[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 19429-19444]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  AUTHORIZATION OF THE USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES AGAINST IRAQ

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
resume consideration of S.J. Res. 45, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A Joint Resolution (S.J. Res. 45) to authorize the use of 
     United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, 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. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
order for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, in a short while, on behalf of a number of 
colleagues, particularly Senators Warner, Bayh, McCain, and myself--and 
I am happy to note the occupant of the Chair, the junior Senator from 
Louisiana is also a cosponsor with us--we are going to be offering a 
substitute to the pending business to authorize the use of United 
States Armed Forces against Iraq.
  This is, obviously, a momentous decision. The debate has begun in 
this Chamber over the last few days. I have watched a lot of it with 
great interest. It has been carried on with the tone of seriousness and 
purpose the matter requires. This debate will continue in earnest over 
the next few days as we, each in our own way, facing our own 
conscience, considering our values, our sense of history, our 
understanding of the threat posed by Iraq under Saddam Hussein, will 
reach a conclusion.
  Senators Warner, Bayh, McCain, and I have reached a conclusion in 
submitting the resolution. I say for the record this resolution is the 
result of an open and spirited process of discussion and negotiation 
between the President of the United States and Members of both parties 
in both Houses.
  The result is a resolution that, in its preamble, states the case 
against Saddam, the case of the ambitions this brutal dictator has to 
gain hegemonic control over the Arab world and the oil there; the 
extraordinary acts of brutality he has committed himself and directed 
others to commit against his own Iraqi people; his invasions of his 
neighbors, Iran and Kuwait, which is evidence, prior to the gulf war, 
of the long-held belief that he has had which is fundamental to the 
Baath party, which he heads, of rising to dominate the region as a 
modern-day Saladin and all that it contains.
  The resolution records the allied efforts in the gulf war which were 
triumphant, and the resolutions of the United Nations that followed 
thereafter as part of the promises Saddam Hussein made to end the gulf 
war, the most significant of which was to disarm and to allow United 
Nations inspectors in to guarantee the world that disarmament would 
occur.
  I talked to someone who was in our Government at that time, and they 
said the presumption was disarmament would occur rapidly and that 
inspectors might be necessary just to make sure there was not, over 
time, an attempt to rearm. Of course, it is 11 years after the gulf war 
ended, and disarmament has never occurred. The United Nations 
resolutions have been violated repeatedly, and ultimately the 
inspectors were thrown out in 1998. All of this, and more, is recorded 
in the preamble section of the resolution we will offer.
  Also recorded is the effort the Bush administration is making now to 
finally convince the United Nations to act, to prove its resolutions 
are worth more than the paper on which they are printed; that the 
United Nations Security Council will act to enforce its resolutions, to 
protect the world from the unique threat represented by Saddam Hussein, 
an ideology which calls on him to spread out and dominate his region, 
weapons of mass destruction he has used not once but repeatedly against 
the Kurdish people who are Iraqi citizens, and against the Iranians in 
war and his support of terrorism.
  There are only seven nations in the world our own State Department 
lists as state sponsors of terrorism.
  Iraq is one of those, and it has supported terrorist groups that have 
killed Americans. This is a unique circumstance. At different times I 
know our colleagues have asked: What about the other countries that are 
on the list of state sponsors of terrorism? What about other nations 
that have weapons of mass destruction? What about other nations that 
have aggressive ambitions? Well, there are such nations, but there is 
no one other nation that brings as much poison and evil intent together 
and, in that sense, so threatens the United States of America as Iraq.
  This resolution, which again is the process of bipartisan and 
bicameral negotiation with the White House, is explicit. It has taken 
some clauses out of the original White House proposal and has added 
some others, but in its most operative sections it says this Congress 
of the United States authorizes the President to use the Armed Forces 
of the United States to defend the national security of the United 
States

[[Page 19430]]

against the continuing threat posed by Iraq and enforce all relevant 
United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
  There are those who ask: Why now? What is the urgency? My own 
response, as the President of the United States declared most recently, 
last night, is: Why not earlier? Why not over the course of the last 
decade, when Saddam Hussein, to our knowledge, continued to build up 
his weapons of mass destruction and the most dangerous and threatening 
means to deliver them on targets near and far, constantly ignoring and 
violating resolutions of the United Nations, growing more ominous a 
threat to his neighbors and to the world?
  My answer, again, to, why now? is, why not earlier?
  Others have said: There has been no provocation. Why are we not 
waiting for an attack to occur? Well, why, after the devastation of 
September 11, 2001, would we want to wait until an attack occurs by 
someone who is clearly arming and threatening us?
  This is not, in the classic sense, an act of preemption to authorize 
the President to take military action against Iraq as a last resort if 
all else fails. In fact, the United States of America--and the United 
Nations, for that matter--have been in a continuing military conflict 
with Iraq since the gulf war began.
  We have 7,500 American military personnel dispatched to the region, 
working alongside their British colleagues to enforce the no-fly zones, 
costing American taxpayers more than $1 billion a year. This is not 
safe duty. This is not casual duty. These American Air Force personnel 
are being fired on repeatedly. More than 400 times this year alone, 
American and British aircraft have been fired on by Iraqi forces. So 
this is not an act of preemption. This is an act of response and 
prevention.
  Others have said on this floor that the authorization we are giving 
the President of the United States is an abrogation of our 
constitutional responsibilities and is much too broad. I respectfully 
disagree. It seems to me the Constitution and the Framers have set up 
attention, attention that they must have understood, to give us, the 
Members of Congress, the authority to declare war, to essentially 
authorize war, but they gave one person, the President of the United 
States, the power to be Commander in Chief to carry out war. Five 
hundred and thirty-five Members of Congress cannot conduct a war. It is 
our responsibility to determine when and under what circumstances we 
will authorize the Commander in Chief to do that, but only the 
President, as Commander in Chief, can do that.
  This resolution we will submit in a few moments strikes exactly the 
right balance. It gives the President a clear and a strong mandate, but 
it limits it. It limits it to a defense of the national security of the 
United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and it 
authorizes the President to use military force, if necessary, to 
enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions 
regarding Iraq.
  For those of us who are sponsoring this resolution, it is based on 
our conclusion that Iraq is a threat to the security of the American 
people, a clear and present danger that, if we do not stop Saddam now, 
we will look back on some terrible day, with a profound sense of 
remorse and guilt, and say why didn't we do it?
  Based on those conclusions, all the evidence I have recited, and so 
much more that has been recited on this floor and will again be 
recited, this resolution says: Mr. President, we have decided Iraq is a 
danger to the United States, we have decided that United Nations 
Security Council resolutions can no longer be ignored, and we give you 
the authority, as Commander in Chief, to take it from there.
  In closing, with that authority we are giving the President come 
accountability and responsibility. There are some who have said this is 
a blank check. Of course if somebody forges a check, they are held 
accountable, but it is not as if this is a blank check, without 
accountability, on a bank account that has no limit.
  With this resolution--if and when, as I hope, it passes 
overwhelmingly--we not only give the President the authority to act 
within the parameters of the resolution, we give him a tremendous and 
awesome responsibility. It is not a blank check. It is the most serious 
responsibility the Congress can give the President. As the President 
himself has made clear over the last several weeks on several 
occasions, he understands the weight of that responsibility. But he and 
we, the sponsors of this resolution, understand if we do not authorize 
him to take this action, the American people may suffer a far worse 
fate.
  It is our intention to lay this resolution down soon. I look forward 
to the debate. My colleagues and I intend to be in the Chamber to 
answer questions of our colleagues about these issues.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I am happy to yield for a question.
  Mr. McCAIN. I appreciate the remarks of my friend, their tone, and 
particularly the content that really lays out the parameters of this 
debate. I ask my friend from Connecticut: Did the Senator have a chance 
to hear the President's address to the Nation last night?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I did.
  Mr. McCAIN. Was it clear to the Senator that the President showed the 
American people that every option is being explored before a military 
option is exercised? I ask this question because I hear time and again 
from many Americans, who either are opposed to any military 
intervention or have not made up their minds, that they seem not to 
have confidence that the President is exercising every option. He is 
coming to Congress to get approval from both Houses of Congress. We 
have had significant debate, and we will have significant debate.
  We are working at the Security Council level. We are making it 
absolutely clear that tomorrow Saddam Hussein, if he did away with his 
weapons of mass destruction, destroyed the laboratory and allowed 
complete and comprehensive inspections, would probably remove the 
threat he now faces. It is Saddam Hussein who has continued for the 
last 11 years.
  My question to the Senator is, Do you think the President's speech 
last night went some distance in convincing the American people that 
neither the President nor the Senator from Connecticut, nor I, nor the 
Senator from Virginia, nor the Senator from Indiana, choose the 
military option? We are sending young Americans into harm's way. As 
successful as this operation may be, we will still lose some brave 
young Americans' lives. That is the reality. That is why we avoid it at 
all costs.
  As we conduct this debate, we need to talk about the fact that this 
is not the preferred option for the President of the United States or 
any Member of this body. This is the last option. We can make the case 
that it is obvious that Saddam Hussein continues this buildup of 
weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. But we are not 
the ones who are forcing this issue. The President of the United States 
in this resolution is not forcing the issue. It is Saddam Hussein who 
is forcing this issue.
  We will, as we go through this debate and the conversations at the 
United Nations Security Council, make sure we have exhausted every 
possible option. This is a critical factor in getting the American 
people behind this resolution and behind the President of the United 
States and behind the men and women in the military.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senator from Arizona for his question. Of 
course, I agree with the Senator that the President of the United 
States has made it quite clear that he is asking us for this authority 
to dispatch our responsibility under the Constitution to give him the 
power to make war if necessary, but he hopes--and clearly, we hope--
that will not be necessary.
  I hope this is one of those cases where, as someone once said, the 
best way to achieve peace is to prepare for war. The best way to 
achieve compliance by Saddam Hussein with the promises he made at the 
end of the gulf

[[Page 19431]]

