[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 14]
[Senate]
[Pages 19674-19692]
[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 now 
resume consideration of S.J. Res. 45, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant bill clerk read as follows:

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

  Pending:

       Lieberman/Warner Modified Amendment No. 4856, in the nature 
     of a substitute.
       Graham Amendment No. 4857 (to Amendment No. 4856), in the 
     nature of a substitute.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senate now turns to the resolution, it is my 
understanding.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. The leadership has indicated there have been expressions 
of interest to speak this morning from Senator Feingold for 
approximately 30 minutes; Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison for 30 minutes; 
the Presiding Officer, Senator Leahy, for 20 minutes; and Senator 
Grassley for 20 minutes.
  Further, we have expressions on this side by about half a dozen other 
Members who would hope to speak during the course of the day and the 
afternoon, but we will await announcement of names and times until the 
other side indicates the expression of interest on their side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, what is the pending business before the 
Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. I am advised it is the Graham second degree 
amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the President for informing me of what the 
pending business is before the Senate. I urge my colleagues to come and 
speak on behalf or in opposition to the Graham amendment so we can 
dispose of that amendment. It is my intention to move to table the 
Graham amendment after a reasonable length of time for my colleagues to 
come and speak for or against that amendment, which is my right, as is 
any Senator's right, but I want to make sure every Senator has the 
time, if they so wish, to speak on the pending business.
  I see my dear friend from Wisconsin in the Chamber. I know he is 
talking about the overall issue. We need Senators to speak on the 
Graham amendment. I am sure my friend from Wisconsin and my colleague 
from West Virginia would be glad to speak, but we need to dispose of 
the pending Graham amendment and move on to other amendments.
  I understand by 1 p.m. all amendments have to be filed. So let us 
move on and dispose of the Graham amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, in debating this resolution on which we 
spent so much time and so much thought, we are making one of the most 
important decisions we have ever faced. The decision to send American 
troops into battle is not one we take lightly and I don't take lightly.
  There is much at stake for this Nation. There is much at stake for 
the State of Nevada. Thousands of men and women in Nevada would 
undoubtedly be called to support or directly serve in a military 
conflict with Iraq. Our pilots from Fallon Naval Air Station and Nellis 
Air Force Base are considered the best aviators in the world. I know 
they would be asked to play a leading role in eliminating the threat 
posed by Saddam Hussein.
  I am personally very grateful for the contributions that would be 
made by the National Guard and Reserve forces not only from Nevada but 
from across our country. These heroic citizen soldiers are such an 
integral part of the American military. We simply could not succeed 
without them. We must be mindful that their sacrifices are great 
because they leave their families and civilian occupations behind and 
become citizen soldiers. They serve proudly on behalf of our Nation. 
When called upon, they do not complain. They did not question the need 
to act. They did not ask why.
  However, we must explain that these brave men and women are the 
reason for making this life-and-death decision. Therefore, I rise today 
to explain to one man why I intend to vote and how I intend to vote. 
That man is President George W. Bush. I say, President Bush, your 
father may recall that a decade ago I was the first Democrat in this 
body to publicly support his request for congressional authorization to 
make war to free Kuwait. At that time, I compared Saddam Hussein to 
Benito Mussolini. My position has not changed, although I believe our 
continued efforts have degraded Hussein from a second-grade dictator to 
a third-rate thug.
  In 1991, I said I thought the constitutional role of the Chief 
Executive is to make war. That is our role--halt or prevent an unjust 
or unwise conflict. I stated my strong belief that the President must 
be able to use the diplomatic corps and the Marine Corps with equal 
facility, subject only to our power to force a halt to actions taken 
contrary to the national interests.
  President Bush, I intend once again to vote to give you that power on 
a geographically limited basis, but I do so with more reluctance 
because the situation has changed. We do not, as we did 10 years ago, 
face a dictator who successfully invaded a tiny and relatively 
defenseless neighbor.
  We have not enlisted, as your father did so magnificently, the whole 
world to fight by our side. We have not yet convinced our people or the 
world that international law is on our side, or that we are champions 
of the new world order envisioned by your father in which the power of 
a nation is measured by the strength of its moral values and not by the 
size of its Armed Forces.
  President Bush, the core ideal which motivated the Founding Fathers 
was that this would be a nation of laws not men. As such a decent 
respect to the opinions of mankind requires that we should declare the 
causes which impel our action. Our quarrel with Iraq is not about one 
two-bit tin-horn dictator. Rather, it is, and it ought to, be explained 
as a question of the rule of law.
  I am voting you this power, Mr. President, because I know this nation

[[Page 19675]]

would be justified in making war to enforce the terms we impose on Iraq 
in 1991, if we have to. But I am also voting you this power secure in 
the knowledge that no President of the United States of whatever 
political philosophy, will take this nation to war as a first resort 
alternative rather than as a last resort.
  I found most encouraging your speech on Monday when you said war was 
not inevitable.
  I urge you Mr. President to continue to make the case to the American 
people and to the world. The international coalition you have started 
to build is critical, not only for military and cost-sharing reasons, 
but also to assist in the rebuilding of Iraq.
  Your father chose not to carry our fight into the cities of Iraq in 
1991, and we have to live with his decision. He gave the Iraqi 
leadership a chance to reenter the community of peaceful nations. 
Saddam Hussein has squandered that opportunity.
  We stopped the fighting based on an agreement that Iraq would take 
steps to assure the world that it would not engage in further 
aggression and that it would destroy its weapons of mass destruction. 
It has refused to take those steps. That refusal constitutes a breach 
of the armistice which renders it void and justifies resumption of the 
armed conflict. President Bush, if you believe the time has come to use 
force, this resolution authorizes you to do so. I trust you will use 
this force wisely.
  I have no doubt that if Iraq continues to refuse to abide by its 
agreement the nations united in 1991 will again support enforcement in 
the United Nations. But Mr. President, the rule of law matters, and so 
does a decent respect for opinion of the rest of the world. As 
President of the United States you are the leader of the free world; 
you are not its ruler.
  I will support the Lieberman amendment. But I have said enough, 
President Bush, and I have said it to explain my vote to you, to the 
people of Nevada, to the people of this Nation, and to the world. I 
have confidence, sir, that you will do the right thing.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, what is the regular order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is for Senators to debate 
the Graham amendment to S.J. Res. 45. Senators will be recognized as 
they seek to speak, as they so appropriately do.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. My understanding was there was an order entered whereby 
I would be recognized at this point.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It was not a unanimous consent request, but 
the distinguished Senator from Virginia had mentioned others would be 
coming. Of course, the Senator from Wisconsin now has the floor and he 
is in control of his time.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. BYRD. Will the distinguished Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield for a question.
  Mr. BYRD. This Senator has to go downtown and speak around noon. Does 
the Senator intend to speak a considerable length at this point?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Not that long. I will be concluded in time for the 
Senator to speak prior to that.
  Mr. BYRD. Prior to that time?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Yes, sir.
  Mr. BYRD. I wonder if I might ask unanimous consent to follow the 
Senator from Wisconsin?
  Mr. WARNER. I say to my colleague that Senator Reid, the assistant 
Democrat leader, working with us, established the order. In 
consultation with Senator Reid, if he wishes to come back and suggest 
to us an amendment to what he had in mind, certainly we will take into 
consideration the desire of the Senator from West Virginia. But at this 
time, I feel the leadership has established this, and I would not be at 
liberty to agree to anything else.
  Mr. BYRD. If the Senator will yield further without losing the floor?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Yes.
  Mr. BYRD. If and when Senator Reid comes back to the floor and 
attempts to change the list----
  Mr. REID. I am here.
  Mr. BYRD. I was about to say, I was hoping I might be considered on 
the list and be able to follow the statement by Mr. Feingold.
  Mr. REID. Without the Senator from Wisconsin losing his right to the 
floor, could we answer a few questions that are pending? I was watching 
the proceedings from my office.
  It is my understanding there is an order that is now in effect. Could 
the Chair announce what that is?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. REID. It is my understanding, under the order, we have four 
Senators who are set to speak, and they have been given time. Senator 
Feingold is first. The Republican is Senator Hutchison of Texas, to 
speak for 30 minutes, as I recall. Then Senator Leahy speaks for 30 
minutes, and then Senator Grassley speaks. That is as far as we went 
this morning.
  Mr. McCAIN. Is there a unanimous consent in effect?
  Mr. REID. That order has already been entered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair was in error before. There is a 
unanimous consent that was granted this morning before the present 
occupant took the chair, giving the allocated times to Senator 
Feingold, Senator Hutchison, Senator Leahy, and Senator Grassley in the 
order as described by the senior Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. REID. Yesterday, we tried to line up Senators and give specific 
times, but it did not work. So what we decided to do, with the consent 
of the two leaders, is to line up a couple on each side. We hope that 
works better than yesterday. Yesterday we had a little bit of downtime 
because some people did not speak long enough, some people spoke too 
long. So if the Senators from Arizona and West Virginia wish to get in 
the queue, I think that is totally appropriate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator from Nevada will yield, I stated earlier 
the pending business before the Senate is the Graham amendment. The 
Graham amendment should be dispensed with. That is why I hope any 
Senator who supports or opposes the Graham amendment would speak on it 
because I intend to move to table the Graham amendment, which is my 
right. So when we line up people to talk, I am all for that, but I 
would seek recognition at some time--sooner rather than later--so we 
could dispose of the Graham amendment. We need to move forward on this 
issue, I say to my friend from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. The Senator from Arizona is totally correct. I have been in 
touch with the Senator from Florida, and he needs to come and speak. 
Otherwise, his motion is going to be tabled because it is not only the 
Senator from Arizona but others have the same thing in mind. As we all 
know, once that motion is made, it is nondebatable. From what I have 
been able to determine, it is likely that motion would prevail.
  I would like to hear from the Senator from West Virginia. Does the 
Senator from West Virginia wish to speak after the four we have lined 
up?
  Mr. BYRD. I have an engagement downtown. I had hoped to speak 
immediately following Mr. Feingold. I would have to say to my friend 
from Arizona my remarks are on the general subject. They are not 
precisely on the point with respect to the Graham amendment.
  May I make a parliamentary inquiry? I ask if the Senator will yield 
for that purpose?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin has the floor.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I do not want to lose my right to the floor at this 
point. Can the Senator from West Virginia pose a question to me?
  Mr. BYRD. I would like to make a parliamentary inquiry of the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator yield for that purpose?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. If I retain my right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator for yielding for the 
inquiry. Is there a motion to invoke cloture before the Senate?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Two cloture motions were filed yesterday, on

[[Page 19676]]

the resolution itself and on the Lieberman substitute amendment.
  Mr. BYRD. If I might ask, until what time today are Senators in a 
position to offer amendments in the first degree to the cloture motion 
on the Lieberman amendment?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under rule XXII, a 1 p.m. filing deadline is 
imposed on the first-degree amendments.
  Mr. BYRD. I wonder if Senators would yield consent to allow Senators 
to file first-degree amendments until a later point today. For example, 
my own situation is such, I have so many things going on, including a 
conference on the Defense appropriations. I also have other problems 
that would impinge upon my ability to offer an amendment by 1 p.m.
  Could all Senators have a little longer than that today?
  Mr. REID. If I may, with the permission of the Senator from 
Wisconsin, I will respond to the Senator from West Virginia. I will be 
happy, while Senator Feingold is speaking, to see if we can work with 
both sides to see if that is possible. We will do that.
  You are scheduled to speak for how long, Senator?
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Thirty minutes.
  Mr. REID. And I say to my friend from Arizona, we have heard from 
Senator Graham from Florida. He was ready to come anytime today, but 
because we lined up the speakers, he did not come. We will make sure he 
has an opportunity to speak on his amendment and that you are 
recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we can rearrange the Senators on our side 
because the Senator from Arizona made the point last night, Senator 
Graham came in--we were here--unexpectedly, laid that amendment down, 
and indicated to this Senator that he was going to pursue it early in 
the morning.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Virginia it is not his fault. He is 
anxious to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. REID. I ask unanimous consent that the time to which the Senator 
from Wisconsin is entitled still be in effect.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin for his 
kindness and courtesy.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, many have spent months reviewing the 
issue on advisability of invading Iraq in the near future, from 
hearings and meeting on the process and the very important role of 
Congress to the difficult questions of substance, including foreign 
policy and military implications. After my own review and carefully 
listening to hundreds of Wisconsin citizens in person, I spoke on the 
floor on Thursday, September 26. I indicated my opposition to the 
original draft use of force authorization by the President. I also used 
that opportunity to raise some very important questions to which I 
needed answers before supporting a narrower and more responsible 
resolution.
  Now, after many more meetings and reading articles and attending 
briefings, listening to my colleagues' speeches, and especially 
listening to the President's speech in Cincinnati on Monday, I still do 
not believe the President and the administration have adequately 
answered the critical questions. They have not yet met the important 
burden to persuade Congress and the American people we should invade 
Iraq at this time.
  Both in terms of the justifications for an invasion and in terms of 
the mission and the plan for the invasion, the administration's 
arguments do not add up. They do not add up to a coherent basis for a 
new major war in the middle of our current challenging fight against 
the terrorism of al-Qaida and related organizations. Therefore, I 
cannot support the resolution for the use of force before the Senate.
  My colleagues, my focus today is on the wisdom of this specific 
resolution, vis-a-vis Iraq, as opposed to discussing the notion of an 
expanded doctrine of preemption, which the President has articulated on 
several occasions. However, I associate myself with the concerns 
eloquently raised by Senator Kennedy and Senator Byrd and others that 
this could well represent a disturbing change in our overall foreign 
and military policy. This includes grave concerns about what such a 
preemption-plus policy will do to our relationship with our allies, to 
our national security, and to the cause of world peace in so many 
regions of the world where such a doctrine could trigger very dangerous 
actions with very minimal justification.
  I want to be clear about something. None of this is to say that I 
don't agree with the President on much of what he has said about the 
fight against terrorism and even what he has said about Iraq. I agree, 
post-9/11, we face, as the President said, a long and difficult fight 
against terrorism. We must be very patient and very vigilant, and we 
must be ready to act and make some very serious sacrifices.
  With regard to Iraq, I agree, Iraq presents a genuine threat, 
especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction, chemical, 
biological, and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam 
Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as 
the President argues. And I support the concept of regime change. 
Saddam Hussein is one of several despots whom the international 
community should condemn and isolate with the hope of new leadership in 
those nations.
  Yes, I agree; if we do this Iraq invasion, I hope Saddam Hussein will 
actually be removed from power this time. I agree, we cannot do nothing 
with regard to Saddam Hussein in Iraq. We must act. We must act with 
serious purpose and stop the weapons of mass destruction and stop 
Saddam Hussein. I agree, a return to the inspections regime of the past 
alone is not a serious, credible policy.
  I also believe and agree, as important and as preferable as U.N. 
action and multilateral solutions to this problem are, we cannot give 
the United Nations the ability to veto our ability to counter this 
threat to our people. We retain and will always retain the right of 
self-defense, including self-defense against weapons of mass 
destruction. When such a threat requiring self-defense would present 
itself--and I am skeptical that is exactly what we are dealing with 
here--then we could, if necessary, act alone, including militarily.
  These are all areas where I agree with the administration. However, I 
am increasingly troubled by the seemingly shifting justifications for 
an invasion at this time. My colleagues, I am not suggesting there has 
to be only one justification for such a dramatic action, but when the 
administration moves back and forth from one argument to another, it 
undercuts the credibility of the case and the belief in its urgency. I 
believe this practice of shifting justifications has much to do with 
the troubling phenomenon of many Americans questioning the 
administration's motives in insisting on action at this time.
  What am I talking about? I am talking about the spectacle of the 
President and senior administration officials citing a reported 
connection to al-Qaida one day, weapons of mass destruction the next 
day, Saddam Hussein's treatment of his own people on another day, and 
then on some days the issue of Kuwaiti prisoners of war.
  For some of these, we may well be willing to send some 250,000 
Americans into harm's way; for others, frankly, probably not.
  These litanies of various justifications--whether the original draft 
resolution discussions or the new White House resolution, or, 
regrettably throughout the President's speech in Cincinnati--in my view 
set the bar for an alternative to a U.S. invasion so high I am afraid 
it almost locks in--it almost requires--a potentially extreme and 
reckless solution to these problems.
  I am especially troubled by these shifting justifications because I 
and most Americans strongly support the President on the use of force 
in response to the attacks on September 11, 2001. I voted for S.J. Res. 
23--the use of force resolution--to go after al-Qaida and the Taliban 
and those associated with the tragedies of September 11, and I strongly 
supported military actions

