[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 2108-2115]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                                  IRAQ

  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, President Bush last night warned the 
American people to brace for war with Iraq. In his State of the Union 
Address, he vowed that if Saddam Hussein does not disarm, the United 
States will ``lead a coalition'' to disarm him.
  Although the President stopped short of a declaration of war, his 
message was clear: In his view, Saddam Hussein constitutes an imminent 
danger to peace and security in the world, and the United States is 
prepared to wage war, with or without the support of the United 
Nations, to remove him from power. The chain of events that President 
Bush set into motion last year when he inducted Iraq into what he 
called the ``axis of evil'' appears on the verge of spilling over into 
battle and bloodshed.
  The President's remarks come amid a firestorm of protest from some of 
our closest allies in Europe and the Middle East over the apparent 
willingness of the United States to ride roughshod over the United 
Nations and dictate to the rest of the world the terms of Iraq's 
disarmament. The President in his State of the Union speech once again 
made clear that Iraq will be dealt with on his timetable, at his hands, 
according to his agenda.
  Mr. President, I am fully cognizant of the danger presented by the 
possibility of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons in the hands of 
a ruthless dictator like Saddam Hussein. I am fully cognizant of, and 
frustrated by, the fact that Iraq has consistently flouted the United 
Nations mandates to disarm, and has apparently shown only token 
cooperation with the current inspection regime. Iraq has much to answer 
for, and the President is correct in demanding that Iraq respond to the 
United Nations.
  What concerns me greatly, however, is that this President appears to 
place himself above the international mandates of the United Nations. 
He has turned a deaf ear to the concerns of other nations and has vowed 
that the United States will lead an assault on Iraq regardless of the 
judgment of the United Nations. President Bush has made the overthrow 
of Saddam Hussein a personal crusade, and in his zeal to pursue his 
goal, he has failed to make the case to the American people out there 
and to our allies abroad that the United Nations is dragging its feet, 
that war is the only option left, and that war cannot wait.
  The President in his address alluded to tantalizing evidence that 
Saddam Hussein is in collusion with al-Qaida and that Iraq possesses 
weapons of mass destruction which it is hiding from the United Nations 
weapons inspectors. But the President has yet to present that evidence 
to the public or to demonstrate why it constitutes an immediate cause 
for war. If the evidence is as compelling as the President indicates it 
will be, surely the member states of the United Nations will close 
ranks behind the United States and demand the forcible disarmament of 
Iraq.
  The President also set what appears to be a new deadline for the 
United Nations. On February 5, he said, the United States will ask the 
U.N. Security Council to convene to hear evidence of Iraq's illegal 
weapons programs and its links to terrorist groups. I look forward to 
learning the details of that meeting. I wonder why the President is 
holding back for another week if he has such information today, and 
perhaps has had it for some time. I am confident that the U.N. weapons 
inspectors would welcome such evidence, not next week but today, so 
that they could do their jobs more effectively. I wonder why the Senate 
has not been given this evidence. I wonder why the American people, who 
are being asked to send their sons and daughters, mothers and fathers, 
brothers and sisters into the battle zone, have not been made privy to 
this important evidence.
  Perhaps the answer lies in the followup comment by the President, 
when he said: ``We will consult, but let there by no misunderstanding. 
If Saddam Hussein does not fully disarm for the safety of our people, 
and for the peace of the world, we will lead a coalition to disarm 
him.'' Despite all his comments to the contrary, it appears that the 
President has predetermined that war with Iraq is the only recourse 
left.
  If war is the answer, the support of the international community is 
essential. I believe that it would be a grave mistake for the United 
States to preempt the work of the United Nations weapons inspectors and 
initiate an invasion of Iraq without first seeking the express support 
of the Security Council. The United States is already seen

[[Page 2109]]