war is to show that finally we are prepared to go to war once again to 
enforce those promises he made.
  This Nation has been remarkably patient. The fact is, over the last 
decade or more we and the United Nations have tried just about every 
other conceivable way, short of war, to get the Iraqis under Saddam 
Hussein to keep the promises they made and to disarm. We have tried 
sanctions which have been so difficult because of the way Saddam 
Hussein has carried them out on the Iraqi people. We have tried 
inspections. We have tried the Oil for Food Program. We have tried 
limited military action. None of it has worked to convince this brutal 
dictator to observe the rule of law and to keep the policies he made.
  In one sense, we might say this is the moment of truth for him, the 
challenge the President has given Saddam Hussein, and that this 
bipartisan resolution, which I hope and believe will achieve an 
overwhelming vote of bipartisan support by our colleagues, this 
resolution finally says to Saddam Hussein: Disarm. We do not want to go 
to war against you. Disarm or face war. The danger you represent is so 
great. We can only hope and pray that message will be heard in Baghdad.
  I thank my colleague for the question. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I reiterate what our distinguished 
colleague from Connecticut has said, what my longtime friend of over 30 
years, Senator McCain, just said.
  This is the last option. What we are doing in the Senate today, 
tomorrow, and when that vote comes is to vote our conscience, 100 
individuals, to do our very best to deter the use of force but to make 
it clear that our Constitution has given this President and every 
President who has preceded him, and every President who will come 
after, the authority to utilize all the assets of our Nation, 
principally the men and women of the Armed Forces, to secure our 
interests and protect our people.
  I have been privileged to be a Member of this body nearly a quarter 
of a century now, and if the good Lord returns me in January, it will 
mark the 25th year. I cannot recall any moment when I have stood on the 
floor with a greater sense of humility and pride to be associated with 
three more courageous individuals than Senator Lieberman, Senator 
McCain, and Senator Bayh, as we, the four horsemen, work to direct and 
guide a resolution which the four of us put together with the 
assistance of the President, through his surrogates, and the leadership 
of the Senate on both sides of the aisle. It is our best effort to 
provide leadership to this body which we do so, the four of us, with a 
great sense of humility.
  There is not a day in the life of those who serve in the Senate when 
politics is not raised. It has been raised with regard to this issue. 
When Senator McCain and I approached Senator Lieberman in the past few 
weeks about his interest, Senator Lieberman stood up and said, I want 
to be counted from the very first.
  I remember so well in 1990 and 1991 when I was privileged to work 
with Senator Dole, Senator McCain, and many others, Senator Dole said: 
Let us find a partner for the 1991 resolution. This great Senator from 
Connecticut had just joined the Armed Services Committee. He was, if I 
may say, a freshman Senator. I said to our leadership on this side: I 
think there is our man. And the Senator proved to be just that man.
  The resolution that the Senator and I and others drew up in 1991 
provided the basis for one of the great debates in contemporary times 
in the Senate, 3 days and 3 nights, culminating in a historic 
bipartisan vote. By a mere margin of only five votes did the Senate 
pass and adopt that resolution which gave the President the support of 
the Senate to follow through with his constitutional responsibilities. 
That was George Bush, we call him ``old 41,'' President at that time, 
the father of our President today.
  I say to you, Senator, as the history of this institution is written, 
you will properly take your place in history. You showed courage then, 
courage now, and not politics.
  Last night, we listened carefully to our President as he addressed 
the Nation to provide the leadership necessary with regard to this very 
serious issue of Saddam Hussein and eliminating his weapons of mass 
destruction. Speaking just for myself, but I think it is shared by 
other Senators, this President has shown remarkable courage. We would 
not be here today in this debate, we would not be watching the debate 
in the United Nations on a possible 17th resolution, we would not be 
seeing our country focusing on this issue, had it not been for George 
Bush, our President, having the foresight to see the essential need for 
the United States to lead at this time. Not tomorrow, not the next day, 
not the next month, not the next year, but now in the effort of the 
free world to rid Saddam Hussein of the weapons of mass destruction.
  We owe a debt of gratitude to that President, who, in clear, 
forthright, and often soft tones of voice, last night addressed the 
Nation with the need for action now.
  I thank our President. It is important, in my judgment, and, I think, 
that of the three of my cosponsors, that the Congress and the President 
speak with one voice on behalf of this Nation--one voice. It is my 
fervent hope this body will adopt this resolution, the House of 
Representatives will adopt the identical language which is before the 
House at this moment, and there be no air, no daylight, no distance 
perceived by anyone between the Congress and the President--arm in arm, 
leading the world towards a solution to this problem.
  The President, time and time again, made tireless efforts, engaging 
heads of state and governments throughout the world to join. Now is the 
time.
  We will be visited today by the Secretary of State, who has 
courageously worked on behalf of the President, with the nations at the 
United Nations, in framing a resolution which leaves no doubt in the 
mind of anyone that this Nation and other nations are together for an 
inspection regime. It will not be like the previous regimes but will 
have clear directions clearly showing Saddam Hussein now is the time 
for cooperation, not for thwarting the efforts of the team. Should this 
resolution be adopted and should they go in, and that is yet to be 
determined, clearly, the enforceability of their task is with the 
commitment of the member nations of the union.
  More will be said following the four of us as we speak about that 
resolution. Right now it is being debated largely behind closed doors. 
But we know enough that our President and our Secretary of State have 
made it eminently clear past efforts have failed, and if we are to 
undertake a 17th resolution, it must leave no doubt as to the outcome 
in terms of enforceability of carrying out that inspection.
  The question is raised: Why now? Let's wait and see.
  I say with no disrespect to those who raise it, but I say it for my 
own views, that is sort of: Give Saddam Hussein the benefit of the 
doubt. I do not find anywhere in the history of that dictator, those 
facts, that justify--whether it is the Senate, whether it is the House, 
whether it is the Congress, whether it is the President, whether it is 
any nation in the world--that this man is entitled to the benefit of 
the doubt that he will do the right thing now, tomorrow, or in the 
future. It is now we must act. For those who say take time and wait, 
then point out what is the cost of waiting; what is the cost of waiting 
if he were to finish his program. We do not know exactly what is 
established with this nuclear program.
  We know the courage of the Israeli government, I believe it was in 
1981, to go in and bomb that plant that was then clearly manufacturing 
components for nuclear weapons. We have other bits of information from 
the inspections that took place following the 1991 conflict that he 
clearly was endeavoring to build a nuclear weapon. More evidence is 
coming in he is continuing to acquire the raw material, the parts, and 
the other pieces that are

[[Page 19432]]

essential to build a nuclear weapon. So there is no doubt he is 
propelling his nation forward to acquire it. What would be the status 
of the states in the Middle East, indeed our own Nation, or other parts 
of the world, if this man, given his past and his proclivity to use 
poison gas against his own people, to behead those in his own nation 
who have the courage to disagree with him--what is the cost of waiting?
  I say most respectfully to those who want to wait and see and give 
him the benefit of the doubt, do explain what is the cost if we wait 
until he acquires not only a nuclear capability but further builds upon 
the stockpile of weapons of mass destruction in terms of biological and 
chemical weapons.
  This is what the President said last night, very clearly. I would 
like to read it:

       Approving this resolution does not mean that military 
     action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell 
     the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with 
     one voice and it 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, and the 
     time remaining for that choice is limited.

  I think that is the persuasive case of why not and not wait for the 
future.
  The President went on to say:

       Some have argued we should wait, and that's an option.

  He acknowledged that is a option.

       In my view, it's the riskiest of all options, because the 
     longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will 
     become. . . .
       As Americans, we want peace. We work and sacrifice for 
     peace. But there can be no peace if our security depends on 
     the will and whims of a ruthless and aggressive dictator. I'm 
     not willing to stake one American life on trusting Saddam 
     Hussein.

  The American people understand that. They understand that, and I 
think they will receive with gratitude the action of this body, as we 
will pass this resolution most assuredly in the days to come.
  Last, I will talk about one aspect of the weapons of mass destruction 
program in response to those who say, What's new? The four of us follow 
intelligence very carefully because of our respective assignments. But 
I did not realize until it is now in open literature Saddam Hussein had 
progressed in his biological infrastructure to the point where he now 
has his plants on truck beds: One, two, three, four trucks--just like 
the ones you see every day on the highways of the United States--that 
can be brought together at, I suppose, any number of places to 
manufacture biological material. It can be containerized in small 
vials. Obviously it can be transported, given it is manufactured as 
trucks move about.
  As our President said very carefully last night, that can be placed 
in the hands of terrorists, the international organizations of terror, 
and transported to the United States through our open borders of 
freedom. Those small vials can be released upon communities large and 
small, and wreak havoc and devastation.
  We have seen that on 9/11, a year ago, we are no longer protected by 
these great oceans, by the friendly nations--to the north, Canada, and 
our friends to the south. We are a vulnerable Nation. Saddam Hussein 
has the capability either directly or indirectly to strike us.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. WARNER. Last sentence, and then I will yield.
  As the President said, that strike could come and we cannot trace the 
fingerprints.
  We are still trying to study who brought the anthrax against the U.S. 
Senate, the post offices--I reiterate, without fingerprints.
  I yield to my friend.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senator from Virginia. May I say first how 
grateful I am for his kind words towards this Senator. I return them in 
the fullness of sincerity. One of the great honors and pleasures of the 
last 14 years has been serving with you, but also getting to know you 
and considering you a friend. There is not a better person or gentleman 
or anyone more committed as a patriot to our country than the Senator 
from Virginia. I am honored once again to be working with him in this 
cause.
  I appreciate what he has just said about the programs of weapons of 
mass destruction Saddam Hussein has, and particularly these programs of 
chemical and biological weapons.
  I know the Senator has spent some time considering, and I wonder if 
you might, to the extent you are able to, discuss matters in an open 
session as to some of the concerns that I know you and I share about 
the programs that Saddam Hussein's Iraq has now to develop not just 
ballistic missiles to carry biological and chemical weapons but 
unmanned aerial vehicles, some of which are quite small and potentially 
could threaten not only Saddam's neighbors there in the region but 
potentially could threaten us, the American people, here in the 
continental United States.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator from Virginia has 
expired. Under the order, it was 15 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to extend my 
remarks for 5 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. I say to the Senator, you and I, on the Armed Services 
Committee--as a matter of fact, several years ago, when I was 
privileged to be chairman of that committee--initiated a program among 
all our U.S. services to move more in the direction of unmanned 
vehicles--aircraft, vehicles on the ground, and in every other way--
recognizing the tremendous advantages to that.
  The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Myers, as well as 
others, recently has said that he is pursuing that program 
unrelentingly to encapsule in small, sometimes large, unmanned 
aircraft--just point them in a direction and away they go.
  Now, just speaking from my own knowledge, not intelligence, I say to 
my good friend, there are 1,000 hobby shops in America where anyone--or 
you can go into catalogs--and you can buy model planes with a 6-foot 
wing span, and maybe it can carry only a small amount. But sometimes 
only a small amount of a weapon of mass destruction, if released over a 
community or otherwise disbursed, depending on the winds, can bring 
about incredible devastation.
  I say to the Senator, you are so right about that particular set of 
facts. I tell you, America should be on alert. And we should show the 
support of this Congress behind our President at this time so that we 
can send that message to the United Nations that this 17th resolution, 
if in fact it comes into being, has to be the last, the final. 
Hopefully it will deter any use of force over and above what is 
necessary to enforce the Resolution No. 17, I will call it.
  But again, if Saddam Hussein does not cooperate on No. 17, then it 
has to be made imminently clear to him that the member nations then 
have no other recourse but to resort to the use of force, hopefully 
collectively.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senator. Our colleague from Indiana is 
waiting to speak, but I want to just very briefly say to you again what 
you know--and I hope to put some testimony into the Record--about the 
devastating biological weapons that Saddam possesses, some for which we 
do not have an effective cure or have an effective response.
  I hesitate to even say this, but I think to show the seriousness of 
what we are about, I know there has been a lot of discussion: Does 
Saddam have nuclear weapons? How soon will he have them? Will it be 10 
years or 1 year or 5 years?
  But does the Senator agree with me that the biological weapons 
capacity Saddam has now, if delivered by an unmanned aerial vehicle, 
could do far more damage--I am talking about death to people--than the 
kind of primitive nuclear weapon he might have in a year at best, 5 
years, 10 years?
  In other words, the danger is here. It is clear and present, and it 
is now.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, the Senator is so correct in his views. 
We

[[Page 19433]]

know not what he might be able to build. Frankly, we do not know a 
great deal about what he has today by way of nuclear capacity. The best 
knowledge that is in the open is that he does not have a finished 
weapon, but we do not know whether it is 6 months, 6 years, or what 
time it may be.
  But that might be a single weapon or maybe two, whereas the 
biological, in small containers, can be multiplied 100 times over in 
100 different locations. Therefore, the tragic death and injury to 
Americans or others--as a matter of fact, we keep focusing on this 
Nation. There are other nations that stand at peril to this dictator.
  I must conclude to stay within the allocation of time. I say to my 
friend, I look forward to our further debates on the floor. But I close 
by saying this vote which we will cast here has to be a vote of 
conscience, not influenced in any way by political considerations. And 
above all in our hearts and minds will be the men and women of the 
Armed Forces who will undoubtedly bear the burden if it is necessary to 
use force. May God bless them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.


                           Amendment No. 4856

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, if I may seek the indulgence of my 
colleague from Indiana for just a moment, I am now prepared to send, on 
his behalf, on behalf of Senator Warner and Senator McCain, the 
occupant of the Chair, Senator Landrieu, and others, a resolution, an 
amendment in the nature of a substitute for S.J. Res. 45, which I ask 
the clerk to call up at this time, and ask that the clerk, for the 
Record, read the names of the initial cosponsors of the resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman] for himself, 
     Mr. Warner, Mr. Bayh, Mr. McCain, Ms. Landrieu, Mr. 
     McConnell, Mr. Miller, Mr. Domenici, Mr. Edwards, Mr. 
     Hutchinson, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Allard, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Helms, 
     Mr. Bunning, and Mr. Lott, proposes an amendment numbered 
     4856.