[[Page 19677]]

pursuant to S.J. Res. 23. But the relentless attempt to link 9/11 and 
the issue of Iraq has been disappointing to me for months, culminating 
in the President's singularly unpersuasive attempt in Cincinnati to 
intertwine 9/11 and Iraq, to make the American people believe there are 
no important differences between the perpetrators of 9/11 and Iraq.
  I believe it is dangerous for the world--and especially dangerous for 
us--to take the tragedy of 9/11 and the word ``terrorism'' in all their 
powerful emotion and then too easily apply them to many other 
situations--situations that surely need our serious attention, but are 
not necessarily the same as individuals and organizations who have 
shown a willingness to fly suicide planes into the World Trade Center 
and into the Pentagon.
  Let me say the President is right, we have to view the world, the 
threats, and our own national security in a very different light since 
9/11. There are shocking new threats. But it is not helpful to use 
virtually any strand or extreme rhetoric to suggest the new threat is 
the same as other preexisting threats.
  I think common sense tells us they are not the same. They cannot so 
easily be lumped together as the President sought to do in Cincinnati.
  I have reviewed the intermittent efforts to suggest a connection of 
9/11 and Saddam Hussein, or suggest the possibility such a connection 
has developed since 9/11. I want to be very clear. In fact, if there 
was a connection in planning for the 9/11 attacks by Saddam Hussein or 
his agents and the perpetrators of 9/11 and al-Qaida, I have already 
voted for military action. I have no objection. But if it is not, if 
this is premised on some case that has supposedly been made with regard 
to a subsequent coalition between al-Qaida and the Iraqi government, I 
think the President has to do better. He has to do better than the 
shoddy piecing together of flimsy evidence that contradicts the very 
briefings we have received by various agencies. I am not hearing the 
same things at the briefings I am hearing from the President's top 
officials.
  In fact, on March 11 of this year, Vice President Cheney, following a 
meeting with Tony Blair, raised the possibility of weapons of mass 
destruction falling into the hands of terrorists. He said:

       We have to be concerned about the potential marriage, if 
     you will, between a terrorist organization like al-Qaida and 
     those who hold or are proliferating knowledge about weapons 
     of mass destruction.

  In March, there was a potential marriage.
  Then the Vice President said on September 8, without evidence--and no 
evidence has been given since that time--that there are:

       ``Credible but unconfirmed'' intelligence reports that 9/11 
     ringleader Mohammad Atta met in Prague with senior Iraqi 
     intelligence officials a few months before the 9/11 attacks.

  We have seen no proof of that.
  Finally, the Secretary of Defense follows on September 27 of this 
year, and says:

       There is ``bulletproof evidence'' of Iraqi links to al-
     Qaida, including the recent presence of senior al-Qaida 
     members in Baghdad.

  I don't know where this comes from. This so-called ``potential 
marriage'' in March is beginning to sound like a 25th wedding 
anniversary at this point.
  The facts just aren't there. At least they have not been presented to 
me in the situations where they should have been presented to me as an 
elected Member of this body. In other words, the administration appears 
to use 9/11 and the language of terrorism and the connection to Iraq 
too loosely--almost like a bootstrap.
  For example, I heard the President say in Cincinnati that Iraq and 
al-Qaida both regard us as a common enemy. Of course they do. Who else 
are we going to attack in the near future on that basis alone?
  Or do we see an attempt to stretch the notion of harboring 
terrorists? I agree with the President, if any country is actively 
harboring and assisting terrorists involved in 9/11, we have to act 
against them. But I don't think you can bring to the definition of 
harboring terrorists the simple presence of some al-Qaida members 
somewhere in Iraq. After all, apparently we have al-Qaida agents active 
in our country as well. They are present in our Nation as well. How can 
this be a sufficient basis on its own?
  Therefore, without a better case for an al-Qaida connection to Saddam 
Hussein, this proposed invasion must stand on its own merit--not on 
some notion that those who question this invasion don't thoroughly 
condemn and want to see the destruction of the perpetrators of 9/11 and 
similar terrorist attacks on the United States.
  Invasion of Iraq must stand on its own--not just because it is 
different than the fight against the perpetrators of 9/11, but because 
it may not be consistent with and may even be harmful to the top 
national security issue of this country. And that is the fight against 
terrorism and the perpetrators of the crimes of 9/11.
  In fact, I am so pleased to see one of the most eloquent spokesmen on 
this viewpoint here in the Senate Chamber, Senator Graham, who has done 
a terrific job of trying to point out our top priorities in this area. 
He said:

       Our first priority should be the successful completion of 
     the war on terrorism. Today, we Americans are more vulnerable 
     to international terrorist organizations than we are to 
     Saddam Hussein.

  I ask: Is this war against terrorism going so terribly well when we 
see the possible explosion of the French tanker in Yemen, when we see 
the tremendous difficulties in trying to pursue stability in 
Afghanistan itself, and when we realize we are not certain at all 
whether Mr. Osama bin Laden is alive or dead? Will the invasion of Iraq 
encourage our allies and Islamic friends to help us in the fight 
against terrorism, or just make them extremely nervous?
  I met with a group of African Ambassadors the other day in my role as 
chairman of the Africa Subcommittee of the Foreign Relations Committee. 
They told me various people were placing bets on what country would be 
next after Iraq under this new doctrine the President is putting 
forward. Will this idea of invading Iraq at this time, on this case, on 
these merits, help or hurt cooperation in our fight against terrorism, 
against the known murderers of Americans who are known to be plotting 
more of the same?
  I am especially dismayed at the weak response to the potential drain 
on our military capability and resources in our fight against 
terrorism, if we go forward with this invasion at this time. The 
administration likes to quickly say, whenever asked whether we can do 
this and fight the war against terrorism--they just simply say we can 
do both. There is no proof. There is no real assurance of this.
  I find these answers glib, at best.
  When former Secretary of State Kissinger was asked in this regard, he 
said:

       It is not clear to me what measures that are required in 
     the war against terrorism would be interrupted or weakened by 
     the actions that may be imposed on us if it is not possible 
     to do away with the stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction 
     in Iraq by other means.

  That is the only explanation the former Secretary of State gave us on 
this tough question.
  But let's look at what the current Secretary of State, Colin Powell, 
said in response to a similar question. He said:

       So the campaign against terrorism is going in full swing. 
     And I don't see why there is a suggestion that somehow, if we 
     had to undertake this mission, it would be at the expense of 
     the campaign against terrorism.

  That is all he said. Now, that is a pretty weak reassurance, to me, 
that such an enormous undertaking will not call into question some of 
our other military efforts and priorities.
  What about what we are doing in Bosnia? What about what we are doing 
in Kosovo? What about all the resources stretching from the Philippines 
all the way to portions of the former Soviet Union, to the Middle East, 
to parts of Africa, that are being employed in the fight against 
terrorism? What about the fact we are using our National Guards and 
Reserves, many times within our country, to protect our own citizens at 
public events with regard to the challenge of the fight against 
terrorism?

[[Page 19678]]

  All of this, and an invasion of Iraq, too? I wonder. As mighty as we 
are, I wonder if we are not very close to being overextended. Invasion 
of Iraq in the next few weeks or months could, in fact, be very 
counterproductive. In fact, it could risk our national security.
  In any event, I oppose this resolution because of the continuing 
unanswered questions, including the very important questions about what 
the mission is here, what the nature of the operation will be, what 
will happen concerning weapons of mass destruction in Iraq as the 
attack proceeds and afterward, and what the plan is after the attack is 
over.
  In effect, we are being asked to vote on something that is unclear. 
We do not have the answers to these questions. We are being asked to 
vote on something that is almost unknowable in terms of the information 
we have been given.
  In my judgment, the issue that presents the greatest potential threat 
to U.S. national security--Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass 
destruction--has not been addressed in any comprehensive way by the 
administration to date. Of course, I know we don't need to know all the 
details, and we don't have to be given all the details, and we 
shouldn't be given all the details, but we have to be given some kind 
of a reasonable explanation.
  Before we vote on this resolution, we need a credible plan for 
securing WMD sites and not allowing materials of concern to slip away 
during some chaotic course of action. I know that is a tall order, but 
it is a necessary demand.
  As I said, I agree with the administration when it asserts that 
returning to the same restricted weapons inspection regime of the 
recent past is not a credible policy for addressing the WMD problem in 
Iraq. But there is nothing credible about the ``we will figure that out 
later'' approach we have heard to date.
  What if actors competing for power in the post-Hussein world have 
access to WMD? What if there is chaos in the wake of the regime's fall 
that provides new opportunities for non-state actors, including 
terrorist organizations, to bid on the sinister items tucked away in 
Iraq?
  Some would say those who do not unquestionably support the 
administration are failing to provide for our national security. But, I 
am sure of this: these issues are critical to that security, and I have 
yet to get any answers.
  We need an honest assessment of the commitment required of America. 
If the right way to address this threat is through internationally 
supported military action in Iraq, and Saddam Hussein's regime falls, 
we will need to take action to ensure stability in Iraq and to help the 
country on the road to reconstruction.
  This could be very costly and time-consuming. It could involve the 
occupation--the occupation--of a Middle Eastern country. Now, this is 
not a small matter: the American occupation of a Middle Eastern 
country. Consider the regional implications of that scenario: the 
unrest in moderate states, the calls for action against American 
interests, the difficulty of bringing stability to Iraq so we can 
extricate ourselves in the midst of regional turmoil.
  We need much more information about how we propose to proceed so we 
can weigh the costs and benefits to our national security.
  In Afghanistan, the Government of President Karzai works under 
constant threat, and instability plagues the country outside of Kabul. 
Many Afghan people are waiting for concrete indicators that they have a 
stake in this new Taliban-free future. The task is daunting, and we 
only have just begun that task.
  What demands might be added in a post-Saddam Iraq?
  I do believe the American people are willing to bear high costs to 
pursue a policy that makes sense. But right now, after all of the 
briefings, after all of the hearings, and after all of the statements, 
as far as I can tell, the administration apparently intends to wing it 
when it comes to the day after, or, as others have suggested, the 
decade after. I think that makes no sense at all.
  So, Mr. President, I believe to date the administration has failed to 
answer the key questions to justify the invasion of Iraq at this time.
  Yes, September 11 raises the emotional stakes and raises legitimate 
new questions. This makes the President's request understandable, but 
it does not make it wise.
  I am concerned the President is pushing us into a mistaken and 
counterproductive course of action. Instead of, in his words, this 
action being ``crucial to win the war on terrorism,'' I fear it could 
have the opposite effect.
  So this moment--in which we are responsible for assessing the threat 
before us, the appropriate response, and the potential costs and 
consequences of military action--this moment is of grave importance. 
Yet there is something hollow in our efforts. In all of the 
administration's public statements, its presentations to Congress, and 
its exhortations for action, Congress is urged to provide this 
authority and approve the use of our awesome military power in Iraq 
without knowing much at all about what we intend to do with it.
  We are about to make one of the weightiest decisions of our time 
within a context of confused justifications and vague proposals. We are 
urged to get on board and bring the American people with us, but we do 
not know where the ship is sailing.
  On Monday night, the President said in Cincinnati: ``We refuse to 
live in fear.'' I agree. But let us not overreact or get tricked or get 
trapped out of fear, either.
  Mr. President, on the 11th of September, 2001, our country came under 
attack, and the world suddenly seemed shockingly small and 
unquestionably dangerous. What followed that horror continued to be 
frightening and disorienting: anthrax attacks, color-coded threat 
levels, report after report of terrorist cells seemingly everywhere.
  In the weeks and months since September 11, Americans have had to 
contend with these changes and to come to grips with the reality this 
could happen again and there are forces planning to do us harm, and we 
cannot unconditionally guarantee our own safety.
  In this new world, we cannot help but sense the future is uncertain, 
our world is disordered, unpredictable, up for grabs. So when our 
leaders propose taking action, Americans do not want to resist. But 
they are resisting this vague and worrisome proposal.
  My constituents have voiced their concerns in calls, at town 
meetings, in letters, and through e-mails or faxes. They are not 
calling for Congress to bury its head in the sand. They are not naively 
suggesting Saddam Hussein is somehow misunderstood. But they are asking 
questions that bear directly on our national security, and they are 
looking for answers that make sense. They are setting the standard, 
just as they should do, in a great democracy.
  Their standard is high. We should work together to develop a policy 
toward Iraq that meets it.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator from Texas is present in the Chamber. My 
understanding is, she is next to be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is right. The Senator from Texas 
is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senators from Virginia, 
Arizona, and Connecticut for all of the efforts being made to bring a 
full debate on this issue to the Senate.
  Congress has no greater responsibility under the Constitution than to 
provide for our Nation's common defense. There is no decision we make 
that requires more careful consideration than a decision to authorize 
the use of armed forces and, in so doing, send America's sons and 
daughters into harm's way.
  Shortly after I was elected to the Senate, our Nation suffered 
through