by many as an aggressor in the Middle East. Speculation is rife in 
Europe that the United States is pressing to invade Iraq to give the 
U.S. control of the Iraqi oil fields. America's reputation in the court 
of world opinion is in tatters.
  Unfortunately, the President's State of the Union speech did little 
to allay the worries of the American people or the international 
community. The President signaled to the world that America is ready 
for war with Iraq, but he did not explain why Iraq suddenly presents 
such ``a serious and mounting threat'' to our country, our friends, and 
our allies that war is the only option. How is it that the threat from 
Iraq is more serious than the threat from North Korea? How is it that 
the threat from Iraq appears to have eclipsed the threat from al-Qaida 
to our own country and the threat from other terrorist organizations?
  Nor did the President attempt to prepare the American people for the 
possible consequences of war with Iraq--the terrible toll on the lives 
on innocent Iraqis, the potential for hundreds or thousands of 
battlefield casualties of American service men and women, the sharply 
increased threat of terrorist attacks on America and its allies. The 
President promised that the overthrow of Saddam Hussein would liberate 
the people of Iraq, but he made no mention of what the American people 
could expect from a postwar Iraq. The President made no mention of the 
burden the United States would have to bear to ensure that a postwar 
Iraq did not devolve into chaos.
  In his State of the Union Address last year, the President declared a 
global war on terror, and he called on all nations of the world to come 
together to combat the curse of terrorism. In his speech last night, 
the global war on terror got remarkably short shrift. ``We are working 
closely with other nations,'' the President said. ``We have the 
terrorists on the run.''
  Unfortunately, having terrorists on the run means that terrorists 
have escaped our dragnet and, according to intelligence assessments, 
are actively plotting new attacks on the United States and its allies. 
We still do not know the fate of Osama bin Laden. We may have him on 
the run, but we also fear that he continues to pose a real and imminent 
threat to the United States. And unlike Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden 
has demonstrated his willingness to attack American citizens at home 
and American interests abroad.
  But instead of rallying the international community to the continued 
need to cooperate in fighting global terrorism, the President's 
policies and the President's rhetoric are polarizing the world.
  Mr. President, I believe the Senate has a duty to speak to the issue 
of war with Iraq, and I believe that the United States has a duty under 
international law to work within the structure of the United Nations 
charter. If we indict Saddam Hussein on the grounds that he has failed 
to disarm in accordance with the United Nations resolutions, how then 
can we turn around and act against him without United Nations support? 
What signal does the United States send to the world regarding respect 
for international law? The United Nations is acting responsibly. Iraq, 
if not fully cooperating, is at least straitjacketed. America's allies 
are calling on us to give the inspectors time to do their work. This is 
not the time for precipitous action on the part of the United States.
  For these reasons, I am today introducing a resolution urging that 
the U.N. weapons inspectors be given sufficient time to complete their 
work and calling for the President to seek a United Nations resolution 
specifically authorizing the use of force before initiating any 
offensive military operation against Iraq.
  Now, it may come to be that war is the only way to subdue the 
malevolence of Saddam Hussein. But that is not a decision for the 
United States to make unilaterally. President Bush, in November, 
galvanized the United Nations to act on the issue of Iraq. For that, 
the President is to be commended. Now he must follow through on his 
pledge to work with the United Nations. The United Nations has 
demonstrated in the past 2 months that it is willing to act responsibly 
and vigorously in addressing the issue of Iraq's disarmament. No one 
could accuse chief weapons inspector Hans Blix of sugar-coating his 
interim report to the U.N. Security Council on January 27. He made 
clear that Iraq is not adequately cooperating on matters of substance. 
He made clear his frustration with Iraq. But he did not slam the door 
on the possibility of disarming Iraq without resorting to war.
  As long as that door remains open even a crack, as long as Iraq is 
not actively threatening its neighbors or the United States, as long as 
the United Nations can maintain a stranglehold on Saddam Hussein's 
ambitions, I believe that we have a duty to the American people to 
strive to find an alternative to war. If war it must be, then it should 
be a coordinated undertaking authorized by Congress and sanctioned by 
the member states of the United Nations--not a preemptive strike 
initiated by the President of the United States.
  Mr. President, the consequences of war are incalculable. Before we 
take such a momentous step, before we place the lives of American 
military personnel and innocent civilians in harm's way, we should stop 
to reflect on the possible consequences, and we should redouble our 
efforts to find a peaceful solution to the disarmament of Iraq. If war 
is the only recourse, it must be a war endorsed and fully supported by 
the United Nations.
  Mr. President, if it must be war, we may be lucky. I hope we will be. 
But we may not be lucky. I think of the words of Croesus, when he said 
to Cyrus the Great of Persia:

       There is a wheel on which the affairs of men revolve and 
     its movement forbids the same man to be always fortunate.

  Mr. President, I shall have more to say as the days come and go on 
this matter that is so vital to the American people and to their 
futures and to the futures of our children and grandchildren and their 
children.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I believe I have time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 20 minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I thank my friend from West Virginia for his eloquence 
once again this afternoon. When the history of our time is written, 
there will be many important chapters on the contributions the Senator 
from West Virginia has made, certainly for his State, but I also think 
there will be an important chapter that will be written about his 
contributions to our Constitution as the principal guardian of the 
Constitution in the Senate. He has done this on so many occasions. I 
have admired him so much for that effort and the extraordinary insight 
he has brought to all of us as a student of history.
  All of us will remember very clearly the debates which were led by 
the Senator from West Virginia some 3 months ago on the issues of war 
and peace, and now once again, as we are coming to the most significant 
time, and that is the decision-making that will be made at the United 
Nations about whether we will continue with a course of inspections and 
whether we will try and galvanize the world community behind a common 
purpose, or whether we will go it alone. The Senator reminds us of the 
dangers of going it alone, of the unforeseen challenges we will be 
facing, and draws attention to the importance that this is a matter 
that is debated and discussed in the Senate; that the people in West 
Virginia, like the people in my own State, are eager to have more 
knowledge, more awareness, more understanding as to exactly where we 
are going and the circumstances of that commitment.
  I thank the Senator from West Virginia so much for the thoughtful 
resolution which I am proud to cosponsor and for the comment he has 
made, which is that we will be back here again to talk about this issue 
of war and peace.
  As he has said on many occasions, there is no vote that is more 
important

