John McCain

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I say to the Senator from Nevada, not only will I be glad to start using the time now, but when Senator Byrd returns to the floor, I will be glad to interrupt my speech for Senator Byrd.

Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I will proceed with my statement. If Senator Byrd arrives on the floor, I will interrupt it and yield to Senator Byrd. In the history of nations, greatness is forged, or opportunity squandered, not by natural evolution or by the hand of mysterious Fate, but by decisions leaders make in times of potential or imminent peril. A common view in America is that these decisions are thrust on us--the world wars, Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, the attacks of September 11--and we find meaning, and honor, in our response. As Americans, that response is guided by faith in our founding principles, in our love of freedom, and the blessings of justice. Yet leaders always have choices, and history teaches that hard choices deferred--appeasing Hitler, choosing not to deter Saddam Hussein in 1990, failing to act sooner against al Qaeda--often bring about the very circumstances we wished to avoid by deferring action, requiring us to react in freedom's defense. America's leaders today have a choice. It will determine whether our people live in fear behind walls that have already been breeched, as our enemies plan our defeat in time we have given them to do it. It will answer the fundamental question about America's purpose in the world--whether we perceive our beliefs to be uniquely American principles or universal values, for if they are so dear to us that we believe all people have the right to enjoy them, we should be willing to stand up for them, wherever they are threatened. It will reveal whether we are brave, and wise or reluctant self- doubting, and in retreat from a world that still, in its cruelest corners, possesses a merciless hostility to our values and interests. It will test us, as did September 11, except that we can choose to engage the enemy on our terms rather than wait for the battle to be brought to us. Our choice is whether to assume history's burden to make the world safe from a megalomaniacal tyrant whose cruelty and offense to the norms of civilization are infamous, or whether to wait for this man, armed with the world's worst weapons and willing and able to use them, to make history for us. It is a question of whether preemptive action to defeat an adversary whose designs would imperil our vital interests is not only appropriate but moral--and whether our morality and security give us cause to fire the first shot in this battle. It will help determine whether the greater Middle East will progress toward possession of the values Americans hold to be universal, or whether the Arab and Islamic worlds will be further influenced by a tyrant whose intent is to breed his own virulent anti-Americanism in all who fall under his influence, and use that influence to hurt us gravely. The government of Saddam Hussein is a clear and present danger to the United States of America. Would that he were just another Arab dictator, pumping oil and repressing his people but satisfied with his personal circumstances within the confines of his country's borders. That situation alone would offend our sense of justice and compel us to militate for a regime change, but buy means short of preemptive military action. But Saddam Hussein has shown he has greater ambitions. His ambitions lie not in Baghdad, or Tikrit, or Basra, but in the deserts of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. They lie in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, where he sponsors suicide bombings by Palestinians he calls ``martyrs'' and the civilized world calls terrorists, using murder by proxy to advance his aspirations to lead the Arab world and fan hatred of Israel, America, and the universal ideal of freedom. These ambitions have led him to attack his sovereign neighbors--Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iran and Bahrain. His will to power has so affected his judgment that he has started two major wars and lost them, each time imperiling his own grip on power. His moral code is so spare that he has gassed his own people--horror the world thought it had left behind at Auschwitz and Treblinka. We are told that he enjoys watching video of his opponents being tortured, for fun. He kills not just his political opponents but their families, cruelly. He has developed stocks of germs and toxins in sufficient quantities to kill the entire population of the Earth multiple times. He has placed weapons laden with these poisons on alert to fire at his neighbors within minutes, not hours, and has devolved authority to fire them to subordinates. He develops nuclear weapons with which he would hold his neighbors and us hostage. No, this is not just another self-serving, oil-rich potentate. He is the worst kind of modern-day tryant--a conscienceless murderer who aspires to omnipotence who has repeatedly committed irrational acts since seizing power. Given this reality, containment and deterrence and international inspections will work no better than the Maginot Line did 62 years ago. He has unrepentantly violated sixteen United Nations Security Council resolutions, defying the will of the international community so consistently, so compulsively, so completely that no leader who professes allegiance to the values the United Nations was formed to uphold can sanction his audacity. His defiance, if not ended, is a threat to every nation that claims membership in the civilized world by virtue of its respect for law and fundamental human values. Because Saddam Hussein respects neither law nor values, advocating inspections of his weapons facilities as an alternative to war posits a false choice between ending the threat he poses peaceably or by force of arms. His character, his ambition, and his record make clear that he