may have a change of heart 
and cooperate.

[[Page S10098]]

  Cooperation is a keystone to any successful inspection regime. But 
back to the preemptive--and I have shared this with others--in my 
research, the United States, under a number of Presidents, has directed 
military action in the following: Panama in 1901; Dominican Republic in 
1904, 1914, 1965; Honduras, 1912; Nicaragua, 1926; Lebanon, 1958; Cuba, 
the naval quarantine, 1962, President Kennedy--clearly that was a 
preemptive threat and action by our President--Grenada, 1983; Libya, 
1986; Panama, that was just cause in 1989; Somalia in 1992; Sudan, 
Afghanistan, August of 1998. You recall the bombing raids we did at 
that time. Iraq, that was Desert Fox in December of 1998, and I 
remember well as ranking member going over and talking with then-
Secretary of Defense Cohen, a valued friend and colleague in the Senate 
of many years. And Kosovo in March of 1999.
  Now, they fit the description of the preemptive type strikes my 
esteemed colleague from the great State of Oregon has enumerated. They 
were done under the concept, which is tried and true in international 
law, recognizing ``the anticipatory self-defense if a country is 
imminently threatened.''
  I think the Senator pointed out he feels President Bush has indicated 
this country is imminently threatened. So there are some examples. I do 
not think this contemplated action by the President--he says he has 
made no decision to use force, but then again I point out we have been 
in a state of hostility with Iraq for some time. I point out our 
airplanes, our brave pilots, together with Great Britain, have been 
engaged in enforcing a resolution of the United Nations.
  Here are two nations flying missions, clearly trying to enforce the 
resolutions. We are fortunate even though they have been shot upon many 
times by ground fire directed at the aircraft, some 60 times in 
September of this year alone--our military has been engaged in this 
conflict with Iraq for 12 years. So I think it is a continuation of the 
conflict to which we refer in this resolution.
  I ask my good friend if he has any views with regard to my points.
  Mr. WYDEN. I thank my distinguished colleague for the chance to 
further discuss this. My colleague makes a good point that clearly last 
night in the President's speech, and further today, he made it clear he 
was interested in trying to mobilize world opinion, and I think all of 
that is extremely constructive.
  At the same time, the letter to Senator Graham that now has been 
declassified--I sit on the Senate Intelligence Committee--makes it 
clear the CIA does not believe, as of October 7 of this year, the 
threat is imminent. That is why I think we have now reached the point 
where we are debating whether there is a continuing threat, which 
clearly Saddam Hussein is, or whether there is an imminent threat. It 
was the imminent threat I really set out as one of the thresholds I 
thought was relevant for supporting this resolution.
  As the Senator could hear from my speech, A, I do not doubt the 
President's sincerity; B, I thought what he said last night was clearly 
a step in the right direction, and he elaborated on that further today.
  On this matter with respect to the nature of the threat, for me what 
has been dispositive has been the now-declassified letter from the CIA 
where the CIA did not believe, as of October 7, the threat was 
imminent. I thank my distinguished colleague because he makes a number 
of good points, and always does.

  Mr. WARNER. Could the Senator direct himself to the point made by the 
Senator from Virginia, that our aircraft have been fired upon in 
enforcing resolutions 60 times in the month of September of this year 
alone? The total firings by ground-to-air missiles on our aircraft--
fortunately, they have not hit or brought down an airplane as yet--is 
that not engaging in combat, in war?
  Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield further?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes.
  Mr. WYDEN. The Senator again makes a legitimate point, but what we 
are talking about now, it seems to me--and this is what the CIA is 
talking about in their letter of October 7--is an imminent threat to 
the American people. It is very clear that conflict is a hostile one. 
It is one that must be countered. It is being countered today. I do not 
take a backseat to any Member of the Senate in terms of supporting our 
troops, our military, in terms of countering that conflict. But the 
question for the Senate then becomes whether a conflict like that 
should translate into support in this body for a resolution that would 
authorize a unilateral preemptive strike.
  In spite of all of the attacks which the distinguished Senator from 
Virginia has mentioned--and they are very serious ones--as of October 7 
of this year, the CIA did not believe there was an imminent threat to 
our country. I assume in making that judgment before the Intelligence 
Committee, if they had felt the attacks the Senator was talking about 
are dispositive, they would not have written that letter.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I guess I am missing something, but 
drawing on my own modest experience in the military, where I for a 
period was communications officer in the 1st Marine Airwing, living 
with aviators who were being shot at every day, to me they are American 
citizens. I think Americans are being shot at as that fire is trying to 
interdict their aircraft. They may not be home in the United States--
perhaps they would like to be--but they are out there pursuant to 
orders of the Commander in Chief. It is not just President Bush. It was 
President Clinton. To me, that is hostility. To me, Americans are 
involved. Great Britain likewise is flying with their brave pilots. 
Somehow I am missing it.
  Mr. WYDEN. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes.
  Mr. WYDEN. Again, I want our people who are in harm's way, as the 
Senator has outlined, to be able to counter that very hostile attack. 
They are doing so today under existing law and it is an effort I 
support. In spite of those attacks, the Central Intelligence Agency 
stated at present Iraq does not appear to be planning or sponsoring 
terrorism aimed at the United States which, after 9/11, was the stated 
concern that was vital to our national security.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, was the Senator among the group that was 
being briefed in S-407 this afternoon from 2:00 to 3:00?
  Mr. WYDEN. I was not, but I will tell the Senator I have probably sat 
in more briefings, as a Member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, on 
this point than just about any Member of this body. I have kept fully 
abreast of this issue.
  Mr. WARNER. I would ask unanimous consent that the letter to which 
Senator Wyden referred be printed in the Record. Is that possible?
  Mr. WYDEN. It is declassified.
  Mr. WARNER. I beg your pardon?
  Mr. WYDEN. It is declassified.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator has been speaking to it and reading excerpts 
from it. I am unfamiliar with the letter.
  I am not familiar--I heard the Senator addressing a letter from the 
CIA. I was under the assumption it was a declassified document. Is it a 
classified document?
  Mr. WYDEN. It is a declassified document.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator has been referring to a classified document, 
is that it?
  Mr. WYDEN. Throughout this afternoon, I have been speaking from a 
declassified document.
  Mr. WARNER. I apologize to the Senator.
  Mr. WYDEN. I have mentioned on several occasions it was declassified. 
I take my responsibilities as a Member of this committee very 
seriously.
  Mr. WARNER. I am not challenging the Senator. I was not able to hear 
him as he spoke. I tender an apology. Since the Senator referred to the 
letter, and if it is declassified, perhaps it should be a part of the 
Record so those who are following this debate can read the letter in 
its entirety.
  Mr. WYDEN. It would be possible to do that and have that made a part 
of the Record. I appreciate the Senator's thoughtfulness. We all have 
strong views on this. The Senator from Virginia is an expert on 
national security and military affairs. That happens to be an area 
where I believe reasonable people may differ. I look forward to working 
closely with my colleague.
  Mr. WARNER. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.

[[Page S10099]]

  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Madam President, I compliment the Senator from 
Virginia.
  While I was in Florida this weekend, I had a number of people say 
they had been listening to the debate in which the Senator from 
Virginia and the Senator from West Virginia had both engaged. They 
found the quality of the debate to be excellent, and they were looking 
forward to the continuation of the debate.
  On grave matters of war and peace, as the Senate is considering this 
resolution, I add my comments. They are addressed to perhaps one of the 
gravest things we discuss in a constitutional body such as this. That 
is, authorizing the sending of Americans into harm's way--moms and 
dads, sons and daughters, brothers and sisters--into combat. We must 
determine whether the situation in Iraq threatens the United States 
sufficiently enough to send Americans into harm's way, and put American 
lives at risk.
  I have spoken with many citizens across Florida. I understand the 
concerns and the reservations many of them have.
  We must use force only as a last resort. That is what this resolution 
is about; it is authorizing the use of force.
  I remain convinced that the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq poses a 
clear and increasing danger to the national security interests of the 
United States. We must disarm its arsenal of chemical and biological 
weapons. We must halt the development of nuclear weapons. Ultimately, 
one way or another, those weapons of mass destruction have to be taken 
out. If it means taking out Saddam Hussein along with them, then so be 
it. Our hope is that this threat can be dismantled by means less 
than the use of force, and discussions in the United Nations toward 
that goal are underway now. But if those efforts in the U.N. are not 
successful, we cannot sit and do nothing as the danger grows.

