Tom Harkin

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HARKIN. Let me ask a question on process. A lot of us would like to offer amendments. This thing gets plugged up and goes on hour after hour. If the Senator wants to be in until midnight, that is fine. I have an amendment I would like to offer, but should I offer it at 8, 9, 10, 11, or 12? I would like some idea of where I am going to be in the queue, but just to say come and offer amendments is not very conducive to an orderly process. So if there is some kind of queue, will there be time limits put on these amendments so we have some idea of when we should come over to offer our amendments? Since we are not going to have any votes, it would be nice to have some idea of when we could come over and offer our amendments.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from North Dakota for yielding. I will speak on the situation in Iraq. I find it almost surreal that we are here debating the budget--it is important, obviously, for what will happen to the future of our country--but I note that at least the British House of Commons just today committed a whole day of debate on Iraq. Then they will vote on a resolution. It looks as though Prime Minister Blair will win the resolution in the House of Commons, but at least they are having a debate. We would think that would be happening here in the Senate, that we would have at least 1 day of debate about whether or not our President is doing the right thing. I watched the President last night, and it looks as if his mind is made up. In fact, I think it has been made up for a long time. I was disheartened to learn that the United Nations is withdrawing its inspectors. They have been making some progress, but they are now being pulled out. Last October, I was one of 77 Senators who supported the congressional resolution on Iraq. The resolution, in the version that we passed, supported diplomatic efforts to enforce the Security Council resolutions. And if all peaceful means failed, it authorized the use of force so we could defend the national security of the U.S. and enforce Security Council resolutions. At the time, I said that going to war should be the last resort. It was clear then--and it is clear now--that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator, and that weapons of mass destruction in his hands are a grave danger to the international community. But I said then--and say now-- there is a right way and a wrong way to confront him and disarm him. In voting for the resolution, I say to my fellow Iowans and to my fellow Senators, I was clear I was not voting for immediate war with Iraq. I wanted to provide maximum leverage for the President to persuade the Security Council to approve a tough, new resolution for inspections and disarmament. Since October, this approach has had some success. The Security Council passed a strong resolution, and inspectors went back into Iraq for the first time since 1998. Faced with a united world, Iraq has generally let the inspections take place. After some resistance, Iraq has begun to allow some overflights and interviews with scientists. And they are destroying their al-Samoud missiles, as the U.N. demanded. Now clearly, there are huge gaps in Iraq's cooperation. They have stonewalled in providing required information on their former chemical and biological weapons. And, as Secretary Powell described to the Security Council, they appear to have tried to deceive U.N. inspectors. But as far as we know, the disarmament of Iraq had begun. It certainly has not been completed and verified. But the process was underway and should have been allowed adequate time to bear fruit. Yet now war is going to start. Back in October, the President, perhaps reluctantly, agreed to work through the United Nations in seeking disarmament of Iraq through peaceful means. I now have to wonder if President Bush really meant it. Almost from the day inspections began, the administration has been proclaiming their end. Back in January, the President gave ``a matter of weeks, not months.'' But from the start, the inspectors themselves have said it would take months or years for them to complete their work. And I regret to say that we have not been helping the inspectors adequately. As I said after Secretary Powell's presentation to the U.N., rather than complaining about truck convoys weeks after the fact, we should help the U.N. stop and inspect them with real-time intelligence. But according to a CBS News report from February 21, U.N. inspectors said our intelligence--U.S. intelligence--has just led them ``to one dead end after another.'' These U.N. inspectors called the intelligence we gave them ``garbage after garbage after garbage.'' The administration has not even been clear on what we want from Iraq. The resolution I voted for referred to enforcing Security Council resolutions. Now, while there are a lot of those, the key one demanded disarmament of Iraq's nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs, and of their long-range missiles. After hundreds of inspections, the U.N. has found no evidence of ongoing programs for weapons of mass destruction. They did find that some missiles go a few miles over the limit. Iraq declared those, and is now destroying them. Nobody is saying that Saddam Hussein's obsessive pursuit of these weapons is suddenly over, but we sure do not have much evidence there to justify an invasion and full scale war. So the administration tries to bring in September 11 and the fear that Hussein will give his weapons of mass destruction--assuming he has some--to terrorist groups. But no one has ever shown that Iraq had any involvement in the September 11 attacks. And even U.S. and British intelligence officials describe evidence of Hussein's links to al-Qaida as weak. A recent Washington Post graphic showed 20 key terrorist organizers. They were from Saudi Arabia and Egypt and several other countries, but not one was from Iraq. So now the administration talks about fostering democracy throughout the Middle East. That is a noble goal. But it is hard to grow democracy out of the barrel of a gun. It seems more likely that a U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq will lead to more extremism and terrorism in that region. In any case, our goal was supposed to be enforcing U.N. Security Council resolutions and defending U.S. national security. The resolutions are about disarmament in Iraq, not about rebuilding governments in that region. Further, the administration has been throwing out allegations about Iraq without bothering to back them up. First, they claimed Iraq has been trying to buy uranium, based on documents that turned out to be forgeries. They pointed to a British intelligence dossier that turned out to be copied from academic papers several years old. They talked about close ties to al-Qaida based on an alleged facility in an area of Iraq that Hussein does not control and on one visit to an Iraqi hospital. The Vice President, on Sunday, claimed that Iraq has ``reconstituted nuclear weapons,'' a bizarre claim, but the U.N. has found no evidence that Iraq ever had nuclear weapons to reconstitute or that they now have an active program to make them. But after the Vice President said that, he turned around and then said something else. I am reading here from the Washington Post of this morning, Tuesday: ``Bush Clings To Dubious Allegations About Iraq.'' In his appearance Sunday, on NBC's ``Meet The Press,'' the vice president argued that ``we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons.'' But Cheney contradicted that assertion moments later, saying it was ``only a matter of time before he acquires nuclear weapons.'' Both assertions were contradicted earlier by Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, who reported that ``there is no indication of resumed nuclear activities.'' Earlier this month, ElBaradei said information about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium were based on fabricated documents. Further investigation has found that top CIA officials had significant doubts about the veracity of the evidence, linking Iraq to efforts to purchase uranium for nuclear weapons from Niger, but the information ended up as fact in Bush's State of the Union address. Well, on and on and on it goes. After I listened to the President last night, and after going through all the false assertions that they have made--what the Vice President said on national television on Sunday, without a shred of evidence-- reminds me of two ships called the Maddox and the Turner Joy, that supposedly in the late summer of 1964 were attacked in the Gulf of Tonkin. I ask Senators, go back and read the Senate debate on the Gulf of Tonkin resolution in August 1964--our two ships attacked in the open ocean, attacked by vessels from North Vietnam. That led to a drumbeat to pass the Tonkin Gulf resolution, which gave the President the authority to engage in full scale war in Vietnam. What did we learn later? We learned later that there never was such an incident. Neither the Maddox nor the Turner Joy was ever attacked. This was all fabrication, all total fabrication. But I ask, what elected official, what appointed official in the Johnson administration or later in the Nixon administration was ever held to account for that? Yet 50,000 lives later, we recognize what led us into Vietnam.