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

                (Purpose: In the nature of a substitute)

       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. 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; 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. 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. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. BAYH. Thank you, Madam President. It is good to be with you 
today. I am reassured by your presence. And I am grateful for the 
support of the Senator from Louisiana for our resolution.
  It is an honor and privilege for me to join today with my 
distinguished colleagues, Senator Warner, Senator McCain, and my good 
friend, Senator Lieberman, in support of this resolution granting the 
President of the United States the authority to defend our country.
  Madam President, I support this resolution not because I favor a 
resort to war but because I believe this resolution gives our country 
the best chance to maintain peace.
  I support this resolution not because I favor America acting 
unilaterally, unless we must, but because I believe this resolution 
gives us the best opportunity to rally our allies and convince the 
United Nations to act with us, and in so doing give that international 
institution meaning for the resolutions that it adopts.
  I favor this resolution because in a world where we have rogue 
regimes possessing weapons of mass death, and suicidal terrorists who 
are all too eager to use them against us, weapons of that nature in the 
hands of a regime such as Saddam Hussein's represents an unacceptable 
risk to the safety and well-being of the American people.
  As much as I wish we could ignore this threat, it is my heartfelt 
conviction that in all conscience we cannot.
  Finally, along with my colleagues, I support this resolution because 
I believe we must learn the terrible lessons from the tragedy of 
September 11, foremost among which is that we waited too long to 
address the gathering danger in Afghanistan. If we had acted sooner, 
perhaps--just perhaps--we could have saved 3,000 innocent lives: men, 
women, and children. We waited too long to act. Let us not make that 
mistake again.
  Unfortunately, in dealing with Saddam Hussein and the regime of Iraq, 
we are dealing with a brutal dictator who understands one thing, and 
one thing only: either the threat of force or the use of force.
  We have tried everything else. We have tried economic sanctions for

[[Page 19434]]

years, to no avail. We have tried diplomacy for over a decade. It has 
availed us nothing. We do not have the covert means presently to deal 
with this tyrant. And so as my colleagues have indicated, there is 
nothing left to us to defend ourselves except an ultimatum to Saddam: 
Disarm or else.
  For those who believe we can remove the weapons of mass destruction 
from this regime without the credible threat of the use of force, I 
regrettably must say they are engaged in wishful thinking. It is my 
heartfelt conviction that the best and only chance we have for a 
peaceful resolution to this problem, for him to give up these 
instruments of mass death, is to present him with a credible ultimatum 
that the survival of his regime depends upon doing so, that any other 
course of action will lead to his overthrow, and that alone will 
preserve the peace, the safety, and the security of our country.
  I believe this course presents us with the best opportunity to rally 
our allies and convince the United Nations to act with us. We should 
make every effort--as Senator McCain indicated in his colloquy with 
Senator Lieberman and as the President indicated last night--to 
convince the United Nations and our allies of the justice of our cause. 
We are stronger when we act together, so we must seek a consensus for 
this course of action.
  Unfortunately, the United Nations has a long history of equivocation 
when it comes to taking difficult steps to enforce even its own 
resolutions. Our allies, as much as we cherish their support, also have 
a mixed record in this regard. Need I remind the Senate that for too 
long we waited while genocide was perpetrated on the very doorstep of 
Europe in Bosnia and Kosovo? It was only when the United States of 
America demonstrated a willingness to take action to bring that 
lamentable chapter to a conclusion that the United Nations and our 
allies demonstrated the will to act with us.
  It is only through strong leadership, leadership by the United 
States, that we will preserve the peace, rally our allies, and convince 
the United Nations to enforce its own resolutions. If these efforts 
avail us not, it is my heartfelt conviction that weapons of mass death 
in the hands of a brutal dictator such as Saddam Hussein, combined with 
the presence of suicidal terrorist organizations that would all too 
eagerly use these instruments of mass destruction against us, represent 
an unacceptable risk for the safety and well-being of the American 
people.
  I hope Saddam will do the right thing. I pray that he will do the 
right thing and give up these weapons of mass destruction. Regrettably, 
based upon the track record of his past behavior, I believe he probably 
will not.
  Weapons of mass destruction represent an indispensable part of his 
power. Saddam Hussein is a megalomaniac who has attempted to project 
that power around the region. As we all know, he invaded Kuwait. He has 
invaded Iran. He has launched missiles at Saudi Arabia and Israel. He 
has killed hundreds of thousands, including tens of thousands of his 
fellow citizens.
  I ask my colleagues to anticipate a world in which we do not act. 
What will Saddam do? Can there be much doubt that he will attempt to 
develop the ability to deter our future action by threatening us with 
the use of weapons of mass destruction? I believe there is not. If he 
cannot develop this deterrent on his own, I believe there is little 
doubt he will reach out to al-Qaida or Hezbollah or other international 
institutions of terrorism to develop a deterrent to threaten us, with 
unacceptable consequences, if in the future we decide to restrain his 
aggressive actions.
  If there is only a 10-percent chance or a 15-percent chance that 
weapons of mass death will find their way from Iraq into the hands of 
suicidal terrorists, I believe this is a risk to the American people 
that we cannot afford to run.
  The world changed forever on September 11. The principal lesson of 
that tragedy is that America waited too long to address the gathering 
danger in Afghanistan. We must not make that mistake again.
  To those who say, what is the rush? why can't we wait? I respond by 
asking the question: How long must we wait? Until the missiles have 
been launched? Until smallpox, anthrax, or VX nerve agent has found its 
way into our country? Is that how long we should wait?
  The consequences of error in this instance are much too great. The 
deaths next time might not be numbered in the threes of thousands but 
30,000 or 300,000.
  To respond to the question of my friend from Connecticut, in all 
likelihood Saddam Hussein possesses smallpox. We are not sure whether 
he has weaponized it yet. There is a 50/50 proposition. But if he has 
and if that would find its way into our country, which would not be too 
difficult to accomplish, the consequences would be catastrophic.
  We conducted a simulated exercise of a smallpox attack--I believe it 
was called Dark Winter--simulating a smallpox outbreak put into a 
ventilation system in a mall in Oklahoma City. The consequences were 
catastrophic: Tens of thousands of deaths, hundreds of thousands of 
illnesses; civil law broke down. These are the kinds of consequences 
that would be all too real were we to stay our hand.
  I remind my colleagues that in a world of imperfect intelligence--and 
there will always be imperfect intelligence--if we wait, we run the 
very real risk of having waited too long. We have seen the kind of 
tragedy to which that can lead.
  I ask all of us to consider, if this debate had been conducted 2 
years ago and my colleagues and I had laid a resolution upon this desk 
that said, there is danger brewing in Afghanistan, it threatens the 
United States of America, we need to take it seriously, and we must act 
before it is too late, all of the arguments that are being made against 
the current resolution would also have been made at that time. As we 
now know, the arguments have all been mistaken. They are mistaken today 
as well.
  To those who say the threat is not imminent, after 9/11, how long can 
we afford to wait? To those who say regime change is not an appropriate 
reason for acting, I say weapons of mass destruction and the regime of 
Saddam Hussein are one and indivisible. To remove weapons of mass 
destruction, we must remove that regime. To think anything else is to 
delude ourselves.
  For those who believe the United Nations' approval is necessary for 
our action, I say it is preferential but we cannot afford to give that 
great body veto power on America's right to defend itself. To those who 
say we need allied support, I agree. But this is an argument of the 
chicken and the egg. It is only with American leadership and taking a 
strong hand in this instance that we will receive the kind of united 
allied support we seek.
  To those who ask the question, What will we do after our victory? I 
say that is a good question, but can the regime in Iraq be worse? I 
think not. We could begin to rebuild that country in a way that would 
provide a positive example to the people of that region about the 
principles and the ideals upon which America stands.
  Our eventual victory in the war against terror will be won as much by 
the values and the principles we embrace and advocate as by the force 
of our arms. This gives us an opportunity to put those principles and 
values into action.
  To those who say we must exhaust all of our alternatives before 
acting, I simply say that we already have. In conclusion, let me 
summarize by saying this: I and my colleagues support this resolution 
not because we desire war but because it is our heartfelt conviction 
that this is the best and only path to preserve the peace. My 
colleagues and I support this resolution not because we favor the U.S. 
acting alone, but because we know that, by taking a strong stand, it 
gives us the best opportunity to garner U.N. support and to rally our 
allies to our side.
  We support this resolution because we believe that the lesson 
learned, very painfully and so tragically by our country on September 
11 of last year, is that we wait in an era of mass terror at our peril. 
We were mistaken then; let us not be mistaken again. Let us act to 
protect our country and, in so

[[Page 19435]]

doing, discharge our constitutional duty. It is my privilege and honor 
to do so in such esteemed company.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BAYH. Yes.
  Mr. McCAIN. The Senator from Indiana indicated to me when we had 
discussions about this resolution, introduced by Senator Lieberman, 
Senator Warner, the Senator, and myself, about the fact that in his 
home State there is great concern about going to war. In fact, he 
mentioned to me that was the majority of calls and communications he 
had with the people of Indiana, which he was privileged to serve as 
Governor as well as a Senator. In other words, the Senator has a fairly 
good finger on the pulse of the people he represents. That skepticism 
was based on what concerns and what led the Senator from Indiana to 
conclude that it was important for him not only to support this 
resolution but play a role as a major sponsor of this legislation. I 
think it is important for the people of this Nation and our colleagues 
to understand that, since his State is part of the heartland of 
America, as is Arizona. Many people feel otherwise.
  I am very interested in hearing what the Senator from Indiana has 
viewed as the factors leading him to play such a visible, as well as 
important, role in this resolution.
  Mr. BAYH. I thank my colleague. Our State is known as the crossroads 
of America. With my colleagues' States, I believe we represent the 
common sense and wisdom of the American people.
  On my visits home, and in communications from constituents, there has 
been an expression of concern about our present set of circumstances. I 
must say to my friend that it is a concern that I share.
  I did not come easily to the conclusion that we have collectively 
reached. There is reluctance in my heart, as I know there is in the 
other Senators', to contemplate the use of force. But I reached the 
conclusion that we were simply left with no other credible alternative 
to protect the safety and well-being of the American people.
  As you indicated in your colloquy with Senator Lieberman, and as I 
indicated in my own remarks, and the President spoke to last evening, I 
hope beyond anything else that this does not come to war; that the use 
of force will not be necessary. But I also believe that the best chance 
to achieve that outcome is the credible threat of the use of force. 
Saddam Hussein responds to nothing else. If he does not disarm 
voluntarily--as I hope he will, and we all pray he will--I have also 
concluded that his possession of weapons of mass death, and the real 
likelihood that he will develop the capability for using them against 
us to deter us from restraining him at some future point, or the risk 
of those weapons--nuclear, biological, chemical weapons--falling into 
the hands of suicidal terrorists represent too great a risk to our 
country.
  As I tried to outline in my remarks, I believe the principal lesson--
and I asked this question to the head of the CIA: What is the principal 
lesson we learned from 9/11?
  He responded directly and said the principal lesson was that we 
waited too long to address the gathering threat in Afghanistan.
  So I am convinced we should act sooner rather than later to defend 
our country because we have seen the terrible consequences that can 
result. For all those reasons, I have reached the conclusion that this 
resolution is necessary.
  Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator yield for one further question?
  Mr. BAYH. Yes.
  Mr. McCAIN. I have one additional question for the Senator from 
Indiana. He mentioned, as the Senator from Connecticut has and as the 
Senator from Virginia has, there is great concern about this issue 
amongst our constituents. Yet I have found in communications with the 
people of my State, both directly and from being on talk shows and in 
speeches and things such as that, that the reassurance given to them 
that we are taking every possible action by going to the Congress of 
the United States and having this debate on the resolution of approval, 
which represents the people of this country in both bodies, by going to 
the Security Council and getting a very important resolution through 
the Security Council--which has not been achieved yet, but I think is 
part of the very important part of the process we are going through--I 
find that people are far more comforted and feel much more supportive 
in a realization that this is the last option and not the first option.
  Perhaps some months ago the impression was created that this was the 
first option the President wanted to pursue when, clearly, I think he 
has displayed, by what he is doing and by how he spoke last night, that 
that is not the case. Has the Senator had that feeling?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Indiana has used 15 minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Indiana may 
respond to the question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BAYH. Madam President, I would say three things to my colleague. 
First, I believe he is correct. I think there was an initial impression 
that our Government had a preference for unilateral action, perhaps 
without exhausting every other alternative. I do not believe that to be 
true. We have begun to correct that. I should compliment my colleague 
from the State of Indiana, Senator Lugar, who played an important role 
in convincing the administration to reach out and pursue other 
alternatives with the U.N. and our allies.
  The Senator from Arizona has raised two very good points. When I go 
home, people say to me: We understand the danger and we wish it didn't 
have to come to war.
  That is a reluctance that I share. My response would be, looking at 
the brutal nature of his regime, and Saddam Hussein's history, I 
believe the best chance to remove the weapons, without coming to war, 
is to present him with a credible ultimatum. That is what we are doing 
here.
  People also say: Senator, we wish we were not in it alone, and that 
we had the U.N. with us and more allies with us.
  As my colleague knows--and I think we share this belief--my strong 
conviction is that our best chance to gather that support is through 
strong American leadership. Only then will the U.N. and our allies 
rally to our side, when we show our own determination.
  So the best chance for a peaceful outcome, the best chance for a 
united front with our allies and with the imprimatur of the U.N., I 
believe, is by giving a strong hand to the President to present Saddam 
Hussein with no alternative; and when I have a chance to relay that to 
the people of Indiana, they understand.
  Nobody wants war, but they understand this is the best avenue to 
avoid that, while also ensuring the security of our country.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Indiana.
  One of the reasons why I return to this particular aspect of this 
issue is, as the Senator from Virginia knows well, or better than I--
and others do, too--we once embarked into a conflict that the American 
people were not well informed on and, over time, they did not support. 
I believe this debate is important. I respect and admire the views of 
those who disagree with this resolution, but we will not enter this 
conflict without it being fully understood by the American people, as 
to what is at stake and why we are doing it. That is why I continue to 
go back to this issue of whether our constituents will be satisfied; 
that if, as a last resort, we enter into a conflict, it will not be 
because they have not been informed.
  Madam President:

       The retention of weapons of mass destruction capabilities 
     is self-evidently the core objective of the [Iraqi] regime, 
     for it has sacrificed all other domestic and foreign policy 
     goals to this singular aim.

  So concludes a recent report by the International Institute for 
Strategic Studies.
  I want to repeat that. The International Institute for Strategic 
Studies said:


[[Page 19436]]

       The retention of weapons of mass destruction capabilities 
     is self-evidently the core objective of the [Iraqi] regime, 
     for it has sacrificed all other domestic and foreign policy 
     goals to this singular aim.

  The question facing all of us in this body is whether Saddam 
Hussein's aggressive weapons development in defiance of this gulf war 
cease-fire in the decade of U.N. Security Council resolutions can stand 
when the cost of inaction against this gathering threat could be 
intolerably high.
  I am proud to join Senators Lieberman, Warner, and Bayh in laying 
down our amendment providing the President the necessary authority to 
defend the national security of the United States against the 
continuing threat posed by Iraq and enforce all relevant U.N. Security 
Council resolutions against Saddam Hussein's regime.
  I welcome this debate. I am confident it will result in a resounding 
vote of support for the President as he moves to confront the threat we 
face in Iraq. I also believe it will be a powerful signal to the world 
that the American people are united in their determination to meet and 
to end this menace.
  Our diplomacy at the United Nations will benefit from a strong and 
bipartisan congressional vote in favor of this resolution. Our enemies 
will understand that we are united in our resolve to confront the 
danger posed by a dictator whose possession of the worst weapons and 
systematic defiance of every norm the civilized world holds dear 
threaten all who value freedom and law.
  Congress has already spoken on this matter. On August 14, 1998, 
President Clinton signed into law Senate Joint Resolution 54 which 
declared that ``the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable 
breach of its international obligations'' and urged the President ``to 
take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and 
relative laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with 
its international obligations.''
  On October 31, 1998, then-President Clinton signed into law the Iraq 
Liberation Act which stated:

       It should be the policy of the United States to support 
     efforts to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from 
     power in Iraq and to promote the emergence of a domestic 
     government to replace that regime.

  That was October 31, 1998, the Iraq Liberation Act signed into law by 
the President of the United States.
  Then, as now, Democrats and Republicans recognized the menace posed 
by Saddam Hussein's arsenal and his ambitions. Unfortunately, after 4 
days of bombing Iraq in Operation Desert Fox in December 1998--4 days 
of bombing--the United States and the international community 
effectively walked away from the Iraq problem, freeing Iraq from a 
weapons inspection regime that, by that time, had become so compromised 
by Saddam Hussein's intransigence as to be completely ineffective. 
Nothing has taken place over the past 4 years, even as a porous 
sanctions regime and illicit oil revenues have enriched the regime. 
Over this time, Saddam Hussein's threat to the world has grown without 
hindrance.
  Regrettably, some of the very same permanent members of the Security 
Council whose vote for a new resolution on Iraq we are now courting 
actively conspired against rigorous weapons inspections in Iraq during 
the 1990s, for reasons that had more to do with their narrow commercial 
interests than with the world's interest in getting rid of the menace 
posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of terror.
  The threat is not new. Saddam Hussein has been in gross violation of 
the terms of the cease-fire that ended the Persian Gulf war since that 
war's end, as a host of United Nations Security Council resolutions 
passed since 1991 can attest. As The Economist has written:

       He has treated inspections as a continuation of the Gulf 
     War by other means.

  After years of stymied efforts to enforce the inspections regime, the 
international community effectively sanctioned Saddam's impunity after 
it became clear he would never allow intrusive inspections, and once it 
became apparent to many Americans that the only way to end his defiance 
was to end his regime. The withering under U.N. Security Council 
auspices of the international inspections regime over the course of a 
decade, and Iraq's decision not to even consider renewed inspections 
only under the threat of force today, make clear that unvarnished faith 
in the ability of the U.N. Security Council or a new corps of 
inspectors to disarm Saddam's regime is misplaced.
  Over the course of this debate, the Senate will consider amendments 
that would require Security Council authorization before the United 
States could act to enforce a decade of Security Council resolutions, 
and that would narrow the focus of American policy to Iraq's 
disarmament, rather than against the range of Saddam's offenses against 
his people and his neighbors and the continuing threat his regime 
itself poses to American national security.
  These debates will be important. I believe the President's position 
will prevail. Congress cannot foresee the course of this conflict and 
should not unnecessarily constrain the options open to the President to 
defeat the threat we have identified in Saddam Hussein. Once Congress 
acts on a resolution, only the President will have to make the choices, 
with American forces likely deployed in the region to carry out his 
orders, that will end the threat Saddam Hussein's weapons and his 
ambitions pose to the world. Congress should give the President the 
authority he believes he needs to protect American national security 
against an often irrational dictator who has demonstrated a history of 
aggression outside his borders and a willingness to use weapons of mass 
destruction against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
  This is not just another Arab despot, not one of many tyrants who 
repress their people from within the confines of their countries. As 
New Yorker writer Jeffrey Goldberg, who recently traveled across 
northern Iraq, recently wrote in Slate:

       There are, of course, many repugnant dictators in the 
     world; a dozen or so in the Middle East alone. But Saddam 
     Hussein is a figure of singular repugnance, and singular 
     danger. To review: there is no dictator in power anywhere in 
     the world who has, so far in his career, invaded two 
     neighboring countries; fired ballistic missiles at the 
     civilians of two other neighboring countries; tried to have 
     assassinated an ex-president of the United States; harbored 
     al Qaeda fugitives . . . ; attacked civilians with chemical 
     weapons; attacked the soldiers of an enemy with chemical 
     weapons; conducted biological weapons experiments on human 
     subjects; committed genocide; and . . . [weaponized] 
     aflotoxin, a tool of mass murder and nothing else. I do not 
     know how any thinking person could believe that Saddam 
     Hussein is a run-of-the-mill dictator. No one else comes 
     close . . . to matching his extraordinary and variegated 
     record of malevolence.

  In light of Saddam Hussein's record of aggression, prohibited weapons 
deployment, and consistent rejection of every international obligation 
imposed on him, I believe the burden of proof in this debate must rest 
on those who believe inspections could actually achieve the disarmament 
of Iraq, rather than on those of us who are deeply skeptical that 
inspections alone could accomplish our common goal. History shows that 
we will most likely not disarm Iraq without changing the regime in 
Baghdad--a regime whose continued existence is predicated on possession 
of weapons of mass destruction. As arms control experts Gary Milhollin 
and Kelly Motz have noted:

       Unless the Iraqi dictator should suddenly and totally 
     reverse course on arms inspection and everything that goes 
     with it, or be forced into early retirement--in other words, 
     unless Saddam Hussein's Iraq ceases to be Saddam Hussein's 
     Iraq--inspections will never work.

  Similarly, given the Security Council's failure to enforce its own 
article 7 resolutions against Iraq, which are backed by the threat of 
force and have the sanctity of international law, I believe the burden 
of proof in this debate must rest on those who can defend the Council's 
record with regard to Iraq and can convince the rest of us that the 
Council's judgment, rather than that of our Commander in Chief, should 
be the final authority on a matter that so directly affects American 
security.
  Important participants in this debate support the President's 
determination

[[Page 19437]]