  On a regular basis, Saddam's troops fire on the United States and 
British aircraft seeking to enforce the no-fly zones created to protect 
the Kurds in the north and the Shi'ites in the south. These no-fly 
zones exist to keep Saddam contained and to prevent him from acquiring 
technologies aimed at further enhancing his military capability.
  At the conclusion of the Persian Gulf war in 1991, U.N. Security 
Council Resolution 687 set forth the conditions for peace. The cease-
fire conditions required Iraq to disarm all weapons of mass 
destruction, fully declare and disclose all weapons of mass 
destruction, and not seek to further acquire weapons of mass 
destruction. That was in 1991--11 years ago.
  Those terms have been clearly violated by Saddam Hussein. When a 
country willfully violates cease-fire terms which end war, a state of 
conflict continues to exist. The regular hostilities endured by 
coalition pilots in the no-fly zones make that state of conflict even 
more acute.
  Saddam Hussein seeks regional hegemony. He seeks control of the oil 
supply of the Middle East. That is his end game. He wants to control 
all of those vast reserves so that he can have his fingers in a 
stranglehold around the industrialized world of planet Earth. He 
associates with known enemies of the United States. He has paid 
compensation to suicide bombers aimed at undermining the peace process 
in the Middle East. And Saddam seeks at every turn to flout 
international law and the will of the United Nations. His 
aggressiveness and thirst for war and blood are evident by his own 
actions and brutality, past and present, against his own people and 
against his neighbors.
  It is time now to complete the job that was left undone in 1991 when 
we failed to completely disarm and remove Saddam. The longer he remains 
in power, the longer he delays, obfuscates, and lies--all the while he 
strengthens his arsenal. Weapons of mass destruction must be removed 
from Saddam Hussein, and the Iraqi people need to be liberated from his 
brutal grip. This is not a fight we can enter alone. We must pursue 
this cause with as much international support as is possible. The 
revised resolution makes this clear.
  Yesterday, I had the privilege of speaking to several hundred at 
Central Command Headquarters at MacDill Air Force Base along with the 
Commander in Chief, GEN Tommy Franks. I brought words of a grateful 
nation to those men and women in uniform, and to all of our coalition 
partners who are part of this effort in going after the terrorists. 
That international support is critical to our successful prosecution of 
the war against terrorism, and that international cooperation is 
critical as we now approach military hostilities in Iraq.
  Our European allies are starting to come around. It is very important 
that our Arab friends in the region do come around. The United States 
needs the world community to support us in eliminating these threats of 
weapons of mass destruction. As we consider engaging in a military 
conflict, we need this international support so as not to hurt our 
efforts in the war against terrorists in 30-some countries, nor hinder 
our efforts to try to strike a peace accord in the Middle East.
  Madam President, the President has asked the Congress to authorize 
the use of American troops in Iraq for these purposes. He presented his 
case to the American people last night.
  As it exists now, the Lieberman resolution clearly has been improved 
enormously from the draft resolution sent to us several weeks ago by 
the White House which, in essence, was nothing more than a blank check. 
Now it requires that the President must certify that diplomatic and 
other peaceful means will not adequately protect the national security 
interests of the United States, or that diplomatic and other peaceful 
means will not lead to the enforcement of the United Nations Security 
Council resolutions on Iraq. The President must certify those 
conditions.
  It also has language regarding the United States' responsibility in 
planning for a post-Saddam Hussein Iraq--an Iraq that the United 
States, after Saddam Hussein, had best not abandon, as we did after the 
Soviets got licked in Afghanistan and tucked their tail between their 
legs and left--and we left also. That created a vacuum in Afghanistan 
and allowed the terrorists to fill that vacuum. In the post-Saddam 
Hussein Iraq, we don't want that same thing to occur. The United States 
must be there for the long run to give military, diplomatic, and 
economic security assistance to ensure that the Free World's interests 
are clearly protected in an Iraq after Saddam Hussein.
  It was good that President Bush addressed the United Nations on 
September 12, and sought broad-based support from the international 
community. Secretary Powell will and must continue efforts at getting 
strong language--strong language--in a United Nations Security Council 
resolution that clearly spells out the actions Iraq is required to take 
and the consequences if it fails to do so. Such a resolution would 
strengthen the U.S. position and help us gain support from our Arab 
friends in the region. We must keep the focus on Saddam Hussein and the 
resolutions regarding weapons of mass destruction that he has ignored.
  The Lieberman resolution also requires the President to report 
regularly to the Congress on ongoing operations in Iraq and the 
administration's plans, specifically, as I mentioned, for the post-
Saddam Hussein Iraq and ensuing reconstruction. All of the additions 
that have been included in the Lieberman resolution have clearly 
improved upon the blank check that was sent here early on as a draft 
from the White House.
  Having detailed plans in place will be crucial to ensuring that after 
Saddam Hussein, Iraq does not disintegrate into a permanent source of 
instability in the Middle East which would pose a serious threat to 
U.S. national security interests.
  The current resolution also is improved from earlier drafts because 
it also makes reference to Navy CAPT Scott Speicher of Jacksonville, 
FL, the American pilot still missing since the first night of the gulf 
war when he was shot down over Iraq. Through a series of mistakes, the 
United States walked away from a downed pilot.
  We have kept at this, over and over, in the Armed Services Committee 
and the Foreign Relations Committee, and have been talking to world 
leaders asking them to task their intelligence apparatus for word on 
Captain Speicher.

[[Page S10100]]

He is still considered Missing In Action. He was first declared Killed 
In Action. The Department of Defense changed that to Missing In Action. 
The Department of Defense is reportedly considering a change in status 
even from Missing In Action.
  He is the only American among the thousands who are still unaccounted 
for at the hands of Saddam Hussein--thousands, I might say, going back 
to the Iran-Iraq war.

  I appreciate the fact that the majority leader worked to ensure that 
the request of Senator Pat Roberts and myself to make reference to 
Captain Speicher was honored. It is honored in this resolution. It is 
my hope that our upcoming efforts and actions in Iraq will make 
progress towards resolving the fate of Captain Speicher.
  You can just imagine what it is like for that family back in 
Jacksonville--a family with children that has not heard the fate of 
their father for the last 11 years.
  This resolution, in my view, asserts the role of Congress granted by 
the Constitution and the War Powers Act. We have heard hours of 
testimony from senior administration officials and outside experts 
representing many different views on the subject. I have sat through 
hours of testimony in the two committees I have the privilege of 
serving on--the Foreign Relations Committee and the Armed Services 
Committee--that have delved in detail into this subject in preparation 
for our coming to this floor in this debate.
  We have heard those hours of testimony in both classified and 
unclassified form. My office, as well as all of our offices, has 
received thousands of calls, letters, and e-mails. I have heard those 
voices. I share those concerns.
  The threat posed by Iraq grows with each passing day. Since September 
11 of a year ago, we can't wait to protect ourselves against the 
threats of weapons of mass destruction and regimes hostile to the 
United States with their links to terrorism. We must not leave 
ourselves exposed to an attack, which, after it comes, we will wish we 
had acted to prevent.
  That is why I come to this floor to announce my support of the 
Lieberman-Warner-McCain-Bayh resolution authorizing the President to 
use force in Iraq. It is the right thing to do, and it is in the vital 
national security interests of the United States.
  I thank the Chair for allowing me this time. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Madam President, I wish to speak on this resolution.
  First, I compliment my friend and colleague, the Senator from 
Florida, Mr. Nelson, for his speech and for his tenacity in trying to 
remind everyone about the condition of Naval Aviator Speicher. I think 
that keeps pressure on our Government, other governments, and the Iraqi 
Government to disclose his whereabouts and his status. Whether he is 
alive remains to be seen.
  I appreciate my colleague from Florida for continuing to press that 
issue. I join with him. I know the President of the United States is 
also pushing that issue. I appreciate his effort as well.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, will the Senator yield? I just wish to 
express my profound appreciation for the support of the Senator from 
Florida for the Lieberman-Warner-McCain-Bayh resolution. He is a valued 
member of the committees here in the Senate. Certainly he has worked 
hard on our committee. I listened carefully as he stated the case. He 
stated it clearly. I join with my colleague from Oklahoma in commending 
him for the fight on behalf of that brave airman, Captain Speicher.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. Will the Senator from Oklahoma yield for one 
comment so I can respond to the distinguished Senator from Virginia?
  Mr. NICKLES. Certainly.
  Mr. NELSON of Florida. I thank the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner. 
He told us how he and Senator Nunn were leading our Armed Services 
Committee 11 years ago as the Nation was preparing for the gulf war and 
how important it was in Senator Warner's mind that the Record be laid 
out so a record would be there as to why the Congress should vote to 
give the President the authority to unleash the military might in 
Kuwait and going after Iraq.
  I thank Senator Warner and Senator Levin, the chairman, for how they 
have laid that predicate, and Senator Biden and Senator Helms, and, in 
his absence, Senator Lugar, in the Foreign Relations Committee. They 
laid that predicate with lengthy hearings, and provided access to 
classified information we have had in those two committees, which 
helped me to draw the conclusions I have drawn in support of this 
resolution.
  So I particularly thank the great Senator from the Commonwealth of 
Virginia for his leadership.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank my colleague. I share the same 
sentiments towards the distinguished Senator from Florida.
  Madam President, in 1990-1991, Chairman Sam Nunn and I, as ranking 
member, had nine hearings. It is interesting, in the first hearing we 
had Secretary of Defense Cheney and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of 
Staff Colin Powell. Isn't that interesting? And then in the ninth 
hearing were the same two witnesses, Cheney and Powell. And today, of 
course, I shared briefly a press conference with now-Secretary of State 
Powell and had lunch with now-Vice President Cheney. So that same team 
is together that was together under the first George Bush, ``Old 41,'' 
as we say.
  So I thank the Senator for that.
  We did lay before the Senate a record. We have put a record before 
the Senate of hearings in the two committees to which you have 
referred. I had hoped we would have had more hearings in our committee, 
but for reasons best known to our chairman, apparently, that was not 
possible. I very much wanted to have all four of the military chiefs. 
They don't want to sit this thing out. They are heavily involved. I was 
hopeful we could have had them, and then also the CINC, General Franks, 
who has the leading responsibility in the area of operation. But, 
unfortunately, no matter how hard we tried, it did not come to pass. My 
chairman, I respect whatever his views are on that.
  Senator Kennedy raised the question, why we did not have more facts. 
I just say that there were some of us who wanted to go on and have some 
additional hearings, but it was not possible.
  I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DAYTON). The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I appreciate the colloquy.
  Just for the information of my friend from Florida, I was also here 
in 1991, and, unfortunately, Senator Nunn did not support the 
resolution in 1991. There was a partisan divide, for whatever reason. 
One, the resolution passed with bipartisan support. I tell my friend 
and colleague that. But at that point in time, the Democrat leader at 
the time, Senator Mitchell, was opposed to the resolution. Many 
Democrats opposed it, although several Democrats did support it.
  It passed, if my memory serves me correctly, 52 to 47. It was one of 
the first votes we had in early January of 1991. And it was one of the 
most important votes that this Senator has cast. I believe, probably 
this Thursday, the Senate likewise will be casting one of the most 
important votes we will cast.
  I appreciate the support of my friend and colleague from Florida for 
this resolution.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to be added as a cosponsor of 
the joint resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I likewise would like to compliment my 
colleague, Senator Warner, because he has been leading the debate, 
certainly on this side of the aisle, but, frankly, on both sides of the 
aisle. Senator Warner has carried the debate on this side almost all of 
Friday, almost all of Monday, a great deal of today, and I am sure 
tomorrow and Thursday.