[[Page 19679]]

the brutal battle in Mogadishu, Somalia. It left 18 of our soldiers 
dead. Our mission was vague. There was no clear American national 
security threat in Somalia. The President did not come to the American 
people and explain the rationale for continued military involvement.
  The impact of this uncertainty became very clear to me soon after the 
tragedy when I met a constituent on a flight from Washington, DC, to 
Dallas.
  He came up to me and said: Senator, my name is Larry Joyce. I am your 
constituent.
  I said: Hi, Larry, how are you doing? What were you doing in 
Washington?
  He said: I was burying my son in Arlington National Cemetery.
  His son Casey had been killed in the street ambush that was depicted 
in the book ``Black Hawk Down,'' also a movie.
  Colonel Joyce said to me, with tears rolling down his face: Senator, 
I am a military man. I served two tours in Vietnam. And now my son 
Casey, on his first mission as an Army Ranger, is not coming home. 
Senator, I can't tell you why.
  I vowed that day that I would never vote to send an American into 
battle unless I could answer that question. I want to be able to face 
any parent and say: This is the national security interest of our 
country, and that is why your child signed up and was willing to fight 
and was sent to do so.
  Since Somalia, I have come to the Senate floor to express grave 
reservations about deployments to Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo. In each 
case, I called on the President to come to Congress, make the case to 
the American people, and outline the U.S. security interest.
  After the tragic events of 9/11, President Bush sought and received 
the authorization to use force to find and destroy the terrorists who 
had launched that heinous crime. There was no question in my mind and 
in the minds of most Members of Congress that our national security 
demanded our support of the President.
  Today, President Bush seeks congressional authorization to use 
military force to deal with the threat Saddam Hussein poses with 
weapons of mass destruction. We must answer the major question for 
America: What is the U.S. security interest? Why Saddam? Why now?
  It is a question I thought about as I sat among the hushed crowds at 
the Pentagon's memorial service on September 11, 2002. It was a 
poignant moment. I was surrounded by those who had suffered so much and 
many who will ultimately bear the consequences of the decision we are 
about to make.
  I doubt there is anyone in America who doesn't feel as I do. If we 
could have prevented 9/11, we certainly would have. We didn't have 
warning, and we paid a heavy price.
  It is this experience that has led President Bush to think in a 
different way about protecting our homeland. I believe he doesn't want 
to wait until an enemy is finished building his deadly arsenal and 
ready to attack from a position of strength. It is one thing to turn 
three commercial airliners into weapons of mass destruction. It is 
another to have a nuclear missile ready to deploy or to arm an unmanned 
aerial vehicle with anthrax ready to ship anywhere in the world.
  Each generation of Americans has been called to defend our freedom. 
Each time, our forefathers and mothers have answered the call. Our 
generation's time of national trial has come. We are being called to 
stop a new kind of enemy, different from any we have ever fought 
before. This enemy is not just contained in one country or two, it is 
spread throughout the world and even within our own borders. This enemy 
purposely kills itself in order to harm others.
  This enemy is patient, building resources and striking when and where 
we are least prepared. This enemy uses a different method each time. 
This enemy requires a new kind of defense. That is what the President 
is attempting to build.
  The cold war ended when the Iron Curtain and Berlin Wall came 
tumbling down. The post-cold-war era ended when the World Trade Center 
towers came crashing down. September 11 made it abundantly clear that 
the strategy of deterrence alone is not enough.
  The President recently released a new national security strategy. It 
articulates a policy of preemption and dominance. Some fear that our 
new national security strategy is too bold. A bold defense does not 
cause calamities to occur, but a lack of action will. It is not our 
defense strategy that will provoke attacks on the United States. 
Rather, it is when we fail to act or fail to lead that our enemies 
strike. It is when they think we have become soft and complacent that 
they will kill innocent Americans again.
  We have learned hard and valuable lessons these past few years. The 
first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center occurred in 1993, a 
bombing that killed 6 Americans and injured more than 1,000. What did 
we do? In 1996, Hezbollah extremists bombed the United States military 
barracks at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 American 
servicemembers and injuring 500 others. What did we do? In 1998, al-
Qaida terrorists bombed the United States Embassies in Kenya and 
Tanzania, killing and injuring hundreds. What did we do? In 2000, al-
Qaida terrorists again attacked Americans, this time bombing the U.S.S. 
Cole in Yemen, killing 17 American servicemembers and injuring scores 
more. What did we do?
  Then came the devastating attacks of 9/11. Our Nation finally was 
awakened. We put the pattern together to see the threat to the very 
freedom that we cherish. We did do something. We took action against 
our enemy swiftly and boldly after 9/11. Now we must follow through.
  The President has asked for authority to meet this threat. Congress 
gave him wide latitude to root out terrorism. We and our allies are 
doing that job in Afghanistan, the home base of al-Qaida.
  We have liberated millions and millions of innocent Afghanis from the 
cruel Taliban regime.
  Now the President is asking for authority to go into Iraq. Why Iraq? 
Why now? Because we have learned the lessons of complacency. We have 
learned the lessons of not being prepared.
  The President has solid information that with a small amount of 
highly enriched uranium, Iraq could have a nuclear weapon in less than 
a year. We know Iraq already has the means to deliver it. He has hard 
intelligence that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons and small, 
unmanned aerial vehicles to disseminate them, potentially killing 
thousands of people anywhere in the world. The President is saying: 
``Do we wait for the attack, or do we take steps to prevent it?'' Our 
post-9/11 defense strategy demands that we prevent it.
  Saddam Hussein has fired on coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly 
zones over Iraq 2,500 times since the Gulf War. Saddam Hussein has 
rewarded the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. He has attempted 
to assassinate the former U.S. President who led the international 
coalition that defeated him in the Gulf War. His No. 1 enemy is the 
United States of America.
  So if all diplomatic efforts fail, and if the U.N. weapons inspectors 
are not allowed unfettered access to suspected sites, our President 
wants to be able to take away Saddam Hussein's means to destroy us and 
our allies.
  It is our responsibility to give the President the authorization he 
needs. The question of whether the security of the United States is 
threatened has been answered. The answer is yes.
  It is with a heavy heart and a realization of the consequences that I 
will vote yes. But it would be a burden I could not carry to vote no 
and then, a year or 2 from now, see a preventable attack kill thousands 
more innocent Americans or our allies.
  Mr. President, we are going to meet this test of our generation. We 
are going to protect the freedom and the way of life that has become 
the beacon to the world of the way life should be. We can do no less.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized.
  Mr. REID. Has the Senator completed her statement?

[[Page 19680]]


  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the 
statement of Senator Grassley, Senator Graham of Florida be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Reserving the right to object. Senator McCain will 
address the Chair.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator to repeat that.
  Mr. REID. I said that following the statement of the Senator from 
Iowa, Mr. Grassley, Senator Graham be recognized. Based on our 
conversations, following that, the Senator from Arizona would like to 
be recognized.
  Mr. McCAIN. That is fine.
  Mr. REID. I add to the request, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, might I at this juncture complete my 
statement to express strong support for the remarks made by the 
distinguished Senator from Texas. She has been very much involved in 
the planning for this resolution, and I very much appreciate her 
remarks.
  (Mr. REID assumed the Chair.)
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Thank you. I say to the Senator from Virginia that I 
appreciate that. We have worked together on this resolution to try to 
ensure that the President has the authorization he needs and that 
Congress plays its constitutional role. I appreciate all the 
cooperation on both sides of the aisle to make this happen.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, pending the arrival of Senator Leahy, I 
ask unanimous consent for a colloquy with Senator Specter and 
Lieberman. I imagine Senator Leahy will be here shortly.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I had discussed briefly with the Senator 
from Connecticut a couple of questions, and I would like to engage him 
in a colloquy. The first relates to the difference in language between 
the 1991 resolution authorizing then-President Bush to use force, which 
says in pertinent part:

       The President is authorized to use United States Armed 
     Forces, pursuant to resolutions of the UN, in order to 
     achieve implementation of those Security Council resolutions.

  Now, that is different from the authorization in the current 
resolution, which says:

       The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the 
     United States as he determines to be necessary and 
     appropriate.

  The current resolution might be called a subjective standard, which 
gives substantially greater latitude to President Bush to use force 
``as he determines to be necessary and appropriate.'' This language is 
very much subjective as contrasted with the 1991 language, which is 
more objective, authorizing the President to use force to achieve 
implementation of certain Security Council resolutions.
  I ask the Senator from Connecticut if the intent here, in trying to 
develop some legislative history, notwithstanding the language in the 
present resolution, is really about the same--or is the same--as the 
1991 resolution.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania 
for his thoughtful question. The intent is the same, although we may 
have a different understanding of what that intent is. I will say that 
the operative language here may be somewhat different because the 
circumstances that engendered the resolution of Congress in 1991 are 
different than now. Then, we had a specific act, which was the Iraq 
invasion of Kuwait. Resolutions have been passed by the U.N. so that 
there was specifically reference in the authorizing resolution that 
Senator Warner and I were privileged to cosponsor in 1991.
  Now we have a totality of circumstances, including the repeated 
violation of some of those same resolutions, but others calling for 
inspections, calling for the destruction of weapons of mass destruction 
that Saddam Hussein has. In fact, in the initial suggestion of a 
resolution drafted by the White House, there was an enumeration of 
specific U.N. resolutions, and Members of Congress negotiating--I 
believe from the other body--preferred to have the term that we have in 
there now, giving the President the power to use the Armed Forces to 
enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions.
  In either case, I think what is involved here is an understanding 
both in the 1991 resolution and in this one that Congress, using its 
authority under article I of the Constitution to declare war, authorize 
military action, does so and sets the parameters, but that ultimately, 
according to article II, it is the President who is the Commander in 
Chief of the Army, Navy, United States militia of the several States, 
when called into the actual service of the United States. Implicit in 
that has to be the understanding that the President will use the force 
that he determines to be necessary and appropriate.
  As I said yesterday, with the authority to give the President comes 
accountability. So, bottom line: There are two different circumstances 
that engender slightly different resolutions. In each case, Congress is 
fulfilling its responsibility to authorize military action, ultimately, 
within the parameters set forth in both resolutions. You have to give 
the President, as Commander in Chief, the authority to make decisions 
that he deems to be necessary and appropriate in the defense of our 
national security, and then be held accountable for those decisions.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Leahy is now recognized for up to 30 
minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, was the Senator from Pennsylvania seeking 
further time?
  Mr. SPECTER. I ask, Mr. President, the Senator from Vermont if I may 
pose one more question.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I suggest the regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time will come off Senator Leahy's time.
  Mr. LEAHY. I will have no objection to that provided the time is not 
taken from the time the Senator from Vermont has reserved.
  Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, how long will it take?
  Mr. SPECTER. Probably less than the time to inquire about it. I will 
ask the question in a minute or less.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania is recognized 
for up to 1 minute.
  Mr. SPECTER. The question I have for the Senator from Connecticut is 
on the expansive whereas clauses. One of these clauses refers to 
repression of the civilian population of Iraq. I ask whether the 
resolution intends to give the President the power to use force to cure 
those kinds of matters, which are separate from the issues of weapons 
of mass destruction, and whether the issue on weapons of mass 
destruction is satisfied, so that the UN resolutions are satisfied, and 
whether the clause on authorization relating to defending the national 
security interests of the United States will be satisfied with the 
resolution of the weapons of mass destruction without picking up the 
whereas clause on regime change.
  I think that is less than a minute, Mr. President.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I probably should let the Senator from Arizona respond 
because he will do it much more quickly than I.
  Mr. LEAHY. Again, Mr. President, I ask this not be deducted from the 
time available to the Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I will try to do this within a minute 
and perhaps give time for Senator Specter to clarify this. The whereas 
clauses, the preamble, speak for themselves. It suggests a totality of 
circumstances that lead the sponsors of the resolution to want to 
authorize the President, if all else fails, to take military action 
against Iraq under Saddam Hussein.
  Clearly--and what the President has said and what the sponsors of the 
resolution have said--the focus of our concern is the weapons of mass 
destruction and the means to deliver them. As we said yesterday, this 
resolution is intended to send a message to Saddam:

[[Page 19681]]