[[Page 2110]]

than a Senator's vote on war and peace. There is no issue more 
important that we address in the Senate. The Senator reminds us of that 
very solemn obligation and responsibility we have on that issue and 
has, in his resolution, found ways of giving expression to the concerns 
of many of our fellow citizens.
  I again thank him for all of the work he has done. I urge him to 
continue to lead this body to a better understanding of exactly what 
policy we are undertaking, what the risks are, and the challenges we 
face with the real prospects of a war which may be initiated by the 
United States, in which the United States may be effectively going it 
alone with perhaps one or two of our allies. I thank him so much for 
his attention and focus on this issue.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield?
  Mr. KENNEDY. I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the very able Senator for his 
thoughtful and gracious remarks. I thank him also for his cosponsorship 
of the sense-of-the-Senate resolution which I have just submitted. I 
thank him for his contributions to that resolution.
  It is my understanding he will be submitting a resolution. We have 
discussed that as well, and I hope he will add my name to his 
resolution. He can be sure that, the Lord willing, I will be speaking 
on this matter from time to time, and I know that he will join me, as I 
hope others in this Senate will join us. I think it is time for the 
American people to hear more from the Senate. I do not think they have 
heard enough from the Senate on this matter that is so vital to them, 
to their loved ones, to their fortunes, and to their futures.
  As far as the Lord enables me to do so, I intend to have more to say 
on this subject. I thank the Senator. I know he will have more to say. 
Again, I thank him for his remarks and for his cosponsorship of the 
resolution.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, may I be reminded when I have 3 minutes 
remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will so inform the Senator.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, last October 16, President Bush signed 
Public Law 107-243 which authorized the President to use military 
force, if necessary, to defend our country.
  I voted against that resolution and war with Iraq because I was not 
persuaded that Iraq posed an imminent threat to our national security 
and because of my belief that war with Iraq, especially without broad 
international support, would undermine our ability to meet the gravest 
threat to our national security--terrorism against the United States by 
al-Qaida and other terrorist groups.
  Circumstances have changed significantly since Congress approved that 
resolution last October. In the months that have passed, events have 
only strengthened my belief that this is the wrong war at the wrong 
time.
  In those 3 months, al-Qaida has escalated its campaign of terror. 
North Korea has revived its nuclear weapons program. And United Nations 
inspectors are now on the ground in Iraq.
  There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator. He 
invaded Kuwait. He oppresses the Iraqi people. He murders his 
opponents. He has gassed his own people. He has defied the world 
community.
  So I commend President Bush for going to the United Nations and for 
working with our allies to put inspectors on the ground again in Iraq. 
The inspectors are making progress. Rather than commit American troops 
to war with Iraq at this time, we should give the inspectors our full 
support and assistance, including our best intelligence information, to 
strengthen their disarmament efforts.
  There are many other questions that must be answered before we go to 
war:
  Will war increase the chances of injury and harm to American citizens 
if Saddam Hussein, with his back pressed against the wall, decides to 
use chemical or biological weapons? What will a postwar Iraq look like? 
Who will govern? How long will our troops need to stay? How many will 
need to stay?
  What will be the impact on the war against terrorism? Will we be 
increasing support for al-Qaida?
  What will be the impact of our allies in the region? Will stability 
be undermined?
  How will our Nation be able to manage three foreign policy crises at 
the same time--the war against terrorism, the crisis with North Korea, 
and now war with Iraq?
  When Congress voted on this issue in October, the President had not 
yet decided to go to war. The President said war was the last resort. 
He said we would work with the international community to obtain Iraq's 
disarmament. Clearly, we have not reached that last resort. Inspectors 
are on the ground in Iraq, and the international community wants the 
inspections to continue; yet, the President is poised to pull the 
trigger of war.
  I am delighted to work with Senator Byrd on this issue, and I am a 
cosponsor of his resolution. We share the goal of ensuring that war 
will be the last resort; that if we do have to go to war in Iraq, it 
will be with the support of Congress, the American people, and the 
international community.
  In light of the changed circumstances since the previous votes by 
Congress, I am submitting another resolution supporting the inspection 
process and requiring the President to obtain approval from the 
Congress before committing American troops to war.
  This decision may well be one of the most important that any of us 
will make.
  So much has happened since Congress voted to authorize force last 
October. On November 8, the United Nations Security Council unanimously 
approved a resolution that demanded unprecedented access to suspected 
weapons sites in Iraq. The passage of this resolution demonstrated the 
resolve of the international community to disarm Saddam, and was soon 
followed by the arrival of several hundred weapons inspectors in Iraq.
  On January 27, the inspectors submitted a report to the Security 
Council about Iraq's cooperation with weapons inspections. Chief 
weapons inspector Hans Blix stated that Iraq has so far cooperated 
``rather well'' but that additional cooperation is necessary. The 
director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency said 
inspectors ``have found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear 
weapons program since the elimination of the program in the 1990s'' and 
that inspectors ``should be able within the next few months to provide 
credible assurances that Iraq has no nuclear weapons program.''
  The U.N. report demonstrated that the inspection process is working. 
The inspectors are building their case, and Saddam Hussein is feeling 
the pressure of the international community. Nothing in the report 
suggests that war now is the only option to disarm Saddam. Clearly, the 
inspections should continue.
  It is wrong for the administration to beat the drums of war. There is 
time for thoughtful deliberation about whether war now is the right 
priority for our Nation and we in Congress have a responsibility to the 
Constitution and the American people to act again on this all-important 
issue of war or peace.
  The administration has totally failed to make the case that Saddam 
Hussein is an imminent threat to our security. No evidence, no proof, 
no ``smoking gun,'' no intelligence has ever been released to suggest 
we must launch a pre-emptive strike in order to defend America from an 
unprovoked attack. Instead of making its case, the administration 
simply says, ``Trust us. We know more than you do.''
  Many experts believe that Iraq--especially without provocation--does 
not represent an imminent threat to our security. In fact, it may well 
be just the opposite. On October 7, CIA Director George Tenet released 
an unclassified assessment in a letter to the Senate Select Committee 
on Intelligence that suggested Iraq would only be a threat if the 
United States attacked it first.
  The letter said, ``the probability of [Saddam Hussein] initiating an 
attack [on the United States] would be low.'' It also said, ``should 
Saddam Hussein conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be 
deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in

