Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2005, and for other purposes.

Mr. President, before our distinguished leaders depart the floor, I wish to say as one Senator, I am very proud that the differences have been reconciled and that this resolution bears both of your distinguished names and that we will strive to have unity in this Chamber and to have a very constructive and clear debate as a message to the men and women of the armed forces, their families and, indeed, the whole world.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to proceed under the time allocated to the distinguished majority leader, which I am privileged to manager.

Mr. President, I recognize that I have the opportunity to work on this debate with my distinguished colleague, Senator Levin. We have served together, now, this is our 25th year on the Senate Armed Services Committee. I say to my colleague, I know of no debate of greater significance than the one we are about to undertake at a critical hour not only in the history of the United States but the history of the world.

It would be helpful if I were to undertake to read the resolution that is at the desk that hopefully will be voted on by the Senate in a very short period of time after all Senators have had the opportunity to express themselves.

The resolution is entitled ``Commending the President and the Armed Forces of the United States of America,'' submitted by Senators Frist, Daschle, Warner and Levin.

Whereas Saddam Hussein has failed to comply with United

Nations Security Council resolutions 678, 686, 687, 688, 707,

715, 949, 1051, 1060, 1115, 1134, 1137, 1154, 1194, 1205,

1284, and 1441;

The most historic of all, in my judgment, resolution 1441, which received the unanimous vote of all Security Council members, 15--

Whereas the military action now underway against Iraq is

lawful and fully authorized by the Congress in Sec. 3(a) of

Public Law 107-243, which passed the Senate on October 10,

2002, by a vote of 77-23, and which passed the House of

Representatives on that same date by a vote of 296-133;

Whereas more than 225,000 men and women of the United

States Armed Forces are now involved in conflict against

Iraq;

Whereas over 200,000 members of the Reserves and National

Guard have been called to active duty for the conflict

against Iraq and other purposes; and

Whereas the Congress and the American people have the

greatest pride in the men and women of the United States

Armed Forces, and the civilian personnel supporting them, and

strongly support them in their efforts;

Now therefore be it Resolved by the Senate and House of

Representatives of the United States of America in Congress

assembled, that Congress--

(1) commends and supports the efforts and leadership of the

President, as Commander in Chief, in the conflict against

Iraq;

(2) commends, and expenses the gratitude of the Nation to

all members of the United States Armed Forces (whether on

active duty, in the National Guard, or in the Reserves) and

the civilian employees who support their efforts, as well as

the men and women of civilian national security agencies who

are participating in the military operations in the Persian

Gulf region, for their professional excellence, dedicated

patriotism and exemplary bravery;

(3) commends and expresses the gratitude of the Nation to

the family members of soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines and

civilians serving in operations against Iraq who have borne

the burden of sacrifice and separation from their loved ones;

(4) expresses its deep condolences to the families of brave

Americans who have lost their lives in this noble

undertaking, over many years, against Iraq;

(5) joins all Americans in remembering those who lost their

lives during Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert

Storm in 1991, those still missing from that conflict,

including Captain Scott Speicher, USN, and the thousands of

Americans who have lost their lives in terrorist attacks over

the years, and in the Global War in Terrorism; and

(6) expresses sincere gratitude to British Prime Minister

Tony Blair and his government for their courageous and

steadfast support, as well as gratitude to other allied

nations for their military support, logistical support, and

other assistance in the campaign against Saddam Hussein's

regime.

Mr. President, today in Iraq, in Afghanistan, on the high seas, at the far corners of the world, and here at home, our forces, active duty and reserve components alike, are confronting the oppression, tyranny, and terrorism that plagues and threatens the world and our Nation. I am so enormously proud of our military and their leaders who fashioned a force unlike any the world has ever known, a force capable of delivering overwhelming might anytime, anywhere, if necessary.

Just weeks ago my distinguished colleague, Senator Levin, and I, together with Senator Roberts and Senator Rockefeller, were privileged to visit many of these troops in that region, Qatar, Kuwait, and other areas. A disciplined force this is, able to employ measured steps in an honorable and decent manner to ensure that everything possible is done to provide for the humanitarian and security needs of an innocent people, the people of Iraq. Truly the force has never seen an opportunity such as this, and it is under the command not only of our President but of officers of the United States, Great Britain, Australia, and indeed more.