Disarm, as you promised to do 11 years ago at the end of the gulf war, 
or we will use force to disarm you with our allies and the 
international community.
  Nonetheless, the other conditions describing the totality of Saddam's 
brutality--violation of international law, invasion of his neighbors, 
et cetera--are stated in the preamble and consistent with what I said 
in response to the earlier question.
  The President, as Commander in Chief, is given the authority, the 
responsibility, and accountability to enforce all relevant U.N. 
Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. I do not think anyone 
expects the President to take military action against Iraq if, 
hopefully, and in some sense miraculously, Saddam disarms, destroys his 
ballistic missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles, allows inspections 
without any restrictions. Under those circumstances, it is hard to 
imagine the President would authorize military action, for instance, in 
regard to some of the lesser U.N. resolutions as generally understood 
by this body.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator from Connecticut.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont is recognized for up 
to 30 minutes.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have enjoyed this colloquy and would 
yield further, but I know there are other Senators awaiting their turn 
to speak.
  On September 26, I spoke at length in this Chamber about the 
important issue before us. I voiced my concerns and the concerns of a 
great many Vermonters--in fact, a great many Americans from whom I have 
heard. I spoke about the President's plan to send Americans into battle 
to overthrow Saddam Hussein.
  Many Senators have also expressed their views on this difficult 
decision. As I prepared to speak 2 weeks ago, I listened to Senator 
Bingaman urge the administration to seriously consider a proposal for 
``coerced inspections.'' After I finished speaking, Senator Johnson 
voiced his support for providing the President with the broad authority 
he seeks to use military force against Iraq.
  The opportunity and responsibility to have this debate is one of the 
cornerstones on which this institution, and indeed this country is 
built. Some have suggested that expressing misgivings or asking 
questions about the President's plan to attack Iraq is somehow 
unpatriotic. Others have tried to make it an election year issue on 
bumper stickers or in TV advertisements.
  These attempts are misguided. They are beneath the people who make 
these attempts and they are beneath the issue. This is an issue of war. 
An issue of war should be openly debated. That is a great freedom of 
this Nation. We fought a revolution to have such debates.
  As I and others have said over and over, declaring war is the single 
most important responsibility given to Congress. Unfortunately, at 
times like this, it is a responsibility Congress has often shirked. Too 
often, Congress has abdicated its responsibility and deferred to the 
executive branch on such matters. It should not. It should pause and 
read the Constitution.
  In the Senate, we have a duty to the Constitution, to our 
consciences, and to the American people, especially our men and women 
in uniform, to ask questions, to discuss the benefits, the risks, the 
costs, to have a thorough debate and then vote to declare war or not. 
This body, the Senate, is supposed to be the conscience of the Nation. 
We should fulfill this great responsibility.
  In my 28 years in the Senate, I can think of many instances when we 
asked questions and took the time to study the facts. It led to 
significant improvements in what we have done here.
  I can also remember times when Senators in both parties wished they 
had taken more time to carefully consider the issues before them, to 
ask the hard questions, or make changes to the legislation, despite the 
sometimes overwhelming public pressure to pass the first bill that came 
along.
  I know following the Constitution is not always politically expedient 
or popular. The Constitution was not designed to be politically 
expedient, but following the Constitution is the right course to take. 
It is what we are sworn to do, and there is no question that having 
this debate, which really began some months ago, has helped move the 
administration in the right direction.
  Today, we are considering a resolution offered by Senator Lieberman 
to authorize the use of force. Article I of the Constitution gives the 
Congress the sole power to declare war. But instead of exercising this 
responsibility and voting up or down on a declaration of war, what have 
we done? We have chosen to delegate this authority and this burden to 
the executive branch.
  This resolution, like others before it, does not declare anything. It 
tells the President: Why don't you decide; we are not going to.
  This resolution, when you get through the pages of whereas clauses, 
is nothing more than a blank check. The President can decide when to 
use military force, how to use it, and for how long. This Vermonter 
does not sign blank checks.
  Mr. President, I suppose this resolution is something of an 
improvement. Back in August the President's advisors insisted that 
there was not even any need for authorization from Congress to go to 
war. They said past resolutions sufficed.
  Others in the administration argued that the United States should 
attack Iraq preemptively and unilaterally, without bothering to seek 
the support of the United Nations, even though it is Iraq's violations 
of U.N. resolutions which is used to justify military action.
  Eventually, the President listened to those who urged him to change 
course and he went to the United Nations. He has since come to the 
Congress. I commended President Bush for doing that.
  I fully support the efforts of Secretary Powell to negotiate a 
strong, new Security Council resolution for the return of weapons 
inspectors to Iraq, backed up with force, if necessary, to overcome 
Iraqi resistance.
  Two weeks ago, when the President sent Congress his proposed 
resolution authorizing the use of force, I said that I hoped his 
proposal was the beginning of a consultative, bipartisan process to 
produce a sensible resolution to be acted on at the appropriate time.
  I also said that I could envision circumstances which would cause me 
to support sending U.S. Armed Forces to Iraq. But I also made it clear 
that I could never support the kind of blank check resolution that the 
President proposed. I was not elected to do that.
  I commend Senator Daschle, Senator Hagel, and others who tried hard 
to work with the administration to craft a bipartisan resolution that 
we could all support.
  But while the resolution that we are considering today is an 
improvement from the version that the President first sent to Congress, 
it is fundamentally the same. It is still a blank check. I will vote 
against this resolution for all the reasons I have stated before and 
the reasons I will explain in detail now.
  Mr. President, there is no dispute that Saddam Hussein is a menace to 
his people and to Iraq's neighbors. He is a tyrant and the world would 
be far better without him.
  Saddam Hussein has also made no secret of his hatred of the United 
States, and should he acquire a nuclear weapon and the means to deliver 
it, he would pose a grave threat to the lives of all Americans, as well 
as to our closest allies.
  The question is not whether Saddam Hussein should be disarmed; it is 
how imminent is this threat and how should we deal with it?
  Do we go it alone, as some in the administration are eager to do 
because they see Iraq as their first opportunity to apply the 
President's strategy of preemptive military force?
  Do we do that, potentially jeopardizing the support of those nations 
we need to combat terrorism and further antagonizing Muslim populations 
who already deeply resent our policies in the Middle East?
  Or, do we work with other nations to disarm Saddam, using force if 
other options fail?

[[Page 19682]]

  The resolution now before the Senate leaves the door open to act 
alone, even absent an imminent threat. It surrenders to the President 
authority which the Constitution explicitly reserves for the Congress.
  And as I said 2 weeks ago, it is premature. I have never believed, 
nor do I think that any Senator believes, that U.S. foreign policy 
should be hostage to any nation, nor to the United Nations. Ultimately, 
we must do what we believe is right and necessary to protect our 
security, whenever it is called for. But going to war alone is rarely 
the answer.
  On Monday night, the President spoke about working with the United 
Nations. He said:

       To actually work, any new inspections, sanctions, or 
     enforcement mechanisms will have to be very different. 
     America wants the U.N. to be an effective organization that 
     helps keep the peace. That is why we are urging the Security 
     Council to adopt a new resolution setting out tough, 
     immediate requirements.

  I could not agree more. The President is right. The status quo is 
unacceptable. Past U.N. resolutions have not worked. Saddam Hussein and 
other Iraqi officials have lied to the world over and over and over. As 
the President points out, an effort is underway in the U.N. Security 
Council--led by the United States--to adopt a strong resolution 
requiring unconditional, unimpeded access for U.N. weapons inspectors, 
backed up with force if necessary.
  That effort is making steady progress. There is wide acceptance that 
a new resolution is necessary before the inspectors can return to Iraq, 
and this has put pressure on the other nations, especially Russia and 
France, to support our position.
  If successful, it could achieve the goal of disarming Saddam without 
putting thousands of American and innocent Iraqi lives at risk or 
spending tens of billions, or hundreds of billions, of dollars at a 
time when the U.S. economy is weakening, the Federal deficit is 
growing, and the retirement savings of America's senior citizens have 
been decimated.
  Diplomacy is often tedious. It does not usually make the headlines or 
the evening news. We certainly know about past diplomatic failures. But 
history has shown over and over that diplomatic pressure cannot only 
protect our national interests, it can also enhance the effectiveness 
of military force when force becomes necessary.
  The negotiations are at a sensitive stage. By authorizing the use of 
force today, the Congress will be saying that irrespective of what the 
Security Council does, we have already decided to go our own way.
  As Chairman and sometime Ranking Member of the Foreign Operations 
Subcommittee for over a decade, I have received countless letters from 
Secretaries of State--from both Democratic and Republican 
Administrations--urging Congress not to adopt legislation because it 
would upset ongoing negotiations. Why is this different?
  Some say the President's hand will be strengthened by Congress 
passing this resolution. In 1990, when the United States successfully 
assembled a broad coalition to fight the gulf war, the Congress passed 
a resolution only after the UN had acted. The world already knows that 
President Bush is serious about using force against Iraq, and the votes 
are there in Congress to declare war if diplomatic efforts fail and war 
becomes unavoidable.
  More importantly, the resolution now before the Senate goes well 
beyond what the President said on Monday about working through the 
United Nations. It would permit the administration to take precipitous, 
unilateral action without following through at the U.N.
  Many respected and knowledgeable people--former senior military 
officers and diplomats among them--have expressed strong reservations 
about this resolution. They agree that if there is credible evidence 
that Saddam Hussein is planning to use weapons of mass destruction 
against the United States or one of our allies, the American people and 
the Congress would overwhelmingly support the use of American military 
power to stop him. But they have not seen that evidence, and neither 
have I.
  We have heard a lot of bellicose rhetoric, but what are the facts? I 
am not asking for 100 percent proof, but the administration is asking 
Congress to make a decision to go to war based on conflicting 
statements, angry assertions, and assumption based on speculation. This 
is not the way a great nation goes to war.
  The administration has also been vague, evasive and contradictory 
about its plans. Speaking here in Washington, the President and his 
advisors continue to say this issue is about disarming Saddam Hussein; 
that he has made no decision to use force.
  But the President paints a different picture when he is on the 
campaign trail, where he often talks about regime change. The Vice 
President said on national television that ``The President's made it 
clear that the goal of the United States is regime change. He said that 
on many occasions.''
  Proponents of this resolution argue that it does put diplomacy first. 
They point to section 4, which required the President to determine that 
further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone will not adequately 
protect the national security, before he resorts to military force. 
They say that this ensures that we will act only in a deliberative way, 
in concert with our allies.
  But they fail to point out that the resolution permits the President 
to use unilateral military force if he determines that reliance on 
diplomacy alone.

     . . . is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant 
     United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. . 
     . .

  Unfortunately, we have learned that ``not likely'' is a wide open 
phrase that can be used to justify just about anything. So let us not 
pretend we are doing something we are not. This resolution permits the 
President to take whatever military action he wants, whenever he wants, 
for as long as he wants. It is a blank check.
  We have the best trained, best equipped Armed Forces in the world, 
and I know they can defeat Iraq. I hope, as we all do, that if force is 
used the Iraqi military surrenders quickly.
  But if we have learned anything from history, it is that wars are 
unpredictable. They can trigger consequences that none of us would 
intend or expect. Is it fair to the American people, who have become 
accustomed to wars waged from 30,000 feet lasting a few weeks with few 
casualties, that we not discuss what else could happen? We could be 
involved in urban warfare where large numbers of our troops are killed.
  And what of the critical issue of rebuilding a post-Saddam Iraq, 
about which the Administration has said virtually nothing? It is one 
thing to topple a regime, but it is equally important, and sometimes 
far more difficult, to rebuild a country to prevent it from becoming 
engulfed by factional fighting.
  If these nations cannot successfully rebuild, then they will once 
again become havens for terrorists. To ensure that does not happen, do 
we foresee basing thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq after the war, and 
if so, for how many years? How many billions of dollars will we spend?
  Are the American people prepared to spend what it will take to 
rebuild Iraq even when the administration is not budgeting the money 
that is needed to rebuild Afghanistan, having promised to do so? Do we 
spend hundreds of billions in Iraq, as the President's Economic Adviser 
suggested, while not providing at home for homeland defense, drought 
aid for farmers, education for our young people, and other domestic 
priorities?
  Who is going to replace Saddam Hussein? The leading coalition of 
opposition groups, the Iraqi National Congress, is divided, has 
questionable support among the Iraqi people, and has made little 
headway in overthrowing Saddam. While Iraq has a strong civil society, 
in the chaos of a post-Saddam Iraq another dictator could rise to the 
top or the country could splinter along ethnic or religious lines.
  These are the questions the American people are asking and these are 
the issues we should be debating. They

[[Page 19683]]

are difficult issues of war and peace, but the administration, and the 
proponents of this resolution, would rather leave them for another day. 
They say: vote now! and let the President decide. Don't give the U.N. 
time to do its job. Don't worry that the resolution is a blank check.
  I can count the votes. The Senate will pass this resolution. They 
will give the President the authority he needs to send United States 
troops to Iraq. But before the President takes that step, I hope he 
will consider the questions that have been asked. I hope he considers 
the concerns raised by former generals, senior diplomats, and 
intelligence officials in testimony before Congress. I hope he listens 
to concerns raised privately by some of our military officers. Above 
all, I hope he will listen to the American people who are urging him to 
proceed cautiously and not to act alone.
  Notwithstanding whatever disagreements there may be on our policy 
toward Iraq, if a decision is made to send troops into battle, there is 
no question that every Member of Congress will unite behind our 
President and our Armed Forces.
  But that time has not yet come. Based on what I know today, I believe 
in order to solve this problem without potentially creating more 
terrorists and more enemies, we have to act deliberately and not 
precipitously. The way the United States responds to the threat posed 
by Iraq is going to have consequences for our country and for the world 
for years to come.
  Authorizing a U.S. attack to overthrow another government while 
negotiations at the United Nations are ongoing, and before we exhaust 
other options, could damage our standing in the world as a country that 
recognizes the importance of international solutions. I am afraid that 
it would be what the world expects of a superpower that seems 
increasing disdainful of international opinion or cooperation and 
collective diplomacy, a superpower that seems more and more inclined to 
``go it alone.''
  What a dramatic shift from a year ago, when the world was united in 
its expressions of sympathy toward the United States. A year ago, the 
world would have welcomed the opportunity to work with us on a wide 
agenda of common problems.
  I remember the emotion I felt when I saw ``The Star Spangled Banner'' 
sung by crowds of people outside Buckingham Palace in London. The 
leading French newspaper, Le Monde, declared, ``We are all Americans.'' 
China's Jiang Zemin was one of the first world leaders to call 
Washington and express sympathy after September 11.
  Why squander the goodwill we had in the world? Why squander this 
unity? If September 11 taught us anything, it is that protecting our 
security involves much more than military might. It involves 
cooperation with other nations to break up terrorist rings, dry up the 
sources of funding, and address the conditions of ignorance and despair 
that create breeding grounds for terrorists. We are far more likely to 
achieve these goals by working with other nations than by going it 
alone.
  I am optimistic that the Administration's efforts at the U.N. will 
succeed and that the Security Council will adopt a strong resolution. 
If Saddam Hussein refuses to comply, then force may be justified, and 
it may be required.
  But we are a great nation, with a wide range of resources available 
to us and with the goodwill of most of the world. Let us proceed 
deliberately, moving as close to our goal as we can by working with our 
allies and the United Nations, rather than writing a blank check that 
is premature, and which would continue the trend of abdicating our 
constitutional authority and our responsibility.
  Mr. President, that trend started many years ago, and I have gone 
back and read some of the speeches the Senators have made. For example, 
and I quote:

       The resolution now pending is an expression of American 
     unity in this time of crisis.
       It is a vote of confidence . . . but is not a blank check 
     for policies that might in the future be carried on by the 
     executive branch of the Government without full consultation 
     by the Congress.