[[Page 2111]]

adopting terrorist actions. Such terrorism might involve . . . 
[chemical and biological weapons].''
  In spite of U.S. assertions that we have secret evidence of Iraq's 
WMD program, we have been transferring this information at a painfully 
slow pace. It is only this month, that we finally began to hand over 
``significant intelligence.'' The administration promises the release 
of new information and all of us hope that it will be more convincing 
than what has been made available so far.
  Secretary Powell will go to the Security Council to share 
intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program on February 
5. But if the United States has significant intelligence, we should 
share it with the U.N. inspectors today. We should not wait a further 
week. If our goal is disarmament, we should do everything possible to 
assist the inspectors.
  The disarmament of Saddam Hussein is essential. But the 
administration has not made a persuasive case that the threat from Iraq 
is so immediate that it justifies resort to war now when the 
inspections process is obviously making progress. Clearly, we have not 
reached the last resort.
  Our Nation faces another threat that is much more immediate: the 
possibility of new al-Qaida terrorist attacks. A unilateral invasion of 
Iraq would not advance our war against terrorism--it would undermine 
it. Our highest national priority is to wage the unfinished war against 
al-Qaida and wage it effectively.
  In the last 4 months there have been deadly new al-Qaida attacks 
worldwide, which have slaughtered hundreds. A French tanker was 
attacked in Yemen, a nightclub bombed in Indonesia, a hotel destroyed 
in Kenya, missionaries murdered in Yemen. The frequency and ferocity of 
these attacks is increasing. It is only a matter of time before they 
strike America again.
  The administration would like us to believe that Saddam Hussein is 
public enemy No. 1, ignoring the fact that Osama bin Laden is still at 
large. Chilling new evidence has arisen suggests that he is planning 
new attacks.
  At home, we still remain vulnerable. Last October, a Council of 
Foreign Relations task force chaired by former Senators Gary Hart and 
Warren Rudman warned that ``America remains dangerously unprepared to 
prevent and respond to a catastrophic attack on U.S. soil.''
  Another Task Force representative told a Senate Judiciary 
Subcommittee that ``a war with Iraq . . . elevates the risk in the near 
term of an attack on the United States . . . [and] will likely consume 
virtually all the nation's attention and command the bulk of the 
available resources, leaving little left over to address our many 
domestic vulnerabilities.''
  For some time, the administration engaged in a complicated spin job 
to convince the American people that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden 
are co-conspirators. According to this view, waging war on Iraq is part 
of the war against terrorism. Last September, our Secretary of Defense 
went so far as to claim publicly that he had ``bulletproof 
confirmation'' of links between Iraq and al-Qaida.
  But the administration has never presented any of this 
``bulletproof'' evidence. Most regional experts believe it is highly 
unlikely that fundamentalist al-Qaida leaders would ever find much 
common cause with the secular dictator Saddam Hussein. Last October, 
CIA Director George Tenet even conceded that the administration's 
understanding of the al-Qaida Iraq link was ``evolving'' and based on 
``sources of varying reliability.'' The administration claimed again 
this week that they have new evidence of those ties, but so far we have 
only seen a rehash of old allegations and unreliable anecdotes.
  As the administration emphasizes the threat from Iraq, it gives less 
attention to other countries that pose an even more immediate threat to 
our security.
  The greatest proliferation threat comes not from Iraq, but North 
Korea. North Korea is much more likely and capable to develop, use and 
sell these weapons. But unlike Iraq, North Korea probably already has 
nuclear weapons. Unlike Iraq, North Korea has no nuclear inspectors on 
the ground to verify disarmament.
  North Korea has a long and well-documented history of selling its 
military technology, especially ballistic missiles, to whoever will pay 
the highest price. Desperate and strapped for cash, it is the country 
most likely to sell or transfer weapons of mass destruction to 
terrorists or nations that support terrorism.
  In its single-minded focus on Iraq, administration officials at first 
refused to acknowledge that a nuclear crisis even existed. Only very 
recently has the Administration begun to devote the attention this 
crisis deserves.
  Nevertheless, the administration continues to focus on Iraq. They are 
now suggesting an easy war, with few casualties. But our military 
leaders, especially those with significant combat experience are 
skeptical. On December 18, a press report said that the commandant of 
the Marine Corps is concerned that civilian leaders in the Pentagon are 
underestimating the risks of war, and that military chiefs have 
challenged the optimistic view that Saddam Hussein's government will 
collapse soon after a military campaign begins.
  In December, we heard dire new forecasts about what war with Iraq 
would actually be like. U.S. intelligence officials warned that Saddam 
Hussein may pursue a ``scorched earth'' policy if the war goes badly. 
They said that Hussein may try to destroy Iraq's oil fields, power 
plants and food facilities.
  In the Armed Services Committee, we heard testimony from General Hoar 
and others about the dangers to our troops of urban guerilla warfare.
  War will be a disaster not just for the soldiers who suffer and die, 
but for the vast numbers of innocent civilians who will be affected. In 
December, the media reprinted a confidential U.N. planning document 
predicting a humanitarian crisis in the wake of war with Iraq. U.N. 
officials also predicted a halt to Iraqi oil production, serious 
degradation of Iraqi transportation, sanitation and power facilities, 
and the ``outbreak of diseases in epidemic if not pandemic 
proportions.'' The document also predicted a flow of up to 900,000 
refugees.
  War will not be as easy as the administration would like us to 
believe. It may well turn into the first great humanitarian catastrophe 
of the 21st century.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 3 minutes remaining.
  Mr. KENNEDY. The debate giving the President authority to use force 
against Iraq occurred over 3 months ago. Since then, circumstances have 
changed so significantly that Congress must consider the issue of war 
and peace again.
  The administration is also not adequately considering the massive 
political commitment that will be required to Iraq's long-term 
reconstruction. If we wage this war without allies, the United States 
will assume a massive and lonely responsibility to rebuild Iraq, 
preserve its territorial integrity and prevent chaos. Going to war 
alone will impose massive new responsibilities that could extend for 
years, if not decades.
  The Senate debated giving the President authority to use force 
against Iraq over three months ago. Since then, circumstances have 
changed so significantly that Congress must consider the issue of war 
and peace again.
  Since our debate last fall, we have finally implemented, with our 
allies, an active process to verify Iraq's disarmament. That process is 
working and should be allowed to continue. We must help this process 
along and give persuasive intelligence information to U.N. weapons 
inspectors.
  It is possible that the inspections process will fail or that new 
evidence will be uncovered about the threat from Saddam Hussein. But 
under the current conditions, I continue to believe that this is the 
wrong war at the wrong time.
  If we rush to pull the trigger against Iraq, we will invite 
catastrophe and condemnation. America, which has long been a beacon of 
freedom for people around the world, will turn into a