A decision to commit our sons and daughters to combat is never an easy one. Clearly, our President anguished over this decision. I was privileged to meet with him, with the leadership here just days ago. Clearly, he showed his steadfastness, his courage, his wisdom, his very balanced thinking, as he conducted himself with the advice of others, to reach this decision, which he did last night.

We in the Congress debated this solemn responsibility to authorize the use of force last October. We took our constitutional responsibility seriously. We thoroughly examined the circumstances and voted overwhelmingly, 77 to 23, to authorize the Commander in Chief to use military force if, and only if, he determined that all diplomatic efforts to peacefully disarm Saddam Hussein's Iraqi regime had been fulfilled. I personally think he did that and did it brilliantly.

Those efforts, unfortunately, did not result in a Security Council resolution of unity, as it did with 15 votes in October.

The Security Council became deadlocked for reasons we all know. It is important to note, however, that our President expended extraordinary efforts to bring this clear and growing threat to the attention of the United Nations and to try to build that consensus for a unified way to proceed.

The United Nations was unable to step up to its responsibilities of enforcing its own mandates largely because of the intransigence of a very few nations to block any form of meaningful enforcement of these U.N. Security Council resolutions. The failure of the United Nations to step up to its responsibilities is most unfortunate, for the United Nations at this time in its long history of over 50 years is facing a challenge unlike any before, with the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, particularly those of nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula, Iran, and other areas of the world. This could have been their finest hour.

Our President has stepped up to his responsibilities to protect the American people from a grave and growing threat to our national security. Ultimately, the President's constitutional responsibility is to the American people. He made the determination that Saddam Hussein, armed with weapons of mass destruction, is an imminent threat to the security of the people of this Nation and, indeed, other nations.

His most sacred responsibility is to protect the American people. The Congress, as a coequal branch of Government, has fulfilled, in my judgment, its constitutional responsibilities by giving the President the authority he needs to do so.

Now the effort has begun to liberate Iraq, restore a secure environment, and ultimately bring a lasting peace with justice and representative democratic principles to a land that has known little peace throughout its history. Our forces are capable of helping Iraqis realize this dream. I have no doubt our forces will conduct themselves in a very responsible way. Our forces, supported by countless civilian employees and by families and loved ones back home, and joined by forces and support from many other nations--over 30, Mr. President--as a coalition to liberate Iraq, will prevail.

We are all hopeful that this operation can be conducted with minimum loss of life, with minimum casualties, with minimum destruction and hardship. We must await that outcome. We must be prepared, however, for a broad and concerted effort that may take longer and involve more sacrifice than some have predicted. We cannot and will not waiver from our resolve to bring freedom and hope to this troubled Nation and to rid the world of this threat to regional and global security.

I, again, salute our men and women in uniform, their families, and those who support them in this noble effort. I yield the floor.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield a moment? I remember so well when we had last year's authorization bill on the floor. The distinguished Senator from Michigan and I time and again sought Senator Reid's assistance to keep that bill going, to reconcile issues such as health care, current receipts, the BRAC process, and other very strong issues. So the Senator has been a full honorary member of the Armed Services Committee.

Mr. President, I yield such time as he may consume to the Senator from Pennsylvania.

Mr. President, I yield such time as our distinguished colleague from Oklahoma may require.

I might also say Senators Ensign, Burns, the Presiding Officer Senator Alexander, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, and Senator Allard, we are looking forward to their coming to the floor, in that sequence, on our side. We will alternate with my colleague. I alert my colleagues, this debate is moving right along and we are anxious to keep it going.

At this time I yield as much time to Senator Ensign as he may require.

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada for his remarks, most particularly the concluding remarks about that period during Vietnam. It was my privilege to serve along with the men and women in that period as Secretary of the Navy. I remember so well how they were received back home, in sharp contrast to the generation in which I had a modest association in World War II. With open arms were they welcomed home. I share your sentiments.

I yield the floor.

On my time, Mr. President, I commend my colleague, a strong member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Senator Pat Roberts, likewise, who is on our committee, and Senator Smith, a former member of the committee.

These three Senators have involved our committee in this as well. And, I think, heretofore, the Intelligence Committee has taken a very active role.

Senator Levin and I are both appreciative of their efforts on this issue on behalf of the committee. We thank them.

I yield such time to the Senator from Montana as he may require.

Mr. President, the hour of 4 o'clock, at which time the votes begin on the budget resolution, is fast approaching. I have several Senators indicating a desire to speak on my side. I ask them to limit their remarks now to about 3\1/2\ minutes, thereabouts. I think the Senator from Massachusetts should be recognized.

Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Tennessee.

I ask the Senator if he could limit his remarks to about 3\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. President, first, may I inquire of the Presiding Officer the amount of time in control of the Senator from Virginia and the amount of time in control of the Senator from Michigan?

Senator Levin and I have now sought to advise our leadership on the ever-growing number of Senators anxious to speak. They, I presume, will consider how we will add more time to this debate now or during another period. I wish to put Senators on notice that we have the Senator from Texas, Mrs. Hutchison, awaiting recognition, followed by the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Allard, and then the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain.

I am going to do the very best I can to get the time to accommodate these Senators, and I see other Senators present on my side.

The Senator from Texas is to be recognized next.

I have to ask it be on your time.

I join in that request. I also have Senator Coleman, Senator Hatch, the Senator from Alaska, the Senator from North Carolina, and the number is growing.

Yes.

Mr. President, I say to our distinguished colleague from West Virginia, both Senator Levin and I have put that to our respective leadership.

Mr. President, I anticipate that we will soon have a unanimous consent request about timing, but until that is finished might I suggest that the Senator from Michigan recognize another of his speakers.

Mr. President, I have before me a proposed unanimous consent request. I will now make that request.

I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the adoption of this resolution occur at the hour of 5 today; provided further that debate between 4 and 5 be equally divided as provided earlier. Further, I ask that the previously scheduled stacked votes occur beginning immediately following the vote on the adoption of this resolution, S. Con. Res. 26, with no amendments in order to the resolution or preamble.

Reserving the right to object, I will recommend that the distinguished Democratic leader's unanimous consent be accepted, but I would like to speak with my leader before agreeing to it.

Mr. President, I wish to announce that on my side, the following Senators have indicated the desire to speak. I will be in the Chamber to accommodate them as best I can within the 30 minutes that I have remaining: Senators Allard, McCain, Coleman, Hatch, Stevens, Dole, Domenici.

I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Colorado.

Mr. President, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the Senator from Arizona.

We go to the other side.

Mr. President, may I address the Senate with regard to the remaining speakers on my side of the aisle to alert them? We have next the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, followed by the Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, the Senator from New Mexico, Mr. Domenici, the Senator from Arizona, Mr. Kyl, the Senator from North Carolina, Mrs. Dole, and the Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn.

Mr. President, I yield 2 to 3 minutes to our distinguished colleague from Alaska.

Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a minute for purposes of recognition of the Senator from Mississippi, who wishes to put a statement in the Record?

Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Mississippi and the Senator from Montana.

I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, be added as a cosponsor of the pending resolution.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending resolution be considered as a Senate resolution.

Mr. President, I recognize the distinguished Senator from New Mexico for a period of 3 minutes.

Mr. President, may I also join my colleague and express how grateful we are he came to the floor with a great sense of emotion and humility and, the final sentence with which he concluded, his pride in his son. I commend the Senator.

I should note that the son of a member of the senior staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee, COL Chuck Alsup, who is with me in the Chamber, leaves today as a military man to join the forces in the gulf.

We will have the Senator from North Carolina address us for 2\1/2\ minutes.

I grant the Senator from Utah 2 minutes.

Mr. President, following the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, the Senator from Virginia will recognize Senator Kyl for 2 minutes and then in rotation the Senator from Georgia, Mr. Chambliss, for 2 minutes. That results in all the time under my control being expired.

I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. President, I yield to the distinguished Senator from Georgia, and I understand the Senator desires to speak and will yield to the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, this has been a historic debate, fully participated in by many Senators. I am privileged to be a part of that debate. I again salute the distinguished majority leader and the Democratic leader for drawing up this resolution. The Senate has spoken.

As we conclude this historic debate, which conclusively states the support of the Senate behind our President, our men and women in uniform and their families, I believe it is appropriate to include as part of this record the speech given to the British Parliament on March 18, 2003 requesting authority to use British forces alongside American forces in the liberation of the people of Iraq, by the Prime Minister, the Honorable Tony Blair, whom I and others view as Churchill II. My colleagues will recall that Prime Minister Blair was specifically mentioned in the text of this resolution I read earlier. This was a purposeful reflection of our great esteem for this courageous leader who has stood so firm arm-in-arm with America. His request to use force was not a popular motion, but he prevailed. The following is the text of his speech and I commend it to my colleagues. I ask unanimous consent to print the speech in the Record.