  He has also been joined by Senator Lieberman as a principal sponsor, 
as well as Senator McCain, Senator Bayh, and others. I compliment them.
  I heard some people debating this resolution as if they had not read 
it. Senate Joint Resolution 46 is well written. It is supported by the 
administration. There was a lot of time spent in putting this 
resolution together. Sometimes we legislate without reading. Sometimes 
we talk to people without listening.

[[Page S10101]]

  I encourage my colleagues to read the resolution. I hope it will get 
a unanimous vote.
  I looked at the resolutions we have passed in the last many years 
dealing with Iraq. Going back to the resolution we passed in 1991, I 
remember that resolution very plainly. A few days before that 
resolution passed, I was in Israel. Saddam Hussein was making 
statements like: If war broke out, Israel would burn. It would be 
consumed with fire. He was making all kinds of statements against the 
United States, against Israel, against any potential ally.
  As the previous administration, President Bush 1, was putting 
together an international coalition, Saddam Hussein was threatening 
anybody in that coalition. Congress debated, for months. You might 
remember that Kuwait was invaded in August of 1990. President Bush made 
a very strong statement. He said: This invasion will not stand. And he 
made that statement: You are going to be removed from Kuwait, one way 
or another. Frankly, he made that strong statement, and he backed it 
up. He sent 550,000 United States troops to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait to 
build the military force and, in the next 6 months, built an 
international coalition that was unprecedented, unbelievably strong and 
powerful, with a number of countries, Arab and other countries, 
neighbors and from across the world, to stand up to Saddam Hussein's 
invasion of Kuwait and to kick him out of Kuwait.
  That war was fought. It was very successful. And then President Bush 
stopped the war at that point because we achieved the U.N. resolution 
objectives, kicking Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait.
  Then there were several resolutions that were passed, to which Saddam 
Hussein and the Iraqi Government agreed, that called for their 
disarmament and inspections. They agreed to these resolutions. We also 
passed resolutions that said we would use military force, if necessary, 
to compel compliance. And the United Nations, subsequent to that, 
beginning in 1991, all the way through 1998, passed 16 resolutions 
telling Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi Government: You must comply with 
these resolutions.
  We went to war, developed an international coalition to force him out 
of Kuwait and to force him to disarm, and he agreed. Unfortunately, he 
did not live up to his agreement. He lied. He did not comply. He was 
defiant in his noncompliance.
  As a result, he continued to build weapons of mass destruction. And 
the United Nations passed resolutions saying: You must comply, and, if 
necessary, we will use force. I could put in all these resolutions.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
the resolution that passed Congress, the Iraqi Breach Of International 
Obligations, because it is about a four-page summary, a short summary, 
but it is a resolution we passed on July 31, 1998, Public Law 105-235, 
and talks about the Iraqi breach of international obligations.
  I will not read it all, but basically the Iraqi Government totally 
failed to comply with the U.N. resolutions. The essence of the 
resolve--and I will read it--

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

  That is the key phrase. This is what passed Congress in 1998. That 
was our unified statement that we made in 1998, that resolved we will 
``bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations,'' and 
we will use ``appropriate action,'' i.e., military action, if 
necessary, to get him to comply.
  That resolution passed the Senate unanimously--unanimously--with no 
opposition.
  It had very strong support. I am looking at some of the statements 
made. I will just read part of one made by President Clinton on 
February 17, 1998 regarding Iraqi noncompliance. He made this speech to 
the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Pentagon dealing with Iraq. It is 
very relevant today, as it was in 1998. This is President Clinton:

       Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, 
     and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route 
     which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this 
     program of weapons of mass destruction and continue to press 
     for the release of the sanctions and continue to ignore the 
     solemn commitments that he made?
       Well, he will conclude that the international community has 
     lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on 
     and do more and rebuild an arsenal of devastating 
     destruction.
       And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the 
     arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on 
     this for any length of time believes that, too.

  President Clinton continued:

       If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would 
     follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow by the 
     knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face 
     of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council 
     and clear evidence of a weapons of mass destruction program.

  I mention this. This was from President Bill Clinton, a very strong 
statement. I read that statement. I am kind of proud of him and I think 
he was exactly right. Though his rhetoric was pretty strong, his 
actions, unfortunately, were not. He said, we are going to compel 
compliance. The Congress passed a resolution saying, we will do what is 
necessary to compel compliance. But we didn't follow up.
  I will read to you a statement made by Senator Daschle on the floor, 
the Democrat leader at the time. This was made on February 12, 1998:

       . . . Iraq shall not be permitted to develop and deploy an 
     arsenal of frightening chemical and biological weapons under 
     any circumstances.

  Skipping a couple paragraphs:

       The United States continues to exhaust all diplomatic 
     efforts to reverse the Iraqi threat. But absent immediate 
     Iraqi compliance with Resolution 687, the security threat 
     doesn't simply persist--it worsens. Saddam Hussein must 
     understand the United States has the resolve to reverse that 
     threat by force, if force is required. And, I must say, it 
     has the will.