to use military force to bring about Iraq's disarmament but would 
constrain the President's authority to act against Iraq to uphold 
Security Council resolutions related to repression within Iraq, Iraq's 
support for terrorism, and other issues. This approach would limit the 
President's authority to achieving only Iraq's disarmament and would 
explicitly oppose a comprehensive challenge to his tyrannical regime. I 
believe those who hold this view have an obligation to explain why they 
would constrain the President's authority to use military force in ways 
he believes would tie his hands and raise unacceptably high the 
threshold for ordering military action to defend the national security 
of the United States.
  Others will argue that Saddam Hussein can be deterred--that he is a 
rational actor who understands that acting on his ambitions will 
threaten his regime. But deterrence has failed utterly in the past. I 
fail to see how waiting for some unspecified period of time, allowing 
Saddam's nuclear ambitions to grow unchecked, will ever result in a 
stable deterrence regime. Not only would deterrence condemn the Iraqi 
people to more unspeakable tyranny, it would condemn Saddam's neighbors 
to perpetual instability. And once Iraq's nuclear ambitions are 
realized, no serious person could expect the Iraqi threat to diminish. 
Again, the burden in this debate rests on those who believe American 
policy has actually been successful in containing the threat Saddam's 
regime poses to the world.
  There is no greater responsibility we face as Members of this body 
than voting to place the country on a course that could send young 
Americans to war in her defense. All of us must weigh our consciences 
carefully. Although we may hold different views of how to respond to 
the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq, the very fact that we are 
holding this free debate, and that the fate of nations and peoples 
other than our own will be determined by the outcome of our actions, 
serves as a reminder that we are a great Nation, united in freedom's 
defense, and called once again to make the world safe for freedom's 
blessings to flourish. The quality of our greatness will determine the 
character of our response.
  I want to again thank my colleagues for the introduction of this 
resolution. I think it will take place at some time within the next few 
minutes.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I am proud to follow my colleague from 
Arizona, who has been an outspoken Senator on the issue of our 
relationship to Iraq and to the current regime, constantly questioning, 
appropriately so, the role of Saddam Hussein and the risk he presents 
to our country.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, if the Senator will yield, I ask for one 
minute to say to my good friend, Senator McCain, his leadership on this 
issue, in helping with the drafting of this resolution and working 
particularly with Senator Lieberman and Senator Bayh, has been 
invaluable.
  I wanted to get into a colloquy with Senator McCain, but I was drawn 
away from the floor for a moment. Maybe we will have that colloquy a 
little later.
  Mr. CRAIG. Let me thank the Senator from Virginia for those comments, 
and certainly thank him for his leadership on this resolution. I also 
appreciate the leadership of the Senator from Arizona.
  I am one of those who early on in August, and into early September, 
spoke with some degree of hesitation because I thought it was important 
what is happening today happen; that our country become fully engaged 
in this debate; and that the President make his case before the world 
and before the American people. That has happened.
  As we know, for more than a decade Saddam Hussein has defied the 
international community, flagrantly ignoring and violating dozens of 
U.N. resolutions. Today, intelligence has produced beyond doubt that 
Saddam Hussein continues to acquire and produce chemical and biological 
weapons. It is also very apparent this dictator continues his quest to 
develop nuclear weapons.
  Last night, our President made that most important speech to the 
Nation. Much of what was spoken last night was the reality of the risk. 
We should make no mistake, the acquiring of weapons of mass destruction 
by Saddam Hussein is a very clear, imminent, and present danger to the 
United States, our allies, and to the stability of the Middle East. To 
do nothing in response to this buildup of weapons and this threat would 
be irresponsible on the part of our Nation and this body. We cannot sit 
back and wait on an aggressive act of terrorism to occur and 
consequently be forced into a position where we must face our fellow 
Americans and explain a horrific act that could have been prevented. It 
would be imprudent and irresponsible as a Senator of the United States, 
who is sworn to protect the freedoms of this great Nation and to defend 
our fellow countrymen.
  In this new century and in a post-9/11 era, it is clear we face a new 
threat. Unfortunately, this new threat requires a course of action 
previously not undertaken in order to deter this menace to our freedoms 
and to our peace. However, we must take this new course to defend our 
Nation and our allies responsibly and with assurance. Remember, this is 
a regime that ordered the use of chemical weapons against its own 
people; invaded two neighbors; committed genocide against more than 
50,000 northern Iraqis; drove 2 million refugees into neighboring 
countries; launched ballistic missiles into different countries; 
destroyed over 4,000 villages in Iraq, and on a daily basis fires at 
U.S. and coalition aircraft patrolling the United Nations no-fly zones.
  As a matter of fact, since the year 2000, Iraq has fired upon U.S. 
and British aircraft over 1,600 times. This year alone, Iraq has fired 
on the United States and Great Britain 406 times. These acts are the 
tip of the iceberg of a long list of violations as Saddam Hussein 
attempts to provoke the United States and her allies. As a result, it 
is clear and evident we have a moral obligation to the international 
community to halt further threats and attacks by this dictator. Since 
September 11, 2001, many in Congress have asked the question: Why did 
the events of this day, September 11, 2001, occur? And more 
importantly, how could these tragedies have been prevented?
  Let me say that again. Many Senators, and I am one of them, have 
asked how September 11 could have been prevented.
  As the goal of congressional investigations into our intelligence 
communities is aimed at preventing these incidents in the future, so, 
too, is the opportunity before us to prevent attacks by a rogue regime. 
In the future, I am certain no Senator wants to be placed in the 
position where we will have to call an investigation and ask why a 
tragedy has occurred at the hands of Saddam Hussein, and why it was not 
prevented when we knew it could happen and we had the opportunity to do 
something about it.
  In order to avoid an ugly predicament, the option of prevention is in 
place today. Today we must ask ourselves, In the future, do we want, 
once again, to pose the same question that has now haunted us for over 
a year? When the civilian population of our country becomes the target 
instead of our men and women in uniform, then an offensive role of 
foreign policy is demanded over what I believe is currently a defensive 
or a reactionary form of foreign policy.
  Since World War II, the United States has been the leader of the 
international world. We have made decisions, taken calculated risks, 
and engaged ourselves where no other nation would. However, at the end 
of the day, we have always led and/or brought along our allies. Once 
again, it is now evident the time is here for the United States to 
lead. It is prudent for our allies to follow. I believe most of them 
know that.
  Had we known the events of last year were going to occur, we would 
have made every effort to stop them, to save the loss of thousands of 
American

[[Page 19438]]

lives. I am certain the people of this Nation and this body would have 
called for and demanded all types of preemptive actions to stop the 
atrocities instead of, as we did, helplessly watching them occur. We 
were locked in what I believe was a post-cold war mindset that, in 
part, denied the obvious and rested on the false premise it just simply 
could not happen in this country.
  Like previous warning signs seen throughout history, we are again 
witnessing the ominous warnings that Saddam Hussein intends to threaten 
the Middle East region of the world and the United States. In light of 
this, I cannot sit back, in good conscience, and wait for Saddam 
Hussein to improve his weapons of mass destruction before he occupies 
and threatens foreign countries, or worse, harms Americans and American 
interests and American friends.
  As a free and democratic Nation, we have a responsibility that 
requires a thoughtful, open approach. As we embark on a new path to 
defend this Nation currently, we are, as the President did last night 
and, of course, a few weeks ago, addressing the United Nations, 
consulting with Congress and now working with and having had the 
resolution just presented to the Congress, forced or helped produce the 
debate in the Senate. It is evident by this process and by the steps 
taken, any decision we make will not be in haste. I am confident the 
manner in which our citizens will be informed will set a new precedent 
for future Congresses and for future administrations.
  This body, this Nation, and this President are methodically weighing 
the options on the table and assessing the threats we face. We have to 
include we want and need international support. Fortunately, we 
currently have the support of some of our closest allies. I do not want 
to stray from working with the United Nations, of course. We will work 
with them, and we are. Right now, Colin Powell is pursuing a new 
resolution out of the Security Council. At the same time, I recognize 
in the end, in the defense of this Nation, it is the responsibility of 
this President and of this Congress to make sure that happens. It is 
critically important that in the end, if you abide by the concept 
written in the book, ``The Law of Nations,'' then we have no recourse 
but to act ourselves, if we believe a failure to act would cost lives, 
put our freedoms at risk, and put our citizens at risk.
  While Article 51 of the United Nations charter is not so clearly 
defined, we have seen in recent history preemptive action taken by 
nations that were upheld by the U.N. For example, in 1962, President 
Kennedy took preemptive measures during the Cuban missile crisis by 
swiftly imposing a naval quarantine on Cuba to halt the delivery of 
offensive weapons by the Soviet Union. In 1967, Israel launched 
preemptive attacks on several Arab States after Iraq, Saudi Arabia, 
Jordan, and Syria began moving troops to the Israeli border.
  In 1991, the United States committed to liberate Kuwait. In 1991, the 
United States was then, as we are now, leading an effort. By the time 
the conflict in Iraq began, we had the support of the international 
community to carry out our objective.
  I am confident, should we decide to use force, by the time the United 
States and her closest allies engage Iraq, we will again have the 
support of the international community. It is called the responsibility 
of leadership. It is recognized as the role we play in the world today. 
I say this because the international community realizes the evidence is 
clear when it comes to Saddam Hussein. In addition, Saddam Hussein will 
once again violate U.N. resolutions, further invalidating that body, 
and denying weapons inspectors access in a way that should be open and 
complete and without any form of restriction.
  I do not take this vote lightly when it comes, as men and women 
across the State of Idaho and across the country are put in harm's way. 
For those who have decided to wear the uniform of our armed services, I 
want to assure the people of Idaho and the United States, any decision 
made regarding the use of force will be made with confidence, in 
consultation with Congress, and with the interests of the security of 
this great Nation foremost in all of our minds.
  I believe the justification for engagement has been made and the 
option to use force will be granted. I believe we must still have as an 
end game, an exit strategy, a recognition of the role we play in a 
post-Saddam-Hussein Iraq, if that is to occur, and I believe this 
President, along with quality people he has placed around him, will 
continue to consult with this Congress as those strategies are 
developed. I am confident we will pursue all means, as is evident today 
by the efforts of this administration. But in the end, there is the 
most important responsibility for the Senate of the United States to 
play. That is to do what we are doing here, to speak out on it, to 
allow the American people to know all the differences that occur as it 
comes to facing a most important issue like this.
  I thank my colleague from Virginia for the leadership he has 
demonstrated. He recognizes the significance and the importance of this 
debate and the decision that will ultimately be made in the course of 
this week as we stand in support of the Commander in Chief and the 
President of the United States, in full consultation with the Congress, 
as we shape a foreign policy that is a policy of decades to come, in 
recognition that for the first time in this Nation's history, it is the 
citizen, not the soldier, who becomes the target of the new wars. With 
that, a new form of foreign policy, a new relationship, and a new 
dialog for this country has just begun.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Byrd 
be recognized for up to 15 minutes at 12:15 today.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Did the Senator wish to make a remark?
  Mr. WARNER. I wanted to reply for 2 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield, without losing my right to the floor, to the 
Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I wish to thank our colleague and compliment him on a 
very fine recitation of the facts relating to the vote we will soon 
take.
  The Senator raised the important question of the preemptive issue. 
That has been an issue on the minds of a number of our colleagues. If 
he would allow me, I ask unanimous consent to have printed, following 
my remarks, a list of the times the Senator enumerated, the times the 
Presidents of the United States, going back as far as 1901, have 
initiated action preemptively to protect the security interests of this 
country. They have done it under the well-recognized international law 
or maxim of anticipatory self-defense.
  With the advent of high-tech now, with so many other changed factors 
throughout our 215-year history of this Republic and this body of the 
Senate, there have to be changes. The Senator was right on point of the 
need this time to recognize those changes and to understand better this 
doctrine of taking preemptive action, if that is necessary to protect 
the security interests of this country.
  I ask unanimous consent this be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

       Questions: Has the United States ever conducted 
     ``preemptive'' military operations before?
       Yes: Panama (Colombia)--1901; Dominican Republic--1904, 
     1914, 1965; Honduras--1912; Nicaragua--1926; Lebanon--1958; 
     Cuba (Naval Quarantaine)--1962; Grenada--1983; Libya--1986; 
     Panama (Just Cause)--1989; Somalia--1992; Sudan/Afghanistan--
     August 1998; Iraq (Desert Fox)--December 1998; and Kosovo--
     March 1999.
       International law recognizes a concept of ``anticipatory 
     self-defense'' if a country is imminently threatened.
       And there are other examples--but the bottom line is that 
     confronting or striking Iraq is not preemptive. We have been 
     in conflict with Iraq for twelve years and they have never 
     complied with original terms for ending conflict.


[[Page 19439]]

  Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Virginia.
  I agree. This country, this Commander in Chief, and we as Senators 
cannot be denied the right to take preemptive action when clear 
evidence indicates that the citizens of our country are at risk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I see the distinguished Senator from 
Connecticut wanted to speak. Does he wish to speak at this point?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senator from West Virginia. I wonder if 
the Senator--I know the Senator wishes to speak for more than 15 
minutes--if he would allow me to speak for not more than 7 or 8 minutes 
now, without yielding his right to the floor thereafter.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I make that request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, as the debate continues, I want to 
address myself to some of the history and also to some of the threat 
today. This is a most interesting book that somebody gave me, that is 
most timely. It came out very recently. I don't know the exact date. It 
is called ``The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq.'' It is 
written by Kenneth Pollack, who worked for the Central Intelligence 
Agency. In the period of 1990, he was one of only three who earlier in 
1990 were advising their superiors, and then ultimately the President 
of the United States, that an Iraqi attack against Kuwait was imminent, 
it was going to happen. Over time, he worked for the National Security 
Council under President Clinton. He is now at the Saban Center, a think 
tank here in Washington associated with the Brookings Institution.
  This is a most compelling piece of work. It speaks history here. It 
talks about the great history--the Senator from West Virginia is in the 
Chamber--the great classic history of Iraq. This, after all, is the 
place where the Biblical Garden of Eden grew, along beside the Tigris 
and the Euphrates. It is the place where Abraham, the father of the 
three great monotheistic faiths was when God called out to him and 
found his heart steadfast. Of course, in succeeding times it has had 
great periods of progress and leadership--unfortunately, not in recent 
times.
  But as we deal with Saddam today--those of us, including myself, who 
favor the resolution we have offered as an amendment, a substitute 
today--we tend to recite phrases about what a brutal dictator Saddam 
is, and his ambitions. He has used weapons of mass destruction. I think 
in this debate from time to time we have to go back to the details.
  There is a brief biography, in this book, of Saddam, of the radical 
upbringing he had, of the extent to which he fell under the so-called 
pan-Arabist influences, to create a power that would gain control over 
the entire Arab world. I want to read one quote from this book--again, 
``The Threatening Storm'' by Kenneth Pollack:

       Saddam considers himself a great man of history, someone 
     marked to accomplish great deeds. In his vast personality 
     cult he is constantly compared with great figures of Iraq's 
     past.
       Saddam believes himself destined to be the new leader of 
     the Arabs, and he makes it apparent that this role will be a 
     political-military role, meaning that he will achieve his 
     position through some combination of conquest and acclaim. 
     Addressing a unit of the Republican Guard, Saddam proclaimed 
     that the honor of the Arab nation could not be achieved 
     unless ``Iraq's arm reached out [beyond Iraqi territory] to 
     every point in the Arab homeland.'' He has worked assiduously 
     to make Iraq strong so that it can dominate the region 
     militarily, acquire new territorial prizes, and become the 
     champion of the Arabs. Saddam has said often and loudly that 
     his goal is to create a new Arab union of some kind, headed 
     by a powerful Iraq, that will be a new superpower.