Mr. President, resolutions, such as the one before us, are not possible without a dedicated, bi-partisan effort. Our staffs have worked hard and well together over the past few days to help members craft this resolution. I want to especially recognize and thank Steve Biegun of the Majority Leader's Office, Dennis McDonough of the Democratic Leader's Office, and Judy Ansley, Rick DeBobes and Chuck Alsup of the Armed Services Committee staff, for their efforts in helping draft this important resolution.

I specifically ask the Senator from New Mexico be added as a cosponsor.

Madam President, first, I say to my friend from Virginia, this is an opportunity for us to spend a few minutes talking about the issue of war with Iraq. We all listened last evening to the comments of the President during his press conference. We all have great respect, obviously, for the Presidency of the United States. I would not call the President's press conference a Churchillian moment, but certainly the President expressed his views on what he believes ought to be done.

On October 11, 2002, I voted for H.J. Res. 114, a resolution providing the President with the authority to use force against Iraq if proved necessary. The vote on that resolution was 77 to 23. I voted for the entire resolution including language which requires the President to first determine that ``reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or is not likely to lead to the enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Resolutions.'' The particular requirement seems to have gotten lost in recent discussions about Iraq and deserves repeating in the context of our debate this morning.

My concern is that the Bush administration, at this juncture, has not made the case that we have reached the point that we can say that diplomacy has failed.

I do not know of anyone who disagrees with the notion that we would be far better off with Iraq disarmed. Every person I know supports that conclusion. The debate, if you will, is not over whether Iraq should be disarmed but whether there are means short of military conflict for doing so. Knowing all the hazards and dangers that will arise when we send American service men and women into combat to achieve that result, we must not take that decision precipitously, without first exhausting other options, particularly diplomatic options.

As I stated earlier, I voted for H.J. Res 114 last fall, and I would vote for it again because I believe force, coupled with with diplomacy, are needed in this circumstance. Threats of force alone without diplomacy can too often lead us to unnecessary armed conflict and costly destruction and loss of life.

We fail sometimes to recognize and understand the value of diplomacy and how well it has worked for us in times past. We saw diplomacy at work during the Kennedy administration when President Kennedy diffused the Cuban missile crisis. We saw it at work as well in the Carter administration when Sadat and Begin came together at Camp David to end conflict between Israel and Egypt. We saw it at work in 1993 when, through the efforts of former-President Carter in North Korea, we were able to diffuse a situation that was getting very serious. Diplomacy has successfully resolved many disputes large and small. On each occasion it requires our President to put his credibility on the line and work diligently day in and day out to bring those warring parties together to avoid the conflict that would have ensued.

I think too often we fail to appreciate the value of what can be done through diplomacy. There are countless examples throughout our history.

My plea this morning, is not that we renounce the use of force multilateral or unilateral--in the case of Iraq or any other circumstance where US national security interests are at stake. I would never support a resolution that would deprive our Nation of the opportunity to protect and defend its security and its sovereignty, including by the unilateral use of force. My only concern is that we ought not rush unnecessarily to that conclusion when other options still remain. Do we really want to unnecessarily put at risk the lives of innocent Iraqi people or more importantly the lives of our own young men and women in uniform who have been deployed to the Middle East and await the orders of the Commander in Chief?

My plea today is that the President seriously consider giving the U.N. effort the diplomatic track a bit more time. Obviously, there is a threat in Iraq. We all know that. But it is a threat at this moment that is being effectively contained by the presence of international inspectors and the threat of force. Yes, Iraq is a threat, but there are graver and more immediate threats confronting the United States. I believe that North Korea poses a far greater and far more immediate danger to the United States and the region. U.S./Korean experts across the political spectrum share that view.

I am concerned that our impatience over Iraq is doing great harm to our relationships with our long standing friends and allies. U.N. Security Council Resolution 1441 did not contain an end date by which the inspectors were to conclude their mission. However, from the very beginning, the administration showed very little patience for the inspections process. Almost before it began, members of the Bush Administration were ridiculing the process, suggesting it would never work anyway; why are we bothering with it?

One might ask the basic question: If we never thought it was going to work, why did we support U.N. Security Resolution 1441 in the first place?

The problem of Iraq and Saddam Hussein is not weeks old, it is years old. We all know that. Nonetheless, we drafted, worked, suggested, and supported the resolution that called for an inspections process. There is no certainty that an inspections process will necessarily succeed, given the size of the country and the difficulties involved, but we voted to send inspectors to Iraq and we supported the terms of their mission as spelled out in the text of the resolution.