  Do these speeches sound familiar? They were not about Iraq. They were 
spoken 38 years ago when I was still a prosecutor in Vermont. At the 
end of that debate, after statements were made that this resolution is 
not a blank check, and that Congress will always watch what the 
Executive Branch is doing, the Senate voted on that resolution. Do you 
know what the vote was? 88 to 2. It passed overwhelmingly.
  In case everyone does not know what resolution I am talking about, I 
am talking about the Tonkin Gulf resolution. As we know all too well, 
the Tonkin Gulf resolution was used by both the Johnson and Nixon 
administrations as carte blanche to wage war on Vietnam, ultimately 
involving more than half a million American troops, resulting in the 
deaths of more than 58,000 Americans. Yet, even the Tonkin Gulf 
resolution, unlike the one that we are debating today, had a sunset 
provision.
  When I came to the Senate, there were a lot of Senators, both 
Republicans and Democrats, who had voted for the Tonkin Gulf 
resolution. Every single Senator who ever discussed it with me said 
what a mistake it was to write that kind of blank check on the 
assurance that we would continue to watch what went on.
  I am not suggesting the administration is trying to mislead the 
Congress about the situation in Iraq, as Congress was misled on the 
Tonkin Gulf resolution. I am not comparing a possible war in Iraq to 
the Vietnam war. They are very different countries, with different 
histories, and with different military capabilities. But the key words 
in the resolution we are considering today are remarkably similar to 
the infamous resolution of 38 years ago which so many Senators and so 
many millions of Americans came to regret.
  Let us not make that mistake again. Let us not pass a Tonkin Gulf 
resolution. Let us not set the history of our great country this way. 
Let us not make the mistake we made once before.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Madam President, late last night in a colloquy between 
myself and the Senator from Oregon, the Senator from Oregon read into 
the Record portions of a letter addressed to Senator Graham, chairman, 
Select Committee on Intelligence, signed by George Tenet. I ask 
unanimous consent that that letter be printed in the Record today, 
followed by a statement issued by Mr. Tenet bearing on his 
interpretation and intent in writing that letter.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                  Central Intelligence Agency,

                                  Washington, DC, October 7, 2002.
     Hon. Bob Graham,
     Chairman, Select Committee on Intelligence, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: In response to your letter of 4 October 
     2002, we have made unclassified material available to further 
     the Senate's forthcoming open debate on a Joint Resolution 
     concerning Iraq.
       As always, our declassification efforts seek a balance 
     between your need for unfettered debate and our need to 
     protect sources and methods. We have also been mindful of a 
     shared interest in not providing to Saddam a blueprint of our 
     intelligence capabilities and shortcoming, or with insight 
     into our expectation of how he will and will not act. The 
     salience of such concerns is only heightened by the 
     possibility for hostilities between the U.S. and Iraq.
       These are some of the reasons why we did not include our 
     classified judgments on Saddam's decisionmaking regarding the 
     use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) in our recent 
     unclassified paper on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction. 
     Viewing your request with those concerns in mind, however, we 
     can declassify the following from the paragraphs you 
     requested.
       Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of 
     conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or CBW against 
     the United States.
       Should Saddam conclude that a US-led attack could no longer 
     be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained 
     in adopting terrorist actions. Such terrorism might involve 
     conventional means, as with Iraq's unsuccessful attempt at a 
     terrorist offensive in 1991, or CBW.
       Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting 
     Islamist terrorists in conducting a WMD attack against the 
     United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by 
     taking a large number of victims with him.

[[Page 19684]]

       Regarding the 2 October closed hearing, we can declassify 
     the following dialogue.
       Senator Levin: . . . If (Saddam) didn't feel threatened, 
     did not feel threatened, is it likely that he would initiate 
     an attack using a weapon of mass destruction?
       Senior Intelligence Witness: . . . My judgment would be 
     that the probability of him initiating an attack--let me put 
     a time frame on it--in the foreseeable future, given the 
     conditions we understand now, the likelihood I think would be 
     low.
       Senator Levin: Now if he did initiate an attack you've . . 
     . indicated he would probably attempt clandestine attacks 
     against us . . . But what about his use of weapons of mass 
     destruction? If we initiate an attack and he thought he was 
     in extremis or otherwise, what's the likelihood in response 
     to our attack that he would use chemical or biological 
     weapons?
       Senior Intelligence Witness: Pretty high, in my view.
       In the above dialogue, the witness's qualifications--``in 
     the foreseeable future, given the conditions we understand 
     now''--were intended to underscore that the likelihood of 
     Saddam using WMD for blackmail, deterrence, or otherwise 
     grows as his arsenal builds. Moreover, if Saddam used WMD, it 
     would disprove his repeated denials that he has such weapons.
       Regarding Senator Bayh's question of Iraqi links to al-
     Qa'ida, Senators could draw from the following points for 
     unclassified discussions:
       Our understanding of the relationship between Iraq and al-
     Qa'ida is evolving and is based on sources of varying 
     reliability. Some of the information we have received comes 
     from detainees, including some of high rank.
       We have solid reporting of senior level contacts between 
     Iraq and al-Qa'ida going back a decade.
       Credible information indicates that Iraq and al-Qa'ida have 
     discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression.
       Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of 
     the presence in Iraq of al-Qa'ida members, including some 
     that have been in Baghdad.
       We have credible reporting that al-Qa'ida leaders sought 
     contacts in Iraq who could help them acquire WMD 
     capabilities. The reporting also stated that Iraq has 
     provided training to al-Qa'ida members in the areas of 
     poisons and gases and making conventional bombs.
       Iraq's increasing support to extremist Palestinians, 
     coupled with growing indications of a relationship with al-
     Qa'ida, suggest that Baghdad's links to terrorists will 
     increase, even absent US military action.
           Sincerely,
                                                   John McLaughlin
     (For George J. Tenet, Director).
                                  ____


             Statement by DCI George Tenet, October 8, 2002

       There is no inconsistency between our view of Saddam's 
     growing threat and the view as expressed by the President in 
     his speech. Although we think the chances of Saddam 
     initiating a WMD attack at this moment are low--in part 
     because it would constitute an admission that he possesses 
     WMD--there is no question that the likelihood of Saddam using 
     WMD against the United States or our allies in the region for 
     blackmail, deterrence, or otherwise grows as his arsenal 
     continues to build. His past use of WMD against civilian and 
     military targets shows that he produces those weapons to use 
     not just to deter.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized for 20 
minutes.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Madam President, before I give my reasons for my vote 
on this resolution, I would like to point out some ironies and 
inconsistencies in some positions of some of my colleagues.
  It is not unusual for Senators to be inconsistent in positions taken, 
but in recent weeks we have had some colleagues blaming the 
administration for not responding to the pre-9/11 warnings of possible 
terrorist attacks on the United States. I am talking about the warnings 
of whether or not the CIA and the FBI had information about that and 
whether or not the President had access to that information. The 
insinuation is that maybe the President knew more than what he did and, 
why didn't he do something about 9/11?
  It seems to me the same colleagues are now refusing to support the 
President's call to disarm Saddam Hussein. The President is trying to 
preempt Saddam Hussein from unleashing on Americans his weapons of mass 
destruction. Yet my colleagues who are inconsistent in this way 
apparently want the President to wait until we are attacked again. I 
ask, if you were expecting preemption before September 11, 2001, why 
wouldn't you expect the President to preempt an attack on the United 
States today?
  I come to the floor today to share my thoughts concerning the 
resolution before the Senate. Again we find ourselves in the midst of 
an important debate with one of the most important decisions that many 
Senators will make in our lifetime. The issue of war and peace involves 
the threats to the lives of the men and women we send to battle. This 
issue may even involve threats to the American civilian population, as 
well.
  It was just a little more than a decade ago that many Members were 
here making similar decisions in regard to the Persian Gulf war.
  As many of my colleagues may remember, I was just one of two Senate 
Republicans who opposed the resolution authorizing military action 
against Iraq in 1991. I voted against that resolution because I 
questioned the timing of military action while diplomatic measures and 
economic sanctions had just been started. I felt they needed a chance 
to work. Opposing the resolution was a difficult decision, but one that 
I have never regretted.
  While today's decision is not one to be taken lightly, it stands in 
stark contrast to that of 1991. While I opposed that resolution for the 
reasons I stated, I intend to support the compromise resolution before 
us because I believe the time to hold Saddam Hussein accountable is 
past due.
  But, this is not the first time since 1991 that Congress has approved 
a resolution approving military action against Iraq.
  In 1998, by unanimous vote by the Senate and an overwhelming 407-6 
vote in the House, Congress approved a resolution, and subsequently 
President Clinton bombed Iraq in December of 1998.
  Let us see how forthrightly the Senate spoke at that time about the 
dangers of Iraq and Saddam Hussein.
  I speak from page 2 of the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. It says in 
section 3:

       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 democratic 
     government to replace the regime.

  It is pretty clear we knew about the threat of Saddam Hussein under a 
Democratic President--President Clinton--with a bipartisan action by 
consensus of this body. Why should anybody be surprised if President 
Clinton and the Senate, in a bipartisan way, would be expressing the 
same concern 4 years later?
  What was the basis of that overwhelming vote? Primarily, it was 
because Iraq has kicked United Nations weapons inspectors out, as they 
did in 1998. Today we have a lot of intelligence information saying it 
is a far more dangerous situation today, and particularly for the 
United States.
  Thousands of Americans were killed in that 9/11 attack by terrorists.
  Iraq is aligned with those terrorists, and Iraq is building weapons 
of mass destruction. We must, therefore, respond appropriately.
  One of the most pressing concerns expressed by my constituents over 
the past few months is that of timing. The question: Why now? The 
question: Why can't we continue to pursue inspections and other 
diplomatic measures? They are legitimate questions. Many of my 
colleagues will answer this differently than I will. But the response 
for me is quite simple. I believe the actions by Saddam Hussein over 
the past 10 years builds a strong case why firm action is needed and 
why we cannot afford as a Congress delaying a decision any longer.
  None of this precludes inspections or diplomatic missions. But these 
alternatives demand full cooperation by Iraq if a military response is 
to be withheld.
  However, during the past 10 years, the international community has 
worked with Iraq through diplomatic efforts, various inspection 
regimes, economic sanctions, and even limited military force in an 
effort to encourage Saddam Hussein to abide by the very resolutions he 
agreed to at the end of the gulf war. He agreed to follow these within 
the rule of law--the international rule of law. We can legitimately 
expect any person to agree to follow those agreements.

[[Page 19685]]

  Yet Saddam Hussein has consistently and convincingly evaded and 
defied those obligations he agreed to.
  In the spring of 1991, the United Nations Security Council agreed to 
Resolution 687, which required Saddam Hussein to destroy his chemical 
and biological weapons and to unconditionally agree not to acquire or 
develop nuclear weapons. That same resolution also demanded Iraq not 
develop or acquire any weapons of mass destruction. However, the CIA 
reported Iraq is continuing to develop and acquire chemical and 
biological weapons.
  The report states since the United Nations weapons inspectors left in 
1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort and invested even 
more heavily in biological weapons.
  In addition, the CIA estimated Iraq could develop nuclear weapons in 
the near term with the proper supply of material.
  United Nations Resolution 687 also required Saddam Hussein to end his 
support for terrorism and to prohibit terrorist organizations from 
operating inside the borders of Iraq.
  Yet there is clear evidence Iraq has provided safe haven to a number 
of prominent, international terrorists. Iraq has provided assistance to 
terrorist organizations whose sole purpose is to disrupt and prevent 
peace efforts in the Middle East.
  Most importantly, fleeing al-Qaida members now reside in Iraq. Of 
course, it is only a matter of time before these two enemies of the 
United States join forces--and maybe they already have.
  Altogether, Saddam has defied at least 16 United Nations resolutions 
during the past decade. He has manipulated U.N. weapons inspectors, 
tortured and repressed Iraqi people, supported international 
terrorists, and violated United Nations economic sanctions.
  So he continues to thumb his nose at the world, and particularly the 
rule of law under the international regimes we all respect.
  The issue is as much about protecting people as it is about enforcing 
the international rule of law. But enforcing international rule of law 
is one way to eliminate chaos so people can live peacefully.
  Will the United Nations take a stand in defense of their very own 
resolutions and hold Saddam Hussein accountable? Will the United 
Nations resolutions, which seek to provide peace and security in the 
region, continue to be unenforced?
  This resolution before the Senate then asks the United Nations: Does 
the organization want to be relevant during the 21st century, an 
instrument of peace in this century, or does it somehow want to fade 
away as the League of Nations did because of its failures in Abyssinia 
in the 1930s?
  I want, and I hope all my colleagues want, the U.N. to be relevant. I 
want the U.N. to lead. Its moral leadership is important. We have to 
discourage tin-horn dictators from violating the rule of law. The time 
for accountability is right now.
  According to former President Clinton, in a speech on December 16, 
1998:

       Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed 
     against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and 
     we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the 
     future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will 
     make war on his own people. And mark my words, he will 
     develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and 
     he will use them.