  This is based on a thorough research of Saddam's history, of his 
statements, of his actions. Why did he invade Iran in the 1980s? Why 
did he invade Kuwait in the early 1990s? It is all part of realizing 
this ambition. Why has he developed weapons of mass destruction and 
used them, as this book points out--not once. There was a terrible 
genocide at Halabja. But he used chemical weapons repeatedly, and 
indeed experimentally, against the Kurds. Hundreds of thousands of 
people were killed. Against the Iranians--hundreds of thousands of 
people killed.
  I read somewhere today--elsewhere; I forget where it was--that Saddam 
is the first person since Hitler who has used chemicals for the 
purposes of mass death.
  So this history is chilling. I do not manufacture it. It is there. It 
is why it is so critically important to bring this madman back within 
the constraints of the United Nations resolutions and the peace that he 
agreed to at the end of the gulf war.
  Should Saddam be allowed to continue to develop these weapons of mass 
destruction and become the controlling hegemonic power he has long 
dreamed of becoming in the Arab world, Lord protect us. Lord protect 
the Arab world, when you think of the brutal dictatorship he has 
represented--no freedom, no opportunity for his people. And what about 
the rest of us, with Saddam in control of so much of the world's oil 
supply?
  So this history is very current as we consider all the options we 
have tried over the decade since the gulf war to disarm this dangerous 
dictator, and why those of us who have sponsored this resolution 
believe that the moment has come, as the President has said, 
effectively to say to Saddam: Either disarm or we are going to be 
forced to go to war to disarm you. We don't want to do this. But you 
represent such a danger to your neighbors, among whom we have such 
strong allies whose support is so critical to us, whose energy supply 
is so critical to our economy and that of the rest of the world, that 
if you don't disarm, we are going to have to take military action to do 
that.
  That is the history, the chilling history that affects the present 
and is why the four of us, and others now who have cosponsored this 
resolution, have done so--to prevent this man from achieving his evil 
ends.
  There have been many thoughtful statements on the floor. Mr. Stevens, 
the senior Senator from Alaska, spoke yesterday. Here is a proud, 
patriotic American, a veteran of World War II. He analogized this 
dictator we are facing to Hitler. Remember the lessons he was hearing 
in high school of the dangers represented by Hitler and the extent to 
which, if we didn't stop him then, we would have to stop him at a much 
higher price later on. I think the balance we have to strike here in 
deciding how to act is a similar balance. Do we act now, or do we act 
later, at much greater cost in blood, in treasure?
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, may I just add to my colleague's 
remarks--he referred to Senator Stevens. He was in the Chamber a few 
moments ago talking with me. We shared those days because I was of that 
generation.
  Saddam Hussein possesses, today, an arsenal of weapons far more 
dangerous to the whole world than Hitler ever possessed. That was 
brought out in the colloquy yesterday. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my friend.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Clinton). The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank my colleague from West Virginia for yielding 
me time. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  Madam President, I thank and commend all those Senators who have been 
speaking in support of the resolution that will soon come before the 
Senate for a decision by the Senate. I think they have rendered a 
service. I commend Mr. Lieberman. I commend Mr. Warner. And I commend 
those others who are cosponsors of the resolution. I commend them on 
their high level of argumentation they have put forth. This is what the 
country needs. The country needs to hear more of this, and I have only 
the utmost admiration for those who feel as they do in support of this 
resolution.
  The Senate is the anchor of the Republic, and it is here on this 
battlefield

[[Page 19440]]

many of the country's great Senators have expounded their views and 
taken sides, one way or the other, on the great issues that have come 
before the Nation over this period of more than 200 years.
  I have listened, as best I could, to the various Senators who, for 
the most part this morning, have spoken in support of the resolution, 
S.J. Res. 45, which will be at least soon attempted to be amended by 
S.J. Res. 46.
  Madam President, I am not against just any and every resolution of 
this nature. I could very well be for a resolution. If this debate were 
to go on for a while, or perhaps to go until after the election, giving 
us time to debate it thoroughly, giving Senators time to amend it, 
modify it, to change it, it might very well be I, too, could support a 
resolution. After all, that is what we should strive for. We should 
strive for a national consensus.
  If this country is going to engage in a military conflict in the near 
future, it should not be a slapdash resolution that in its makeup 
looks, for all intents and purposes, as though it were just thrown 
together, it was a cut-and-paste operation.
  I would hope we could come to a conclusion, after ample debate, that 
we could join hands across the aisle, join hands between the two 
parties, join hands with the executive branch. I would hope we could do 
that. And I do not think that is beyond the realm of possibility.
  I think it would be possible to develop a resolution which might get 
a unanimous vote in this Senate, but it would take time. It cannot be 
this resolution which would be unanimous because it will not be 
unanimous.
  My concerns about this resolution are, in the main, two--two 
concerns. Getting into further detail, I can express several concerns. 
But in the main, I would say my concerns are two in number.
  One, this resolution authorizes the President to determine and 
authorizes the President to use military forces as he will, when he 
will, how he will, and wherever he will, as long as the thread is tied 
to Iraq, and beyond that--I do not have the resolution in front of me--
as long as it is tied, by the thread, to ``defend[ing] the national 
security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by 
Iraq; and (2) enforc[ing] all relevant United Nations Security Council 
Resolutions regarding Iraq.''
  Madam President, I can talk in considerable detail and at 
considerable length with respect to the ``whereas'' clauses and with 
respect to the authorization section, section 3. Suffice it to say this 
is a blank check, this authorization paragraph is a blank check, given 
over to the Chief Executive, not just this one but Chief Executives who 
will succeed him. There is no sunset provision. There is no termination 
under this authorization. It can go on and on and on until Congress 
sees fit to terminate it.
  So it is open-ended. It is a blank check. And it cedes the 
decisionmaking power of the Congress under the Constitution to declare 
war. It cedes that to a Chief Executive--for the moment, Mr. George W. 
Bush. Succeeding him, who knows? But it is open-ended.
  If Congress is going to waive that part of the Constitution which 
gives power to the Congress to declare war--and I am not sure Congress 
can waive that--but if it is going to, why don't we at least have a 
sunset provision? Why don't we at least have a cutoff at which time the 
cession of that power is no longer existent? Is that asking too much?
  No. 1, my opposition to this resolution in the main is because 
Congress is ceding--lock, stock, and barrel--its power to declare war, 
handing that over to a Chief Executive and, by its own terms, as much 
as to say, that President will determine that. He will use the military 
forces of these United States--that means the Marines, the Air Force, 
the Army, the Navy, all the military forces of this country--he shall 
use all of the military forces of this country in whatever ways he 
determines, wherever he determines, whenever he determines, and for as 
long as he determines. That is the way it is written--lock, stock, and 
barrel.
  Congress might as well just close the doors, put a sign over the 
doors and say: ``Going fishing.'' Put a sign on the Statue of Liberty 
up here: ``Out of business.'' That is exactly, that is precisely what 
we are about to do, if we vote for this resolution as it is currently 
written. If there is anybody who disagrees with me, they can try to 
show me that. But they cannot refute the words written in this 
resolution. All the ``whereases'' constitute nothing more than 
figleaves, beautifully dressed, beautifully colored, pretty figleaves, 
with sugar on them.
  My second objection in the main is that Congress is being stampeded, 
pressured, adjured, importuned into acting on this blank check before 
Congress goes out for the election. Doesn't that make this somewhat 
suspect? Recall, it was only in late August, around August 23, I 
believe it was, I read in the newspaper where the President was 
concerned about the intensified talk that was going on with reference 
to his plans in respect to an attack on Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld, in 
that same newspaper report, referred to it as a ``frenzy.'' So even the 
President, 6 weeks ago, was seeking to allay the concerns of the people 
in Washington, people all over the country, with respect to any 
``plans'' that he might have to attack Iraq. In other words, he was 
saying: Cool it.
  Well, that was just 6 weeks ago. Then all of a sudden, the whole 
focus of attention in this country seems to be directed several 
thousand miles away from these shores to a country called Iraq, to 
which the distinguished Senator from Connecticut correctly alluded as 
that great land between the two great rivers, the old Biblical country 
of Mesopotamia.
  So those are my two concerns. Here we are, with all of this pressure 
to act, act now. I am somewhat mystified by the rush pell-mell to 
embrace this resolution which, as I understand it, is pretty much the 
administration's handicraft, and the House may be about to vote on the 
same.
  I wonder what has gotten into our Democratic leaders that they would 
embrace this kind of thing. They have a right to do that. Every Senator 
has a right to vote any way he wants, any way his good sense is 
directing him. But I have been mystified at the rush, at the frenetic 
activity on the part of leaders of the Congress, of the other body. 
They embraced this thing down there on the White House lawn.
  We should take more time. The American people have questions that 
they want answered. I have had more than 9,000 telephone calls in the 
last 5 days that my office has been open, more than 9,000 coming from 
all over the country, virtually all urging the Senate to slow down, to 
ask questions, and to fully consider what we are about to do. I hope 
more people will call. They don't need to call me. They know what my 
position is. But I hope they will call the Members of Congress, Senate 
and House Members, Republicans and Democrats, call all the Members. 
Urge them to stop, look, and listen, look at what we are about to do. 
We are about to put beyond the reach of Congress the decision to 
declare war.
  I listened to the President's speech. I didn't hear anything new. I 
didn't hear anything that I hadn't already heard prior to this time. He 
demonized Saddam Hussein. That is quite all right with me. I think 
Saddam Hussein is lower than a snake's belly myself. I wouldn't shed 
any tear if anything happened to him. That is not the question. We have 
known these things.
  I asked the CIA Director myself, within the last 2 or 3 weeks in my 
office and in room 407: You are not a policymaker, but you are the 
expert with respect to intelligence. What is there that you can tell 
me, what is there that you can tell Congress that is new that indicates 
we wait beyond this election at our peril? What is it that is new that 
we haven't known? I am talking to the Director of Central Intelligence.
  I said: What is it that is new that we haven't known 2 months ago, 6 
weeks ago, 3 months ago? They don't have anything.
  I asked Secretary Rumsfeld. And he will say: Oh, I will tell you what 
is new, September 11 of last year.