[[Page 2112]]

symbol of brute force and aggression. The world may come to see us as a 
dangerous rogue state, needing to be contained and deterred. This is 
not the America that Abraham Lincoln called ``the last, best hope of 
mankind.'' War now would be alien to our values, contrary to our 
interests, and must not be waged.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask that I be recognized for up to 20 minutes.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. I ask for a point of clarification. I was waiting in 
the queue. I have no objection to the Senator from Arizona going first. 
I ask unanimous consent that directly following Senator McCain, I be 
granted a privilege of the floor for 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, over 3 months ago, I worked with Senators 
Lieberman, Warner, and Bayh to manage the resolution authorizing the 
use of military force against Iraq on the floor of the Senate. Over the 
course of 8 days, we held a thorough, comprehensive, and honorable 
debate that allowed all sides to express their views quite thoroughly. 
Seventy-seven Senators then voted to authorize the President to use our 
Armed Forces to ``defend the national security of the United States 
against the continuing threat posed by Iraq'' and ``enforce all 
relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.''
  The resolution, which now has the force of law, was entitled the 
``Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 
2002.'' One provision stated, ``Consistent with . . . the War Powers 
Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to 
constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of 
section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.'' Congress has spoken, and 
its message could not be clearer.
  The Senator from Massachusetts spoke repeatedly and at length over 
the course of the Congressional debate on Iraq. He spoke eloquently and 
passionately, in the great tradition of the Senate. At the end of the 
day, his views did not prevail, but he made an important contribution 
to the debate.
  That debate is over. After a months-long period in which the Bush 
administration went to the Security Council--as the Senator called for 
last fall, secured a new Council resolution demanding Iraqi compliance 
with it s disarmament obligations--as the Senator called for last fall, 
and pursued patient diplomacy while educating the American public about 
the threat Iraq poses to our interests--as the Senator called for last 
fall, I agree with him that ``much has changed in the many months since 
Congress last debated war with Iraq.''
  What has changed is that the administration has pursued the careful 
diplomacy the Senator had urged on it and has refrained from using 
force unilaterally against Iraq. The President has worked to make the 
case for Iraqi disarmament to America and the world. The administration 
was able to unite the Security Council behind our demand that Iraq 
disarm or be disarmed. And the administration has worked diligently to 
assemble a coalition that will stand with us in the event military 
action is necessary.
  Iraq has provided more evidence of its intentions, and its defiance, 
by its failure to provide anything resembling an honest declaration of 
its arsenal of banned weaponry, and its failure to cooperate 
substantively with the U.N. inspectors, as Hans Blix has stated. By its 
own actions, Iraq has placed itself before the world in material breach 
of the Security Council resolution the Senator from Massachusetts 
demanded the administration seek, and honor, in the congressional 
debate last fall. I agree with the Senator, much has changed.
  As the President said last night, ``The dictator of Iraq is not 
disarming. To the contrary, he is deceiving.'' The price of his 
deception, if allowed to continue unchecked, could have catastrophic 
consequences for the United States which none of us, no matter how we 
voted on the Iraq resolution, could ever countenance.
  The Senator from Massachusetts apparently believes we should revoke 
the President's authority as Commander in Chief to order our Armed 
Forces to defend American national security against the threat posed by 
Iraq, as enshrined in the Constitution and authorized in law by 
Congress, unless and until there is clear evidence of an imminent Iraqi 
threat of attack on the United States. But in the world we live in, 
there is no such thing as knowledge of imminence of attack. Had we 
known what was to happen to our country you September 11, 2001, there 
is no American leader who would not have acted to prevent it.
  Every one of us in this body had contemplated what could have 
happened had the September 11 terrorists employed weapons of mass 
destruction. We cannot abide a world in which outlaw regimes deeply 
hostile to American are free to develop weapons which, in the hands of 
dictators and terrorists, would be used against us. As long as those 
dictators reign, and as long as terrorists plot to strike us, the 
threat can be understood to be imminent, because we don't know when the 
next attack will happen--and as long as we don't act we can say with 
certainty that there will be another attack.
  Speaking of the nexus between rogue states with deadly arsenals and 
the terrorists with whom they conspire, the President said, ``If this 
threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all 
words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the 
sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not 
an option.''
  While I respect my colleague's differences with the administration 
and with a substantial majority of the Congress on the matter of Iraq, 
I believe the case for action to disarm Saddam Hussein has only become 
more compelling since Congress debated the authorization to use force 
against Iraq last fall.
  When I heard earlier today--as the word gets out around here--that 
the Senator from Massachusetts might come to the floor and propose 
another resolution to be debated, I must say I was of two minds. I 
thought this would be another marvelous opportunity to debate this 
amendment, this entire situation, because in the intervening months, as 
I have stated, Saddam Hussein has proven he is not in compliance not 
only with the Security Council resolutions but going all the way back 
to 1991 when he was required, according to Security Council Resolution 
687, to comply within 15 days and has not. He has violated some 12 or 
13 Security Council resolutions. I thought this would be a great 
opportunity because there is no doubt in my mind we would prevail again 
if a vote were held.
  I also, on the other side of the coin, believe if we start a debate 
all over again that lasts for another week or 2 weeks, or whatever it 
is, surely we would be plowing the same ground. But also, would we be 
sending a signal that the American people are not united? Would the 
outcome of the vote be basically the same? Would Senator Lieberman or 
Senator Bayh decide to vote against the resolution that they so 
fervently and eloquently supported on the floor of the Senate? I don't 
think so.
  Another thing about this terrible and difficult decision the 
President may have to make--which is the most difficult that any 
President of the United States is faced with, the dispatch of young 
Americans into harm's way--the President knows full well that even 
though we will win an overwhelming victory, young Americans will lose 
their lives.
  I believe that conflict will be short. I believe that in 1991 when I 
debated this same situation where we contemplated previously the 
subject of military action against Iraq, colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle, including Senators who will speak and have spoken in 
opposition, said: It will be another Vietnam; the body bags will be 
coming back; we should not do this; this is terrible; let's delay; 
let's give peace a chance.
  The conflict was short. We freed the nation of Kuwait, and for a 
period of time we had peace in the Middle East without significant 
threats to the United States national security. Now we have to finish 
the job, perhaps.