Mr. HARKIN. Can I ask for another 5 or 7 minutes.

Mr. HARKIN. I appreciate that.

Mr. HARKIN. So, Mr. President, we almost have before us another Maddox and Turner Joy: a claim that Iraq has reconstituted nuclear weapons, but the evidence is not there. The President himself said, last October: Iraq possesses ballistic missiles with a likely range of hundreds of miles--far enough to strike Saudi Arabia, Israel, Turkey and other nations--in a region where more than 135,000 American civilians and service members live and work. Those are the President's words. But: Inspectors have found that the al-Samoud 2 missiles can travel much less than 200 miles--not far enough to hit the targets Bush named. The constant beating on the drums of war, along with the shifting goals--last night for the first time I heard that it is not just Hussein who has to leave but also his sons; the goal was regime change, then it was disarmament, and now it is regime change and a family thing, to get the family out--the dubious allegations, the lack of support for inspections, make it look as though this administration has been set on war from the beginning and has just been casting about looking for support for their war all along. Is war justified? I have absolute confidence in the men and women of our Armed Forces. Faced with war, they will win, and will do so with courage, discipline, and skill. But even with our overwhelming strength, even assured of victory, war is a terrible prospect. Thousands of innocent people will die. Iraq will be left in chaos. We will be left to occupy a country most likely for years, left with the responsibility on our taxpayers of rebuilding it. America has always been reluctant to engage in war. And this will be the first war ever in which we have invaded where there has not been an imminent threat. I believe there are at least four tests that must be met before we go to war. First, we must face an imminent threat. That has not been shown. Could Saddam be a threat down the line sometime? Perhaps. But we could contain him with inspections, and not just a handful but 500 or 1,000 inspectors--there is no limit on how many inspectors we could have; we could put in 1,000 inspectors. Would that cost more money? Sure. A lot less than a war. So we must face an imminent threat, and that has not been shown. Secondly, war should be the last resort, not the first. Even if a threat is demonstrated, we should launch a war only after we have exhausted all reasonable alternatives, as we required in the resolution last fall. In this case, we clearly have not. Third, we must have substantial support among our allies and work with the United Nations. The agreements Saddam Hussein has violated are with the U.N. He didn't make those agreements with the United States, he made them with the United Nations. So since it is not a bilateral problem, it is a multilateral problem, we should be working through the United Nations. There is no doubt we can win a war against Iraq on our own--no doubt about that--but we are going to need the other nations to help rebuild Iraq after the war. Finally, before we go to war, the fourth thing we need is a full debate in the Congress. Thus, I applaud Senator Byrd and Senator Kennedy for their resolutions to move the debate forward. But now the clock has run out. I can't for the life of me understand, why the British House of Commons can have a full day of debate today on whether or not to pass a resolution to go to war, but the U.S. Congress can't. I think back to our own Revolution which gave us the power. It is in the Constitution of the United States that only Congress has the power to declare war. And there can be no mistake about it. This is not an intervention. This is not military police activity. This is not defending ourselves against an imminent threat. This is an invasion and a full-scale war against a country. I believe the Congress, and only the Congress, has the right to do that, and we have not even had the debate. It is time we have the debate.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues as a cosponsor of this amendment, because the provision in the Budget Resolution on the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, also known more commonly as ``ANWR,'' has no place in this resolution. There are so many great things about our country. And one of them is the progress made to protect our natural resources, including wildlife refuges such as ANWR. ANWR--which constitutes just five percent of the area of Alaska's North Slope--is the last remaining stretch of the North Slope that is closed by law to oil and gas development. Even if the oil in this small patch there were plentiful, which it is not, the provision in this resolution still would not be the path we want to choose. The oil in the refuge could supply only a tiny percentage of our needs, and is not worth the likelihood of permanent damage to wildlife in this vital habitat. A recent