  I think Senator Daschle was right. I could go on. I have quotes from 
Vice President Gore, other prominent leaders in Congress at the time. 
We passed a strong resolution.
  I ask unanimous consent that the 1998 resolution be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                           Public Law 105-235

       A joint resolution of the 105th Congress finding the 
     Government of Iraq in unacceptable and material breach of its 
     international obligations.
       ``Whereas hostilities in Operation Desert Storm ended on 
     February 28, 1991, and the conditions governing the cease-
     fire were specified in United Nations Security Council 
     Resolutions 686 (March 2, 1991) and 687 (April 3, 1991);
       ``Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 
     requires that international economic sanctions remain in 
     place until Iraq discloses and destroys its weapons of mass 
     destruction programs and capabilities and undertakes 
     unconditionally never to resume such activities;
       ``Whereas Resolution 687 established the United Nations 
     Special Commission on Iraq (UNSCOM) to uncover all aspects of 
     Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and tasked the 
     Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency to 
     locate and remove or destroy all nuclear weapons systems, 
     subsystems or material from Iraq;
       ``Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 715, 
     adopted on October 11, 1991, empowered UNSCOM to maintain a 
     long-term monitoring program to ensure Iraq's weapons of mass 
     destruction programs are dismantled and not restarted;
       ``Whereas Iraq has consistently fought to hide the full 
     extent of its weapons programs, and has systematically made 
     false declarations to the Security Council and to UNSCOM 
     regarding those programs, and has systematically obstructed 
     weapons inspections for seven years;
       ``Whereas in June 1991, Iraqi forces fired on International 
     Atomic Energy Agency inspectors and otherwise obstructed and 
     misled UNSCOM inspectors, resulting in United Nations 
     Security Council Resolution 707 which found Iraq to be in 
     ``material breach'' of its obligations under United Nations 
     Security Council Resolution 687 for failing to allow UNSCOM 
     inspectors access to a site storing nuclear equipment;
       ``Whereas in January and February of 1992, Iraq rejected 
     plans to install long-term monitoring equipment and cameras 
     called for in United Nations resolutions, resulting in a 
     Security Council Presidential Statement of February 19, 1992 
     which declared that Iraq was in ``continuing material 
     breach'' of its obligations;
       ``Whereas in February of 1992, Iraq continued to obstruct 
     the installation of monitoring equipment, and failed to 
     comply with

[[Page S10102]]

     UNSCOM orders to allow destruction of missiles and other 
     proscribed weapons, resulting in the Security Council 
     Presidential Statement of February 28, 1992, which reiterated 
     that Iraq was in ``continuing material breach'' and noted 
     a ``further material breach'' on account of Iraq's failure 
     to allow destruction of ballistic missile equipment;
       ``Whereas on July 5, 1992, Iraq denied UNSCOM inspectors 
     access to the Iraqi Ministry of Agriculture, resulting in a 
     Security Council Presidential Statement of July 6, 1992, 
     which declared that Iraq was in ``material and unacceptable 
     breach'' of its obligations under United Nations resolutions;
       ``Whereas in December of 1992 and January of 1993, Iraq 
     violated the southern no-fly zone, moved surface-to-air 
     missiles into the no-fly zone, raided a weapons depot in 
     internationally recognized Kuwaiti territory and denied 
     landing rights to a plane carrying United Nations weapons 
     inspectors, resulting in a Security Council Presidential 
     Statement of January 8, 1993, which declared that Iraq was in 
     an ``unacceptable and material breach'' of its obligations 
     under United Nations resolutions:
       ``Whereas in response to continued Iraqi defiance, a 
     Security Council Presidential Statement of January 11, 1993, 
     reaffirmed the previous finding of material breach, followed 
     on January 13 and 18 by allied air raids, and on January 17, 
     with an allied missile attack on Iraqi targets;
       ``Whereas on June 10, 1993, Iraq prevented UNSCOM's 
     installation of cameras and monitoring equipment, resulting 
     in a Security Council Presidential Statement of June 18, 
     1993, declaring Iraq's refusal to comply to be a ``material 
     and unacceptable breach'';
       ``Whereas on October 6, 1994, Iraq threatened to end 
     cooperation with weapons inspectors if sanctions were not 
     ended, and one day later, massed 10,000 troops within 30 
     miles of the Kuwaiti border, resulting in United Nations 
     Security Council Resolution 949 demanding Iraq's withdrawal 
     from the Kuwaiti border area and renewal of compliance with 
     UNSCOM;
       ``Whereas on April 10, 1995, UNSCOM reported to the 
     Security Council that Iraq had concealed its biological 
     weapons program, and had failed to account for 17 tons of 
     biological weapons material resulting in the Security 
     Council's renewal of sanctions against Iraq;
       ``Whereas on July 1, 1995, Iraq admitted to a full scale 
     biological weapons program, but denied weaponization of 
     biological agents, and subsequently threatened to end 
     cooperation with UNSCOM resulting in the Security Council's 
     renewal of sanctions against Iraq;
       ``Whereas on March 8, 11, 14, and 15, 1996, Iraq again 
     barred UNSCOM inspectors from sites containing documents and 
     weapons, in response to which the Security Council issued a 
     Presidential Statement condemning ``clear violations by Iraq 
     of previous Resolutions 687, 707, and 715'';
       ``Whereas from June 11-15, 1996, Iraq repeatedly barred 
     weapons inspectors from military sites, in response to which 
     the Security Council adopted United Nations Security Council 
     Resolution 1060, noting the ``clear violation on United 
     Nations Security Council Resolutions 687, 707, and 715'' and 
     in response to Iraq's continued violations, issued a 
     Presidential Statement detailing Iraq's ``gross violation 
     of obligations'';
       ``Whereas in August 1996, Iraqi troops overran Irbil, in 
     Iraqi Kurdistan, employing more than 30,000 troops and 
     Republican Guards, in response to which the Security Council 
     briefly suspended implementation on United Nations Security 
     Council Resolution 986, the United Nations oil for food plan;
       ``Whereas in December 1996, Iraq prevented UNSCOM from 
     removing 130 Scud missile engines from Iraq for analysis, 
     resulting in a Security Council Presidential statement which 
     ``deplore[d]'' Iraq's refusal to cooperate with UNSCOM;
       ``Whereas on April 9, 1997, Iraq violated the no-fly zone 
     in southern Iraq and United Nations Security Council 
     Resolution 670, banning international flights, resulting in a 
     Security Council statement regretting Iraq's lack of 
     ``special consultation'' with the Council;
       ``Whereas on June 4 and 5, 1997 Iraqi officials on board 
     UNSCOM aircraft interfered with the controls and inspections, 
     endangering inspectors and obstructing the UNSCOM mission, 
     resulting in a United Nations Security Council Presidential 
     Statement demanding Iraq end its interference and on June 21, 
     1997, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1115 
     threatened sanctions on Iraqi officials responsible for these 
     interferences;
       ``Whereas on September 13, 1997, during an inspection 
     mission, an Iraqi official attacked UNSCOM officials engaged 
     in photographing illegal Iraqi activities, resulting in the 
     October 23, 1997, adoption of United Nations Security Council 
     Resolution 1134 which threatened a travel ban on Iraqi 
     officials responsible for noncompliance with United Nations 
     resolutions;
       ``Whereas on October 29, 1997, Iraq announced that it would 
     no longer allow American inspectors working with UNSCOM to 
     conduct inspections in Iraq, blocking UNSCOM teams containing 
     Americans to conduct inspections and threatening to shoot 
     down United States U-2 surveillance flights in support of 
     UNSCOM, resulting in a United Nations Security Council 
     Resolution 1137 on November 12, 1997, which imposed the 
     travel ban on Iraqi officials and threatened unspecified 
     ``further measures'';
       ``Whereas on November 13, 1997, Iraq expelled United States 
     inspectors from Iraq, leading to UNSCOM's decision to pull 
     out its remaining inspectors and resulting in a United 
     Nations Security Council Presidential Statement demanding 
     Iraq revoke the expulsion;
       ``Whereas on January 16, 1998, an UNSCOM team led by 
     American Scott Ritter was withdrawn from Iraq after being 
     barred for three days by Iraq from conducting inspections, 
     resulting in the adoption of a United Nations Security 
     Council Presidential Statement deploring Iraq's decision to 
     bar the team as a clear violation of all applicable 
     resolutions;
       ``Whereas despite clear agreement on the part of Iraqi 
     President Saddam Hussein with United Nations General Kofi 
     Annan to grant access to all sites, and fully cooperate with 
     UNSCOM, and the adoption on March 2, 1998, of United National 
     Security Council Resolution 1154, warning that any 
     violation of the agreement with Annan would have the 
     ``severest consequences'' for Iraq, Iraq has continued to 
     actively conceal weapons and weapons programs, provide 
     misinformation and otherwise deny UNSCOM inspectors 
     access;
       ``Whereas on June 24, 1998, UNSCOM Director Richard Butler 
     presented information to the United Nations Security Council 
     indicating clearly that Iraq, in direct contradiction to 
     information provided to UNSCOM, weaponized the nerve agent 
     VX; and
       ``Whereas Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction 
     programs threaten vital United States interests and 
     international peace and security: NOw, therefore, be it
       ``Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the 
     Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of 
     its international obligations, and therefore the President is 
     urged to take appropriate action, in accordance with the 
     Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring 
     Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.''
       Approved August 14, 1998.

