[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 103 (Thursday, July 22, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8648-S8650]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      TIME FOR IRAN TO COME CLEAN

  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, when historians look back on American 
foreign policy in the early 21st century, they will ask a few basic 
questions. One will be whether we used our immense military strength 
wisely. Another will be whether we took effective action to avert 
genocide in the world. But the biggest question will be whether we did 
all we could to avert the use of weapons of mass destruction, and 
especially a nuclear catastrophe.
  The resolution before us addresses one of the most sensitive nuclear 
non-proliferation issues of our day, that of Iran. Over the last 2 
years, public allegations and International Atomic Energy Agency 
inspections have uncovered nearly two decades of covert nuclear 
programs that Iran has pursued in violation of its obligations under 
safeguards agreements with the IAEA. While Iran insists publicly that 
these programs are all peaceful, all the signs and much of the 
political rhetoric in Iran point to a nuclear weapons program that has 
been conducted under the cover of peaceful nuclear activities.
  Nearly a year ago, Iran promised to come clean on its nuclear 
programs and to suspend all its uranium enrichment and reprocessing 
activities. But Iran has yet to comply fully with its commitment. 
Instead, it has hidden some of its activities and forced IAEA 
inspectors to pull teeth in order to get information about its 
programs; it has delayed inspections and, at times, suspended all 
cooperation; it has continued production of components for uranium 
enrichment centrifuges; and it has announced an intent to test its 
uranium conversion facility in a manner that will produce feed material 
for uranium enrichment centrifuges. All those actions are violations of 
Iran's legal and political commitments.
  More importantly, those actions suggest that Iran still has something 
to hide. They relate to nuclear activities that are difficult to 
explain as peaceful programs. Some of those actions relate to programs 
involving the same criminal network that aided Libya and provided it 
with a nuclear weapon design. And they are accompanied by political 
statements that suggest Iran may well want to develop nuclear weapons. 
If Iran wants to gain the confidence of the international community, 
that is certainly not the way to go about it.
  I do not believe that Iran poses an imminent threat of testing or 
deploying nuclear weapons. There is hence no need at this time to 
threaten or undertake military action, and the resolution before us 
does not threaten, encourage or authorize such action.
  Some journalists interpreted a similar resolution in the House of 
Representatives as authorizing military action, despite the denials of 
those who supported that resolution, including its co-author, 
Representative Lantos of California. That is because the House 
resolution used the words ``all appropriate means,'' which sounded too 
similar to previous resolutions on other issues that did authorize the 
use of force. To make it absolutely clear that the resolution before us 
does not do that, the authors of the substitute amendment have deleted 
the word ``all'' from that phrase. We do not intend this resolution to 
encourage the use of military force by any country.
  Neither can any concurrent resolution authorize the use of force by 
the United States. Under our Constitution and under the War Powers 
Resolution, only legislation signed by the President can do that. A 
concurrent resolution has no legal effect and cannot do so.
  What we do intend by this resolution is to encourage all countries to 
help convince Iran that its national security is best served by giving 
up the urge to develop a nuclear weapons capability. An Iran with 
nuclear weapons--or with the ability to produce

[[Page S8649]]