[[Page 19441]]

  Well, of course, that is over a year old. What is so new that it 
requires this Senate and the House of Representatives to vote before we 
go out for the election? Why so much interest in the election? That is 
not by my choice that the administration is pushing for a vote before 
the election. That is not my choice; that is their choice. And I am not 
sure but that this effort on their part might be turned against them in 
the election. I think if the American people are fully aware of what 
this administration is advocating, fully aware of what we are about to 
do, the people of this country will rise up. They will let their voices 
be heard.
  They have questions. ``What is this going to cost me?'' they will 
say. Mr. John Q. Citizen will say: What is this going to cost me? What 
about my son? What about my daughter? What about my grandson? How many 
American lives are going to be lost if we invade Iraq? What is going to 
be the cost? What is going to happen to Iraq after its defeat? Who is 
going to run the government of Iraq then? Are we going to have American 
fighting men and women in Iraq for 2 months, 6 months, a year, 2 years, 
5 years, 10 years? Answer these questions, Mr. Administration.
  Tell me, also, what is going to happen to homeland security. Already 
the focus is being shifted away from homeland security. I can see it.
  Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BYRD. Not just yet.
  Mr. WARNER. I understood the time was 15 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I believe I have these 15 minutes now under a previous 
order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BYRD. I simply want to finish----
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, of course, we go into recess at 12:30.
  Mr. BYRD. I do not yield at the moment. I will be happy to yield in a 
moment. The Senator has been on the floor all morning--he and his 
compatriots over here who are boosting this unfortunate resolution. So 
I want a few minutes now, and then I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. WARNER. For one short question.
  Mr. BYRD. Then what is the focus? What about homeland security? What 
might happen on the southern border, on the northern border of this 
country, in the ports of this country, at the airports of this country? 
What might happen? The American people today are concerned about the 
safety right here in this area, the safety of their own schoolchildren. 
They are concerned about these things that are going on all around us. 
What is going to happen to homeland security? I don't hear much about 
it over this last couple weeks or more. This attack on Iraq we have 
been talking about--the President says: If you do not do it, I will. If 
you don't do it, we will. Well, this concerns me.
  What kind of a face are we going to present to the world with this 
kind of cowboy, macho attitude? What kind of face are we presenting to 
the world? Does the world still see us as a law-abiding Nation that 
lives by the rule of law? Is that what we recommend to other countries? 
Are we a country that loves liberty, freedom, justice, the rule of law, 
or is this going to make us look like a bully? I used to play a tune on 
my fiddle called ``The Bully of the Town''--``I am looking for the 
bully of the town.'' Is that the kind of face Uncle Sam is going to 
present to the world? It sounds like it when the President says to the 
U.N.: If you don't do something, we will.
  Madam President, I am simply saying we ought not have this vote 
before this election. This election is going to distract members from 
concentrating, from focusing on the question of war or peace. It is 
already doing it. It is already doing it.
  So there are lots of questions the American people want answered. 
What about the economy? Is this going to affect the American economy? 
What about my job? What about my health insurance? What about us older 
folks? What about prescription drugs? You do not hear much about that 
now. Everything is tuned to Iraq. The American people are being led to 
believe something may happen tomorrow--and something may happen right 
here within our own shores. But they are being led to believe Saddam is 
such a threat we don't dare wait until after the election. Saddam 
doesn't present that kind of imminent threat to this country. He 
doesn't have these kinds of weapons that he would level at this country 
before the election. Now, something could happen in our midst before 
the election. It can happen tonight. It can happen today. It has been 
happening in this area over the past several days, with a sniper taking 
six lives, and he shot eight persons.
  People are concerned about issues here at home. We should not try to 
divert their attention to a threat. I don't say Saddam is not a threat. 
I say he is not the immediate threat the administration is trying to 
make him out to be at this point. We have some time. We ought to 
utilize it. We cannot let Saddam Hussein continue to have weapons, such 
as biological and chemical weapons. We cannot let him acquire weapons 
of mass destruction. But there is some time, and I think it is very 
important we get the United Nations involved here, and the President 
has made a good start in that direction. He made a fine statement when 
he spoke to the U.N. He put the burden on them. He laid it at their 
door. They have been recreant in their duty.
  We should utilize the time we have to let the U.N. marshal its forces 
and try to get other countries to assist this country in carrying the 
burden. Eleven years ago, the cost of that war was $61.1 billion, and 
other countries helped shoulder the expenses, with the exception of 
about $7.5 billion. We ought to be seeking to get others' help.
  We ought to let the inspectors go back in and have restrictions such 
that they will have a full and free opportunity to inspect wherever 
they want, wherever they think they should. So I am for all that. I am 
not one who says Saddam is not a threat; he is a threat, but he has 
been a threat for many years. I think it is a disservice to the 
American people to insist their elected representatives in the House 
and Senate showdown on this fateful decision before the election. Now, 
that is highly suspect. To those who are pushing it, I have to say it 
is suspect.
  Why do they want this vote before the election? I am not the one who 
determines when the election will fall. We know it is going to take 
place on November 5. Where is the threat that is so imminent to this 
country we have to declare war here and now, before the election? It is 
a distraction. Our Senators and House Members need to be concentrating 
on the matter, debating it, debating other matters. There are many more 
matters that cry out for the attention of this country. Why should we 
not be giving attention to them and not be distracted in this vote by 
what may happen to me on November 5, if I vote this way or that way? 
That is not right. It is wrong. It is not doing right by the people of 
this country. They are entitled to better than that.
  So I have two main concerns. One, we are ceding the constitutional 
authority to declare war, and it is open-ended, a blank check. Mr. 
President, here it is, you can have it. We will just go fishing. You 
take it and we are out of it. We are out of business. We are out of 
business for the next year or 2 years or as long as this piece of 
paper--this blank check--is in effect. You have it. We are cheating the 
people back home when we vote for that kind of resolution.
  Madam President, I have much more to say, but I told the Senator from 
Virginia I would be glad to yield. I do that now, without losing my 
right to the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I simply say to my colleague, most 
respectfully, I feel this was not a cut-and-paste job. Senators 
Lieberman, Bayh, McCain, myself, and other Senators have contributed. 
Senator Lott had an open-door policy to engage persons on this issue.
  I draw your attention, most respectfully, to section 3, authorization 
for the use of force.
  This is not a blank check. It restricts this authority clearly to 
Iraq, and if I

[[Page 19442]]

might read it: 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, one, defend the national security of the 
United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; two, enforce 
all relevant United Nations security resolutions regarding Iraq.
  That is a very clear mandate, and once those two criteria are met, 
this authority ceases.
  Madam President, my understanding is that at the hour of 12:30 p.m., 
the Senate will stand in recess.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I most respectfully say to my colleague, 
I am under firm instructions on this side--so many Senators are 
gathering at the caucuses who otherwise would follow this important 
debate. I will be happy to resume with Senator Byrd----
  Mr. REID. If my friend, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, 
will yield, I have a unanimous consent request, about which I have 
spoken with the Senator from West Virginia, for Senators to speak this 
afternoon.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to object, Madam President, can we 
possibly accommodate my colleague from West Virginia so he can finish 
this lineup, and I will be prepared to come to the floor with him, can 
I suggest, at the hour of 2 o'clock?
  Mr. REID. The Senator wishes to speak at 2 o'clock.
  Mr. BYRD. I would love to do that.
  Mr. REID. If necessary, I will preside at 2 o'clock, but we have 
presiders starting at 2:15 p.m.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from West 
Virginia be recognized for 10 minutes beginning at 5 after the hour.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I can 
finish in 10 minutes now.
  Mr. REID. I understand that, but the other side has objected to that.
  Mr. BYRD. After 2 o'clock, I might be constrained to talk longer.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, given that opportunity, can we agree 
then the 10 minutes expires--I am about to join the Secretary of State, 
Mr. Colin Powell--at the hour of 12:42 or 12:43 p.m.? If that is 
correct, that will be fine.
  Mr. REID. Reserving the right to object, Madam President, I ask 
unanimous consent that at 2:15 p.m., in addition to Senator Byrd 
speaking now for 10 minutes, Senator Mikulski speak; at 2:35 p.m, 
Senator Gregg; Senator Jeffords at 3 o'clock; there will be a 
Republican at 3:20 p.m.; Senator Kennedy at 3:40 p.m.; a Republican at 
4 o'clock; Senator Carper at 4:20 p.m.; a Republican at 4:50 p.m.; 
Senator Feingold at 5:30 p.m.; a Republican 6 o'clock; and one of the 
two, Reid/Reed, at 6:30 p.m.
  Mr. WARNER. I have no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, for how long am I recognized now?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  I call the Senate's attention to an article in the Philadelphia 
Inquirer of October 6 entitled ``Allied Support On Iraq Exaggerated, 
Officials Say'':
       President Bush and some of his top aides, including Defense 
     Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, have exaggerated the degree of 
     allied support for a war in Iraq, according to senior 
     officials in the military and the Bush administration.
       These officials, rankled by what they charge is a tendency 
     by Rumsfeld and others to gloss over unpleasant realities, 
     say few nations in Europe or the Middle East are ready to 
     support an attack against Iraq unless the United Nations 
     Security Council explicitly authorizes the use of force.
       In the latest sign that international support for the 
     administration's plans is soft, key ally Turkey said Friday 
     that it would participate in a campaign against Iraq only if 
     the world body blessed it.
       ``An operation not based on international law cannot be 
     accepted,'' a Turkish presidential spokesman said after a 
     meeting of top Turkish civilian, military and intelligence 
     officials in Ankara.
       The backing of Turkey, which borders Iraq's north, is vital 
     because it hosts air bases at Incirlik and elsewhere that 
     would be necessary to conduct a major air campaign against 
     Iraq and protect the ethnic Kurdish population in northern 
     Iraq from Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's retaliation.
       ``Turkey is the key,'' a senior administration official 
     said.
       Turkey, which also has a large Kurdish population, is 
     concerned that Iraq's Kurds would try to form their own mini-
     state and that a war with another Muslim country could 
     aggravate tensions between Islamists and secularists in 
     Turkey and damage the Turkish economy.
       Turkey is not alone: No country near Iraq has agreed to 
     serve as a launching pad for a U.S. strike without U.N. 
     authorization, the senior official said. He and others spoke 
     on condition of anonymity.
       As they have tried to persuade Congress to give Bush broad 
     war-making authority, Rumsfeld and other officials have 
     sought to create the impression that there is widespread 
     international support for the Iraq endeavor. That, one top 
     official said, ``is at best premature and at worst 
     deceptive.''

  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the total article from 
the Philadelphia Inquirer of October 6 be printed in the Record at the 
close of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I quote another article from the 
Philadelphia Inquirer, this one October 8, 2002, entitled: ``Officials' 
Private Doubts On Iraq War'':
       While President Bush marshals congressional and 
     international support for invading Iraq, a growing number of 
     military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats 
     in his own government privately have deep misgivings about 
     the administration's double-time march toward war.
       These officials say administration hawks have exaggerated 
     evidence of the threat that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein 
     poses--including distorting his links to the al-Qaeda 
     terrorist network; have overstated the amount of 
     international support for attacking Iraq; and have downplayed 
     the potential repercussions of a new war in the Middle East.
       They say that the administration squelches--squelches--
     dissenting views that intelligence analysts are under intense 
     pressure to produce reports supporting the White House's 
     argument that Hussein poses such an immediate threat to the 
     United States that preemptive military action is necessary.
       ``Analysts at the working level in the intelligence 
     community are feeling very strong pressure from the Pentagon 
     to cook the intelligence books,'' said one official, speaking 
     on condition of anonymity.
       A dozen other officials echoes his views in interviews with 
     the Inquirer Washington Bureau. No one who was interviewed 
     disagreed.

  How much time do I have left, Madam President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four and a half minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  Continuing the article:

       They cited recent suggestions by Defense Secretary Donald 
     H. Rumsfeld and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice 
     that Hussein and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network were 
     working together.
       Rumsfeld said Sept. 26 that the U.S. government had 
     ``bulletproof'' confirmation of links between Iraq and al-
     Qaeda members, including ``solid evidence'' that members of 
     the terrorist network maintained a presence in Iraq.
       The facts are much less conclusive. Officials said 
     Rumsfeld's statement was based in part on intercepted 
     telephone calls in which an al-Qaeda member who apparently 
     was passing through Baghdad was overheard calling friends or 
     relatives, intelligence officials said. The intercepts 
     provide no evidence that the suspected terrorist was working 
     with the Iraqi regime or that he was working on a terrorist 
     operation while he was in Iraq, they said.
       Rumsfeld also suggested that the Iraqi regime had offered 
     safe haven to bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed 
     Omar. While technically true, that, too, is misleading. 
     Intelligence reports said the Iraqi ambassador to Turkey, a 
     longtime Iraqi intelligence officer, made the offer during a 
     visit to Afghanistan in late 1998, after the United States 
     attacked al-Qaeda training camps with cruise missiles to 
     retaliate for the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and 
     Tanzania. But officials said the same intelligence reports 
     that bin Laden rejected the offer because he did not want 
     Hussein to control his group.
       In fact, the officials said, there is no ironclad evidence 
     that the Iraqi regime and the terrorist network are working 
     together, or that Hussein has ever contemplated giving 
     chemical or biological weapons to al-Qaeda, with whom he has 
     deep ideological differences.