  Mr. NICKLES. Later in 1998, the U.N. weapons inspectors were kicked 
out of Iraq. We bombed them. Then nothing happened. Since 1998, for the 
last 4 years, we haven't had any weapons inspectors in Iraq. They have 
done exactly as President Clinton forecasted they would do. They have 
continued to build their weapons of mass destruction, and they have 
been emboldened by our lack of action, by the lack of will.
  As a matter of fact, in all those years, the Oil-for-Food program 
grew. At that point he was exporting a little bit of oil for food. That 
figure has quadrupled in the last few years. Every 6 months it was 
renegotiated. And due to pressure from a lot of countries it was 
renegotiated; yes, we don't want the Iraqi people to suffer so we will 
allow them to sell more oil. Saddam Hussein has abused that program and 
exported a lot more oil. He has basically been producing almost all he 
can.
  He has taken that money and put it back into his weapons of mass 
destruction. He is not taking care of his people. We have Congressmen 
who were in Iraq last week talking about how pitiful it is that some of 
the kids are living in the hospitals and so on. Saddam Hussein has made 
billions off of oil, most of it illegally, but instead of using that 
money for the health and well-being of the Iraqi people, he has used it 
to build weapons of mass destruction.
  President Clinton was pretty insightful of what would happen. 
Unfortunately, during his term, things got worse. The inspectors were 
basically kicked out of Iraq. They were denied access. There is a long 
litany. I will insert in the Record a list of Iraqi noncompliance with 
the arms control inspectors, how they basically stopped them from doing 
their job. They did a decent job on occasion because they would get 
some insights from a defector, but Saddam Hussein's mistress was 
laughing about the fact Saddam Hussein would laugh that he would 
continue to conceal these weapons and basically defy the United Nations 
and the United States.
  We have had a change in the United States. Now we have President 
Bush, who said we should enforce the U.N. resolutions. We should stand 
up to Saddam Hussein. Things have changed. September 11 of last year 
did change things. It made us aware we are vulnerable to terrorists. 
Saddam Hussein has coalesced, has financed, has trained terrorists. The 
idea he is building these weapons of mass destruction and they might be 
distributed to potential terrorists is just not acceptable.
  What needs to be done? Frankly, what needs to be done is to enforce 
the existing U.N. resolutions and to reaffirm them. Some people have 
said: We don't think President Bush should just

[[Page S10103]]

move unilaterally. The world community signed off on those U.N. 
resolutions, and at the time we gave those U.N. resolutions the use of 
force, if necessary, to compel compliance. What has changed?
  In 1998, we reaffirmed the use of force, if necessary, to compel 
compliance. Are things better now than they were in 1998? He kicked the 
arms control inspectors out, and they are building all kinds of 
weapons. I don't see how anything is better. Things are worse, just as 
President Clinton predicted they would be.
  We have rewarded his noncompliance. The international community has 
rewarded his noncompliance, and the United Nations has basically fallen 
into a group that lost its prestige and the status of being able to 
say: The world community is making a statement. This will not stand.
  They have allowed it to stand. They have allowed it to be neutered, 
to be ineffective. Now we have a President Bush who went to the United 
Nations and said: These resolutions are still in effect. We need to 
enforce them. There is a real danger out there. It is a danger not to 
us, the United States, but to the world.

  Many people in this body have said: I don't want him to move 
unilaterally, but let's do it in conjunction with the United Nations. 
President Bush didn't have to do that, but he did. He went to the 
United Nations and made a very strong speech. He is working to rebuild 
the international coalition that dissipated, if not disappeared, during 
the Clinton administration. The Clinton administration inherited the 
strongest, largest international coalition maybe ever assembled against 
a tyrant in Saddam Hussein in 1990 and 1991. By the year 2000, that 
international coalition was totally gone.
  Saddam Hussein was producing all the weapons he wanted. There were no 
arms control inspectors. It really deteriorated over those 8 or 9 
years.
  President Bush is trying to rebuild it. He made the speech to the 
United Nations. He has contacted Members of Congress. He has brought 
many of us into the White House. He made a speech last night to the 
American people as well as to Congress.
  People said: We want Congress to speak on this so we will be united. 
He came to Congress. He asked for a resolution. We are going to give 
him a resolution. We are going to show the Congress is behind the 
President, I hope with an overwhelming vote, an overwhelming vote.
  What have we learned since 1991? Many people who voted no on the 
resolution in 1991 said: Let's give the sanctions a chance. I think we 
have had a little period of understanding now that Saddam Hussein 
doesn't care about sanctions and he doesn't care about U.N. 
resolutions. He doesn't care about pieces of paper. He does care about 
force. He respects force.
  He misjudged the will of President Bush 1. He misjudged the will of 
the United States, earlier in his invasion and also in events that led 
up to the war in 1991.
  I think he understands, too, that President Bush is very forceful. He 
means exactly what he says. If there is any chance to have a peaceful 
resolution in Iraq, it will only be after we pass this resolution, and 
he understands quite well that we will use force, if necessary, to 
compel compliance. Maybe then he will have a change of behavior. If 
not, he will pull the U.N. around and play them like a fiddle and try 
to do some type of diplomatic dance, never to do anything. He did that 
quite successfully for years.
  He will not be successful with President Bush and this team. 
President Bush has assembled a team--I respect President Bush greatly 
for the speeches he has made and for his courageous positions but also 
for the team he has put together. His Vice President, Dick Cheney, is 
former Secretary of Defense, and he has dealt with Saddam Hussein. His 
Secretary of State, Colin Powell, was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 
in the war in 1991. Secretary Rumsfeld is well respected by our 
military leaders and around the world. President Bush has put together 
a great team--one that probably wasn't designed for this problem, but 
it could not be more experienced and ready to take on this enormous 
challenge. I have great confidence in their ability to be able to do 
the job.
  Is it without risk? No. Sure, there is risk involved. There is a lot 
that is involved. But doing nothing is a greater risk. Doing nothing is 
a much greater risk. If we want to have any hope of a peaceful 
resolution or to have this happen successfully without military 
conflict, it will only be after Saddam Hussein realizes the United 
States is behind our President, our Commander in Chief, and that we 
will enforce these resolutions. These resolutions don't have to be 
pieces of paper that are going to be ignored; they are the rule and 
effect of law. I hope the international community comes together.
  The U.N. passing a strong resolution is much greater after they see 
the Congress speak with one voice and pass overwhelmingly a resolution 
stating we believe the existing resolutions should be enforced. We do 
not think it is satisfactory to have Saddam Hussein--a person who used 
chemical weapons against his own people, who fought wars with Iran, who 
has invaded Kuwait, and who lobbed missiles against Saudi Arabia and 
the Israeli people, we don't think it is satisfactory for that person, 
that regime, to be able to develop and continue to manufacture tons and 
tons and tons of chemical and biological weapons, and work on nuclear 
weapons that could threaten millions of people--millions of people.
  That is not satisfactory. It needs to be stopped. I believe this 
President will do it. I think this resolution will be a big step in the 
right direction.
  I want to make one final comment, and this is to the Iraqi people. 
They have suffered enough under Saddam Hussein. This is really for the 
liberation of the Iraqi people, just like getting rid of the Taliban in 
Afghanistan was liberation for the Afghan people. They have been 
suppressed for too long. This tyrant, this dictator who executed people 
himself and had relatives executed, and countless people who might be 
his political opponents have been executed--he needs to go.
  In 1998, this Congress said we are for a regime change in Iraq. We 
were for it in 1998. We are for it now. In my opinion, we will not 
really have a return to a peaceful, growing, prosperous Iraq until 
there is a regime change. We will not have any confidence that there is 
any peaceful outlook for Iraq as long as Saddam Hussein is in the area. 
This Congress spoke in 1998 strongly and unanimously for regime change. 
I still think that is needed. The point I want to make is that if 
military conflict breaks out, it will not be a war with the Iraqi 
people. The war is with the leadership of Iraq, the unelected leader, 
Saddam Hussein, the tyrant who continues to oppress his people, 
basically stealing their money and using it to build weapons of mass 
destruction for his purposes, which is not for the well-being of the 
Iraqi people, but, frankly, for his desire to build a military machine 
that can threaten us. That is not acceptable.
  I believe this resolution, when it passes--and I hope it does 
overwhelmingly--will send a strong signal to the world and to Saddam 
Hussein that these resolutions can, should, and will be enforced.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for 
his very strong statement on behalf of the resolution Senators Warner, 
Bayh, McCain, I, and others have put before the Senate. I also thank my 
friend and colleague from Florida, Senator Nelson, for his strong 
statement on behalf of the amendment we have offered. I think together 
they form bookends that are bipartisan and quite strong in endorsing 
our resolution, and also in responding to some of the complaints, or 
questions, or criticisms about it that have been made in this first day 
of direct debate on it, which I do want to do a little bit more of 
myself.
  Mr. NICKLES. Will the Senator yield for a moment?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Yes.
  Mr. NICKLES. I compliment the Senator for his leadership on this. I 
have actually read the resolution. I think it is a very good product, 
bipartisan, due in large part to the Senator's leadership. I remember 
working with him on the 1991 resolution, as well as Senator Warner and 
many others who were on the floor 11 years ago. So I thank my friend 
and colleague from Connecticut. We have had the pleasure of working 
together on many issues, and this is