  That is what President Clinton said in a speech on December 16, 1998.
  Former President Clinton's words are very applicable to the situation 
now, even 4 years later.
  I have also heard concerns from people who question this resolution, 
saying that by supporting it, we are supporting preemptive military 
action against a sovereign nation. However, for the last decade, the 
United States and allied forces have patrolled no-fly zones in northern 
and southern Iraq to protect Kurdish and Shiite minority populations 
from Saddam Hussein, and all the while they have been fired upon by 
Iraq's military.
  These are American pilots. Some of them have been Iowans because over 
the past 6 years the Iowa Air National Guard has completed five 90-day 
missions and will likely be needed for a sixth mission before the end 
of this year. And as the President stated earlier this week, the 
American and British pilots have been fired upon more than 750 times. 
In a sense, we have been involved in military action in Iraq since the 
1991 gulf war. So what is contemplated by this resolution cannot be 
described as preemptive.
  Some of my constituents have also questioned the effect this will 
have on our war on terrorism. I believe that forcing Iraq to disarm is 
part of the war against terrorism and is consistent with the war on 
terrorism. Iraq has already been labeled by previous administrations as 
a state sponsor of terrorism. Iraq is one of seven nations to be 
designated by our own State Department as a state sponsor of terrorism. 
And given Iraq's support for international terrorists and its support 
for efforts to provide safe haven for al-Qaida, it is clear that this 
effort should not be seen as separate from the war on terrorism but 
very much an integral part of the war on terrorism.
  It is because of our obligations to enforce international law, and to 
disarm this threat to our national security and to the security of the 
entire world, that I have decided to support the resolution offered by 
Senator Lieberman and Senator Warner.
  A decade ago, as I said, I opposed war with Iraq because I believed 
we had not exhausted all alternatives available at that time. Today, I 
support this resolution because we have exhausted all other remedies, 
unless somehow Saddam Hussein has a change of heart. After years of 
evasion, after years of defiance, the time has come to stand firm and 
enforce the resolutions to disarm Iraq. Or, on the other hand, it is 
time for Saddam Hussein to repent and fully cooperate. But his track 
record in that regard is not very promising.
  It is important to keep in mind that this resolution before the 
Senate does not guarantee military action, nor do I think it should. 
But it does authorize the use of United States military forces to 
defend the national security of the United States against this 
continuing threat posed by Iraq and to enforce all relevant U.N. 
resolutions regarding Iraq. In other words, this is as much about 
enforcing the rule of law as a policeman in Washington, DC, would 
enforce the domestic rule of law to prevent chaos and to encourage law-
abiding citizenry, as it is about military action, at least from my 
standpoint.
  Most importantly, this resolution makes clear that if the United 
Nations fails to ensure full compliance with international law, we will 
not sit quietly and let this tinhorn dictator ignore the rule of law. 
At the same time, we will be sending the message to other tinhorn 
dictators around the world that they had better not violate the 
international rules of law.
  The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, dispelled notions of 
America's invincibility, it placed greater demands on our Government to 
protect and defend American citizens, and it put more demand on 
American citizens themselves to look out for their own safety, as a 
Jerusalem-type terrorist bombing could happen in New York City or 
Washington, DC, as much as it happens in Jerusalem.
  My resolve is stronger than ever to win the war on terrorism, protect 
U.S. citizens, secure the homeland, and, most importantly, defend 
American values and our way of life. By supporting this resolution, we 
will send a strong signal to the United Nations, as well as our friends 
and allies around the world, that we will not sit idly by and allow a 
ruthless dictator to violate international law and threaten the 
security of that region and, in fact, impact the whole world. This 
resolution says to the world community that America stands together, 
committed to the rule of law and the security of all nations.
  So, Madam President, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution 
offered by our colleagues, Senator Lieberman and Senator Warner.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I believe there is an order. I ask 
unanimous consent that I be able to speak for a moment.

[[Page 19686]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I thank the Senator from Iowa for his 
strong and thoughtful statement and for his expression of intention to 
vote for this resolution--all the more significant, as he pointed out, 
because he was one of two Republican Members of the Senate to vote 
against the similar resolution prior to the gulf war. And I think his 
support--a respected and solid Member of the Senate, as he is--gives 
encouragement to those of us who are the sponsors of this resolution 
that when the final roll is called, we will enjoy the broad bipartisan 
support that I truly believe this resolution deserves and the moment 
requires.
  I thank my colleague and the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I alert Members that at 1:30 or a quarter 
to 2, thereabouts, there will be a vote. Knowing that the Senator from 
Arizona usually does not speak for long periods of time, it will 
probably be closer to 1:30. There will be a vote on the Graham 
amendment, the pending amendment.
  Mr. McCAIN. 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. GRAHAM. 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. GRAHAM. Madam President, I rise in support of an amendment which 
I have offered which will increase the authority of the President of 
the United States to use force to protect the people of the United 
States.
  This amendment will designate a set of international terrorist 
organizations for whom the President does not now have the authority to 
use force as within the range of his authority.
  There has been a lot of discussion over the past several months about 
connecting the dots, seeing a pattern out of what might appear to be 
isolated independent events. It is always easier to do that after the 
disaster, after September 11, than it is before. I consider us today as 
standing before the event has occurred, and I think we can begin to see 
the pattern of the dots today. What are those dots? What is that 
pattern?
  First, a new element has been added to our assessment of national 
security risk. That is the element of what is the risk to Americans in 
the homeland. When we went to war in Korea, we did not ask the 
question: What will this mean to our people at home? We did not ask 
that question in Vietnam. We did not ask that question when we voted 
together to authorize the President to use force in the Persian Gulf. 
This is a new phenomenon in the paradigm of American and national 
security consideration.
  The second dot is, who poses the greatest risk inside the homeland? 
In my judgment, it is those nations, organizations, and persons who 
possess three primary characteristics: One, access to weapons of mass 
destruction; two, a hatred for the United States; and three, a 
significant presence of trained operatives within the United States. It 
is that triumvirate which makes our enemy lethal.
  The third dot, that we have the opportunity to reduce the risk of 
that triumvirate. We can do it by rolling up the terrorists here at 
home, or we can do it by cutting off the support which the terrorists 
are receiving from abroad. I suggest we ought to be doing both.
  If we are going to effectively attack over there, it requires we have 
the resources, a strategy, and the authorization to use the force 
against our enemy over there.
  The next dot is a surprising dot. It is essentially a void. Unlike 
many Members of this Chamber--and I will cite one who just a few 
moments ago gave a speech in which he implied the President of the 
United States today has the authority to take on international 
terrorists who meet these requirements: Access to weapons of mass 
destruction, hatred of the United States, and a significant presence 
inside the United States of America. The answer is, no, the President 
today does not have such authority. In my judgment, the Congress should 
grant this authority and do so concurrent with the granting to the 
President his power to use force in Iraq, because it is that act of 
giving the authority to commence war in Iraq that is going to raise the 
risk of those terrorists among us attacking.
  Those are the dots I see. That is the sequence I think the dots lead 
us to.
  There is one thing we agree upon, and that is that Saddam Hussein is 
an evil man. He is a tyrant. He has used chemical and biological 
weapons on his own people. He has disregarded United Nations 
resolutions calling for inspections of his capabilities and research 
and development programs. His forces regularly fire on American and 
British jet pilots enforcing the no-fly zones in the north and south of 
his country. And he has the potential to develop and deploy nuclear 
weapons, a potential that we need to monitor closely.
  Saddam Hussein lives in a tough neighborhood. It is a neighborhood in 
which the United States has a number of commitments and threats. The 
underlying resolution suggests Saddam Hussein is the ultimate bully, 
the baddest dog in this rough neighborhood, and that taking him out now 
and for good is in the Nation's highest priority.
  I respectfully disagree. And in so disagreeing, I am, or at least I 
was, joined by the President of the United States and the Secretary of 
Defense.
  Less than 13 months ago, 9 days after the terrorist attack of 
September 11, the President declared our top national priority to be a 
war on terrorism. This is what he said:

       Our war on terror begins with al-Qaida but it does not end 
     there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global 
     reach has been found, stopped and defeated.

  In his State of the Union speech on January 29 of this year, 
President Bush restated our priority:

       Our nation will continue to be steadfast and patient and 
     persistent in the pursuit of two great objectives. First, we 
     will shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans, and 
     bring terrorists to justice. And, second, we must prevent the 
     terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological or 
     nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the 
     world.

  That is what the President said on January 29.
  Just Monday of this week, on the anniversary of the commencement of 
the war in Afghanistan, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld 
recommitted himself to the war on terrorism. The Secretary repeated the 
statement he had made one year earlier:

       Our objective is to defeat those who use terrorism and 
     those who house or support terrorists. The campaign will be 
     broad, sustained, and we will use every element of American 
     power.

  The Secretary of Defense proceeded to say:

       Today, Afghanistan is no longer a safe haven for 
     terrorists, but there is no question that free nations are 
     still under threat. Thousands of terrorists remain at large 
     in dozens of countries. They're seeking weapons of mass 
     destruction that would allow them to kill not only thousands 
     but tens of thousands of innocent people. Our objective in 
     the global war on terror is to prevent another September 
     11th, or an attack that is far worse, before it happens.

  The war on terrorism did not begin in Afghanistan. For us, it began 
in the United States of America on September 11th, 2001. It began and 
it continues in our homeland. As we assess the many challenges faced by 
the United States--and Saddam Hussein is clearly among those 
challenges--we must ask: What is our greatest responsibility? In my 
opinion, the answer is easy: Securing the peace and safety of the 
homeland or our great Nation.
  And what is the most urgent threat to our peace and security? In my 
judgment, it is that shadowy group of international terrorists who have 
the capabilities, the materials, conventional and weapons of mass 
destruction, the trained core of zealots united by their hatred for the 
United States, and the placement of many of those bombthrowers so they 
are sleeping among us, waiting for the order to assault.
  For the better part of 2 years, 19 of those killers took silent 
refuge in the

[[Page 19687]]

sanctuary of the United States, silent refuge until they struck us on 
September 11. Three thousand twenty-five innocent lives later, we have 
learned the bitter lesson of the power of those who live dual lives in 
our communities. To the outside they were appearing to be 
unexceptional, while they were prepared to do the most unimaginable 
evil. Those who committed mass murder left behind a much larger number 
of terrorists, continuing their dual existence of duplicity.
  How many of these are there, Mr. President? What are the skills they 
possess? What are their plans and intentions? Why are they so driven by 
hatred? The answer is we know only dimly.
  Unfortunately, our ability to tear out these weeds from our home 
garden is limited because the attention we have paid to understanding 
this enemy next door has been grossly inadequate.
  The Inspector General at the Department of Justice issued a report 
just last month, in September. That report concluded:

       The Federal Bureau of Investigation serves as the Federal 
     Government's principal agency for responding to and 
     investigating terrorism.

  But the IG report went on:

       The FBI has never performed a comprehensive, written 
     assessment of the risk of a terrorist threat facing the 
     United States.

  So we arm for battle with a shield of ignorance at home. 
Unfortunately, one of the realities of the startup of the proposed 
Department of Homeland Security is that, for at least a transition 
period, Americans will be even more vulnerable in the homeland. 
Agencies such as the Coast Guard, Border Patrol, Immigration Service, 
which will play a key role in protecting our perimeter defenses, will 
be distracted as organizational relationships of decades or more are 
reshuffled. And a final increased vulnerability is the likelihood that, 
if war starts and intensifies in Iraq, this very conflict thousands of 
miles away could spark a wake-up call to action from the sanctuaries of 
the Middle East and Central Asia to the sleepers in your hometown.
  Mr. President, I refer you to the front-page story in today's 
Washington Post, which talks about the possibility of counterattacks in 
the United States after a war commences in Iraq.
  The first prong of our defense here in the homeland, which is to root 
out the terrorists among us--both because of the instability of the 
days through which we are and will be living and our lack of 
preparation through the quality of intelligence we need--is not a 
shield that should give us great hope.
  Thus, the importance of a second strategy for disrupting and 
decapitating the enemy among us--attacking them at their source, just 
as we have done with such devastating effectiveness against al-Qaida in 
Afghanistan. One of the reasons the anticipated second, third, and 
fourth wave of terrorist acts have not occurred since September 11 is 
the military assault we began on October 7, 2001, has largely 
dismantled the command-and-control operations of al-Qaida, making it 
more difficult for them to support and provide financing and logistics 
to their large number of operatives in the United States.
  I believe we need to adopt a similar strategy of disruption and 
dismantlement. What is it going to take to do so? First, it is going to 
require the President of the United States have the authority to use 
that necessary force to dismantle, as he said in his State of the Union 
speech, the terrorist camps, terrorist plans, and the command-and-
control centers of these organizations. Here we come to a point of 
widespread confusion, and that is the President already has this 
authority.
  On Sunday afternoon, a prominent foreign policy spokesman appeared 
immediately after Senator Shelby and myself on a talk show and, in 
passing in the hallway, she said, ``I support the position that you 
have taken that we need to go after these international terrorists, but 
doesn't the President already have the authority to do so?'' I quickly 
explained that the answer was no. I think she was stunned at the 
vulnerability we have and by the limited authority the President has.
  Our colleague, the Senator from Texas, today in her remarks implied 
she thought the President of the United States had the authority to 
attack international terrorism broader than those who are directly 
linked to the events of September 11.
  If I might say, the very language of the resolution we are 
considering today carries the same inference.
  The language of the resolution states that:

       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 who planned, 
     authorized, committed, or aided in the terrorist attack that 
     occurred on September 11.