Yet as the inspection mission was getting underway, the administration seemed to already have lost patience with it. Perhaps that is why other members of the Security Council began to question whether the United States was ever genuinely committed to an inspections regime.

U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix spoke before the United Nations this morning. Let me share with my colleagues some of his conclusions--very significant conclusions in my view. Mr. Blix said that the inspectors were in a better position to carry out their work than they had been in the 1990s because of the existence of international pressure. The President should claim victory that his policy is succeeding--the combination of diplomacy and the threat of force is bearing fruit.

We ought to be celebrating the fact that the inspectors have made progress in disarming Iraq. I do not think that a call for inspections without a threat of force would have produced positive results. The combination of the threat of force and the inspections process is, according to those we have asked to perform these duties, producing far better results than we ever could have imagined.

Mr. Blix went on to say that there is no air surveillance over the entire country, and that inspectors can move freely anywhere in Iraq. Even with enhanced Iraqi cooperation, Mr. Blix stated that the mission would need some additional months not years to complete its work.

I am not interested in seeing the inspections process prolonged indefinitely. I do not think that is in anyone's interest. We have men and women in uniform deployed abroad, waiting for orders. We cannot keep them there indefinitely without having the necessary rotations. That poses some problems. I hope we never reach the conclusion that simply because we have deployed our forces to the Middle East, we see that action as putting our credibility on the line if we don't then take military action, even though diplomacy may be working.

American service men and women certainly understand that when they are called to duty, there may be times

they are asked to put their lives on the line. They also know there may be times when they are going to be asked to wait. Certainly, we need to understand the conduct of this particular delicate situation. Asking our men and women in uniform to be patient as we try to see if we cannot resolve this problem without putting them in harm's way is not an irresponsible way to proceed at all, given the fact we may get exactly what we are seeking as a result of the combined efforts of diplomacy and threat of force.

I believe this process is working and the President ought to claim victory, in a sense, because as a result of his efforts, we are getting the job done better than we might have imagined we could.

In a sense, I almost get the feeling we are trying to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by moving away from a process that appears to be working despite all the difficulty surrounding it.

Obviously, if we want the multilateral support of our allies then we need to allow the U.N. effort some time. I can make a strong case that we probably do not need multilateral forces to win the military contest here. I am quite confident the United States military can more than adequately perform the challenges posed in Iraq militarily. But the problem becomes greater when you think of the aftermath, of how we manage that, how this event will affect other relationships we have where international cooperation is important.

I say this with a great deal of lament. Diplomacy has been suffering terribly here over the last few years. This is not just my conclusion. This is the conclusion of the responsible people who have watched, tragically over the last 24 months, where diplomacy has not been working as well as it could. I don't want to digress very much. I will keep focused on the discussion in front of us, but from the outset there was a notion that international cooperation was somehow a sign of weakness; that, in fact, the comments of our friend from Alabama suggesting a moment ago that international organizations and the United Nations could not perform duties when asked to act and asked to get a job done, I disagree with.

I have my difficulties with the performance of the U.N. from time to time, but I ask anyone to suggest what the world might look like if we did not have a U.N. system to respond all over the globe to every imaginable crisis that emerges. The idea of deriding and ridiculing and diminishing the role of the U.N. system is not in our interest, and I don't think it is in our interest to ridicule our allies in Europe and elsewhere. These are good friends. They have been and will continue to be. But we need to work at those relationships to keep them strong. Unfortunately, we have not been doing that. And, we are paying a price for that. That is why the American public and so many around the world are worried about unnecessarily taking unilateral action. Particularly a preemptive unilateral action.

Having said that, I applaud the President's decision last night to go to the U.N. and to put a resolution on the table. I feared he might abandon the U.N. effort without doing so because some of his advisors have recommended this course of action. I commend the President for still being willing to try and get that international support. I hope a resolution can be crafted which our allies and others will feel comfortable supporting, one that gives the inspections more time to see if they can succeed. If I didn't feel time might work for us here, or that there was an imminent threat to our nations, then I would stand with those who would say we have to go forward now and unilaterally respond to the threat. I don't believe that moment has arrived.

Last night the President said that the world has changed since September 11th. I agree with him. The administration's eyes obviously were opened to the fact we needed help and support from the nations in coping with the amorphous nature of the stateless and faceless terrorist organizations. We heard the great news in the last few days of the capture of some al-Qaida operatives. I would respectfully say that this would not have happened without international cooperation. So in this particular set of circumstances, we have seen the value of international cooperation.

