[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 12, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2303-S2305]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                           National Security

  Mr. LEVIN. I will keep the floor and try to keep this down to 10 
minutes.
  Earlier today we had a hearing in the Armed Services Committee where 
we received testimony from the intelligence community on worldwide 
threats to our national security. I gave an opening statement at that 
hearing, parts of which I want to share with the Senate tonight because 
of the importance of the subject of Iraq. We have a lot of work ahead 
of us. We have threats of all kinds, threats which are more immediate, 
more personal, more imminent, than Iraq, particularly the al-Qaida 
terrorist network, even though that network has been weakened, it has 
been deprived of its safe haven in Afghanistan.

[[Page S2304]]

  It has, just over the last few months, attacked innocent civilians in 
Bali and Tunisia and has attacked United States service members and 
civilians in Kuwait and Jordan.
  Last month, the United States and coalition forces fought the biggest 
battle in Afghanistan since Operation Anaconda last spring. Even though 
our intelligence and our law enforcement agencies are working with 
allied countries to thwart further attacks in the United States and 
abroad, the fact is we remain highly vulnerable to al-Qaida, to other 
terrorist groups. As a matter of fact, the United States is at alert 
orange now--that is the second highest level of alert in our military 
forces--and also at heightened force protection levels worldwide. We 
remain vulnerable. We remain vulnerable not just to conventional 
explosives but now, we believe, more and more vulnerable to weapons of 
mass destruction.
  Earlier this week, Federal officials even suggested the public should 
make preparations for a terrorist attack involving chemical, 
biological, or radiological weapons. While we are placing such a huge 
focus on Iraq, North Korea, a country that possesses weapons of mass 
destruction and has ejected the international nuclear inspectors, has 
declared it is resuming operation of its plutonium-related nuclear 
facility.
  North Korea is not just a country which proclaims it is engaged in a 
nuclear program as it now has with the enriched uranium program. North 
Korea is probably the world's worst proliferator of ballistic missile 
and missile technology. It is on the brink of becoming an undisputed 
nuclear power. The administration has refused to open a direct dialog 
with North Korea. That has serious ramifications. Our ally which lives 
next to North Korea, which surely has got at least as much at stake as 
we do in the whole matter--and, I think, obviously a lot more since 
they are the ones nearest the threat--our ally, South Korea, wants us 
to open a direct dialog with North Korea. They have openly expressed 
the wish that this country have a direct dialog of the highest levels 
with North Korea.
  The administration has decided not to do that, and all of a sudden, 
what is obviously a crisis to most of us and most of the world, is not 
even described as a crisis by the administration. Even though the 
failure to have contact, the linking it to the axis of evil and the 
announcement we will have a preemptive policy using military force, 
could lead to additional provocative and irreversible action on their 
part because it is stoking the paranoia which exists in North Korea.
  On top of that, Iran has admitted now it is mining uranium. That 
surely must underscore our concern that its nuclear energy program is 
intended for nuclear weapons, not just for the promotion of nuclear 
energy. Iraq is the focus and Iraq continues to flout the international 
community. It is not assisting U.S. weapons inspectors to find or 
account for chemical or biological weapons programs. Disagreement on 
how to address the Iraqi threat has divided the U.N. Security Council.
  Surely there can be little doubt Osama bin Laden would like to see 
the United States and Britain attack Iraq without the authority of the 
world community acting through the United Nations. Keeping the world 
community together through the U.N. Security Council is exactly what 
Osama bin Laden does not want to see. He does not want to see a United 
Nations. He wants to be able to say it is the United States, it is 
Britain, and it is a few of their personal, close allies. It is not the 
world that is going after Iraq, it is the United States and Britain 
that are doing it. He does not want, it is obvious, the world community 
to be united against the Iraqi threat. He wants to be able, as does 
Iraq, to characterize the effort as an American/British-led unilateral, 
not having U.N. authority type of effort.
  All of us want Saddam Hussein to be disarmed. The best way to 
accomplish the goal of disarming Saddam Hussein without war is if the 
United Nations speaks with one voice relative to Iraq. I want to repeat 
that, as I think there is so much concern about the possibility of war 
with Iraq that that particular point is frequently lost.
  The best way to accomplish the goal of disarming Saddam Hussein 
without war is if the United Nations speaks with one voice relative to 
Iraq.
  But if military force is going to be used, the best way of reducing 
the short-term risks, including risks to the U.S. coalition forces, and 
the long-term risks, including the risk of terrorist attacks on our 
interests throughout the world, is if the United Nations specifically 
authorizes the use of military force. That is the bottom line. The best 
way of increasing any chance for disarming Hussein without war, and of 
minimizing casualties in future attacks on the United States if war 
does ensue is if the United Nations acts relative to Iraq.
  The next point, though, is essential as well. Supporting U.N. 
inspections is an absolutely essential step if we are going to keep the 
Security Council together. We are not going to have a chance of keeping 
the United Nations Security Council speaking with one voice unless we 
support United Nations inspections, which are and have been such an 
important part of the Security Council's position.
  How do we support those U.N. inspections? First, by sharing the 
balance of the information that we have about suspect sites; No. 2, by 
quickly getting U-2 aircraft in the air over Iraq, with or without 
Saddam Hussein's approval, and by giving the inspectors the time they 
need to do their work as long as the inspections are unimpeded.
  I disagree with those, including high officials in our government, 
who say that U.N. inspections are useless. We heard before the 
inspections began from the highest level of this government that 
inspections were useless. We heard it from Dr. Rice at the White House 
last week. She said specifically that inspections are doomed to 
failure.
  I am also astounded that some of our highest officials have gone so 
far as to refer in a derogatory way to the ``so-called'' U.N. 
inspectors. If these inspectors and inspections are useless without 
Iraqi assistance in pointing out where they have hidden or destroyed 
weapons of mass destruction, why are we sharing any intelligence at all 
with the inspectors; and why are we apparently finally implementing U-2 
flights to support the inspectors?
  It is one thing to be realistic about the limitations of the U.N. 
inspections and not have too high hopes about what they can produce. It 
is another thing to denigrate their value or prejudge their value or to 
be dismissive and disdainful about the beliefs of others on the U.N. 
Security Council about their value, or to be cavalier about the facts 
relative to those inspections.
  Referring to being cavalier about facts brings me to another point 
which has to do with the sharing of intelligence information in our 
possession with the U.N. inspectors. I have followed this issue very 
closely. I have asked the CIA for months to give us the precise 
information as to how many suspect sites there are, how many of those 
suspect sites are of great significance, for how many of the 
significant sites have we shared information that we have with the 
United Nations inspectors. They have given me the information in 
writing but, as it turns out, it is erroneous.
  We just began sharing specific information in early January, 
according to Secretary Powell, who is quoted in the Washington Post on 
January 9. I can't go into those classified details in the open. I 
can't give the precise numbers, how many suspect sites we have 
information on, how many of those suspect sites that we have 
information on are of significance, and how many of those have we 
shared with the United Nations. The numbers themselves are classified.

