[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.
____________________