While Bush administration officials have seen the wisdom of cooperating with our allies in combating terrorist organizations, key administration policymakers still hold--too many of them--the fundamental belief that as the world's only remaining superpower, the United States does not need to consult or build the support from other nations in the conduct of foreign policy. They believe that we can singlehandedly decide who are good guys and bad guys, the members of the axis of evil, in the Bush administration's lexicon. It is this tension that brings us where we are in Iraq and North Korea.

Now we have, of course, the paradox that the administration is in no particular hurry, it would appear, to resolve the North Korean problem which was precipitated in part, I argue, by our handling and engagement with Iraq. It has no patience in the case of Iraq to allow the inspections process to play out. I appreciate that the administration is trying to maintain the readiness of more than 200,000 American troops that are or will soon be in the region and that this cannot go on indefinitely without troop rotation. However, I strongly believe the American forces are carrying out an incredibly important mission, even if the order is never given to attack. Just being there has a tremendous value in terms of what we are trying to achieve in the Middle East.

Their presence signals a seriousness and resolve on the part of the United States that Iraq must disarm. Iraq is, in fact, beginning, as we see here, to respond--not as quickly as I would like, not in the ways some might prefer--but Hans Blix has reported progress. We should not yet draw the conclusion that in U.N. effort has failed.

I want to see Iraq disarm. Every American does. I believe as a way of doing this, at least a way worth trying to get this accomplished without resorting to force. The bellicose and public efforts by the administration to end the inspections process is going to have severe diplomatic costs in the months and years ahead. My hope is that we will be able to repair these relationships. The quick way we might do that is to allow this process to work a bit longer. If we do that, I think we can build the kind of support that is necessary to achieve not only the desired results in Iraq, but also to allow us to continue to build the relationships that are going to be critically important to deal with other pressing foreign policy concerns.

We live in a world that absolutely requires international cooperation, and the United States must be a leader in this effort. The great leaders in the post-World-War-II period understood this. The great people we revere and talk about often, people like Omar Bradley and George Marshall, the Dulles brothers and others, who understood the value and the importance of international organizations. They were the architects of these institutions. They were the ones who argued so vociferously to create a U.N. system, international courts of justice, to build a NATO system. They understood the importance of international cooperation. They understood that even a great power such as ours could not solve all the world's problems single-handedly.

Too often, as we engage in this debate, many Americans and many people across the globe have the impression that the United States no longer believes that international cooperation is important in the conduct of our foreign policy. I disagree with that profoundly.

That worries this Senator very deeply. I will not take a backseat to anybody in my concern about Saddam Hussein. I would support the resolution which I voted for in October again today if it were the pending business of this body. I don't believe that the resolution calls upon the President to abandon diplomacy.

For those reasons I would urge and encourage the President to continue his efforts with the framework of the U.N. Again, I want to compliment him for indicating he is going to go back to the U.N. in the coming days to see if we can get a resolution that will build the kind of international cooperation that is necessary. But I have this nagging fear that there are some in the President's inner circle who believe this is all a waste of time and effort, that it is not in our interests to do it,

and the sooner we move away from seeking international cooperation the better off we are going to be.

That mentality seems to be gaining currency in the minds of far too many. That is a dangerous road to follow. It is one I hope and pray that the President does not take.

Mr. President, let me associate myself with what others have said in the course of this debate. If or when the President orders U.S. Service Members into combat, I and every other member of this body will support these brave men and women one hundred percent and we will pray that they return home to their families unharmed.

With those thoughts in mind, I thank my colleagues for the opportunity to express some views on this critical issue. I am certainly anxious to hear the thoughts of my colleagues as they express those during the remaining time of this debate.

Mr. President, I believe I have time.

I thank the Chair.

Mr. President, I thank my friend from West Virginia for his eloquence once again this afternoon. When the history of our time is written, there will be many important chapters on the contributions the Senator from West Virginia has made, certainly for his State, but I also think there will be an important chapter that will be written about his contributions to our Constitution as the principal guardian of the Constitution in the Senate. He has done this on so many occasions. I have admired him so much for that effort and the extraordinary insight he has brought to all of us as a student of history.