will never accept the intrusive inspections that, by depriving him of his arsenal of dangerous weapons, would deprive him of his power. This power gives him international stature, feeds his fantasy of being a Saladin for our time, and sustains his ability to repress his people and thus remain the rule of Iraq. Saddam Hussein is on a crash course to construct a nuclear weapon--as he was in 1981 when Israel preemptively destroyed his reactor at Osirak, enabling U.S. forces to go into Iraq a decade later without the threat of nuclear attack, and as he was in 1990, when he thought development of such a weapon, if completed in time, would have deterred American military action against him, allowing him to secure his control over his neighbors and dominate the region. Saddam has masterfully manipulated the international weapons inspections regime over the course of a decade, enabling him to remain in power with his weapons of mass destruction intact, and growing in lethality. He knows how to play for time, and how to exploit divisions within the international community, greased by the prospect of oil contracts for friendly foreign powers. His calculated ambiguity about his willingness to accept a new inspections regime are intended to stave off military attack until such time as he is able to deter it through deployment of an Iraqi nuclear weapon. He is using opponents of war in America, including well- intentioned individuals who honestly believe inspections represent an alternative to war, to advance his own ends, sowing divisions within our ranks that encourage reasonable people to believe he may be sincere. He is not. He has had ten years to prove otherwise, and he has transparently failed. His regime would be secure if he would only acquiesce to the international community's demands to disarm, but he has not. It is Saddam Hussein who puts his own regime at risk by developing these weapons. The burden is not on America to justify going to war. The burden is Saddam Hussein's, to justify whey his regime should continue to exist as long as its continuing existence threatens the world. Giving peace a chance only gives Saddam Hussein more time to prepare for war--on his terms, at a time of his choosing, in pursuit of ambitions that will only grow as his power to achieve them grows. American credibility, American security, and the future of the United Nations Security Council rest on the will of the United States to enforce the legitimate demands of the international community for Iraq's disarmament, by means that match the menace posed by his ambitions. Saddam Hussein's regime cannot be contained, deterred, or accommodated. Containment has failed. It failed to halt Saddam's attacks on five sovereign nations. The sanctions regime has collapsed. As long as Saddam remains in power, he will be able to deceive, bribe, intimidate, and attack his way out of any containment scheme. Some say we can deter Saddam Hussein, even though deterrence has failed utterly in the past. I fail to see how waiting for some unspecified period of time, allowing Saddam's nuclear ambitions to grow unchecked, will ever result in a stable deterrence regime. Not only would deterrence condemn the Iraqi people to more unspeakable tyranny, it would condemn Saddam's neighbors to perpetual instability. And once Iraq's nuclear ambitions are realized, no serious person could expect the Iraqi threat to diminish. As for accommodation, I am reminded of Winston Churchill's characterization of appeasement: continually feeding the alligator in the hope that he will eat you last. I do not believe the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's regime will be eliminated until he is removed from power. Congress made the same point in 1998 when we passed the Iraq Liberation Act, which made regime change in Baghdad a priority of American policy. Our regional allies who oppose using force against Saddam Hussein warn of uncontrollable popular hostility to an American attack on Iraq. But what would really be the effect on Arab populations of seeing other Arabs liberated from oppression? Most Iraqi soldiers will not willingly die for Saddam Hussein. Far from fighting to the last Iraqi, the people of that tortured society will surely dance on the regime's grave. I wish the Bush administration and its predecessor had given more serious support to internal and external Iraqi opposition than has been the case. But it's a safe assumption that Iraqis will be grateful to whoever is responsible for securing their freedom. Perhaps that is what truly concerns some of our Gulf War allies: that among the consequences of regime change in Iraq might be a stronger demand for self-determination from their own people. I commend the President for making a strong case for bringing Iraq into compliance with its international obligations to the United Nations. The Security Council bears the responsibility for enforcing the obligations it has imposed on Iraq in order to uphold international peace and security. The President was right to tell our friends and allies on the Council that if it does not act, America will. Diplomacy is important, and I welcome the diplomatic campaign the administration is waging to solicit the support of other nations. At the end of the day, we will not wage this war alone. Many nations are threatened by Saddam Hussein's rule, and many nations have a stake in the new order that will be built atop the ruins of Saddam Hussein's fascist state. Our friends and allies will help us construct this new order, and we should welcome that. Our friends and allies must know that we do not target Saddam's regime simply because he is a bad man, although his continuation of his tyranny is a rebuke to every decent value of humanity. We contemplate military action to end his rule because allowing him to remain in power, with the resources at his disposal, would intolerably and inevitably risk American interests in a region of the world where threats to those interests affect the whole