Ted Kennedy

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I regret, for the reasons I will outline just shortly, that we continue to have opposition of the Republican leadership to extending the unemployment compensation program that can make all the difference in the world for families who are running through their current unemployment compensation and have to meet their mortgage payments, have to pay for the food on their tables, have to support their children in schools. People are hurting. I can give a more detailed description of what is happening in the country, but I regret we continuously have an objection by our colleagues on the other side. We know going back to the early 1990s, former President Bush objected to the extension of unemployment compensation and then, finally, saw the wisdom of it and indicated he would support the extension of unemployment compensation. We had a series of votes with more than 90 Members voting in favor of the extension of unemployment compensation for the very sound reason that these workers have paid in to the fund. The fund is in surplus, it now has some $27 billion. The Senator is quite correct that it would cost approximately $17 billion should this program go into effect now to assist those who have paid in to the program. The point of unemployment compensation is, unless you have paid in, you do not receive. So these are funds that have already been paid by workers with the purpose in mind that if the economic conditions are such as at present, that if there is a temporary period where they cannot find jobs, this would help those families during those valleys. That was always the thought behind unemployment compensation. The fund is in surplus, and still there is an objection to the extension. It will make an enormous difference to close to 2 million families in this country by the end of the year and 3 million by the early part of February. There was one comment my friend from Oklahoma stressed, and that is: Where are the appropriations bills? Congress has not done its work; we have only considered 2 out of the 13 appropriations bills. The last time I read the Constitution, the appropriations bills originated in the House of Representatives, and that happens to be under Republican leadership. Do you understand? That is under Republican leadership. So when the good Senator said Congress is at fault, we know where the fault lies in terms of the appropriations bills which he mentioned.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I congratulate our leader and thank him for an excellent address this afternoon. I also thank my friend and colleague, the Senator from Michigan, Ms. Stabenow, who has been such a leader on the issue of prescription drugs. The leader was much too self-assuming when he failed to take credit for the fact that this was the first time the Senate has ever debated a prescription drug program, and it was done so because we had a Democratic leader, Tom Daschle, who insisted we call up this legislation. I heard earlier today: We did not have a prescription drug bill because the Finance Committee could not do one. For 5 of the last 6 years, the Republicans have been in charge of the Senate, and when they were in charge, we never had a prescription drug bill. The American people ought to understand that. Before one cries crocodile tears at the pleading of my friend from Oklahoma, the fact is the Senate never considered a bill because the Finance Committee could not complete a bill, and the Democratic leader brought a bill to the floor of the Senate. We passed a good bill, not the bill I would have liked to have seen, a program that would have been built upon the Medicare system. I thought we had guaranteed that in 1965 when we committed to the seniors of this country: Play by the rules and pay into the Medicare system, and your health care needs are going to be attended to. We did not say ``with the exception of prescription drugs.'' That is what has happened, Mr. President. Every day we fail our seniors, we break that commitment and pledge to them. The Republicans had 5 years to report out a bill, and they failed to do so. Thank you, Tom Daschle, and thank you, Debbie Stabenow, for standing up, and thank you for the bipartisan effort we had to support a program that would have done something about lowering the cost of prescription drugs and, as the Senator from Michigan has pointed out, as well as our leader, that is being held hostage by the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives. Make no mistake about it, the Democrats happen to be on the side of seniors. We were on their side in the early 1960s when we fought for Medicare. If our Republican friends are against the Medicare Program, why don't they just come out and say it? They at least used to have the courage to do so. They do not now. They just say they differ with it or there is some other procedure or failure of some committee meeting. They used to at least have the courage to say they oppose it. They do not say that anymore. They try to give some other excuse. We are strongly committed, as the Senator from Michigan and the Senator from South Dakota have pointed out. Mr. President, in the time I have remaining, I wish to highlight three very important areas, and these are areas which our leader, the Senator from South Dakota, Mr. Daschle, has mentioned, but I want to review them one more time. More than 8 million Americans are competing for just over 3 million jobs. Maybe the Senator from Oklahoma does not believe we have an economic crisis, but he can travel with me through many of the New England States, including my State of Massachusetts, where we have the highest unemployment of any of the New England States. Talk to families there who, if they have not lost a job, they know members of a family who have or they know of a neighbor who has, and they have friends down the street who are seeing foreclosures on homes. This is the highest rate of foreclosures since the Depression, and we sit around in the Senate and say, We do not have an economic crisis? We have double-digit inflation in health care, and we still say: It is not robbing the pockets of working families. We see the tuition of our great universities increasing by more than three times the rate of inflation. No, no, that is not really our fault. Why is it all those factors are coming in to place now under a Republican administration? Why? It still has not been answered. We are not just saying why, as the leader, Tom Daschle, has pointed out, we are making recommendations and suggestions trying to do something about it. I heard this comment about how the Republicans are against minimum wage. I know they are. I know they have opposed it. They have opposed it since I have been in the Senate, and they opposed it before I came to the Senate. This is basically an issue of dignity of men and women who work hard cleaning the buildings of this country, working as teachers' aides, working in nursing homes--men and women of dignity. They take the tough jobs. Perhaps they can be easily dismissed by Members in the Senate, but we take them seriously. It is an issue involving women because the majority of the minimum wage recipients are women. It is a women's issue. It is the children because most of the women have children. How are those children going to grow up? Talk about family values. What do we have when there is a family who needs a minimum wage increase and is working two jobs? How much time do they have to spend with their children? We hear a great deal about family values. The minimum wage is a family value issue, and it is a fairness issue. We have raised our salaries four times in the Senate in the last six years. The last pay increase was by $4,900. We have raised our salaries four times since we voted for an increase in the minimum wage. That is not acceptable. Maybe it is acceptable to some. Maybe there are people who can find excuses and say: What about the mom-and-pop store that is not going to be able to pay it? We have dealt with those issues and those challenges. There are exclusions for the smaller mom-and-pop stores from the coverage, and there are exclusions for a variety of other entities where we get the same stories. At least the Democrats are prepared to vote for an increase for the hard-working, neediest people in this society. As a result of the economic slowdown, there is an increase in the working poor. We want to do something about it. We are not giving excuses. We are fighting for those people. We are fighting to make sure they are going to be eligible for the unemployment insurance. There are 3.2 million jobs and 8 million Americans unemployed. There are more Americans unemployed who are looking for fewer jobs. That is a phenomenon entirely different from our recent economic history. Going back to the last serious recession we had in this country, look at the number of Americans, 1.4 million, who are out of benefits, and now in 2002 there are 2.2 million out of benefits, which is a continuation of the earlier point. We have asked for and we have tried to get the extension of unemployment compensation that can make some difference, and we are going to continue to fight to do it. If we can get an increase in the minimum wage, we are prepared to do that as well. The other issue we want to address is the issue we have in terms of pension reforms. We are not just satisfied with the House bill that is going to permit the various financial institutions to give the workers their information and make the decisions about how they are going to invest their pensions. Imagine that. Talk about putting the fox in the chicken coop. That is what the House bill does. In the last hour, we heard somebody in this Chamber say: Let's pass that House bill. That will solve our problem in terms of the pensions. We are going to let the financial institutions that have a direct financial interest give the advice to the workers about how to do that. Well, we hope we have learned something. We certainly have learned something over on this side. But that is basically the Boehner bill. He is a good friend. We worked with him on the education bill, but he is wrong about this. Why is it important? It is important because we have seen the workers' retirement savings wiped out. There has been over $1 billion lost, but the executives have cashed out at $1 billion in gains. Look at what has happened to these companies. We are asked why