All of us will remember very clearly the debates which were led by the Senator from West Virginia some 3 months ago on the issues of war and peace, and now once again, as we are coming to the most significant time, and that is the decision-making that will be made at the United Nations about whether we will continue with a course of inspections and whether we will try and galvanize the world community behind a common purpose, or whether we will go it alone. The Senator reminds us of the dangers of going it alone, of the unforeseen challenges we will be facing, and draws attention to the importance that this is a matter that is debated and discussed in the Senate; that the people in West Virginia, like the people in my own State, are eager to have more knowledge, more awareness, more understanding as to exactly where we are going and the circumstances of that commitment.

I thank the Senator from West Virginia so much for the thoughtful resolution which I am proud to cosponsor and for the comment he has made, which is that we will be back here again to talk about this issue of war and peace.

As he has said on many occasions, there is no vote that is more important than a Senator's vote on war and peace. There is no issue more important that we address in the Senate. The Senator reminds us of that very solemn obligation and responsibility we have on that issue and has, in his resolution, found ways of giving expression to the concerns of many of our fellow citizens.

I again thank him for all of the work he has done. I urge him to continue to lead this body to a better understanding of exactly what policy we are undertaking, what the risks are, and the challenges we face with the real prospects of a war which may be initiated by the United States, in which the United States may be effectively going it alone with perhaps one or two of our allies. I thank him so much for his attention and focus on this issue.

I will be glad to yield.

Mr. President, may I be reminded when I have 3 minutes remaining.

Mr. President, last October 16, President Bush signed Public Law 107-243 which authorized the President to use military force, if necessary, to defend our country.

I voted against that resolution and war with Iraq because I was not persuaded that Iraq posed an imminent threat to our national security and because of my belief that war with Iraq, especially without broad international support, would undermine our ability to meet the gravest threat to our national security--terrorism against the United States by al-Qaida and other terrorist groups.

Circumstances have changed significantly since Congress approved that resolution last October. In the months that have passed, events have only strengthened my belief that this is the wrong war at the wrong time.

In those 3 months, al-Qaida has escalated its campaign of terror. North Korea has revived its nuclear weapons program. And United Nations inspectors are now on the ground in Iraq.

There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator. He invaded Kuwait. He oppresses the Iraqi people. He murders his opponents. He has gassed his own people. He has defied the world community.

So I commend President Bush for going to the United Nations and for working with our allies to put inspectors on the ground again in Iraq. The inspectors are making progress. Rather than commit American troops to war with Iraq at this time, we should give the inspectors our full support and assistance, including our best intelligence information, to strengthen their disarmament efforts.

There are many other questions that must be answered before we go to war:

Will war increase the chances of injury and harm to American citizens if Saddam Hussein, with his back pressed against the wall, decides to use chemical or biological weapons? What will a postwar Iraq look like? Who will govern? How long will our troops need to stay? How many will need to stay?

What will be the impact on the war against terrorism? Will we be increasing support for al-Qaida?

What will be the impact of our allies in the region? Will stability be undermined?

How will our Nation be able to manage three foreign policy crises at the same time--the war against terrorism, the crisis with North Korea, and now war with Iraq?

When Congress voted on this issue in October, the President had not yet decided to go to war. The President said war was the last resort. He said we would work with the international community to obtain Iraq's disarmament. Clearly, we have not reached that last resort. Inspectors are on the ground in Iraq, and the international community wants the inspections to continue; yet, the President is poised to pull the trigger of war.

I am delighted to work with Senator Byrd on this issue, and I am a cosponsor of his resolution. We share the goal of ensuring that war will be the last resort; that if we do have to go to war in Iraq, it will be with the support of Congress, the American people, and the international community.

In light of the changed circumstances since the previous votes by Congress, I am submitting another resolution supporting the inspection process and requiring the President to obtain approval from the Congress before committing American troops to war.

This decision may well be one of the most important that any of us will make.

So much has happened since Congress voted to authorize force last October. On November 8, the United Nations Security Council unanimously approved a resolution that demanded unprecedented access to suspected weapons sites in Iraq. The passage of this resolution demonstrated the resolve of the international community to disarm Saddam, and was soon followed by the arrival of several hundred weapons inspectors in Iraq.

On January 27, the inspectors submitted a report to the Security Council about Iraq's cooperation with weapons inspections. Chief weapons inspector Hans Blix stated that Iraq has so far cooperated ``rather well'' but that additional cooperation is necessary. The director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency said inspectors ``have found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons program since the elimination of the program in the 1990s'' and that inspectors ``should

be able within the next few months to provide credible assurances that Iraq has no nuclear weapons program.''