world. For the United States to accept Saddam's continued rule is to acquiesce to the certain prospect of strategic blackmail when, soon, Saddam wields a nuclear weapon and threatens the destruction of Israel or the invasion of Saudi Arabia, or demands the withdrawal of all American forces from the region, and America finds itself forced to respond at much more terrible cost than we would pay today. Failure now to make the choice to remove Saddam Hussein from power will leave us with few choices late, when Saddam's inevitable acquisition of nuclear weapons will make it much more dangerous to defend our friends and interests in the region. It will permit Saddam to control much of the region, and to wield its resources in ways that can only weaken America's position. It will put Israel's very survival at risk, with moral consequences no American can welcome. Failure to end the danger posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq makes it more likely that the interaction we believe to have occurred between members of al Qaeda and Saddam's regime may increasingly take the form of active cooperation to target the United States. We live in a world in which international terrorists continue to this day to plot mass murder in America. Saddam Hussein unquestionably has strong incentives to cooperate with al Qaeda. Whatever they may or may not have in common, their overwhelming hostility to America and rejection of any moral code suggest that collaboration against us would be natural. It is all too imaginable. Whether or not it has yet happened, the odds favor it, and they are not odds the United States can accept. To those who argue that America's threat to Saddam's rule makes it more likely that he would collaborate with terrorists to attack our homeland, I would ask: how can we sanction the continuing existence of a regime whose ruler has the capability to inflict such damage on us and would even consider doing so? Standing by while an odious regime with a history of support for terrorism develops weapons whose use by terrorists could literally kill millions of Americans is not a choice. It is an abdication. In this new era, preventive action to target rogue regimes is not only imaginable but necessary. Who would not have attacked Osama bin Laden's network before September 11th had we realized that his intentions to bring harm to America were matched by the capability to do so? Who would not have heeded Churchill's call to stand up to Adolf Hitler in the 1930s, while Europe slept and appeasement fed the greatest threat to Western civilization the world had ever known? Who would not have supported Israel's bombing of Iraq's nuclear reactor in 1981 had we then known, as Israel knew, that Saddam was on the verge of developing the bomb? Opponents of this resolution offer many questions that are designed to persuade the President to wait before moving against Saddam Hussein. They have every right to do so. But there is one question I don't want to be asked in the months and years ahead: ``Why did you give Saddam Hussein time to harm us?'' Weighing the costs of inaction is an important as chronicling the costs of action in blood and treasure as we prepare to confront Iraq in 2002. In an age of weapons of mass destruction and global terrorists bent on acquiring those weapons, the costs of inaction could well be catastrophic. As we hold this debate today, this future is not preordained. We have choices. I hope we make the right one. Politics has no place in this debate. Voting for a course of action that will send young Americans off to fight and die for their country is the most solemn responsibility every member of this Congress will undertake. Those of us who have the honor of bearing that responsibility must weigh our words, and consult our consciences carefully. By voting to give the President the authority to wage war, we assume and share his responsibility for the war's outcome. Others have neither that burden nor that privilege. We have a choice. The men and women who wear the uniform of our country, and who might lose their lives in service to our cause, do not. They will do their duty, as we see fit to define it for them. We have a responsibility to these men and women to judge responsibly when our security is so threatened that we must call on them to uphold their oath to defend it. When we call them to serve, they will make us proud. We should strive to make them proud by showing deliberation, judgment, and statesmanship in the debate that will determine their mission. There is no such thing as a Democrat or a Republican war. We vote on this resolution in the same way brave young men and women in uniform will fight and die as a result of our vote-as Americans. The freedom and security Americans will continue to enjoy as history's greatest nation will be their legacy, and their honor. They will do their duty. Ours lies before us. Its outcome will determine America's course in this century, in an age when waiting for imminence of attack is catastrophic. In this age, liberating oppressed peoples from the tyranny of those who would do us harm serves not only narrow American interests but the ordered progress of freedom. The global success of liberty is America's greatest strategic interest as well as its most compelling moral argument. All our other interests are served in that cause. In it rests our faith in the greatness of America, the last, best hope of earth. What ensures our success in this long struggle against terrorism and rogue leaders who conspire against us is that our military strength is surpassed only by the strength of our ideals. Our enemies are weaker than we are in men and arms, but weaker still in causes. they fight to express an irrational hatred for all that is good in humanity, a hatred that has fallen time and again to the armies and ideals of the righteous. We fight for love of freedom and justice, a love that is invincible. We will never surrender. They will. All we must do is stay true to our faith.