we are fighting to get something meaningful done. The heads of these companies and corporations, such as the Enrons--Mr. Lay is going to receive a pension that is worth half a million dollars a year for life, and Bernie Ebbers of WorldCom will receive $1.5 million a year for life, and the list goes on. They have been taken care of, but the workers have not. We want to do something meaningful. We want to do something on unemployment compensation. We have to do something on minimum wage. We have to do something to protect America's workers in terms of pensions. So even in the final hours that we have, we are going to be serious about dealing with the issue of the economy because in our part of the country people are hurting. Real families are hurting. Working families are hurting. There are many, including myself, since September 11, who say we ought to put everything on the table in terms of our economy--put on the table future tax cuts for the wealthiest individuals. There are those on the other side of the aisle who do not want to do it. They would rather cut back on the education programs in terms of the future. In the President's own program, he asks for additional kinds of tax cuts in his budget this year, even after September 11. Some of us are not sold on that. We believe in a sound economic program. It is not a matter of chance that the last two periods of time when we had the longest periods of economic growth and price stability in this country were under Democratic Presidents. In terms of our economy, there are important differences that we believe in and that the Republicans believe in. We are asking for assistance by the American people on election day to restore a strong economy for this country.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am honored to join all of you, the families of loved ones from across our Commonwealth who lost their lives last September 11. We come to this birthplace of liberty to remember, to give honor, and to express our resolve. All around us in this historic place are the images of famous leaders who brought life and nationhood to the ideals that were attacked a year ago, on a day whose dawn had seemed almost uniquely American in its sunny optimism. Etched on the wall around this stage are the names of heroes who gave their lives for our country on September 11, 2001. The list is heartbreaking, and it goes on and on. These heroes were famous in a different way, famous to their friends for their fabled jumpshot in a neighborhood park, or prized in their firms for a brilliance tempered by laughter, or celebrated by their young children as super-heroes, able to launch them into the air with an easy toss, and always there to catch them. They expected to pass the ball again, to make another trade or tell another joke, to come home that night and read a bedtime story. Then they were gone, in the darkness at mid-morning which succeeded that sunny dawn. We mourn them for the years that were too few and the hopes that were unfulfilled. We praise them for the way they lived, and in so many cases for the bravery in the way they died. And we as a country, as a community, as friends and neighbors and family, hold them in our hearts. I spoke with a member of almost every family in Massachusetts who lost a loved one on the planes, or at Ground Zero in New York, or at the Pentagon. To those left behind, I say on this sad day: I know something of what you feel. To lose someone you love, and to lose them so suddenly, so unexpectedly, so terribly, to see them torn out of the fabric of life, is almost more than one can bear. And then, although we know the passage of a year cannot heal that memory, we move on, because we have to, because they would want us to, and because there is still light left in the world, including the love they left us. In a different time of grief, my brother Robert Kennedy quoted the ancient poet Aeschylus: ``In our sleep, pain, which cannot forget, falls drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God.'' May God, this year and every year and every day, grant that grace to you the families. And for all of us, there is something else that comes from last September 11. From the pain that day have come both wisdom and will. We have learned anew the wisdom that as Americans, we are many, but we are also one. On Flight 93, there was a unity of purpose and a fierce pride. Passengers who had never met before became a band of brothers and sisters, sacrificing their lives so that others might live. Many other individual acts of courage saved more lives than we can know or count at Ground Zero and the Pentagon. People all across the country and of all ages asked what they could do, from giving their blood, to clearing rubble at the World Trade Center, to giving their dollars, to lending a shoulder to their neighbor to cry on. In countless ways, we came together, and founded a new American spirit of service to others. The terrorists taught us a lesson different from the one they expected. They acted with hate, but we reached out to comfort and support one another with love. No one asked whether the rescuer leading them down the packed stairwell of the World Trade Center was rich or poor, Anglo or African-American or Hispanic, gay or straight. We gained a new determination as Americans to reject discrimination in all its hateful forms. Out of the pain that day, Americans understood more powerfully than perhaps ever before the pledge of ``liberty and justice for all.'' To help those in need; To give hope; To share what we have; To see suffering and try to heal it-- That is our lesson from this tragedy, and it is wisdom that must guide us over time. The new American spirit of service can and must become a new era of commitment to the ideals of compassion, equality, opportunity, and concern for one another. We as a society seek to save a life when a terrorist strikes, and we as a society must do as much when the terror or a dread disease strikes, or the terror of poverty steals opportunity. May that legacy of 9/11, that legacy of love and compassion and caring, become our enduring tribute to all those who were lost. Out of that day also came a new sense of national resolve and will. We are at war today, with a terrorism that has plagued too many places for too many years, and that has finally struck at the heart of America. This is a conflict we did not seek, but must win, not alone for ourselves, but for the cause of freedom, tolerance and human rights around the world. The ideas and ideals created long ago in this great hall have shaped the dreams of countless millions yearning to be free. Now, as the greatest power on earth, we have a responsibility. Our gifts of strength and wealth and values can decide that the future will belong to the forces of hope and onto of hate. This brighter future depends on victory against terrorism. It demands that we then continue in a long, tireless endeavor to make the world not only safer for us, but better for all. In our determination to defeat those who have attacked our people and our principles, we truly are ``one nation under God, indivisible.'' How true that was, how deeply we felt it, a year ago today. Together that day, we hurt and feared and hoped and prayed. And together now, we will prevail. God bless all who were lost and all who lost them. God give us strength, and the wisdom to use it well. God bless America.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to commend our outstanding colleague, Senator Robert Byrd, for his thoughtful and eloquent op-ed article in The New York Times this morning. In his article, Senator Byrd rightfully condemns the failure of Congress to take adequate time to exercise our all-important constitutional responsibility in deciding whether or not America should go to war with Iraq. Instead of fairly assessing the full consequences of the administration's proposal, Congress is allowing itself to be rushed into a premature decision to go to war. Many of us agree with Senator Byrd, and so do large numbers of Americans across the country. We owe the Senate and the Nation a more thoughtful deliberation about war. Senator Byrd's article is a powerful statement urging Congress not delegate our constitutional power to the President, and I ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the Record.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, we face no more serious decision in our democracy than whether to go to war. America's values and interests are served best if war is a last resort. I do not believe America should go to war against Iraq unless and until other reasonable alternatives are exhausted, and I will vote against this resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. Too often in this debate, we have failed to address the real effects of unilateral war with Iraq. The more we debate the war, the more we learn of the danger of going to war alone, the danger that it will cause to our urgent war against al-Qaida and terrorism, the danger that Saddam may be provoked into using his weapons of mass destruction against us or against Israel, the danger that allies we need will refuse to support us on other major challenges in the years ahead, and the dangerous new instability that could be caused in that volatile region if we go to war alone. Because the threat of Saddam is real, I commend President Bush for taking America's case to the United Nations. We have a better prospect of disarming Iraq with the world behind us, than with our allies on the sidelines, or even at odds with our mission. As we approach a vote on this important question, I offer the strongest possible affirmation that good and decent people on all sides of this debate who may in the end stand on opposing sides of this decision, are equally committed to our national security. The life and death issue of war and peace is too important to be left to politics. And I disagree with those who suggest that this fateful issue cannot or should not be contested vigorously, publicly, and all across America. When it is the people's sons and daughters who will risk and even lose their lives, then the people should hear and be heard, speak and be listened to. But there is a difference between honest public dialogue and partisan appeals. There is a difference between questioning policy and questioning motives. There are Republicans and Democrats who support the immediate use of force, and Republicans and Democrats who have