  The fact is the only group the President has authority to use force 
against is those who planned, authorized, committed, or aided in the 
terrorist attack that occurred on September 11. The President 
specifically was denied the authority to take on the other terrorist 
groups who, in my judgment, represent the greatest threat inside the 
American homeland today.
  Let me just give a little bit of history. On September 12, President 
Bush requested robust authority to launch a full-scale war on terror. 
He sent to the Congress a proposed resolution which stated:

       The President is authorized to use all necessary and 
     appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or 
     persons he determines planned, authorized, harbored, 
     committed, or aided in the planning or commission of the 
     attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, and 
     to deter and preempt any future acts of terrorism or 
     aggression against the United States.

  That is what the President asked for on September 12, 2001. But 
Congress demurred. They only granted the President the power to use 
necessary force related to those nations or organizations and persons 
which were determined to be connected to the tragedy of September 11. 
Al-Qaida was not only our bull's-eye, it was the totality of the 
target. Two days after the Congress gave the President this limited 
authority, President Bush, on September 20, expanded the scope of the 
war:

       In a joint session of Congress, our war on terror begins 
     with al-Qaida, but it does not end there. It will not end 
     until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, 
     stopped, and defeated.

  From that point until today, Mr. President, the stated mission of the 
United States in the war on terror has fallen well beyond the authority 
we have given to the President of the United States to deliver on that 
mission.
  The President continues:

       . . . to be limited to those nations, organizations, and 
     persons who can be indicted as conspirators and participants 
     in September 11.

  This limited authority to use force has made it possible for America 
and our allies to crush the Taliban and severely cripple al-Qaida. The 
amendment I offer would extend that power to the President to use 
necessary force through the next still vigorous and violent band of 
terrorists.
  Against whom would the President by this amendment be given power to 
use force? The State Department has identified 34 international 
terrorist organizations, approximately two-thirds of which are in the 
region of the Middle East and central Asia. They list five, in addition 
to al-Qaida, that have these characteristics: They currently receive 
support from a state that possesses weapons of mass destruction; they 
have a history of hating and killing Americans; and they have the 
ability today to strike within the United States of America.
  Who are these groups? I will name them and then talk about the A 
team: The Abu Nidal organization, Hamas, the Islamic Resistance 
Movement, the Palestine Islamic Jihad, and the Palestine Liberation 
Front.
  Who is the A team? The A team is Hezbollah, ``the party of God.'' 
Hezbollah was formed in 1982 in response to the Israeli invasion of 
Lebanon. This organization, which is based primarily in Lebanon and 
Syria and financed from Iran, is a radical Shi'a group which takes its 
ideological inspiration from the Iranian revolutions and teachings of 
Ayatollah Khomeni.
  Hezbollah formally advocates the ultimate establishment of Islamic 
rule in

[[Page 19688]]

Lebanon and liberating all occupied Arab lands, including Jerusalem. It 
has expressed as a goal the elimination of Israel. Although closely 
allied with and closely directed by Iran, the group may have conducted 
operations that were even beyond those approved by the Government of 
Iran.
  While Hezbollah does not share the Syrian regime's secular 
orientation, the group has been a strong tactical ally in helping Syria 
advance its political objectives in the region.
  What are some of the activities of Hezbollah? It is known or suspect 
to have been involved in numerous anti-U.S. terrorist attacks, 
including the suicide truck bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in 
April of 1983; the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in October 1983; the 
U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut in September of 1984; three members of 
Hezbollah are on the FBI's list of the 22 most wanted terrorists for 
the hijacking of TWA flight 847 during which a U.S. Navy diver was 
murdered; elements of the group are responsible for the kidnaping and 
detention of U.S. and Western hostages.
  The group also attacked the Israeli Embassy in Argentina in 1992 and 
is suspect in the 1994 bombing of the Israeli Cultural Center in Buenos 
Aires, and the Senator from Texas stated, in her judgment, they were 
also responsible for Khobar Towers.
  This group receives a substantial amount of financial, training, 
weapons, explosives, diplomatic, and organizational aid from Iran and 
receives diplomatic, political, and logistical support from Syria. 
Hezbollah has a significant presence of its trained merchants of death 
placed in the United States of America.
  Mr. President, you will note that several of these organizations 
gravitate around one axis of evil: Iran. And not surprisingly.
  Yesterday, October 8, former FBI Director Louis Freeh testified 
before the joint inquiry on the attacks of September 11 which are being 
conducted by the House and Senate Intelligence Committee. Mr. Freeh 
cited the conclusions of the National Commission on Terrorism that:

       Iran remains the most active state supporter of terrorism. 
     The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Ministry of 
     Intelligence and Security have continued to be involved in 
     the planning and execution of terrorist acts. They also 
     provide funding, training, weapons, logistical resources, and 
     guidance to a variety of terrorist groups, including the 
     Lebanese Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and 
     the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

  My amendment says that those five groups should also be brought 
within the ambit of evil that the President of the United States should 
be entitled to use force against to protect the security of the people 
of the United States of America.
  What strategy should be used against the designated international 
terrorist groups? The decision will be left to the President. The 
Congress invested its confidence in the judgment of the President on 
September 18 of last year when it gave him the power to use force 
against the Taliban and al-Qaida. If the underlying resolution is 
adopted, he will have the authority to use force against Iraq.
  This amendment will give the President the next stage of powers which 
he will be required to have in order to wage war on terror and to do so 
to a successful conclusion. The President would have the authority and 
the subsequent accountability to use these three authorities in 
whatever sequence and with whatever impact he deems to be in our 
national interest.
  In this stage on the war on terror, the President has already 
fashioned a war plan: To take out the training camps, the incubators 
from which in the 1990s thousands of youth were given the skills and 
the determination to be hardened assassins; to attack the terrorists' 
plans, to disrupt and dismantle.
  Many of these operations, and particularly the training camps, are 
flourishing today in the orbit of Iran. We should empower the President 
to take those acts that are going to be necessary to protect the 
security of the United States.
  Director Freeh, in his remarks yesterday, spoke of the need for a 
full arsenal of weapons to triumph over terrorists. Director Freeh 
said:

       We must recognize the limitations inherent in a law 
     enforcement response. As we see at this very moment in 
     history, others, to include Congress, must decide if our 
     national will dictates a fuller response.

  I am not prepared to say the only response I want against these five 
organizations that have access to weapons of mass destruction, that 
have a history of killing Americans and have a capability to do so here 
at home because of a significant presence of their operatives among us, 
that we are going to tell the President of the United States that he 
does not have the authority to attack with force these terrorists 
groups where they live and to disband and dismantle their capability of 
continuing to provide support to their agents in the United States.
  I believe our national will and our obligation to the security of the 
American people, especially their security on our native soil, demand a 
fuller response to meet this fuller challenge.
  I conclude by saying that I am not optimistic about the prospects for 
this amendment, but I am deeply concerned, and I am deeply saddened. I 
am concerned in part because I see us making life-and-death decisions 
without consideration because we do not have access to what might be 
critical, and I would suggest determinative, information. I believe the 
national security interests are being put at risk by this information 
not being available.
  I am saddened because I fear the action we are going to take will 
increase the risk at home without increasing our capability to respond 
to that risk.
  I have been described as a cautious man. I will accept that label. I 
do not see the world as a simple set of blacks and whites. I see the 
world as a complex of grays. That leads to caution. I believe that 
caution today is to recognize that we are not dealing with one evil, as 
evil as Saddam Hussein might be. We are dealing with a veritable army 
of evils.
  We must be prepared to respond to that army of evils. I believe the 
step we can take today is to give to the President of the United States 
the opportunity to exercise his judgment as to whether he believes it 
would be appropriate to use U.S. force against these five international 
terrorist groups which represent, in my judgment, the most serious 
urgent threat to the interests of the United States of America, 
including a threat to Americans at home.
  I urge the adoption of this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Florida for 
the thoughtful statement he has made. I agree with so much he has said, 
certainly about the threats that are represented by the terrorist 
groups cited in his amendment, but I want to explain why I have 
reluctance about the amendment. It is for reasons that are both 
procedural and substantive.
  The resolution offered by Senator McCain, Senator Warner, Senator 
Bayh, myself, and others--including the occupant of the Chair, the 
Senator from Georgia--is the result of a detailed, open, and sincere 
process of negotiation between Members of both Chambers, both parties, 
and the White House.
  This is not to say it is a perfect document, but in responding to the 
threat to our national security posed by Iraq under the leadership of 
Saddam Hussein, it represents our best effort to find common ground to 
dispatch our constitutional responsibility and to provide an 
opportunity for the broadest bipartisan group of Senators to come 
together and express their support of action to enforce the United 
Nations resolutions that Saddam Hussein has constantly violated, and in 
so doing endangered his neighbors, his people and, of course, the rest 
of the world, including us. We have a well-worked-over and finely 
calibrated document.
  In his amendment, the Senator from Florida has opened new territory, 
and I am reluctant to see that added to this resolution, all the more 
so since the new territory he opens up was considered in the immediate 
aftermath of the attacks against us on September 11 when the initial 
resolution in which

[[Page 19689]]

the President sought to have authority to take action against 
terrorists generally--not just those who had planned, authorized, 
committed, or aided terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11 of 
last year--was rejected or was opposed by a large number of Members of 
the Senate, including particularly those on the Democratic side, and in 
that sense the amendment offered by the Senator from Florida may well 
reopen concerns expressed by many Senate Democrats about granting too 
much authority to the President at this point.
  Let me get to the essence of what is said. Clearly, I agree with what 
the Senator has said, and I agree wholeheartedly with his description 
of the terrorist groups he has cited, specifically five in number, and 
the extent to which they represent a threat to the areas in which they 
operate, as well as the American people.
  I respectfully disagree with him that the President of the United 
States would not be authorized, without this action, to take action 
against any of these groups--the Abu Nidal organization, Hamas, 
Hezbollah, Palestine Islamic Jihad, Palestinian Liberation Front--if 
the President, as Commander in Chief, concluded that any one of those 
groups or its members posed a threat to the security of the American 
people or any group of Americans. It seems to me that is inherent in 
the authority given to the President, as Commander in Chief, under 
article II, section 2 of the Constitution, followed by other 
descriptions of the authority that the President has in that regard, 
and not just the general constitutional authority but the specific acts 
of this Congress that have dealt with terrorism and have established a 
counterterrorism center at the Central Intelligence Agency, 
counterterrorism programs in the FBI, counterterrorism activities in 
the Department of Defense and the Department of State, all of them 
funded by Congress.
  Implicit in that is not that the money was funded just to study or 
investigate but that there is a presumption that if all of those 
programs produce evidence that any one of those groups is seeking to do 
damage to any one of the American people or group of Americans, then 
the President is authorized implicitly, inherently, in his authority as 
Commander in Chief to take action against them. In fact, as has been 
testified to publicly, the Special Operations Forces of our military, 
an extraordinary group we are fortunate to have in our service, has 
been working on programs together with the intelligence community and 
various nations around the world to watch--using the term ``watch'' in 
the broadest sense of the term--and be prepared to take specific 
action, not just court action.
  After September 11, we have made a transition to understanding that 
terrorists are at war with the United States so there are times when 
the best defense we can give is not to build a case in court but to 
take military action to stop the terrorists from striking before they 
ever do.
  So while I appreciate and support the concerns of the Senator from 
Florida, my own conclusion is that they would do some damage to the 
broad support that otherwise will come together for the resolution that 
we have introduced that deals with the immediate problem of Saddam 
Hussein, and that in the end it is not necessary because the President, 
as Commander in Chief, has the inherent authority, under the 
Constitution and the laws of the United States, to take exactly the 
action that the Senator's amendment would specifically authorize him to 
do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I associate myself with the remarks of our 
distinguished colleague from Connecticut and therefore I will not 
elaborate given the shortage of time.
  I say to my colleague from Florida, I am very impressed by his 
statement today. I think there is merit to be found. I draw the 
Senator's attention to Public Law 107-40. As the Senator recalls, that 
is the amendment that the Congress adopted on September 14, 2001, and 
that dealt with the authorization for use of military force against 
those responsible for the recent attacks against the United States.
  It seems to me that particular statute and that body of law is the 
place where an amendment like that of the Senator from Florida should 
be placed, and I say that with all due respect.
  My further added observation is that our Secretary of State is now 
busily engaged at the United Nations with regard to the possible 
framework of a possible 17th resolution. The draft amendments before 
the Senate and the House of Representatives are indeed the subject of 
those discussions.
  At this time, to broaden that base could well in some respects 
jeopardize the efforts on behalf of the United States and others to 
craft a tough resolution directed clearly at the weapons of mass 
destruction, Saddam Hussein, and those surrounding his regime.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I will reserve a few moments to close when others who 
wish to speak on this motion to table have completed their remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I inform my friend from Florida, under the 
normal procedures, as soon as I made a motion to table, the vote would 
begin. But if the Senator from Florida would like for me to ask 
unanimous consent for him to speak up to how many minutes he would like 
to before the vote, I would be pleased to propound that.
  Does the Senator from Connecticut want to speak again?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I ask for an additional 2 minutes.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Connecticut be permitted to speak for 2 minutes without my losing 
my right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. From the text of the resolution we have submitted in 
section 4(b) after our authorization, we require, as soon as feasible, 
but not later than 48 hours after exercising such authority--that is, 
directly deploying forces of the United States--that the President has 
to make available to the Congress his determination that--and there are 
two sections he has to report. The material section is this: The 
President has to declare to Congress that pursuant to this resolution--
which is to say deploying forces for the purpose of enforcing U.N. 
resolutions against Iraq in protecting the national security of the 
American people against Iraq--is consistent with the United States and 
other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against 
international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those 
nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, 
or aided terrorists in the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
  I stress that this is not limited to those terrorists who acted 
against us on September 11.
  I see in this further support for the end goal, which the Senator 
from Florida has, which is to make sure the war against Iraq does not 
deter our war against terrorism and not just against al-Qaida but 
against any terrorist group that threatens the people of the United 
States, including the five the Senator from Florida enumerated.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my 
remarks and making the motion to table the Graham amendment, Senator 
Graham be recognized for up to 10 minutes, and immediately following 
that, the vote occur on my motion to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Florida for his 
thoughtful statement about the threat of terrorist organizations of 
global reach posed to American national security. The Senator from 
Florida has devoted much of his time and professional energies to 
investigating the terrorist threat in great detail as chairman of the 
Senate Intelligence Committee.