  I can say in an unclassified setting, in public, that as of a couple 
of weeks ago we had shared information on only a small percentage, a 
fraction of the suspect sites in Iraq, and we had not shared 
information on the majority of the suspect sites. That was confirmed by 
CIA staff.
  Yet when I asked the Director of the CIA yesterday about this 
subject, he told us that we have now shared with the U.N. inspectors 
information about every site where we have credible evidence--all of a 
sudden, going from a fraction of the sites to we have now shared all 
the sites.
  Then last night, in Director Tenet's presence and in the presence of 
Senator Warner, his staff acknowledged that as a matter of fact we 
still have useful information that we have not shared

[[Page S2305]]

with the inspectors--which is the opposite of what Director Tenet told 
the Intelligence Committee yesterday in open session. If we have not 
yet shared all the useful information that we have with the U.N. 
inspectors, that would run counter to the administration's position 
that the time for inspections is over.
  The same type of issue exists relative to the U-2s. The inspectors 
have asked for U-2 surveillance planes. These are planes which have a 
capability of tracking those suspicious vehicles on the ground that 
have been referred to by Secretary Powell in his speech, tracking the 
vehicles that are at a suspicious site and going to another site. They 
have the advantage of being able to loiter. Unlike a satellite, a U-2 
can loiter and actually keep track of a vehicle as it moves from one 
suspicious place to another and can connect that information to 
inspectors in real time. They are intensely valuable to the inspectors. 
They have asked over and over again for the U-2 flights. Why haven't 
they been provided to the inspectors?
  Well, because Saddam Hussein says he can't guarantee the safety of 
the pilots. So instead of going to the U.N. and saying: Resolution 
whatever the number is, the United Nations authorizes these U-2 flights 
and if Saddam Hussein interferes with these flights that will be 
considered an act of war against the United Nations--instead of doing 
that, to give the inspectors this additional capability, at least until 
yesterday or perhaps today, Saddam Hussein has been given a veto by the 
U.N.--including us; we are part of the U.N.--over the use of 
surveillance planes, which would contribute to the likelihood that 
inspectors would catch him with the goods.
  I hope that is over now. I don't know for sure that it is. I hope now 
there is an arrangement made to use the U-2 flights. But if we believe 
it is important, short term and long term, to both avoiding war, and if 
war comes, to reducing its risks, that we have a United Nations that is 
united, speaking with one voice against Iraq, we then must deal with 
the United Nations' key request that we have an inspection process 
which is complete and robust. And we must lead at the United Nations to 
help make it robust. And that includes the use of the U-2 planes.
  We have made the suggestion, Senator Clinton and myself, in a letter 
which we sent to Secretary Powell, that that kind of resolution be 
introduced at the United Nations which would provide that the U-2 
planes be authorized by the United Nations, have the United Nations 
flag, and, if interfered with by Saddam Hussein, that would be 
considered an act of war against the United Nations and every member 
would then be authorized to use military force in response.
  When President Bush addressed the United Nations General Assembly on 
September 12 of last year, he said that:

       We want the United Nations to be effective, and respectful, 
     and successful.

  We have some responsibility to help the United Nations achieve that. 
Saying to other countries, including allies, that if you don't see it 
our way you must have some ulterior motive, doesn't help us in leading 
the United Nations to a united front against Saddam Hussein. While a 
number of heads of State and Governments have called for the United 
Nations Security Council to take appropriate action, necessary action 
in response to the threat, and others have pledged to contribute 
military forces to that effect, others believe we should give 
strengthened inspections the time that they need to finish their 
job. But all of the groups agree on the necessity of disarming Iraq.

  Rather than following a course that divides the United Nations and 
separates us from some of our closest allies, we should fairly consider 
courses of action that unite the world community against Iraq.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania be allowed 6 minutes without my 
losing the right to the floor and that I immediately be recognized 
thereafter.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have sought recognition to comment 
about the current procedures with respect to the selection of judges, 
and what is happening in the Senate today is a constitutional 
revolution.
  The Constitution provides that the Senate will give advice and 
consent to the President. And the tradition of this country for 215 
years has been that the President makes selections as he chooses, and 
advice can come from the Senate. Consent has been given without 
challenging the President to a partnership arrangement where the Senate 
has to consent to the nominee before the President can submit the 
nominee to the Senate with any chance for confirmation.
  What the Democrats are doing here today is really seeking a 
constitutional revolution. What they want as the minority party in the 
Senate is a full partnership with the President on selecting Federal 
judges.
  What we are doing with Miguel Estrada, and other nominees who are 
coming up for an executive session tomorrow, is really a prelude to the 
nomination of the next Justice for the Supreme Court. The effort is 
being made by the Democrats to have their acceptable ideology without 
the traditional deference which has been paid to the President.
  The Senate has been maneuvered into a position here, an institution 
with lines being drawn in the sand, and Republicans on one side and 
Democrats on the other being backed into a corner--sort of a macho-
macho game where no one wants to play the chicken game. What we are 
really seeing is gridlocking this institution on a permanent basis, if 
no one yields.
  The Judiciary Committee has three nominees on the Executive Calendar 
tomorrow, and the Democrats have served notice that they are going 
filibuster. If at least one Democrat does not vote to end the 
filibuster, nothing will happen there.
  So we have a long litany of judges--some of whom have been held up 
for 2 years--and nothing is going to happen.
  What we may be seeing here is the foundation laid for a grand 
political argument in the Presidential election of 2004. We are laying 
it right on the line. If the American people want judges confirmed, 
there are going to have to be 60 votes in the President's party.
  Both sides have been at fault in the past, in my opinion. When 
President Clinton was in the White House and the Republicans controlled 
the Senate, we wouldn't confirm people. There were some breakthroughs 
but relatively few. When President Bush submitted nominees for 2 years, 
or a year and 7 months, the Democrats stopped the nomination process.
  It is high time we had a protocol which both sides respected wherein 
so many days after a nomination, there is a hearing, so many days 
later, a vote in committee, and so many days later, a vote on the full 
floor.
  But we are really heading for extraordinary deadly deadlock in this 
body. I think we ought to recognize it for what it is. There is a 
constitutional revolution underway here to change the fundamental way 
judges are selected.
  If the Democrats insist on a full partnership with the President, if 
any party insists on a full partnership with the President of the 
opposite party, then it is going to take 60 votes. And we may be 
setting the stage for 60 votes in the 2004 election.
  But it is my hope that cooler heads can prevail and we can sit down 
and work this out so that when the shoe is on the other foot, we don't 
have this kind of gridlock and this effort to really upset longstanding 
constitutional principles.
  I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.





                          ____________________