[[Page 2113]]

  I say two things. One, I regret and grieve the loss of any American 
lives that might occur as a result of this military action. But our 
interests are threatened, as the President said last night.
  I also want to say a word about post-Saddam Iraq, since that has been 
referred to continuously by those who oppose any military action under 
any circumstances.
  The people of Iraq are subjected to one of the most brutal, 
repressive, God-awful regimes in the world today. Last week's New York 
Times told stories of warehouses where people were hung from hooks, of 
rape, of torture, of murder. Claire Shipman did an interview with one 
of Saddam Hussein's previous mistresses. He derived some kind of 
pleasure watching films of people being tortured.
  These are bad people, a bad regime that has killed and oppressed its 
own people; a complete and total police state. Where are the advocates 
for human rights?
  I promise you there are many of us, at the time of the fall of Saddam 
Hussein, who will devote American effort and treasure to the 
construction of a democratic, freely elected, free society in Iraq, and 
give those people a chance to enjoy the human rights that it is our 
fundamental belief is the endowment of all men and women.
  As far as the expense is concerned, I am sure any new Iraqi 
Government could cover those expenses. But shouldn't we give those 
people an opportunity to enjoy their God-given rights rather than 
continue under the dictatorship of this brutal, mad dictator? He is the 
only one I know of who has used weapons of mass destruction on his own 
citizens.
  Yes, I will admit, if he wasn't constructing these weapons of mass 
destruction, and his relentless pursuit of them, we probably wouldn't 
do anything about it. But this is an interesting nexus of our national 
interests and our national values. Our values are that all men and 
women are created with certain inalienable rights. Our interests are 
threatened by the certain knowledge that, sooner or later, Saddam 
Hussein would acquire these weapons and use them. There has been no 
evidence that would indicate the contrary.
  I sort of regret we are coming to the floor to begin a debate that 
may last for some days, whether the Senator from Massachusetts 
withdraws his resolution or not. I hope not. I hope the Senator from 
Massachusetts will recognize that time was over 3 months ago, and the 
process moved on, a process of constant consultation with the American 
people, and with the United Nations Security Council, and a speech that 
I think was remarkably eloquent last night to the American people by 
the President of the United States.
  But I want to say I believe some time from now we will be pleased as 
Americans that we placed this responsibility in the hands of the 
President of the United States; that he acted with maturity; that he 
acted with great and sound judgment, and the world some time from now 
will be a far better place--not only for Americans but also for Iraqi 
citizens.
  I yield the remainder of my time and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Collins) The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator 
from Arizona for his comments. He certainly is one who does know about 
war, and I believe he also believes that war should be a last resort.
  I also thank the distinguished Senators from West Virginia and from 
Massachusetts for introducing this legislation which I have decided to 
be a cosponsor. Because of my support for the resolution which gave the 
President authorization for use of force, I felt I probably should come 
to the floor and explain my rationale for supporting the resolution 
offered by the Senator from West Virginia.
  Essentially, Hans Blix's report Monday to the Security Council made 
it clear that, although there has been progress, Iraq is not fully 
living up to its obligations, nor is it fully cooperating. Then the 
President, in last night's State of the Union Message, made clear, I 
think, some outstanding questions.
  The first question is: What has Iraq done with 500 tons of Sarin, 
mustard gas precursor chemicals, and VX nerve agents? That tonnage is 
missing. It has not been declared. It has not been revealed or has not 
been found.
  The second question is: What has really happened to the 8,500 liters 
of anthrax which Iraq has stated it unilaterally destroyed in the 
summer of 1991? But it cannot document that.
  And third, what of the 650 kilograms of bacterial growth media? Those 
are critical items.
  These are key and serious issues the answers to which clearly provide 
the evidence as to whether Iraq possesses chemical and biological 
weapons.
  The fourth item is the U-2 plane. The United Nations, as we all know, 
has access to a U-2 plane to gather intelligence. However, Iraq has 
refused to provide it safe overflight. This remains another issue of 
major non-cooperation.
  So the administration is correct in saying that Iraq needs to be 
immediately forthcoming and immediately cooperative with the 
