[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 5, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1966-S1967]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        U.N. WEAPONS INSPECTORS

  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I commend Senator Byrd for introducing a 
very sensible resolution, S. Res. 28, expressing the sense of the 
Senate that the United Nations weapons inspectors should be given 
sufficient time for a thorough assessment of the level of compliance by 
the Government of Iraq with United Nations Security Council Resolution 
1441 of 2002 and that the United States should seek a United Nations 
Security Council resolution specifically authorizing the use of force 
before initiating any offensive military operations against Iraq. I am 
pleased to join several colleagues in cosponsoring it.
  I want to be clear about one point on which I may disagree with 
Senator Byrd. S. Res. 28 states that U.N. weapons inspectors have 
failed to obtain evidence that would prove that Iraq is in breach of 
the terms of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441. While 
there is little public information suggesting that weapons inspectors 
have turned up much in the way of evidence of any kind, they have made 
some important disclosures in their recent report, and it is clear that 
Iraq has failed to meet Resolution 1441's requirement that Iraq make a 
complete declaration of all aspects of its chemical, biological, and 
nuclear weapons programs, as well as information about its ballistic 
missiles and other delivery systems. The report that was submitted by 
the Government of Iraq omitted a great deal of information, and the 
``unknowns'' left for the international community to consider are very 
serious matters. Iraq is not in compliance with Resolution 1441.
  But this issue does not dissuade me from supporting Senator Byrd's 
admirable resolution. Fundamentally, this resolution recognizes that 
the threshold for starting a war through unilateral military action 
should be very high. It should require the presence of an imminent 
threat, or a solid connection to al-Qaida, in which case unambiguous 
U.S. action is already, and rightly, authorized. Based on the 
information available to me, I have determined that we have not reached 
that point.
  I wholeheartedly agree with the resolution's assertion that the U.S. 
and others should work to exhaust all peaceful and diplomatic means of 
disarming Iraq. I also agree that the U.S. should seek authorization 
from the Security Council before pursuing the last resort of military 
action in Iraq. Should we reach a point at which the use of force 
appears to be the only option, we should try to increase the legitimacy 
of any action and decrease the potential costs pursuing this 
multilateral approach.
  While calling for exhaustive diplomatic efforts, ongoing inspections 
work, and a multilateral approach, S. Res 28 also asserts that the 
United States should continue to actively seek to bring peace to the 
Israeli and Palestinian peoples, and notes that the

[[Page S1967]]

United States should redouble its efforts to reduce our vulnerability 
to terrorist attack. These are important issues to keep at the 
forefront of U.S. policy in the weeks and months ahead.
  Overall, the resolution presents a reasonable approach to a difficult 
issue, and I believe that it reflects many of the concerns that I am 
hearing from my constituents in Wisconsin. Their voices and their 
questions belong at the center of our discussion about Iraq. I believe 
that this resolution helps to move my constituents' very serious 
concerns closer to that central role.

                          ____________________