[[Page 19690]]

  Again, I thank the Senator for the superb job he has done as chairman 
of the Intelligence Committee in probably the most trying times this 
country has experienced since World War II--from an intelligence 
standpoint, perhaps the most difficult times. And I am grateful we have 
a man of his caliber in a leadership role. He is an eloquent and 
thoughtful spokesman on these issues.
  I agree that ultimately the war on terrorism will not be won until we 
have ended these groups' murderous activities and held them accountable 
for killing American citizens.
  However, I must oppose the amendment because it provides our 
Commander in Chief with authority he has not requested. It is highly 
unusual for Congress to provide the President the authority to use 
military force to defend American security against a particular threat 
when the President himself has not requested such authority.
  For the President to determine that the terrorist organizations 
listed in the Senator's amendment posed an imminent danger to the 
United States, and if the President requested congressional 
authorization to use military force to deal with that danger, I don't 
doubt Congress would have full consideration or debate to provide that 
authority.
  It does seem unusual in a time of war, and in response to the 
President's request for congressional authorization to confront a 
threat he has identified as imminent, for Congress to identify and 
grant the President the authority to use military force to confront a 
different enemy.
  The Graham amendment would increase beyond what was requested by the 
administration the scope of authority provided to the President. 
Including these groups in the resolution, unfortunately, muddies the 
strong message the United States must send to the United Nations 
Security Council and the world that we are intent on dealing with the 
threat posed by Iraq.
  The President wants a strong statement authorizing the use of force 
against Iraq. He understands the value of an overwhelming congressional 
vote to American diplomacy and to demonstrating American seriousness to 
the world.
  The pending resolution represents a carefully crafted, bipartisan, 
bicameral agreement on providing the President with the authority to 
use force against Iraq. This amendment is the product of negotiations 
between the Speaker of the House, Congressman Gephardt, the Democrat 
leader, and the White House. It was carefully crafted. We intentionally 
introduced the exact same language so that when the other body passes 
it and we pass it, it will be the exact same message. Modifying that 
agreement could reopen issues that otherwise have been resolved and 
would unnecessarily slow down consideration of a resolution that the 
President has requested and made clear is an urgent priority for his 
administration.
  Yesterday, when asked about the amendment, Secretary Powell stated 
that Congress should focus in on the threat posed by Iraq. The 
Secretary also made clear the administration's desire that both Houses 
of Congress pass identical resolutions to send a message to the world 
that we are united in our resolve to confront Saddam Hussein and to 
send a message to Iraq that we are serious about doing so.
  The administration opposes the Graham amendment on procedural 
grounds. The President has requested congressional authorization to use 
all means necessary to protect American national security against the 
threat posed by Iraq. For this body to supercede the President's 
request by identifying other threats to American national security--I 
could come up with a long list of such threats myself--would send a 
confused message to the American people and the world as we come 
together to end the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's regime.
  Some have argued that the President's determination to hold Iraq to 
account would undermine the global war against al Qaeda. I believe this 
is a false argument, for as the president has said, Iraq and al Qaeda 
are two faces of the same evil. The Graham amendment would expand our 
global campaign to target not just al Qaeda but several of the most 
sophisticated terrorist organizations on earth. I would assume that 
anyone who worries about diversions from the war on terrorism would 
vote against expanding that war at this time.
  I want to stress, however, that ultimately the war on terrorism will 
not be won until we have dealt with the threat posed by terrorist 
groups with global reach such as Hezbollah. Hezbollah and other 
organizations listed in the Graham amendment have killed Americans and 
deserve no quarter. They ultimately represent a grave threat to 
America--a threat that will not diminish until we have dismantled these 
organizations and held them accountable for murdering Americans.
  The pending resolution is not the proper vehicle for this debate. I 
look forward to working with the Senator from Florida to address the 
threat posed by Hezbollah and the other terrorist organizations he has 
listed.
  I urge my colleagues to support the request of our Commander in Chief 
by tabling the Graham amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from 
the White House.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                              The White House,

                                      Washington, October 9, 2002.
     Hon. John McCain,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator McCain: Thank you for asking the 
     Administration's position on the Graham amendment to the Iraq 
     Resolution. The Administration opposes it.
       The Lieberman-Warner-Bayh-McCain amendment represents a 
     carefully crafted bipartisan, bicameral agreement on 
     providing the President with use-of-force authority against 
     Iraq. The Graham amendment would increase--beyond what was 
     requested by the Administration--the scope of authority 
     provided to the President, and introduce additional elements 
     to the resolution. Modifying the agreement now, as the Graham 
     amendment would, could reopen issues otherwise resolved and 
     unnecessarily slow consideration of this important 
     resolution.
           Sincerely,

                                            Nicholas E. Calio,

                                        Assistant to the President
                                          for Legislative Affairs.

  Mr. McCAIN. I say to my friend from Florida that the administration's 
message is very clear that they do not disagree with his assessment of 
the threat. He is held in the highest regard by all who have observed 
his distinguished work as chairman of the Intelligence Committee.
  I thank my friend from Florida for his contributions. I know that in 
the days ahead he and I will be joining together with other Members of 
this body in addressing the serious threats to American national 
security which he has so eloquently described in his statement.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, I appreciate the thoughtful remarks of the 
Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Arizona. The Senator from 
Arizona concluded with the hope that we may soon be working together on 
expanding our efforts to reach those who threaten us here at home. I 
only hope we will not have another 3,025 Americans unnecessarily 
exposed to the risks that I see if we do not supplement this resolution 
with the immediate authority of the President to use force against 
those organizations which have access to weapons of mass destruction, 
which have killed Americans, and which have substantial numbers of 
operatives inside the United States of America at this hour. I invite 
anybody to say Iraq doesn't meet those standards.
  We are not talking about a threat 90 days from now. We are not 
talking about a threat that may come a year from now if nuclear 
material is made available. I am talking about a threat that can happen 
this afternoon.
  Let us trace the history of what Congress did. The President asked 
for this authority on September 12, 2001. We denied it.
  When I was in law school, one read the legislative history to try to 
arrive

[[Page 19691]]

at legislative intent. It seems to me, just as a first-year-law 
legislative interpretation, that probably doesn't mean giving the 
President authority beyond that which is specifically provided. 
Therefore, the President of the United States, in my judgment, does not 
have the authority today to use force against Hezbollah or these other 
groups.
  But even beyond the legal limits, let us talk about the pragmatics. 
The President of the United States in his State of the Union Address on 
January 29 said our first priority was terrorists--our first priority. 
And do you know what the first priority of the first priority was? The 
training camps. Why did he say that? Because those who were responsible 
said if there was one major mistake we made in the 1990s, it was 
allowing al-Qaida training camps to be a sanctuary where every year 
thousands and thousands of young people were converted into hardened 
assassins.
  If that is the criticism we are going to have, because in the 1990s 
we allowed that to go on month after month and year after year, what is 
going to be our excuse today when similar training camps are in 
operation in Iran, Syria, and Syrian-controlled areas of Lebanon? And 
we are not going to give the President of the United States the 
authority to use force against those camps? It is inconceivable to me. 
The very fact that the President, recognizing this, has not acted 
against those camps is, in my judgment, the strongest verification that 
he doesn't think he has the authority to do so.
  I believe it is not in our national interest to leave this question 
ambiguous. We want to deter groups such as Hezbollah from continuing to 
aid, or to provide aid, comfort, and support to their operatives who 
are placed in the United States. Until we reach the point that we can 
domestically, through law enforcement means and domestic intelligence, 
locate and eradicate those operatives who are in this country, we must 
pursue as aggressively as possible to cut off their support system.
  I cannot believe we are saying we are not prepared today to make an 
unambiguous decision. We don't want to have the Hezbollah going to 
their lawyers and asking the question, What is the legislative 
interpretation of what Congress did on September 18, 2001? Does it put 
us under the gun? I don't want them to have that in their mind. I want 
them to know, with the clearest method we can write in English and that 
can be interpreted in all the languages these people speak, that we 
mean they are under the gun, and they are under the gun now.
  There has been a lot of discussion about urgency. Why do we need to 
do things now? Why can't we wait for 60 days?
  Let me tell you why we cannot afford to wait. We are taking an action 
by authorizing the President to take action against Saddam Hussein. I 
will stand first in line to say he is an evil person. But we, by taking 
that action, according to our own intelligence reports--and, friends, I 
encourage you to read the classified intelligence reports which are 
much sharper than what is available in declassified form--we are going 
to be increasing the threat level against the people of the United 
States. I think we have a moral and legal obligation to at the same 
time be taking what reasonable steps we can to confront that increased 
vulnerability.
  If you do not like what I am suggesting, if you do not think we ought 
to give the President authority to use force against groups such as 
Hezbollah, what do you think we ought to do? Or do you disagree with 
the premise that we are going to be increasing the threat level inside 
the United States?
  If you disagree with that premise, what is the basis upon which your 
disagreement is predicated? If you reject that, and believe that the 
American people are not going to be at additional threat, then, 
frankly, my friends--to use the term--blood is going to be on your 
hands. I think we are going to be at substantially greater threat.
  I think there are some things we ought to be doing now. We certainly 
should be escalating the FBI intelligence and other efforts to root out 
the terrorists who are among us. But we also ought to be attacking the 
terrorists where they live because it is on the offensive--not the 
defensive--in my judgment, that we are going to eventually win this war 
on terror.
  My friends, as I said, I am not optimistic about the adoption of 
this. I recognize there are backroom deals made. This is what people 
have come together on and locked down on, and say: We are locking down 
on the principle that we have one evil, Saddam Hussein. He is an 
enormous, gargantuan force, and that is whom we are going to go after.
  That, frankly, is an erroneous reading of the world. There are many 
evils out there, a number of which are substantially more competent, 
particularly in their ability to attack Americans here at home, than 
Iraq is likely to be in the foreseeable future.
  But we are going to say we are going to ignore those and we are going 
to allow them to continue to fester among us. I do not wish to be part 
of that decision. I am concerned by those who see only one evil, who 
believe we must all commit ourselves to the arrangement that has been 
made by a few who have that view of the world. I urge my colleagues to 
open there eyes to the much larger array of lethal, more violent foes 
who are prepared today to assault us here at home.
  I said in my closing remarks that I was concerned and saddened. I am 
saddened because I know my colleagues would not knowingly place U.S. 
lives in unnecessary peril. I am as sure as I have ever been of 
anything in my life, the peril here in America caused by the action we 
are about to take could be substantially reduced by giving to the 
President of the United States the additional powers to send the 
strongest possible message, and, if necessary, the force to eradicate 
those who are evil and who have placed evildoers among us, and who are 
prepared to awaken those evildoers to attack. The responsibility is 
ours.
  Thank you, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I move to table the----
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield for a question, first?
  Mr. McCAIN. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I have the greatest respect for the Senator 
from Florida, but the Senator from Arizona and I came to the Congress 
together. And I hope that my friend from Florida was not implying the 
Senator from Arizona was involved in any backroom deals because I have 
never known the Senator from Arizona to be involved in any backroom 
deals.
  Mr. McCAIN. I have been singularly unsuccessful in orchestrating any 
backroom deals in the years I have served here, I say to my friend from 
Nevada. And I thank him.
  Mr. President, I move to table the pending Graham amendment and ask 
for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question occurs on agreeing to the motion to table Graham 
amendment No. 4857.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign) is 
necessarily absent.
  The result was announced--yeas 88, nays 10, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 231 Leg.]

                                YEAS--88

     Akaka
     Allard
     Allen
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cantwell
     Carnahan
     Carper
     Chafee
     Cleland
     Clinton
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman

[[Page 19692]]


     Lott
     Lugar
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Miller
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nelson (NE)
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--10

     Baucus
     Breaux
     Byrd
     Corzine
     Dayton
     Graham
     Lincoln
     Nelson (FL)
     Rockefeller
     Torricelli

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Ensign
     Landrieu
       
  The motion was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Johnson). The majority leader is 
recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I wanted to inform my colleagues, after 
consultation with the distinguished Republican leader, that it is our 
intention, assuming we get cloture tomorrow--the cloture vote will be 
cast on the resolution tomorrow--it would be my intent to stay in for 
the full 30 hours, or whatever period of time would be required to 
complete our work on the resolution.
  I said at the beginning of the week, it would be my determination to 
finish our debate on this resolution before the end of the week and 
that is still my determination. So if cloture is achieved, we would go 
for whatever length of time to accommodate Senators who wish to be 
heard under the rules of cloture.
  We would expect, therefore, a vote on final passage on the resolution 
prior to the time we leave this week. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, shortly I will yield to my distinguished 
senior colleague, Mr. Thurmond, for not to exceed--what time does he 
want?
  Mr. NICKLES. Five minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to 
my senior colleague, Mr. Thurmond, for not to exceed 5 minutes, without 
losing my right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________