inspectors. These issues need to be resolved. These are mega issues 
from anyone's point of view.
  As long as the inspectors believe there is sufficient access and as 
long as Iraq has said, specifically Tariq Aziz, that Iraq will even 
offer greater cooperation, I would say there ought to be a period of 
time where Iraq provides to the world and to the inspectors, the 
answers to these questions. I think it is vital.
  If Iraq is found to pose an imminent threat to the United States, 
then clearly we have to take action--with others I hope, if we can. But 
right now that is not the case. If, indeed, after consultations with 
the Security Council, the administration has clear evidence that Iraq 
is continuing an illegal program to produce chemical and biological 
weapons, or nuclear weapons, or possesses these weapons, the time has 
really come to make it public.
  What the President did, in my view, was present very clearly, not 
only to the Congress of the United States but to the entire world, 
significant questions that need to be immediately addressed. Iraq must, 
in fact, step up to the plate.
  The reason I believe this resolution--which essentially asks for time 
for inspections to continue, essentially urges a second vote at the 
Security Council--is right is because I believe this situation must 
stand on its own. The degree of threat and the degree of violation must 
be separately evaluated. But it is also part of a much bigger scenario 
and I want to spend time discussing that scenario here today.
  I believe America's national security policy stands at a crossroads. 
I believe in the wake of 9/11, last year was fundamental in terms of 
the administration's articulation of what constitutes, to my mind, a 
brand new approach to foreign policy by the United States. Within about 
8 months last year, the administration put out three separate 
documents. One of them was the National Security Strategy. The second 
was the Nuclear Posture Review. The third was the Doctrine of 
Preemption as represented in the President's speech at West Point.
  Although individually each may appear innocuous, taken together these 
documents are revolutionary. They posit a world in which the exercise 
of U.S. military power is the central organizing principle for 
international affairs in this new century. These documents, in fact, 
put forward a litany of ways in which the United States will make 
military activism and adventurism the basic tool for pursuing national 
security.
  First, the National Security Strategy quite pointedly moves the 
United States away from the concept of deterrence and, to a great 
extent, substitutes preemption in its place.
  Secondly, the administration's Nuclear Posture Review is 
extraordinarily provocative and dangerous. It blurs the line between 
the use of conventional and nuclear weapons. It suggests that certain 
events might compel the United States to use nuclear weapons

[[Page 2114]]

first, even against non-nuclear states. And it calls for the 
development of a new generation of United States nuclear warheads, 
including ``mini-nukes.''
  As was well documented in the press last year, the Review also 
discusses contingencies in which nuclear weapons might be used, 
including--and I quote--``a North Korean attack on South Korea or a 
military confrontation over the status of Taiwan'' in which our 
adversaries do not necessarily use nuclear weapons first.
  The Review also addresses contingencies in which the United States 
might use nuclear weapons not in retaliation to a nuclear strike on the 
United States but to destroy enemy stocks of chemical or biological 
arms.
  Karl Rove was specifically asked that question on television on 
Sunday, and he did not answer the question.
  This Review also states that in setting requirements for nuclear 
strike capabilities, distinctions can be made among immediate, 
potential or unexpected contingencies, and that North Korea, Iraq, 
Iran, Syria and Libya are among the countries that could be involved in 
these immediate, potential or unexpected contingencies.
  That is what makes what is being suggested here in Iraq--if you look 
at it, in its total expression--so troubling.
  The fact of the matter is that several of the nations cited in the 
Nuclear Posture Review's contingencies lack nuclear weapons. Using 
nuclear weapons against them would be constitute first use. Under the 
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the United States has agreed not to 
use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state unless that country 
attacks the United States ``in alliance with a nuclear weapons state.''
  And finally, the doctrine of Preemption--which we may be seeing for 
the time with Iraq--asserts a unilateral right for the United States to 
preempt a threat against our Nation's security.
  The doctrine says:

       [T]he United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive 
     posture as we have in the past. . . . We cannot let our 
     enemies strike first.