such weapons--will not be a more secure Iran. Rather, it will only 
prompt great concern among its neighbors and risk their developing 
nuclear weapons as well; and it will estrange itself from all countries 
that support the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or that believe in 
keeping one's international obligations.
  If Iran wants to understand what nuclear weapons will bring about, it 
can look to North Korea, which is reduced to begging and threatening 
the international community in order to feed its people and to provide 
even minimal energy resources. Those are the wages of proliferation: 
not security, but insecurity; not acclaim, but ostracism.
  If the nations of the world--and especially the industrialized 
countries in Europe and elsewhere that have important trade relations 
with Iran--will band together to deliver this message, I believe that 
Iran will hear it and heed it. But the message may well have to be 
delivered with more than words. Countries may have to take forceful 
diplomatic and economic actions in order to demonstrate to Iran the 
risks that it runs if it insists upon building a nuclear weapons 
capability. The IAEA Board of Governors may well have to report Iran's 
noncompliance to the United Nations Security Council, and the Security 
Council may have to take action under Articles 39 through 41 of the 
United Nations Charter to encourage or order Iran to cease its programs 
that would contribute to building that nuclear weapons capability.
  Countries can also remind Iran that concerns which may have prompted 
its covert nuclear programs are now largely dissipated. The Soviet 
Union is gone, and Russia does not threaten Iranian sovereignty. Saddam 
Hussein is now a criminal in the dock, rather than a dictator with 
imperial ambitions. And the case of Libya demonstrates that the United 
States will readily adjust its policy toward a country that renounces 
weapons of mass destruction and international terrorism. Iran's 
security concerns can be met--indeed, can best be met--without its 
developing or producing any weapons of mass destruction.
  It is time that we have a serious discussion with Europe about 
harmonizing our policies toward Iran. Europe has pursued a strategy of 
offering positive incentives for Iran to change its behavior, but no 
penalties if it does not--effectively the reverse of U.S. policy. By 
coordinating more closely, the United States and Europe are more likely 
to affect Iran's actions. We should clearly state that if Iran ends its 
pursuit of a nuclear weapons program and gets out of the terrorism 
business, then we would be willing to change our policy of isolating 
and sanctioning Iran.
  I hope that enactment of the resolution before us will help galvanize 
world attention to the threat of nuclear proliferation in Iran and to 
the need to convince Iran to change its ways. I hope that it will also 
encourage Iran to choose the path of non-proliferation and base its 
future on engagement with the world, rather than increasing, self-
imposed isolation.
  I want to thank the original sponsors of S. Con. Res. 81, Senators 
Feinstein and Kyl, for their cooperation in developing a substitute 
text that we can all support. I believe that Representatives Hyde and 
Lantos, whose H. Con. Res. 398 provided much guidance to us, will also 
find this text something that they can accept so as to achieve 
enactment of this important resolution. And I appreciate the work of 
their staffs over the past several weeks. My own staff and Chairman 
Lugar's staff were also instrumental in bringing this work to what I 
believe will be a successful conclusion.
  We have all been guided not by politics, but by the importance of the 
matter before us. When the issue is nuclear proliferation, uncountable 
innocent lives hang in the balance. On such an issue, the world must 
act as one.
  Mrs. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the fires 
that are burning in my State of Alaska. To date, there are 117 active 
fires in Alaska that have burned over 3.8 million acres. That is larger 
than the entire State of Connecticut, and 11 of these fires started 
yesterday. This year is the 3rd most active fire season in Alaska since 
records have been kept, 1955.
  Alaskans have been living with these fires since early June. All told 
there have been 479 of them since the start of fire season.
  On Monday July 5, I visited the fire camp of the Boundary Fire, which 
was threatening residences north of Fairbanks, AK.
  It rained while I was visiting the camp. Rain and changes in the 
winds can bring an abrupt end to fire season. I was hopeful that the 
change in weather would allow firefighters to put down the Boundary 
Fire in short order.
  Unfortunately, it was not to be. Shortly after I left the fire camp, 
residents of the Haystack subdivision were told it was safe to return 
home. Just a few days ago, the Haystack subdivision was evacuated for 
the second time this summer. This evacuation affects 150 residents and 
80 homes.
  A total of 34 structures have been lost to the fires now burning in 
the State. Haze from the fires in the interior of Alaska is being 
experienced as far south as Juneau--that is a distance of about 800 
miles.
  The heroes of this fire season are the 2,711 firefighters: many from 
Alaska Native villages and others from the lower 48 who are working 
night and day to protect homes, private property, and subsistence 
resources. I am grateful to the coordinated efforts of the Alaska Fire 
Service and the State Division of Forestry for their tireless work in 
combating these fires. This week, the community of Fairbanks is 
celebrating ``Golden Days''--their annual summer carnival. I don't know 
if any of the firefighters will be able to break away from their duties 
to attend the parade on Saturday, but I can promise you that they will 
be warmly received by the residents of our Golden Heart City.
  I want to commend the Federal fire managers for getting our Nation's 
aerial firefighting resources back in the air. We may have some 
differences of opinion about how long it took to accomplish this or how 
many planes are certified to fly, but I am prepared to leave this 
discussion for a future time.
  The total aerial resources in Alaska include one federally certified 
heavy air tanker, two heavy air tankers under contract to the State of 
Alaska, three single-engine air tankers, and three CL 215's. These 
resources are prepositioned around the State to be used, when needed.
  Thus far, the brave men and women on our fire lines have been 
successful in holding the fire away from primary residences--not only 
in and around Fairbanks, but also in rural communities like Chicken, 
Circle, Central, Eagle, Evansville, Tanacross, Galena, and Venetie.
  The firefighters remind me that the proximity of the fires to 
people's homes creates a ``teachable moment.'' The operative words are 
``be firewise.'' We need to all remember building defensible space 
around structures not only increases the likelihood that a building 
will survive a fire. It also increases safety to residents and our 
firefighters.
  I want to reemphasize my strong support for the fuels reduction 
provisions of the President's Healthy Forest Initiative. This 
initiative is needed more than ever now. Our Nation's forestry policy 
has to allow for responsible forest management that includes the 
ability to remove, when appropriate, wildfire fuel from forests. 
Deteriorating forest and rangeland health now affects more than 190 
million acres nationwide, an area twice the size of California.
  In Alaska, the damage caused by the spruce bark beetle, especially 
along the Kenai Peninsula has been devastating. Over 5 million acres of 
trees in south central and interior Alaska have been lost to insects 
over the last 10 years. Expedited fuel reduction treatment on Federal 
land on which the existence of disease or insect infestation is a 
critical provision in this new law.
  In addition to treating our Federal lands, treating State and private 
lands is also important. Such lands benefit from the U.S. Forest 
Service's State and Private Forestry Program. As we know, wildland 
fires do not discriminate among land ownership patterns. On the Kenai 
Peninsula alone, State, native corporation, and private lands have 
beetle kill in addition to Federal lands on the Chugach and Kenai 
National Wildlife Refuge. There are still over 200,000 acres of 
untreated hazardous fuels within the Wildland-Urban

[[Page S8650]]

Interface, leaving many Alaskan communities at risk.
  Another critical program is the Forest Land Enhancement Program 
(FLEP), which is part of the Farm Bill. This program helps communities 
and individuals to obtain grants for reforestation and thinning of 
lands impacted by beetle kill.
  In Alaska alone, a total of 478 private landowners, along with 19 
native corporations are eligible for FLEP funds for wildfire fuels 
reduction and timber stand improvements. Without this funding, eligible 
Alaskan landowners have no opportunity to make needed forest health 
improvements on their lands. The farm bill in 2002 authorized $100 
million from the Commodity Credit Corporation over a 5-year period 
ending in fiscal year 2007. Only a total of $20 million was used for 
landowner cost-share and technical assistance in fiscal year 2003 with 
$50 million transferred from FLEP to cover Forest Service wildfire 
suppression costs. While supporting wildfire suppression, we must and 
should utilize funding for those State and private forestry programs 
that aid communities in fuel reduction work to reduce these 
catastrophic wildfires we witness each year.
  We must work across party lines to get the needed resources, 
recognizing fiscal responsibility, to all landowners to reduce fuel 
load. This is a responsibility for all of us in Congress.

                          ____________________