report from the National Academy of Sciences highlighted the current damage to Alaska's North Slope from energy production. For example, animals have been affected in different ways, including direct mortality and displacement, reduced reproductive rates of birds due to enhanced predator populations, diversion of bowhead whale migrations, and altered distributions and productivity of caribou. Furthermore, the National Academy of Sciences report concluded that while new technologies have reduced some effects from energy production, expansion in new areas is certain to exacerbate existing effects and generate new ones. I see no need to risk an American treasure in an environmentally-damaging hunt for this very limited, unsustainable fossil fuel source. The long-term solution to our fuel needs is to tap a variety of renewable energy sources, such as ethanol and biodiesel, wind, and biomass, as well as energy efficient technologies such as hydrogen-powered fuel cells. My continual support for ethanol is only strengthened by the topic on the table right now. Ethanol offers a much more environmentally friendly and economically sustainable energy option than the short- sighted approach embodied by the ANWR drilling plans. Fuel that is 80 percent ethanol--developed over the next decade or two--will dramatically reduce our dependence on fossil and foreign fuels. Another source of renewable energy is soy diesel. For example, over 30 buses in Cedar Rapids, IA, now run on soy diesel. The transition to cleaner, domestically-produced fuels offers near and long term benefits, and we must start investing now in these renewable fuels. Pinning our energy hopes on reaping a relatively small amount of oil from an ecologically fragile area is not a long term strategy. It is, in fact, very short-sighted, and will not meaningfully reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The Department of Energy has estimated that without drilling in the Arctic refuge, we'll import 62 percent of our oil in the year 2020. If we do drill, the department says we'll still be importing 60 percent of our oil in 2020, when ANWR production will reach its peak, according to the Energy Information Agency. Furthermore, according to the U.S. Geological Survey, the Arctic Refuge contains less economically recoverable oil than the U.S. consumes in 6 months. Oil company executives confirm it would take at least 10 years of exploration and development before this oil would reach markets. That's scarcely a compelling case for despoiling this environmental treasure. And with 10 year build-up, this is not a short term, immediate stimulant for our economy. The revenue won't be seen for years, and it will be a small amount at that! Instead, we should focus on developing new domestic energy sources in this country by supporting the development of renewable fuels. Further, we shouldn't be authorizing this kind of policy in a budget. Inserting controversial policy changes into a budget measure via reconciliation instructions shortchanges the normal legislative process by limiting debate. This ANWR debacle short circuits the normal legislative process used for consideration of controversial policy issues of this magnitude in the Senate. I am committed to protecting and preserving our wilderness areas, parks, forests and wildlife. I cherish these resources, and I will continue to do what I can to see that they are protected. I am likewise committed to energy security for our Nation. The only way truly to achieve that goal is with renewable sources of energy available right here in our country. Because of the concerns I have stated here, I am opposed to the Budget Resolution's reconciliation instructions to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee to write a bill that would open up ANWR so that the Federal Government can receive revenue from drilling in that fragile area. Consequently, I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this important amendment.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues as a cosponsor of the Redrock Wilderness Act. It designates 9.1 million acres of Federal public lands in Utah, managed by the Bureau of Land Management, as a wilderness area under the 1964 Wilderness Act. Wilderness designation affords lands an extra level of protection--preserving the land in its ``wild'' state for future generations. I know that citizens all across America, including many in Iowa, have enjoyed the wilderness in Redrock. Or some folks may never have visited that great place and just want it to be protected because it is so precious. The redrock canyons of Utah are famous, even to many who have never been there. The dramatic cliff walls, sculpted by wind and water into swirling crimson towers have been captured in stunning photographs. Pink sandstone arches stretch across creek beds and gold-toned crevices slice through massive slabs of rock. These are refreshing sights we must save for generations