[[Page S10104]]

one of the most important. The Senator's leadership is very notable and 
commendable, and I thank him for it.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his kind words. 
I remember our work together in 1991. We are older and maybe wiser. In 
any case, I am proud to be working with the Senator and others on both 
sides of the aisle in a good cause.
  I want to say, as he talked about reading the resolution--and I think 
that is important and I hope all our colleagues will read it--not just 
the ``resolved'' part, but the ``whereas,'' the preamble.
  There have been suggestions here and there that either this 
resolution we have adopted was sort of patched together in a hurry, or 
that the White House just dictated it. The good news is this resolution 
is the result of a bipartisan, bicameral, House-Senate negotiation with 
the White House in a spirit of accommodation and compromise as part of 
a desire to go forward together. Some significant changes were made in 
the resolution from the original draft sent by the White House that 
were requested by Members of Congress, including particularly Members 
on the Democratic side of the aisle.
  I just want to mention very briefly those changes. They include, 
first, support for and prioritization of American diplomatic efforts at 
the U.N. Just so there would be no doubt that what we were authorizing 
or intending to authorize was a unilateral, go-it-alone, ``don't care 
what anybody else says in the world'' military strike at Saddam 
Hussein, it is not that. In fact, at the heart of this resolution is 
the authority given to the President to enforce United Nations 
resolutions in great number, which have been consistently ignored, 
violated, denied, and deceived by Saddam Hussein over the decade.
  While Congress is only able to authorize the President, as Commander 
in Chief, to take military action, the clear implication that I read 
into our resolution--but more than that, the clear statement of 
intention of the President should we face the moment we hope we do not 
face, when either Saddam does not respond to the U.N. or the U.N. 
itself refuses to authorize action to enforce its resolutions, then I 
think the President has made clear, and those of us who are sponsoring 
the resolution have made clear, that the United States will not go it 
alone and we will not have to, as a result of the decision to go to the 
U.N., as a result of the consultation with allies in Europe and Asia, 
in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world, as a result of the 
discussion and debate here and what I hope will be strong bipartisan 
support of this underlying resolution.

  If we come to that moment where we have no other choice but war, then 
it is clear that we will have allies in good number at our side. That 
was one of the items we added to the resolution.
  We also limited the scope of the authorization to Iraq and 
resolutions of the United Nations related to Iraq. The initial language 
submitted by the White House had a third clause which would justify 
military action, and that was to give the President authority to take 
military action to restore international peace and security to the 
region. That was a good step forward to grant the President authority 
but to limit the authority.
  I take it also to be a limitation on duration, although some have 
spoken today and in previous days about the fact that this is 
unlimited. This is limited to the duration of authority necessary to 
address the current and ongoing threats posed by Iraq. When those 
threats are over, the authority is gone. Because the connection between 
sections 1 and 2 of the material parts of the resolve clause, which is 
the conditions that would justify military action, are joined by the 
word ``and'' and not by the word ``or,'' I think it is meant to clarify 
that this authority applies only to the relevant United Nations 
resolutions regarding Iraq.
  There was another significant change. We also asked the White House 
and they agreed to put in language that requires the President to 
submit to Congress a determination, prior to using force, that further 
diplomatic means will not protect the national security of the American 
people or lead to enforcement of U.N. resolutions--another way, 
consistent incidentally with the gulf war resolution of 1991, to make 
it clear in this resolution that the policy of the United States is not 
to go to war first but to go to war last, after all other means of 
achieving Saddam's disarmament have failed.
  We also require the President to submit to Congress a determination, 
prior to using force, that taking military action against Iraq is 
consistent with continuing efforts by the United States and other 
nations to take the necessary actions against international terrorists 
or terrorist organizations.
  Justifiable concern was expressed that somehow a potential war 
against Iraq would interrupt, disrupt, deter the ongoing war on 
terrorism.
  As I said, I think the two are connected because Saddam is a 
terrorist and supports terrorism and has had contacts with al-Qaida, 
but this makes clear the President has to make a determination publicly 
to Congress that these two are not in conflict and then requiring the 
President to comply with the War Powers Act which mandates regular 
consulting and reporting procedures.
  I spoke earlier this afternoon and said to my colleagues I did not 
understand why there were some who said this resolution was somehow in 
contravention of the Constitution. One might disagree with the 
evaluation we sponsors of the resolution have made about the danger of 
Iraq under Saddam or of the imminence of the threat, but clearly the 
language of this resolution is not only within the power that Congress 
is given by the Constitution to declare war, to authorize military 
action, but also, by complying with the War Powers Act, embraces the 
later section of article I that says Congress is empowered to adopt 
legislation to implement the powers the Constitution gives.

  Finally, there is a requirement that the President report every 60 
days to Congress on military operations and on the planning for close 
of conflict activities, such as reconstruction and peacekeeping. It is 
not too soon to begin to plan for that now. I had occasion to speak on 
this subject last night at the Wilson Center here in Washington.
  The bottom line is the ultimate measurement of the success of war is 
the quality of peace that follows. We have an obligation not just to, 
if necessary, tear down the dictatorship that Saddam has built in Iraq, 
but to help the Iraqi people build up a government that will follow in 
a better life, better economy, and more freedom for themselves, and 
this reporting requirement will be an incentive for that to happen.
  Obviously, I hope and trust our colleagues will read the resolution 
in full. I want my colleagues to understand a significant process of 
negotiation went on between Democrats and Republicans in the House and 
the Senate and the White House before this resolution, which the 
President does support, was introduced into the Senate.
  I see my friend from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Will my friend yield?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I will be happy to yield to the 
Senator.
  Mr. ALLARD. I thank the Senator from Connecticut for yielding.
  Madam President, I wish to express again my appreciation for his 
leadership on this very important subject. He is recognized in the 
Senate as somebody who is an expert on Middle East affairs, and a lot 
of us lean on his opinion as we go through these debates.
  I am sure the President appreciates the Senator from Connecticut 
sitting down and working with him in a bipartisan manner.
  I compliment the Senator publicly for his fine work on this 
resolution.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I say to my friend and colleague from 
Colorado, he is very gracious. I appreciate it. It is an honor to have 
this opportunity to be involved in this very important debate and to do 
so across party lines. I thank him for his thoughtful advocacy of this 
resolution and of a strong U.S. presence in this region generally. I 
appreciate it.
  Madam President, not seeing anyone else who wishes to speak at this 
time, I want to begin to respond to some of the thoughtful questions 
that were raised by the Senator from Oregon, and to some extent by the 
Senator from Massachusetts, about the imminence of the threat that Iraq 
represents and the basic question of, why now? what is the rush?
  For my own part, as I said earlier today, the question for me is, why 
not