raised doubts and dissented. In this serious time for America and many American families, no one should poison the public square by attacking the patriotism of opponents, or by assailing proponents as more interested in the cause of politics than in the merits of their cause. I reject this, as should we all. Let me say it plainly: I not only concede, but I am convinced that President Bush believes genuinely in the course he urges upon us. And let me say with the same plainness: Those who agree with that course have an equal obligation--to resist any temptation to convert patriotism into politics. It is possible to love America while concluding that it is not now wise to go to war. The standard that should guide us is especially clear when lives are on the line: We must ask what is right for country and not party. That is the true spirit of September 11, not unthinking unanimity, but a clear-minded unity in or determination to defeat terrorism, to defend our values and the value of life itself. Just a year ago, the American people and the Congress rallied behind the President and our Armed Forces as we went to war in Afghanistan. al-Qaida and the Taliban protectors who gave them sanctuary in Afghanistan posed a clear, present and continuing danger. The need to destroy al-Qaida was urgent and undeniable. In the months that followed September 11, the Bush administration marshaled an international coalition. Today, 90 countries are enlisted in the effort, from providing troops to providing law enforcement, intelligence, and other critical support. But I am concerned that using force against Iraq before other means are tried will sorely test both the integrity and effectiveness of the coalition. Just one year into the campaign against al-Qaida, the administration is shifting focus, resources and energy to Iraq. The change is priority is coming before we have fully eliminated the threat from al-Qaida, before we know whether Osama bin Laden is dead or alive, and before we can be assured that the fragile post-Taiban government in Afghanistan will consolidate its authority. No one disputes that America has lasting and important interests in the Persian Gulf, or that Iraq poses a significant challenge to U.S. interests. There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein's regime is a serious danger, that he is tyrant, and that his pursuit of lethal weapons of mass destruction cannot be tolerated. The question is not whether he should be disarmed, but how. How can we best achieve this objective in a way that minimizes the risks to our country? How can we ignore the danger to our young men and women in uniform, to our ally Israel, to regional stability, the international community, and victory against terrorism? There is clearly a threat from Iraq, and there is clearly a danger, but the administration has not made a convincing case that we face such an imminent threat to our national security that a unilateral American strike and an immediate war are necessary. Nor has the administration laid out the cost in blood and treasure of this operation. With all the talk of war, the administration has not explicitly acknowledged, let alone explained to the American people, the immense post-war commitment that will be required to create a stable Iraq. The President's challenge to the United Nations requires a renewed effort to enforce the will of the international community to disarm Saddam. Resorting to war is not America's only or best ocurse at this juncture. There are realistic alternatives between doing nothing and declaring unilateral or immediate war. War should be a last resort. Let us follow that course, and the world will be with us--even if, in the end, we have to move to the ultimate sanction of armed conflict. The Bush administration says America can fight a war in Iraq without undermining our most pressing national security priority, the war against Al-Qaida. But I believe it is inevitable that a war in Iraq without serious international support will weaken our effort to ensure that Al-Qaida terrorists can never, never, never threaten American lives again. Unfortunately, the threat from al-Qaida is still imminent. The Nation's armed forces and law enforcement are on constant high alert. America may have broken up the al-Qaida network in Afghanistan and scattered its operatives across many lands. But we have not broken its will to kill Americans. As I said earlier, we still don't know the fate, the location, or the operational capacity of Osama bin Laden himself. But we do know that al-Qaida is still there, and still here in America, and will do all it can to strike at America's heart and heartland again. But we don't know when, where, or how this may happen. On March 12, CIA Director Tenet testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that al-Qaida remains ``the most immediate and serious threat'' to our country, ``despite the progress we have made in Afghanistan and in disrupting the network elsewhere.'' Even with the Taliban out of power, Afghanistan remains fragile. Security remains tenuous. Warlords still dominate many regions. Our reconstruction effort, which is vital to long-term stability and security, is halting and inadequate. Some al-Qaida operatives, no one knows how many, have faded into the general population. Terrorist attacks are on the rise. President Karzai, who has already survived one assassination attempt, is still struggling to solidify his hold on power. And although neighboring Pakistan has been our ally, its stability is far from certain. We know all this, and we also know that it is an open secret in Washington that the Nation's uniformed military leadership is skeptical about the wisdom of war with Iraq. They share the concern that it may adversely affect the ongoing war against al-Qaida and the continuing effort in Afghanistan by draining resources and armed forces already stretched so thin that many Reservists have been called for a second year of duty, and record numbers of service members have been kept on active duty beyond their obligated service. They said that spy satellite, reconnaissance aircraft and other intelligence analysts with regional or linguistic expertise would have to be reassigned. To succeed in our global war against al-Qaida and terrorism, the United States depends on military, law enforcement, and intelligence support from many other nations. We depend on Russia and countries in the former Soviet Union that border Afghanistan for military cooperation. We depend on countries from Portugal to Pakistan to the Philippines for information about al-Qaida's plans and intentions. Because of these relationships, terrorist plots are being foiled and al-Qaida operatives are being arrested. Support from our allies has been indispensable in the war on terrorism, and has had real results: In December 2001, Singapore officials arrested 13 members of a group with ties to al-Qaida that had planned to bomb the U.S. embassy and U.S. commercial and military targets in Singapore. Malaysia has arrested nearly 50 suspected al- Qaida terrorists since September 11th. In March 2002, a joint U.S.- Pakistani police operation arrested 29 al-Qaida suspects, believed to include Abu Zubayday, a key bin Laden deputy. In May 2002, Morocco arrested three alleged al-Qaida members in connection with a plot to attack American and British naval ships in the Straits of Gibraltar. In June, Moroccan authorities also detained Abu Zubair, nicknamed ``the bear''--a top associate of Abu Zubaydah. In June 2002, Saudi Arabia arrested seven al-Qaida members on suspicion of planning terrorist attacks. One of them, a Sudanese, had allegedly been involved in a missile attack near a Saudi airbase used by U.S. forces. The United States has worked closely with Yemen to combat terrorism, and the Yemeni government recently reported that it is holding 85 suspects accused of links to al-Qaida and other militant groups. These arrests may seem small in number. But we know only too well that only 19 al-Qaida terrorists were responsible for the murder of nearly 3000 Americans on September 11. It is far from clear that these essential relationships, which are yielding tangible law enforcement results, will survive the strain of unilateral war with Iraq that comes before the alternatives are tried, or without the support of an international coalition. A largely unilateral American war that is widely perceived in the Muslim world as untimely or unjust could worsen not lessen the threat of terrorism. War with Iraq before a genuine attempt at inspection and disarmament, or without genuine international support, could swell the ranks of al-Qaida sympathizers and trigger an escalation in terrorist acts. As General Clark told the Senate Armed Services Committee, it would ``super-charge recruiting for al-Qaida. General Hoar advised the Committee on September 232 that America's first and primary effort should be to defeat al-Qaida. In a September 10th article, General Clark wrote: ``Unilateral U.S. action today would disrupt the war against al-Qaida.'' We ignore such wisdom and advice from many of the best of our military at our own peril. We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction. Our intelligence community is deeply concerned about the acquisition of such weapons by Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria and other nations. But information from the intelligence community over the past six months does not point to Iraq as an imminent threat to the United States or a major proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. In public hearings before the Senate Armed Services Committee in March, CIA Director George Tenet described Iraq as a threat but not as a proliferator, saying that Saddam Hussein, and I quote, ``is determined to thwart U.N. sanctions, press ahead with weapons of mass destruction, and resurrect the military force he had before the Gulf War.'' That is unacceptable, but it is also possible that it could be stopped short of war. In recent weeks, in briefings and in hearings in the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have seen no persuasive evidence that Saddam is not today deterred from attacking U.S. interests by America's overwhelming military superiority. I have heard no persuasive evidence that Saddam is on the threshold of acquiring the nuclear weapons he has sought for more than 20 years. And the Administration has offered no persuasive evidence that Saddam