to come. And we must preserve Redrock for its invaluable wildlife. For example, some of Utah's last healthy populations of longhorn antelope and bighorn and sheep roam this isolated and majestic desert landscape. Thanks to the Bush administration's rush to turn over public land for energy production, this unspoiled place is now in grave danger. The Interior Department has fast-tracked oil and gas leases and projects, opening the door to habitat destruction, road building, and industrial pollution. These precious lands should not be the target of energy production when we have bountiful sources of renewable energy, including sources from agriculture that can also help farmers and rural communities. At a time when the administration is willfully neglecting our public lands by rejecting adequate funding for them, proposing oil and gas development in them, and increasing destructive logging practices, we need to protect these areas from such assaults. Utah's unique Redrock Wilderness area should be designated as wilderness and protected from environmentally destructive activity. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Redrock Wilderness Act, and urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I am proud to join my colleagues as a cosponsor of the Redrock Wilderness Act. It designates 9.1 million acres of Federal public lands in Utah, managed by the Bureau of Land Management, as a wilderness area under the 1964 Wilderness Act. Wilderness designation affords lands an extra level of protection--preserving the land in its ``wild'' state for future generations. I know that citizens all across America, including many in Iowa, have enjoyed the wilderness in Redrock. Or some folks may never have visited that great place and just want it to be protected because it is so precious. The redrock canyons of Utah are famous, even to many who have never been there. The dramatic cliff walls, sculpted by wind and water into swirling crimson towers have been captured in stunning photographs. Pink sandstone arches stretch across creek beds and gold-toned crevices slice through massive slabs of rock. These are refreshing sights we must save for generations to come. And we must preserve Redrock for its invaluable wildlife. For example, some of Utah's last healthy populations of longhorn antelope and bighorn and sheep roam this isolated and majestic desert landscape. Thanks to the Bush administration's rush to turn over public land for energy production, this unspoiled place is now in grave danger. The Interior Department has fast-tracked oil and gas leases and projects, opening the door to habitat destruction, road building, and industrial pollution. These precious lands should not be the target of energy production when we have bountiful sources of renewable energy, including sources from agriculture that can also help farmers and rural communities. At a time when the administration is willfully neglecting our public lands by rejecting adequate funding for them, proposing oil and gas development in them, and increasing destructive logging practices, we need to protect these areas from such assaults. Utah's unique Redrock Wilderness area should be designated as wilderness and protected from environmentally destructive activity. I am proud to be a cosponsor of the Redrock Wilderness Act, and urge my colleagues to support this important piece of legislation.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I wanted to discuss my votes on S. 3 and its amendments. I have long supported a ban on late term abortions. However, S. 3 would not do that because it would be struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court because it does not contain a health exception. Both in 1973 and in 2001, the Supreme Court ruled that a government may regulate late term abortions with an exception to both life and health of the woman. The Court specifically ruled in the 2001 decision in Carhart--that Nebraska's law was too vague and did not contain the required health exception. Therefore, I supported the amendments offered by Senator Feinstein and Senator Durbin to ban late term abortions because they both contained the requisite health exceptions, and which I believe the Supreme Court would uphold. I am also pleased the Senate passed my amendment, 52 to 46, affirming Roe v. Wade. A woman's constitutional right to make a private decision in these matters is no more negotiable than the freedom to speak or the freedom to worship. As a father, I have struggled with this issue. However, I do not believe that it is appropriate to insist that my personal views be the law of the land. So what should Congress do? Pass a late term abortion ban that the Supreme Court will uphold; increase funding for family planning and abstinence-only education and mandate insurance coverage for contraception. All of these fall within the rules under Roe v. Wade-- that established a woman's fundamental right to choose.