  Further on:

       The greater the threat, the greater the risk of inaction--
     and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory 
     action to defend ourselves.

  Taken at face value, this means the United States holds for itself 
the right to strike against another sovereign nation--wage war, if you 
will--even in the absence of a clear and present danger, an immediate 
threat or provocative action, but based solely on the perception of a 
sufficient threat.
  I deeply believe the administration's course in these areas stands in 
contrast to the successful bipartisan tradition of supporting a world 
ordered by law, with capable international institutions and reciprocal 
restraints on action.
  But the administration's emphasis on unilateral action, its dismissal 
of international law, treaties, and institutions, and its apparent 
focus on the military, especially as documented in the National 
Security Strategy, the doctrine of Preemption and the Nuclear Posture 
Review, have created widespread resentment in the international 
community.
  I believe that these documents are the clearest statements in writing 
of the administration's long-term intentions, and I find them 
questionable and seriously disturbing.
  I must also tell you that Secretary Powell essentially said to me: 
Well, the Nuclear Posture Review really isn't operative. But, 
nonetheless, that is a doctrine that was released. It is serious in its 
ramifications. And the way this relates to Iraq is Iraq may be the 
first test case. If there are chemical and biological weapons--and 
there very well might be--does this then justify the use of a nuclear 
weapon to destroy them? The Nuclear Posture Review puts this on the 
table as an option. I think we need to know.
  So I ask these questions because I think they must be asked. And this 
is as good a time as any.
  If we are going to depend on the might of the sword to right wrongs, 
and in so doing risk committing our own wrongs, how are we better off?
  Coalitions, alliances, treaties, peacekeepers, inspection regimes--
all can and have been successful instruments in deterring adversaries, 
safeguarding American lives and U.S. security interests, and in 
resolving disputes, conflicts, and crises.
  So, Madam President, I remind this body that since World War II, 
there has been strong bipartisan support of a United States which has 
embraced international cooperation, not out of vulnerability or 
weakness but from a position of strength.
  House Joint Resolution 114, which I supported, and which authorizes 
the use of force against Iraq, specifically calls for a Presidential 
determination, that--and I quote--``reliance by the United States on 
further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either will not 
adequately protect the national security of the United States against 
the continuing threat posed by Iraq or is not likely to lead to 
enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions 
regarding Iraq.''
  That finding, that determination, required by our resolution--for 
which 77 of us voted--has not yet been made. The evidence has not yet 
been laid out. The conclusions have not yet been drawn.
  What happened to the missing anthrax, the missing botulinum toxin, 
the missing VX nerve agent, the missing precursor chemicals, has not 
yet been determined. So that is why I come to the floor to say that it 
is critical that Iraq fully cooperate. It is critical that the 
inspectors be allowed to continue.
  If Iraq does not come clean, if Iraq does not submit the 
documentation as to the disposition of these chemicals and biological 
agents, then a legitimate conclusion can be drawn. But the reason I 
believe arms inspections must be given a chance to succeed and must 
continue is that I believe Iraq is just one small part of a larger sea-
change in U.S. national security policy. It is a small part of the 
doctrine of Preemption, in which we move against a perceived or real 
threat. It is a small part of the Nuclear Posture Review, which says 
the United States would countenance the use of nuclear weapons against 
hard and deeply buried targets or biological or chemical weapons.
  So I believe that restraint is the proper course. It means that 
diplomacy is a prudent course, and it means that if international law--
if international bodies are to have any relevance in this new 
millennium--then the Security Council itself must respond.
  It is my deep belief that in the long run a foreign policy oriented 
toward cooperation and consultation will prove to be a more effective 
guarantor of U.S. national security than one of unilateral impulse and 
confrontation.
  Let us remember that we are currently engaged in a war on terror. It 
is a war that, if we are to win it, will require the cooperation of our 
friends and allies.
  There is no doubt in my mind that if the United States acts 
precipitously against Iraq, Taliban and al-Qaida fighters in the 
hinterland of Afghanistan are gathering today and are prepared to 
strike against our forces there and against the government of Hamid 
Karzai.
  And let us recall that beyond Iraq, there are a host of other 
challenges--the situation in the Middle East, the nuclear crisis on the 
Korean peninsula--that require international cooperation and action. So 
I am deeply concerned that if we are not careful in our approach to 
Iraq, if we do not present a just case, if we do not build an 
international coalition, we may well precipitate the very events we are 
trying to prevent. For example, a preemptive unilateral attack against 
a Muslim nation may well create a divide between the United States and 
the Muslim world so deep and so wide that it will bring with it 
negative consequences for decades, and unforeseen ones.
  I deeply believe that if Iraq is in possession of weapons of mass 
destruction, it poses a real threat to the entire international 
community; and there is no doubt, as the President pointed out, that 
Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator.
  But at this point I believe it would be a tremendous mistake for the 
United

[[Page 2115]]

States to unilaterally attack Iraq, and I urge the administration to go 
slow, let the inspectors do their work, and build that international 
coalition. War should be a last resort, not a foregone conclusion.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska is recognized.

                          ____________________