would transfer chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction to al-Qaida or any other terrorist organization. As General Joseph Hoar, the former Commander of Central Command told the members of the Armed Services Committee, a case has not been made to connect al-Qaida and Iraq. To the contrary, there is no clear and convincing pattern of Iraqi relations with either al-Qaida or the Taliban. Moreover, in August, former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft wrote that there is ``scant evidence'' linking Saddam Hussein to terrorist organizations, and ``even less to the September 11 attacks.'' He concluded that Saddam would not regard it as in his interest to risk his country or his investment in weapons of mass destruction by transferring them to terrorists who would use them and ``leave Baghdad as the return address.'' Some who advocate military action against Iraq assert that air strikes will do the job quickly and decisively, and that the operation will be complete in 72 hours. But there is again no persuasive evidence that air strikes alone over the course of several days will incapacitate Saddam and destroy his weapons of mass destruction. Experts have informed us that we do not have sufficient intelligence about military targets in Iraq. Saddam may well hide his most lethal weapons in mosques, schools and hospitals. If our forces attempt to strike such targets, untold numbers of Iraqi civilians could be killed. In the gulf war, many of Saddam's soldiers quickly retreated because they did not believe the invasion of Kuwait was justified. But when Iraq's survival is at stake, it is more likely that they will fight to the end. Saddam and his military may well abandon the desert, retreat to Baghdad, and engage in urban, guerrilla warfare. Many believe that our armed forces may need to occupy Baghdad, which has over 5 million residents. In our September 23 hearing, General Clark told the committee that we would need a large military force and a plan for urban warfare. General Hoar said that our military would have to be prepared to fight block by block in Baghdad, and that we could lose a battalion of soldiers a day in casualties. Urban fighting would, he said, look like the last brutal 15 minutes of the movie ``Saving Private Ryan.'' We know that the senior military leadership is concerned about the long-term consequences of an occupation. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld testified in September that if force were used in Iraq, disarmament would take some period of time. As he said, ``one would think there would have to be a military presence, undoubtedly a coalition presence or a U.N. presence, for a period of time. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the cost of an occupation force would be $1 billion to $4 billion a month, depending on the size of the force, and military experts have suggested that up to 200,000 peace keepers might be needed for the occupation. However, and let me emphasize this, the Congressional Budget Office concluded that current U.S. Army forces would be unable to support the needed troop rotations for a prolonged 200,000-person occupation. I do not accept the idea that trying other alternatives is either futile or perilous--that the risks of waiting are greater than the risks of war. Indeed, in launching a war against Iraq now, the United States may precipitate the very threat that we are intent on preventing--weapons of mass destruction in the hands of terrorists. If Saddam's regime and his very survival are threatened, then his view of his interests may be profoundly altered: He may decide he has nothing to lose by using weapons of mass destruction himself or by sharing them with terrorists. Indeed, in an October 7 letter to Senator Graham, Chairman of the Senate Intelligence committee, CIA Director George Tenet stated this risk. He said, ``Baghdad for now appears to be drawing a line short of conducting terrorist attacks with conventional or C.B.W. against the United States.'' In discussing the scenario of a military attack, the CIA Director said, ``Should Saddam conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions . . . Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists in conducting a W.M.D. attack against the United States would be his last chance to exact vengeance by taking a large number of victims with him. In the same letter, the CIA declassified an exchange between Senator Levin and a senior intelligence witness. When asked about the likelihood of Saddam using weapons of mass destruction without provocation, the intelligence witness said, ``My judgment would be that the probability of him initiating an attack . . . in the foreseeable future, given the conditions we understand now, the likelihood I think would be low.'' When asked about the likelihood that Saddam would use weapons of mass destruction if he thought his regime was in danger, the witness said, ``Pretty high, in my view.'' Before the Gulf War in 1991, Secretary of State James Baker met with the Iraqis and threatened Hussein with ``catastrophe'' if he employed weapons of mass destruction. In that war, although Saddam launched 39 Scud missiles at Israel, he did not use the chemical or biological weapons he had. If Saddam's regime and survival are threatened, he will have nothing to lose, and may use everything at his disposal. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has announced that instead of its forbearance in the 1991 gulf war, this time Israel will respond if attacked. If weapons of mass destruction land on Israeli soil, killing innocent civilians, the experts I have consulted believe Israel will retaliate, and possibly with nuclear weapons. This escalation, spiraling out of control, could draw the Arab world into a regional war in which our Arab allies side with Iraq, against the United States and against Israel. And that would represent a fundamental threat to Israel, to the region, to the world economy and international order. Nor can we rule out the possibility that Saddam would assault American force with chemical or biological weapons. Despite advances in protecting our troops, we may not yet have the capability to safeguard all of them. The Congressional General Accounting Office published a report on October 1 which clearly suggests that our forces are not adequately prepared for a chemical or biological attack, even though the Defense Department has been taking significant actions to provide such protection. The GAO emphasizes the importance of chemical and biological defense training, the medical readiness of units to conduct operations in a contaminated environment, and the critical need for an adequate supply of required protective gear. Our forces are already stretched thin in other ways. Our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines are serving their country with great distinction. Just under 70,000 Reservists and National Guardsmen have been mobilized for the war against terrorism. Many reservists who were initially recalled for the war in Afghanistan have been either de- mobilized or extended for a second year. They are concerned about the impact a war against Iraq will have on their families and on their jobs. Many employers who are struggling in the current sagging economy are also deeply concerned about the stability of their workforce. These patriotic Americans are willing to sacrifice, but they deserve to know that all reasonable alternatives to war have been exhausted. If we embark upon a premature or unilateral military campaign against Iraq, or a campaign only with Britain, our forces will have to serve in even greater numbers, for longer periods, and with graver risks. Our force strength will be stretched even thinner. If in the end we must go to war, the burden should be shared with allies, and an alliance is less likely if war becomes an immediate response. Even with the major technological gains demonstrated in Afghanistan, the logistics and manpower required in a war with Iraq would be extraordinarily challenging if we could not marshal a real coalition of regional and international allies. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Myers, told the Senate Armed Services Committee two week ago that because of the high demand placed on some of our forces, coalition partners would be necessary to mitigate the risk of war in Iraq. President Bush made the right decision on September 12 when he expressed America's willingness to work with the United Nations to prevent Iraq from using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. The President's address to the General Assembly challenging the United Nations to enforce its long list of Security Council Resolutions on Iraq was powerful, and for me, it was persuasive. The President reports important progress has been made in urging many nations to join us in insisting that Saddam Hussein's regime be held accountable. The meetings already held between the U.N. and the Iraqi government on resuming inspections reflects the new international resolve to ensure that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are identified and destroyed. Yet, the resolution before us would allow the President to go it alone against Iraq without seeing our U.N. initiative through, and without exhausting the alternatives. To maintain the credibility he built when he went to the U.N., the President must follow the logic of his own argument. Before we go to war, we should give the international community to chance to meet the President's challenge, to renew its resolve to disarm Saddam Hussein completely and effectively. Some have argued that inspections have already been tried, and that they have failed. They argue that the international community has exhausted the option of inspections, and that immediate war is now justified. I disagree. I have spoken to former inspectors and non-proliferation experts who are convinced that 7 years of inspections significantly impeded Saddam's efforts to acquire weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, they are convinced that inspections can work effectively again. According to Rolf Ekeus, who served as the executive chairman of the U.N. Special Commission on Iraq from 1991 to 1997, inspectors ensured that not much was left of Iraq's once massive weapons programs at the time they departed. In fact, the seven years of inspections that took place until 1998 succeeded in virtually eliminating Saddam's