[[Page S10105]]

earlier? In other words, not, why now? but, why not earlier? We have 
gone through almost 11 years since the gulf war, since the armistice, 
the cease-fire agreement by which Saddam committed himself to adhere to 
the various U.N. resolutions and then proceeded rapidly to violate 
almost all of them, to play a cat-and-mouse game with the U.N. 
inspectors, testified to by so many of them, including the most 
memorable to me, Richard Butler, the Australian who headed the UNSCOM 
inspectors during the nineties, saying--and he used the word ``lies.'' 
He said the Iraqis under Saddam kept telling lies about what they had 
and did not have.
  The record sadly shows--and there is now an indisputable record in 
this regard--that they have a growing inventory of very deadly toxins, 
biological, and chemical weapons.
  We say with some glibness, because we say it so much, that Saddam is 
probably the only leader of a country in the world today who has used 
chemical weapons. He has, and used them not just once but several times 
against the Kurdish people, citizens of Iraq, and on some occasions 
actually having medical personnel nearby to follow up, not to help 
those who were attacked, but to use them as if they were test objects, 
to see to what extent they were hurt or how they were killed. That is 
how brutal and inhumane this regime is.
  All the time this deceit and deception was going on, we tried 
everything over and over to stop the violations of the U.N. agreements. 
Nothing worked--inspections, sanctions, Food for Oil, trade 
restrictions, and even limited military action.
  That is why we come to this point where we have said enough is 
enough. There is no question, in terms of is this imminent, that the 
events of September 11, 2001, have affected our judgment. I say for 
myself they have affected my judgment. I have said now that I have felt 
this way about Saddam for a long time.
  In 1998, former Senator Bob Kerrey, Senator McCain, Senator Lott, and 
I cosponsored the Iraq Liberation Act based on the constant deception 
and violation of the U.N. inspection team, kicking them out of Iraq. 
That act declared it American policy to no longer just contain Saddam, 
but because of the danger that he was brewing within his borders with 
chemical and biological weapons, ballistic missiles and unmanned aerial 
vehicles which he could deliver on targets near and far, that we had to 
adopt a new policy to change the regime. That was adopted into law in 
1998.
  So as for myself, I have had this feeling about Saddam and his 
potential to use these weapons to expand his control of the Arab world. 
This is what I referred to earlier in the day in the incredibly timely 
book that has just come out by Kenneth Pollack, an expert on Iraq, 
called ``A Threatening Storm.'' In that book, Mr. Pollack tells the 
life story of Saddam through the Baath Party, so-called pan-Arabic 
views, and the extent to which his dream and his ambition is to be the 
new Saladin of the Arab world and control the entire Arab world.
  So that is what these weapons are for, and his Arab neighbors are the 
nearest and most immediate targets of that, many of whom are very good 
allies of ours and from whose countries we receive much of the oil that 
fuels our economy, as well as the economy of the rest of the world.
  So this has been building. Yet September 11, 2001, has had a profound 
effect on all of us. Speaking for myself, it has had a profound effect 
on me.
  We look back and we say we knew what Osama bin Laden was saying; we 
knew his hatred for the United States; we knew he had struck at the two 
American embassies in Africa; we knew he had attacked the USS Cole.
  We made some attempt to strike back at him, but now having 
experienced the horror of September 11, 2001, don't we wish we had 
invaded Afghanistan, overthrown the Taliban, and disrupted al-Qaida 
before September 11, 2001? Of course, we all do. The will was not 
there, notwithstanding the warnings.
  So in terms of imminence, this resolution uses the phrase 
``continuing threat,'' that we authorize the President to use the Armed 
Forces of the United States to defend the national security of the 
United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.
  When we put together Saddam's hatred for the United States--I quoted 
earlier today, February 15, 1991, in defeat, after the gulf war, Saddam 
said:

       Every Iraqi child, woman, and old man knows how to take 
     revenge. They will avenge the pure blood that has been shed, 
     no matter how long it takes.

  Surely, that was one of the reasons he attempted to assassinate 
former President Bush on a visit to Kuwait; why he, according not to 
this Senator or any other Senator but according to our own State 
Department, is one of seven nations on the State Department list of 
state sponsors of terrorism who has supported terrorist groups that 
have killed Americans.
  So I read the word ``continuing threat'' as contained in our 
resolution to hold within it implicitly the words ``grave and 
imminent'' that some of our colleagues have said they wish were there.
  The record shows that. The experience of September 11, 2001, shows 
that. I do not want to look back on some dark day in the near or not so 
near future, after some terrorist group supported by Saddam, or Iraq 
itself, has struck at allies of ours in the region or at American 
forces there or at Americans in the United States itself, which he is 
capable of doing, and say I wish we had taken action against him before 
he acted against us. We do not ever want to face a moment like that 
again.
  So I believe the record before us, recited in some detail in the 
preamble, the whereas clauses of our resolution, argues loudly that the 
continuing threat referred to in the literal wording of the 
authorization clause is both grave and imminent and calls out for the 
action and the strength that this resolution requires.
  The best way to achieve peace is to prepare for war. That is what has 
been said so many times in the past, particularly when dealing with a 
dangerous dictator like Saddam Hussein--and through his agents--an 
aggressor, a brutal killer himself.
  There is no substitute for strength. We are a strong Nation and we 
are marshaling that strength before the United Nations, before the 
world community and directly to Saddam Hussein, hoping the message will 
get through and he will disarm without requiring the U.N., or an 
international coalition led by the United States, to disarm him. That 
is our hope. That is our prayer. But we will not achieve it unless our 
intentions are clear and strong.
  There is a wonderful sentiment, an insight that I read a while ago 
from GEN Douglas MacArthur, obviously a great soldier but also a great 
student of warfare. MacArthur once said, and I quote: The history of 
failure in war can be summed up in two words, ``too late''--too late in 
comprehending the deadly purpose of a potential enemy; too late in 
realizing the mortal danger; too late in preparedness; too late in 
uniting all possible forces for resistance; too late in standing with 
one's friends.
  It is a brilliantly insightful and moving quote, and remarkably 
relevant to the challenge that our resolution puts before our 
colleagues--too late in comprehending the deadly purpose of a potential 
enemy, that is the case we are making, the continuing threat of Saddam 
Hussein, grave and imminent; too late in realizing the mortal danger--
that is the point that he continues to build an inventory of chemical 
and biological weapons that pose literally a mortal danger, the danger 
of killing Americans in great number if we do not stop him.
  In the colloquy I had earlier today with the Senator from Virginia, 
Mr. Warner, I expressed that there has been a lot of debate leading up 
to this resolution about whether Saddam has nuclear capacity and when 
he will achieve it. Is it going to be a year, 6 years, 10 years? I do 
not know, but I do know he possesses biological weapons today, deadly 
biological weapons, with the capacity to deliver them with ballistic 
missiles, and now increasingly sophisticated and small unmanned aerial 
vehicles, which when taken together could, in the worst nightmare 
scenario, create as much or more devastation and death than the kind of 
primitive nuclear weapon he will sooner or later possess. So that is 
the mortal danger in MacArthur's warning.
  Too late in preparedness, well, that is what we are authorizing the 
President,

[[Page S10106]]

as Commander in Chief, and our military to do. Too late in uniting all 
possible forces for resistance. We are working now with our allies, 
with the Iraqi opposition, finally, 4 years after the Iraq Liberation 
Act authorized our government to begin working with the broad-based 
Iraqi opposition to Saddam Hussein.

  Finally, too late in standing with one's friends. Here we are talking 
about our friends in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf. Good 
friends. Arabs, mostly, but also obviously Israelis. I say ``Arabs 
mostly'' because if you follow the line of Saddam's ambitions, they are 
to control the Arab world. That is what the invasion of Iran was about, 
that is what the invasion of Kuwait was about.
  If we give him the opportunity, that is what future invasions, using 
chemical, biological, and potentially nuclear weapons, will be about.
  It is time to stand with our friends in that region. I repeat, the 
history of failure in war can be summed up in two words: Too late. Too 
late in comprehending the deadly purpose of a potential enemy. Too late 
in realizing the mortal danger. Too late in preparedness. Too late in 
uniting all possible forces for resistance. Too late in standing with 
one's friends. This resolution is our way of saying to the American 
people, to the United Nations, to our allies in the Middle East and to 
Saddam Hussein, this time we cannot, we must not, and we will not wait 
until it is too late.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I will make a few brief comments. I 
associate myself completely with the statement made by the Senator from 
Connecticut. I thought they were thoughtful comments. I also think 
Senator Nickles from Oklahoma, who spoke prior to him, did a nice job 
of laying out for the Senate this issue, whether we should move forward 
with the resolution the President has requested.
  I believe the President seeks to avoid conflict. I don't think there 
is anyone in this Chamber who wants to see us go into a conflict as a 
first option. We are very much concerned about the lives of our men and 
women who serve in the military. We certainly do not want to put them 
at risk unnecessarily.
  The question occurs, if Saddam Hussein fails to comply, are we 
prepared to use force? I look at it this way. Historically, if we look 
at Iraq and what has been happening, I don't think anyone can deny 
there is a buildup. We either address it now or we address it later. I 
am of the view the sooner we address this problem, the less the risk 
will be. If we continue to let the problem grow, it increases the risks 
to our men and women in the military who may be called into battle as a 
result of noncompliance with Iraq. Hopefully we do not reach that 
point.
  I compliment the President on his leadership. It is the kind of 
leadership we need at this time. It is a judgment call. It is what 
every Senator has to make a decision about in his own mind, whether 
this is the right thing to do. The longer we hold this up, the risk is 
magnified. That puts the neighbors of Iraq at risk, it puts countries 
all around the world at risk.
  There is no doubt in my mind Saddam Hussein has the capability of 
using weapons of mass destruction. He is capable mentally of doing 
that. He has done it before. He has used it on his own. If he can use 
it on his own, he would certainly be willing to use it any place else. 
If we look at biological weapons, there is not much doubt he has the 
capability to use biological weapons. Their threat is extremely 
serious. That is another threat that will continue to grow. We know he 
is out there trying to develop nuclear capability. That expands even 
more my concerns about an expanding risk as we continue to delay 
action.
  We need to move forward. We need to move forward quickly. The sooner 
we get this resolved, the sooner we get the support from the United 
Nations, we can move forward, give the President that option, a final 
option, that, if necessary, he will go in, even unilaterally, to 
protect the interests of the United States, to protect the Americans, 
and, if necessary, protect our friends and allies in the Middle East.
  There is a quote in the President's speech last night I will restate. 
He says approving this resolution does not mean military action is 
imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations 
and all nations that America speaks with one voice and is determined to 
make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will 
also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq that his only choice 
is full compliance. That is key.
  The time remaining for that choice is limited. We need to act 
quickly. I am glad we have this before the Senate. We should have had 
it earlier than this week, but hopefully we will get it out this week 
and move forward.
  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. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Connecticut.