  I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of this article from the 
Philadelphia Inquirer, dated October 8, 2002,

[[Page 19443]]

be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 2.)
  Mr. BYRD. The President indicated he would lead a coalition, and I 
hope he will. I hope he will continue to work until he gets a solid 
coalition together. But if, as the President claims, America will lead 
a coalition against Iraq, it certainly appears that we have much work 
to do. The first article I read from the Philadelphia Inquirer bears 
out a clear message: We have asked the United Nations to act and we 
should give the United Nations that opportunity.
  Last night, the President of the United States asked Congress to 
fully consider the facts in this debate, but I believe that many of the 
facts are still unclear. We have many questions that demand answers, 
and we need the time to find those answers.
  So I suggest we try to get the facts, and the representatives of the 
American people in Congress need the facts, the clear, unadulterated 
facts, before Congress votes on the resolution.
  The questions I have are the same questions the American people have. 
A poll published last Sunday in the New York Times reports that a 
majority of Americans think that Congress is not asking enough 
questions about Iraq policy. By a 2-to-1 margin, those polled would 
prefer to see U.N. inspectors have more time to do their job. Sixty-
five percent of those polled think it is better to wait for allies 
before any attack on Iraq--in other words, not go it alone.
  Obviously, the American people are far from convinced that we must 
attack Iraq. I think as time goes on, if this matter is fully debated, 
we will find a reverse in the polls from what we have been seeing 
lately. We are going to find that the American people are not all that 
ready to invade Iraq all by themselves; not all that ready to put the 
U.N. aside and say we will go it alone--if you do not do it, we will--
and not all that ready to send their boys and girls, their men and 
women, their loved ones, to war in a foreign land without leaving it up 
to Congress as to when war should be declared.
  I yield the floor.

                               Exhibit 1

             [From the Philadelphia Inquirer, Oct. 6, 2002]

           Allied Support on Iraq Exaggerated, Officials Say

                         (By Warren P. Strobel)

       Washington.--President Bush and some of his top aides, 
     including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, have 
     exaggerated the degree of allied support for a war in Iraq, 
     according to senior officials in the military and the Bush 
     administration.
       These officials, rankled by what they charge is a tendency 
     by Rumsfeld and others to gloss over unpleasant realities, 
     say few nations in Europe or the Middle East are ready to 
     support an attack against Iraq unless the United National 
     Security Council explicitly authorizes the use of force.
        In the latest sign that international support for the 
     administration's plans is soft, key ally Turkey said Friday 
     that it would participate in a campaign against Iraq only if 
     the world body blessed it.
       ``An operation not based on international law cannot be 
     accepted,'' a Turkish presidential spokesman said after a 
     meeting of top Turkish civilian, military and intelligence 
     officials in Ankara.
       The backing of Turkey, which borders Iraq's north, is vital 
     because it hosts air bases at Incirlik and elsewhere that 
     would be necessary to conduct a major air campaign against 
     Iraq and protect the ethnic Kurdish population in northern 
     Iraq from Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's retaliation.
       ``Turkey is the key,'' a senior administration official 
     said.
       Turkey, which also has a large Kurdish population, is 
     concerned that Iraq's Kurds would try to form their own mini-
     state and that a war with another Muslim country could 
     aggravate tensions between Islamists and secularists in 
     Turkey and damage the Turkish economy.
       Turkey is not alone: No country near Iraq has agreed to 
     serve as a launching pad for a U.S. strike without U.N. 
     authorization, the senior official said. He and others spoke 
     on condition of anonymity.
       As they have tried to persuade Congress to give Bush broad 
     war-making authority, Rumsfeld and other officials have 
     sought to create the impression that there is widespread 
     international support for the Iraq endeavor. That, one top 
     official said, ``is at best premature and at worst 
     deceptive.''
       The defense secretary told a House of Representatives 
     committee Sept. 18 that Bush aides ``know for a fact'' that 
     the United States would not be fighting Iraq alone if it 
     failed to obtain a U.N. resolution. ``There are any number of 
     countries that have already announced their support,'' he 
     said.
       Bush said Thursday that if the United Nations and Iraq 
     didn't eliminate Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, ``the 
     United States in deliberate fashion will lead a coalition to 
     take away the world's worst weapons from one of the world's 
     worst leaders.''
       Several officials said that while those statements were 
     technically true, there was a coalition yet. Diplomats said 
     privately that only staunch ally Britain and Bulgaria--a 
     member of the U.N. Security Council that wants to join the 
     U.S.-led NATO alliance--had said they were willing to act 
     without United Nations cover.
       Secretary of State Colin L. Powell has been working 
     intensively to persuade other U.S. Security Council members 
     to back a tough resolution that would force Iraq to accept 
     strict new rules for inspections or face a U.S.-led invasion. 
     He has run into stiff resistance, particularly from France 
     and Russia, both of which hold veto power on the council.
       Along with those countries, the United States presumably 
     would need an OK to use military bases in Persian Gulf 
     countries such as Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain and Qatar. In Qatar 
     the United States has been extending a runway to accommodate 
     more combat planes, and some war planners hope to persuade 
     Jordan to let U.S. and British special forces attack 
     suspected missile bases and weapons facilities in western 
     Iraq from its territory.
       None of those countries has told Washington it will be 
     forthcoming without U.N. support, the officials said.
       One senior military officer called Rumsfeld's comments 
     ``misleading.''
       ''`Fine,' `locked in,' `positive,' `concrete'; those words 
     aren't being used over here,'' another Pentagon officer said.
       Some analysts said that if the confrontation with Iraq came 
     to war, most countries would choose to join in rather than 
     risk displeasing the United States or missing out on the 
     spoils.
       ``You will have regimes which, if we force the issue, will 
     support us,'' said Anthony Cordesman, a military expert at 
     the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a 
     conservative center for national-security studies. But those 
     countries want diplomatic cover, he said.
       Some allies also want assurances on other issues, Cordesman 
     said.
       Turkey, for example, wants debt relief for its teetering 
     economy along with promises that there will be no independent 
     Kurdish state in Iraq. Russia wants a free hand to pursue 
     alleged terrorists in neighboring Georgia, Iraq to pay 
     roughly $8 billion in debt, and Washington to lift Cold War-
     era trade restrictions.

                               Exhibit 2

             [From the Philadelphia Inquirer, Oct. 8, 2002]

                 Officials' Private Doubts On Iraq War

      (By Warren P. Strobel, Jonathan S. Landay and John Walcott)

       Washington.--While President Bush marshals congressional 
     and international support for invading Iraq, a growing number 
     of military officers, intelligence professionals and 
     diplomats in his own government privately have deep 
     misgivings about the administration's double-time march 
     toward war.
       These officials say administration hawks have exaggerated 
     evidence of the threat that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein 
     poses--including distorting his links to the al-Qaeda 
     terrorist network; have overstated the amount of 
     international support for attacking Iraq; and have downplayed 
     the potential repercussions of a new war in the Middle East.
       They say that the administration squelches dissenting views 
     and that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to 
     produce reports supporting the White House's argument that 
     Hussein poses such an immediate threat to the United States 
     that preemptive military action is necessary.
       ``Analysts at the working level in the intelligence 
     community are feeling very strong pressure from the Pentagon 
     to cook the intelligence books,'' said one official, speaking 
     on condition of anonymity.
       A dozen other officials echoed his views in interviews with 
     the Inquirer Washington Bureau. No one who was interviewed 
     disagreed.
       They cited recent suggestions by Defense Secretary Donald 
     H. Rumsfeld and National Security Advisory Condoleezza Rice 
     that Hussein and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network were 
     working together.
       Rumsfeld said Sept. 26 that the U.S. government had 
     bulletproof'' confirmation of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda 
     members, including ``solid evidence'' that members of the 
     terrorist network maintained a presence in Iraq.
       The facts are much less conclusive. Officials said 
     Rumsfeld's statement was based in part on intercepted 
     telephone calls in which an al-Qeada member who apparently 
     was passing through Baghdad was overhead calling friends or 
     relatives, intelligence officials said. The intercepts 
     provide no evidence that the suspected terrorist was working 
     with the Iraqi regime or that he was working on a terrorist 
     operation while he was in Iraq, they said.

[[Page 19444]]

       Rumsfeld also suggested that the Iraqi regime had offered 
     safe haven to bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed 
     Omar.
       While technically true, that, too, is misleading. 
     Intelligence reports said the Iraqi ambassador to Turkey, a 
     longtime Iraqi intelligence officer, made the offer during a 
     visit to Afghanistan in late 1998, after the United States 
     attacked al-Qeada training camps with cruise missiles to 
     retaliate for the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and 
     Tanzania. But officials said the same intelligence reports 
     said that bin Laden rejected the offer because he did not 
     want Hussein to control his group.
       In fact, officials said, there is no ironclad evidence that 
     the Iraqi regime and the terrorist network are working 
     together, or that Hussein has ever contemplated giving 
     chemical or biological weapons to al-Qeada, with whom he has 
     deep ideological differences.
       None of the dissenting officials, who work in a number of 
     different agencies, would agree to speak publicly, out of 
     fear of retribution. Many of them have long experience in the 
     Middle East and South Asia, and all spoke in similar terms 
     about the unease with the way the U.S. political leaders were 
     dealing with Iraq.
       All agreed that Hussein was a threat who eventually must be 
     dealt with, and none flatly opposed military action. But, 
     they say, the U.S. government has no dramatic new knowledge 
     about the Iraqi leader that justifies Bush's urgent call to 
     arms.
       Some lawmakers have voiced similar concerns after receiving 
     CIA briefings.
       Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D., Ill.) said some information he 
     had seen did not support Bush's portrayal of the Iraqi 
     threat.
       ``It's troubling to have classified information that 
     contradicts statements by the administration,'' Durbin said. 
     ``There's more they should share with the public.''
       Several administration and intelligence officials defended 
     CIA Director George Tenet, saying Tenet was not pressuring 
     his analysis but was quietly working to include dissenting 
     opinions in intelligence estimates and congressional 
     briefings.
       In one case, a senior administration official said, Tenet 
     made sure that a State Department official told Congress that 
     the Energy and State Departments disagreed with an 
     intelligence assessment that said hundreds of aluminum tubes 
     Iraq tried to purchase were intended for Baghdad's secret 
     nuclear-weapons program. Analysts in both departments 
     concluded that the Iraqis probably wanted the tubes to make 
     conventional artillery pieces.
       Other examples of questionable statements include:
       Vice President Cheney said in late August that Iraq might 
     have nuclear weapons ``fairly soon.'' A CIA report released 
     Friday said it could take Iraq until the last half of the 
     decade to produce a nuclear weapon., unless it could acquire 
     bomb-grade uranium or plutonium on the black market.
       Also in August, Rumsfeld suggested that al-Qeada operatives 
     fleeing Afghanistan were taking refuge in Iraq with Hussein's 
     assistance. ``In a vicious, repressive dictatorship that 
     exercises near-total control over its population, it's very 
     hard to imagine that the government is not aware of what's 
     taking place in the country,'' he said. Rumsfeld apparently 
     was referring to about 150 members of the militant Islamic 
     group Ansae al Islam (``Supporters of Islam'') who have taken 
     refuge in Kurdish areas of northern Iraq. However, one of 
     America's would-be Kurdish allies controls that part of the 
     country, not Hussein.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, it is in the true spirit of this 
institution, which Senator Byrd knows so well, that we exchange 
viewpoints as we have done Friday, yesterday, and again today, and we 
will continue to do that. Hopefully, these facts which the Senator 
deems essential--and I also--will be brought to the attention of this 
body. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. BYRD. And I thank my colleague.

                          ____________________