ability to develop a nuclear weapon in Iraq during that period. Even with Iraq's obstructions, those inspections resulted in the demolition of large quantities of chemical and biological weapons. The inspection program, before its forced termination in 1998, had accomplished far more disarmament than the gulf war itself. President Bush acknowledged the successes of the International Atomic Energy Agency, or I.A.E.A., in thwarting Saddam's nuclear ambitions in his October 7 address to the Nation. He said, ``Before being barred from Iraq in 1998, the International Atomic Energy Agency dismantled extensive nuclear weapons-related facilities, including three uranium- enrichment sites.'' A CIA assessment, released to the public in October 2002, says: ``Before its departure from Iraq, the IAEA made significant strides toward dismantling Iraq's nuclear weapons program and unearthing the nature and scope of Iraq's past nuclear activities.'' Even the assessment of Iraq's WMD program published by the British Government to demand action in the United Nations against Iraq acknowledges the success of inspections. It says: ``Despite the conduct of the Iraqi authorities towards them, both, the UN, and the IAEA Action Team have valuable records of achievement in discovering and exposing Iraq's biological weapons program and destroying very large quantities of chemical weapons stocks and missiles as well as the infrastructure for Iraq's nuclear weapons programme.'' Among the U.N.'s significant achievements cited in the assessment are: The destruction of 40,000 munitions for chemical weapons, 2,610 tons of chemical precursors, and 411 tons of chemical warfare agent. The dismantling of Iraq's prime chemical weapons development production complex. The destruction of 48 Scud-type missiles, 11 mobile launchers and 56 sites, 30 warheads filled with chemical agents, and 20 conventional warheads. The destruction of the al-Hakam biological weapons facility and a range of production equipment. The removal and destruction of the infrastructure of the nuclear weapons program, including a weaponization and testing facility. Experts on inspections advise that it would be extremely hard for Iraq to carry on an active and even secret WMD program while inspections are being conducted, especially with the inspection technology that has been developed over the last ten years. One former nuclear inspector told me that he found it hard to keep Iraqi scientists quiet about Iraq's nuclear program, once they started to talk. Given these assessments, there is every reason to believe that unrestricted and unconditional inspections can again be effective in ensuring the destruction of weapons of mass destruction. It is an option that must be given a clear chance before going to war again. So this should be the first aim of our policy, to get U.N. inspectors back into Iraq without conditions. I hope the Security Council will approve a new resolution requiring the Government of Iraq to accept unlimited and unconditional inspections and the destruction of any weapons of mass destruction. The resolution should set a short timetable for the resumption of inspections. I would hope that inspections could resume, at the latest, by the end of October. The resolution should also require the head of the U.N. inspection team to report to the Security Council every two weeks. No delaying tactics should be tolerated, and if they occur, Saddam should know that he will lose his last chance to avoid war. The Security Council Resolution should authorize the use of force, if the inspection process is unsatisfactory. And there should be no doubt in Baghdad that the United States Congress would then be prepared to authorize force as well. The return of inspectors with unfettered access and the ability to destroy what they find not only could remove any weapons of mass destruction from Saddam's arsenal. They could also be more effective than an immediate or unilateral war in ensuring that these deadly weapons would not fall into terrorist hands. Before going to war again, we should seek to resume the inspections now--and set a non-negotiable demand of no obstruction, no delay, no more weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We know that our actions against Iraq do not occur in a vacuum. The world is watching. The Administration's decisions to abandon the Kyoto Protocol on global warming, to unilaterally withdraw from the ABM Treaty, and to reject ratification of the Treaty on the International Criminal Court have left the unmistakable impression across the globe that the United States wants to write its own international rules. In February, Secretary of State Powell testified that there was significant concern among the Europeans earlier last year about ``unbridled U.S. unilateralism,'' because ``the U.S. was going off on its own without a care for the rest of the world.'' Further unilateral action on our part, especially on the all-important issue of war, could trigger a new global anti-Americanism that causes peoples and governments to question our motives and actions on a wide range of issues. We should not embark on a unilateral war, without fully considering the potentially destabilizing impact on our allies in the region. If we insist on attacking Iraq alone without the clear support of the international community, we could inflame anti-Americanism in the predominantly Muslim countries throughout the Middle East and South Asia. In an article this month in the New York Times, an expert at the Brookings Institution wrote that regardless of our real objectives, most Arabs and Muslims will see ``American imperialism'' in a war with Iraq. This expert says that a war with Iraq would ``render the Middle East more . . . unstable than it is today.'' Middle Eastern leaders could be faced with mass street protests over a highly unpopular American strike. Jordan's King Abdullah, who is a trusted friend of America, is deeply concerned that war will inflame the large Palestinian population and inflame Islamic views. Iraq is one of Jordan's largest trading partners, and King Abdullah is understandably concerned about a potentially devastating impact on the Jordanian economy. Some experts have suggested that King Abdullah may lose power if war breaks out. Already the Jordanian Government is working actively to discourage popular outbursts against war with Iraq. In Egypt, President Mubarak is concerned that war with Iraq will further ignite strong Islamist sentiment. We also need to consider the possibility that Iran would try to increase its strength and influence in Southern Iraq in a post-Saddam era. More than 50 percent of the Iraqi population is Shiite, just as in Iran, and if the Iranian Government senses a vacuum, it very well might try to increase its influence in Iraq. The United States must clearly act to defend our national security against an imminent threat. In doing so, the President will have the full support of Congress and the American people. But when an imminent threat does not exist, and when reasonable alternatives are available, as they are now, we must use them before resorting to war. What can be gained here is success and in the event of failure, greater credibility for an armed response, greater international support, and the prospect of victory with less loss of American life. So what is to be lost by pursuing this policy before Congress authorizes sending young Americans into another and in this case perhaps unnecessary war? Even the case against Saddam is, in important respects, a case against immediate or unilateral war. If Prime Minister Blair is correct in saying that Iraq can launch chemical or biological warheads in 45 minutes, what kind of sense does it make to put our soldiers in the path of that danger without exhausting every reasonable means to disarm Iraq through the United Nations? Clearly we must halt Saddam Hussein's quest for weapons of mass destruction. Yes, we may reach the point where our only choice is conflict with like-minded allies at our side, if not in a multilateral action authorized by the Security Council. But we are not there yet. The evidence does not take us there; events do not compel us there and both the war against terrorism and our wider interests in the region and the world summon us to a course that is sensible, graduated, and genuinely strong--not because it moves swiftly to battle, but because it moves resolutely to the objective of disarming Iraq peacefully if possible, and militarily if necessary. In his October 7 address to the nation, President Bush said Congressional approval of a resolution authorizing the use of force does not mean that war with Iraq is ``imminent or unavoidable.'' The President himself has not decided that our nation should go to war. Yet, Congress is being asked to authorize war now. He may decide not to use that authority. But this resolution leaves it to the President to make the decision on his own, without further recourse to Congress or to the American people. The power to declare war is the most solemn responsibility given to Congress by the Constitution. We must not delegate that responsibility to the President in advance. Let me close by recalling the events of an autumn of danger four decades ago. When missiles were discovered in Cuba--missiles more threatening to us than anything Saddam has today, some in the highest councils of government urged an immediate and unilateral strike. Instead the United States took its case to the United Nations, won the endorsement of the Organization of American States, and brought along even our most skeptical allies. We imposed a blockade, demanded inspection, and insisted on the removal of the missiles. When an earlier President outlined that choice to the American people and the world, he spoke of it in realistic terms not with a sense that the first step would necessarily be the final step, but with a resolve that it must be tried. As he said then, ``Action is required . . . and these actions [now] may only be the beginning. We will not prematurely or unnecessarily risk the costs of . . . war--but neither will we shrink from that risk at any time it must be faced.'' In 2002, we too can and must be both resolute and measured. In that way, the United States prevailed without war in the greatest confrontation of the Cold War. Now, on Iraq, let us build international support, try the United Nations, and pursue disarmament before we turn to armed conflict.