Mr. McCAIN. May I add to the comments of the Senator from Nevada. I find from my days trying to enact a line-item veto, the days when the Senator from West Virginia was the majority leader, that he has always treated me with the utmost courtesy and consideration. In all of my encounters, I have found him to be incredibly enlightening, very educational, and occasionally frustrating. I would like to thank Senator Byrd for setting the tone and the tenor of this debate at a level that I think was important to maintain and one that I think all Members of the Senate, no matter which side they are on on this issue, can be proud of as we will look back at this debate and this very important resolution that is being considered. I thank the Senator from West Virginia. I look forward to hearing him for the next couple of hours. I thank the Chair. How much time do I have remaining on my time?

Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent to reserve the remainder of my time for Senator Bayh, who is one of the original cosponsors.

Mr. McCAIN. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. Will the Senator from New York just yield for a second to me?

Mr. McCAIN. I point out the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee has not had an opportunity to speak. In all due respect, I would like to give the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee the respect he deserves.

Mr. McCAIN. For 45.

Mr. McCAIN. I am sorry, I will not object, but I couldn't hear.

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I say to my friend from Florida that the administration's message is very clear that they do not disagree with his assessment of the threat. He is held in the highest regard by all who have observed his distinguished work as chairman of the Intelligence Committee. I thank my friend from Florida for his contributions. I know that in the days ahead he and I will be joining together with other Members of this body in addressing the serious threats to American national security which he has so eloquently described in his statement. I yield the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. I am glad to yield to the Senator from Nevada.

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

Mr. McCAIN. I have been singularly unsuccessful in orchestrating any backroom deals in the years I have served here, I say to my friend from Nevada. And I thank him. Mr. President, I move to table the pending Graham amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator to repeat that.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks and making the motion to table the Graham amendment, Senator Graham be recognized for up to 10 minutes, and immediately following that, the vote occur on my motion to table.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Connecticut be permitted to speak for 2 minutes without my losing my right to the floor.

Mr. McCAIN. That is fine.

Mr. McCAIN. Reserving the right to object, how long will it take?

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I suggest the regular order.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, pending the arrival of Senator Leahy, I ask unanimous consent for a colloquy with Senator Specter and Lieberman. I imagine Senator Leahy will be here shortly.

Mr. McCAIN. If the Senator from Nevada will yield, I stated earlier the pending business before the Senate is the Graham amendment. The Graham amendment should be dispensed with. That is why I hope any Senator who supports or opposes the Graham amendment would speak on it because I intend to move to table the Graham amendment, which is my right. So when we line up people to talk, I am all for that, but I would seek recognition at some time--sooner rather than later--so we could dispose of the Graham amendment. We need to move forward on this issue, I say to my friend from Nevada.

Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I inform my friend from Florida, under the normal procedures, as soon as I made a motion to table, the vote would begin. But if the Senator from Florida would like for me to ask unanimous consent for him to speak up to how many minutes he would like to before the vote, I would be pleased to propound that. Does the Senator from Connecticut want to speak again?

Mr. McCAIN

Mr. McCAIN. I object. I will seek and obtain recognition after the Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. McCAIN. Is this regular order?

Mr. McCAIN. I thank my friend from Virginia. Mr. President, now I will make a few brief comments about the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia. The amendment is to provide constitutional authorities to the President of the United States. In the heart of the amendment, it says the President of the United States cannot use the Armed Forces for any purposes not directly related to a clear threat of imminent, sudden, and direct attack upon the United States, its possessions or territories. If this were 100 years ago, at the time of my hero, Theodore Roosevelt, who was ready to send the Great White Fleet around the world, I would vote for this amendment in a New York minute because 100 years ago we had two oceans to protect us. One hundred years ago, we did not have in this world weapons of mass destruction that could strike continents away, travel thousands of miles and strike with incredible accuracy. We did not have a threat from a group of people who are yet somewhat unknown to us, who want to destroy our culture, who want to destroy our values, and indeed everything about Western civilization. They travel sometimes in secret without us being able to detect them, in the case of September 11, until too late. One hundred years ago, we had two oceans to protect us. We knew who our enemies might be, either real or potential, and we could afford to wait until there was an imminent, sudden, or direct attack upon the United States, its possessions or territories. Then I would have supported this amendment. The fact is, we all know if we wait until there is a direct attack on the United States of America, we pay a very heavy price. I hope the Senator from West Virginia, who I am sorry is not in the Chamber, would have appreciated that lesson from September 11; that we cannot wait until there is a direct, imminent, or sudden attack upon the United States of America. That is why if this amendment were to pass, it would completely prevent the President of the United States of America from addressing a clear and present danger to the United States of America in the form of Saddam Hussein's inventory of weapons of mass destruction.