Mr. HARKIN

Mr. HARKIN. How much time remains on our side?

Mr. HARKIN. How much time do I have, Madam President?

Mr. HARKIN. I say to my friend from Pennsylvania, I am not a doctor. I do not know. That is why these are the kinds of things that are not really up to us to decide to tell a doctor what is the safest and what is not the safest, or how to go about it. Now, maybe we are getting somewhere. I heard my friend ask me about what I would want my own daughter to do if she was ever confronted with this, and I said I would want her to have the best care. I would want her to have a board-certified obstetrician/gynecol- ogist take care of her in a safe, healthy, legal setting. That is why I have offered my amendment. That is why my amendment is pending right now because I want us to say once and for all again that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, that if, God forbid, my daughter ever had a situation like that, she could go into a hospital, that she would not have the law hounding her, and that she could have a board-certified obstetrician. So maybe we are getting somewhere. Maybe my friend is now going to support my amendment.

Mr. HARKIN. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from California.

Mr. HARKIN. I yield whatever time the Senator desires.

Mr. HARKIN. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I yield 15 minutes to the distinguished Senator from New York.

Mr. HARKIN. I yield an additional 5 minutes to the Senator from New York.

Mr. HARKIN. I yield the Senator an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. HARKIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. HARKIN. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. HARKIN. Go ahead. The Senator is engaged in debate. I have a question.

Mr. HARKIN. I ask the Senator to yield.

Mr. HARKIN. The Senator has been very good about yielding for questions. If the Senator needs more time, I will join him in getting unanimous consent to give the Senator more time, if he needs it, because he has been very good about getting into a discussion. Do not worry about time. We will give you whatever time you want.

Mr. HARKIN. I would like the Senator to yield, on my time or his.