Mr. KENNEDY. Four and a half minutes.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, for the past few days we have debated the details of a resolution but not the implication of war with Iraq. We were into the debate on the resolutions for 2 days, and then a cloture motion was filed. I am reminded of the excellent statements made by my friend from West Virginia that this subject about war and peace deserves a longer period of time for discussion. Earlier in the session, we debated for 21 days the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; 23 days on the energy bill; 19 days on trade promotion; 18 days on the farm bill--all extremely important, but this issue is far more so. In facing the global challenges of these times, we defend American values and interests best when war is our last resort, not our first impulse. I commend President Bush for deciding in the end to take America's case to the United Nations. Make no mistake about it, this resolution lets the President go it alone. Iraq should have no doubt of the unity of the American purpose and the seriousness of our intent. Having suffered the tragedy of September 11, we will leave no stone unturned in the defense of innocent Americans. The question is not whether we will disarm Saddam Hussein of his weapons of mass destruction but how. And it is wrong for Congress to declare war against Iraq now before we have exhausted the alternatives. It is wrong for the President to demand a declaration of war from Congress when he says he has not decided whether to go to war. It is wrong to avert our attention now from the greater and far more immediate threat of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida terrorism. Pick up the paper and see the different headlines: ``Attacks Put Troops on Alert''; ``They fear contact with al-Qaida''; ``Tape, Assaults Stir Worry About Resurgent Al Qaeda''; and the list goes on about the al-Qaida activities all over the world. We cannot go it alone on Iraq and expect our allies to support us. We cannot go it alone and expect the world to stand with us in the urgent and ongoing war against terrorism and al-Qaida. We cannot go it alone in attacking Iraq and expect Saddam to keep his weapons of mass destruction at bay against us or our ally Israel. We cannot go it alone while urging unprincipled regimes to resist invasions of their adversaries. The better course for our Nation and for our goal of disarming Saddam Hussein is a two-step policy. We should approve a strong resolution today calling on the United Nations to require Iraq to submit to unfettered U.N. weapons inspections or face U.N.-backed international force. If such option fails, and Saddam refuses to cooperate, the President could then come to the Congress and request Congress to provide him with authorization to wage war against Iraq. By pursuing this course, we maximize the chance that the world can disarm Saddam without our going to war or, if war was necessary, we would be joined by allied troops in the cause. In the end, having tried these options and failed, our allies are far more likely to support our intervention should we elect to attack alone. The world looks to America not just because of our superior might or economic weight; they admire us and emulate us because we are a friend and ally that defends freedom and promotes our values around the globe. Those same traits that are the envy of the world should guide us today as we conclude this important debate. I thank the Senator from West Virginia, and I yield back to him the remainder of my time.