                    Amendment No. 4856, As Modified

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I have a technical modification of the 
amendment that we offered earlier, and it is at the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 4856), as modified, is as follows:

       Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the 
     following:

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This joint resolution may be cited as the ``Authorization 
     for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Since in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression 
     against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States 
     forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its 
     people in order to defend the national security of the United 
     States and enforce United Nations Security Council 
     resolutions relating to Iraq:
       Since after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered 
     into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant 
     to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to 
     eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons 
     programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to 
     end its support for international terrorism;
       Since the efforts of international weapons inspectors, 
     United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led 
     to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical 
     weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and 
     that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program 
     that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than 
     intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
       Since Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-
     fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors 
     to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction 
     stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally 
     resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 
     31, 1998;
       Since in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing 
     weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United 
     States interests and international peace and security, 
     declared Iraq to be in ``material and unacceptable breach of 
     its international obligations'' and urged the President ``to 
     take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution 
     and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into 
     compliance with its international obligations'' (Public Law 
     105-235);
       Since Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national 
     security of the United States and international peace and 
     security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material 
     and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, 
     among other things, continuing to possess and develop a 
     significant chemical and biological weapons capability, 
     actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting 
     and harboring terrorist organizations;
       Since Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United 
     Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal 
     repression of its civilian population thereby threatening 
     international peace and security in the region, by refusing 
     to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens 
     wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American 
     serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully 
     seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
       Since the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its 
     capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction 
     against other nations and its own people;
       Since the current Iraq regime has demonstrated its 
     continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the 
     United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate 
     former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of 
     occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged 
     in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security 
     Council;
       Since members of Al Qaida, an organization bearing 
     responsibility for attacks on the

[[Page S10107]]

     United States, its citizens, and interests, including the 
     attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be 
     in Iraq;
       Since Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international 
     terrorist organizations, including organizations that 
     threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
       Since the attacks on the United States of September 11, 
     2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the 
     acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international 
     terrorist organizations;
       Since Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use 
     weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi 
     regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise 
     attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or 
     provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and 
     the extreme magnitude of harm that would do so, and the 
     extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United 
     States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to 
     justify action by the United States to defend itself;
       Since United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 
     authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United 
     Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent 
     relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain 
     activities that threaten international peace and security, 
     including the development of weapons of mass destruction and 
     refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections 
     in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 
     687, repression of its civilian population in violation of 
     United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and 
     threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in 
     Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council 
     Resolution 949;
       Since Congress in the Authorization of Use of Military 
     Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has 
     authorized the President ``to use United States Armed Forces 
     pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 
     (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council 
     Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, 
     and 677'';
       Since in December 1991. Congress expressed its sense that 
     it ``supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the 
     goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as 
     being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military 
     Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1),'' that 
     Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United 
     Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and ``constitutes a 
     continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of 
     the Persian Gulf region,'' and that Congress, ``supports the 
     use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United 
     Nations Security Council Resolution 688'';
       Since the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) 
     expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy 
     of the United States to support efforts to remove from power 
     the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a 
     democratic government to replace that regime;
       Since on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the 
     United States to ``work with the United Nations Security 
     Council to meet our common challenge'' posed by Iraq and to 
     ``work for the necessary resolutions,'' while also making 
     clear that ``the Security Council resolutions will be 
     enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be 
     met, or action will be unavoidable'';
       Since the United States is determined to prosecute the war 
     on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international 
     terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of 
     mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under 
     the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council 
     resolutions make clear that it is in the national security 
     interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war 
     on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security 
     Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of 
     force if necessary;
       Since Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war 
     on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding 
     requested by the President to take the necessary actions 
     against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, 
     including those nations, organizations or persons who 
     planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks 
     that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons 
     or organizations;
       Since the President and Congress are determined to continue 
     to take all appropriate actions against international 
     terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those 
     nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, 
     committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on 
     September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or 
     organizations;
       Since the President has authority under the Constitution to 
     take action in order to deter and prevent acts of 
     international terrorism against the United States, as 
     Congress recognized in the joint resolution an Authorization 
     for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
       Since it is in the national security of the United States 
     to restore international peace and security to the Persian 
     Gulf region.

     SEC. 3. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.

       The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by 
     the President to--
       (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security 
     Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable 
     to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
       (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security 
     Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, 
     evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies 
     with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

     SEC. 4. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

       (a) Authorization.--The President is authorized to use the 
     Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be 
     necessary and appropriate in order to--
       (1) defend the national security of the United States 
     against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
       (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council 
     Resolutions regarding Iraq.
       (b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the 
     exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use 
     force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon 
     there after as may be feasible, but not later than 48 hours 
     after exercising such authority, make available to the 
     Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro 
     tempore of the Senate his determination that--
       (1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or 
     other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately 
     protect the national security of the United States against 
     the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to 
     lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security 
     Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
       (2) 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 nations, 
     organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed, 
     or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 
     11, 2001.
       (c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
       (1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with 
     section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress 
     declares that this section is intended to constitute specific 
     statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of 
     the War Powers Resolution.
       (2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this 
     resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers 
     Resolution.

     SEC. 5. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.

       (a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, 
     submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this 
     joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the 
     exercise of authority granted in section 4 and the status of 
     planning for efforts that are expected to be required after 
     such actions are completed, including those actions described 
     in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act 
     of 1998).
       (b) To the extent that the submission of any report 
     described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of 
     any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution 
     otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to 
     the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War 
     Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a 
     single consolidated report to the Congress.
       (c) To the extent that this information required by section 
     3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by 
     this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the 
     requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The cloture motion having been 
presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the 
motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the Lieberman-
     Warner amendment to S.J. Res. 45:
         Thomas Daschle, Bill Nelson, Joseph Lieberman, Evan Bayh, 
           Harry Reid, Pete Domenici, Joseph Biden, Patty Murray, 
           Jay Rockefeller, Larry E. Craig, Trent Lott, John 
           Warner, John McCain, Jesse Helms, Craig Thomas, Don 
           Nickles, Frank H. Murkowski.


                             Cloture Motion

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The cloture motion having been 
presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the 
motion.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the

[[Page S10108]]

     Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move to bring to a close 
     the debate on S.J. Res. 45, a joint resolution to authorize 
     the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq:
         Thomas Daschle, Bill Nelson, Joseph Lieberman, Evan Bayh, 
           Harry Reid, Pete Domenici, Joseph Biden, Patty Murray, 
           Jay Rockefeller, Larry E. Craig, Trent Lott, John 
           Warner, John McCain, Jesse Helms, Craig Thomas, Don 
           Nickles, Frank H. Murkowski.

  Mr. REID. Mr. President, we have been able to accomplish a great deal 
today on this most important resolution. I think the debate has been 
pertinent. I think people have had a chance to express themselves 
without hindrance. We would hope that Senators would continue in the 
same vein. With these two cloture motions that have been filed, we are 
hopeful and confident that the debate on this will be brought to a 
close on Thursday morning and that following that we can complete work 
on the resolution. We certainly hope so.
  In the meantime, we would hope people who have amendments to offer 
would do that and, if possible, we would like to have those amendments 
resolved prior to Thursday. If not, of course, if some of them are 
germane, they will be carried over until after our cloture votes.

                          ____________________