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I have been listening to the Senator over several days. One of the points he makes so effectively is the fact that even if we have been on the resolution a few days, we were, I was reminded, on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 21 days, the energy bill 23 days, the trade bill 19 days, and the farm bill 18 days. But even if we have been on this bill, would the Senator not agree with me that the principal debate has been on the resolutions, not the real impact of the war and what would happen to American troops who would be involved--the numbers of American troops who would be involved--what the impact is going to be on our battle with al-Qaida, what is going to be the impact in terms of the region, in terms of what Saddam may do? I would be interested in the Senator's comments on that. Secondly, I would be interested in the Senator's comments on the report this morning in the Washington Post--I am so glad it was declassified--in which the Central Intelligence Agency effectively has agreed that--quoting the paper---- Unprovoked by a U.S. military campaign, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is unlikely to initiate a chemical or biological attack against the United States, intelligence agencies concluded in a classified report. . . . That is the first time we have seen that public. That has been classified. Those of us who have been briefed on it have been unable to use that or to say that. That is a major kind of factor, I think, if we are being asked to vote on a resolution of war: to find out, in our Intelligence Estimate, that the possibility of American troops being affected by the use of chemical warfare increases dramatically-- dramatically--when we are putting Saddam Hussein's back against a wall. This was a question that--I see in the Chamber the chairman of the committee, who was there at the time. I remember very clearly that moment. But does not the Senator believe that this kind of statement is worth the opportunity for discussion and explanation, that we ought to hear at least what the reality is, that the American people ought to understand, and the parents of those servicemen ought to understand what their children are going to be faced with? Does the Senator not agree with me that we have been talking about resolutions, and we ought to be talking about the whole issue of terror, the impact it is going to have on our society--whether we go to war--what the impact is going to be on our servicemen, on the region, and on our future? I welcome the Senator's response to the general question about what this debate, to date, has been about, and then the specific issue that has been raised in the newspapers that has to be of central concern to people in relation to authorizing the President to engage in war and the chances of the use of chemical and biological weapons being increased dramatically if Saddam's back is up against a wall in a conflict.

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

Mr. KENNEDY

Mr. KENNEDY. I had additional comments, but the Senator has been seeking recognition to explain his objection. I am happy to hear that.

Mr. KENNEDY. The regular order is the Senator objects or does not object. That is the regular order, so we are going on the regular order.

Mr. KENNEDY. Regular order. It either goes through or there is an objection.

Mr. KENNEDY. I do not lose the floor.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I am sincerely sorry we have not been able to work this out. Senators Wellstone and Durbin have indicated the steps we are going to take to try to get the unemployment insurance. This is no mystery. It is a seven-page bill. There were efforts or suggestions about how we might be able to do this. We are certainly open to try to do it. What is unacceptable is not helping the number of Americans and people who are hurting.

Mr. KENNEDY. I will ask that my remaining remarks be included.

Mr. KENNEDY. To answer the question, this counts people who are unemployed and who have no benefits. Right now if someone is getting extended benefits, they are not counted. We count those people. That is the principal difference. That was the difference in the early 1990s as well, and that is what the Thomas bill did not do. That is what we do. We think there is a sound reason for being able to do it.

Mr. KENNEDY. I will yield, but first I will be glad to continue with my friend if he is interested in trying to get the legislation passed. We have not heard what the Senator is for. We know what he is against. He is against this bill. If the Senator is saying he is for an extension on it, we are more than glad to try and work and see if something can be achieved, if that is what the position is. If the Senator's position is in opposition and continues to be in opposition, then we are going to continue to press him. If his position is, yes, I will support--would the Senator support the extension of the Thomas bill?

Mr. KENNEDY. Fourteen billion dollars.

Mr. KENNEDY. We are effectively using the trigger that had been used before, which gives the focus and attention on those who are both unemployed and those who have States which have a higher incidence of unemployment, and in those States, those figures would be added to the valuation of the unemployed workers in an attempt to get a true reading on the numbers of the unemployed.

Mr. KENNEDY. If the Senator would--only if they have been exhausted.

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes. Now, if I could ask the Senator a question. Will he support the Thomas bill?

Mr. KENNEDY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 619, S. 3009, a bill to provide for the extension of unemployment compensation; that the bill be read the third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, without intervening action or debate.

Mr. KENNEDY. If I can respond, this is not the Thomas bill which was extended the last time. This is the historic and the traditional legislation that was passed three or four times in the early 1990s. This is not the more restricted Thomas bill. We are going back to the legislation that provides genuine protections for unemployed workers. This legislation will affect close to 3 million workers who otherwise will see their unemployment insurance expire by the end of this year and the early months of next year. The bill does not do all we believe ought to be done for part-time workers who are contributing into the unemployment insurance fund, or lower-income workers, all of whom are participating and paying into the insurance fund. What we want to do with this legislation is say: We have a $27 billion surplus. The workers have paid into the fund. We need $14 billion of that so people can pay their mortgages, pay their health insurance, and pay their bills. That is what this bill is, and that is what will happen when we pass it. This bill has basically been supported by a strong editorial in the Washington Post.

Mr. KENNEDY. The Senator had this request, and I hoped he would have had a chance to look at and review it, because he is going to hear about it every single day as long as the Senate is in.

Mr. KENNEDY. If there is some way we can help clarify it, we are glad to do it. Last week when I was in the Chamber, along with the Senator from Minnesota, the Senator from New York, and the Senator from Illinois, who were fighting for it, we heard asked: Is this the same bill, or how is this different? We are glad to take the time, but the time is going on. We will be glad to sit down with the Senator later on today and go over every bit of it and hopefully get the extension of it. We are troubled. We are troubled by the fact that even though the first President Bush effectively opposed it on two occasions, he did support it on the third, and had Republican support on the third occasion. We hope the good light that is shone--and the common sense and wisdom--on those Republicans and the President when he supported it the third time will be shed on the Republican Senators and the Senator will help us get this supported.