The U.N. report demonstrated that the inspection process is working. The inspectors are building their case, and Saddam Hussein is feeling the pressure of the international community. Nothing in the report suggests that war now is the only option to disarm Saddam. Clearly, the inspections should continue.

It is wrong for the administration to beat the drums of war. There is time for thoughtful deliberation about whether war now is the right priority for our Nation and we in Congress have a responsibility to the Constitution and the American people to act again on this all-important issue of war or peace.

The administration has totally failed to make the case that Saddam Hussein is an imminent threat to our security. No evidence, no proof, no ``smoking gun,'' no intelligence has ever been released to suggest we must launch a pre-emptive strike in order to defend America from an unprovoked attack. Instead of making its case, the administration simply says, ``Trust us. We know more than you do.''

Many experts believe that Iraq--especially without provocation--does not represent an imminent threat to our security. In fact, it may well be just the opposite. On October 7, CIA Director George Tenet released an unclassified assessment in a letter to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that suggested Iraq would only be a threat if the United States attacked it first.

The letter said, ``the probability of [Saddam Hussein] initiating an attack [on the United States] would be low.'' It also said, ``should Saddam Hussein conclude that a U.S.-led attack could no longer be deterred, he probably would become much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions. Such terrorism might involve . . . [chemical and biological weapons].''

In spite of U.S. assertions that we have secret evidence of Iraq's WMD program, we have been transferring this information at a painfully slow pace. It is only this month, that we finally began to hand over ``significant intelligence.'' The administration promises the release of new information and all of us hope that it will be more convincing than what has been made available so far.

Secretary Powell will go to the Security Council to share intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program on February 5. But if the United States has significant intelligence, we should share it with the U.N. inspectors today. We should not wait a further week. If our goal is disarmament, we should do everything possible to assist the inspectors.

The disarmament of Saddam Hussein is essential. But the administration has not made a persuasive case that the threat from Iraq is so immediate that it justifies resort to war now when the inspections process is obviously making progress. Clearly, we have not reached the last resort.

Our Nation faces another threat that is much more immediate: the possibility of new al-Qaida terrorist attacks. A unilateral invasion of Iraq would not advance our war against terrorism--it would undermine it. Our highest national priority is to wage the unfinished war against al-Qaida and wage it effectively.

In the last 4 months there have been deadly new al-Qaida attacks worldwide, which have slaughtered hundreds. A French tanker was attacked in Yemen, a nightclub bombed in Indonesia, a hotel destroyed in Kenya, missionaries murdered in Yemen. The frequency and ferocity of these attacks is increasing. It is only a matter of time before they strike America again.

The administration would like us to believe that Saddam Hussein is public enemy No. 1, ignoring the fact that Osama bin Laden is still at large. Chilling new evidence has arisen suggests that he is planning new attacks.

At home, we still remain vulnerable. Last October, a Council of Foreign Relations task force chaired by former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman warned that ``America remains dangerously unprepared to prevent and respond to a catastrophic attack on U.S. soil.''

Another Task Force representative told a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee that ``a war with Iraq . . . elevates the risk in the near term of an attack on the United States . . . [and] will likely consume virtually all the nation's attention and command the bulk of the available resources, leaving little left over to address our many domestic vulnerabilities.''

For some time, the administration engaged in a complicated spin job to convince the American people that Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden are co-conspirators. According to this view, waging war on Iraq is part of the war against terrorism. Last September, our Secretary of Defense went so far as to claim publicly that he had ``bulletproof confirmation'' of links between Iraq and al-Qaida.

But the administration has never presented any of this ``bulletproof'' evidence. Most regional experts believe it is highly unlikely that fundamentalist al-Qaida leaders would ever find much common cause with the secular dictator Saddam Hussein. Last October, CIA Director George Tenet even conceded that the administration's understanding of the al-Qaida Iraq link was ``evolving'' and based on ``sources of varying reliability.'' The administration claimed again this week that they have new evidence of those ties, but so far we have only seen a rehash of old allegations and unreliable anecdotes.

As the administration emphasizes the threat from Iraq, it gives less attention to other countries that pose an even more immediate threat to our security.

The greatest proliferation threat comes not from Iraq, but North Korea. North Korea is much more likely and capable to develop, use and sell these weapons. But unlike Iraq, North Korea probably already has nuclear weapons. Unlike Iraq, North Korea has no nuclear inspectors on the ground to verify disarmament.

North Korea has a long and well-documented history of selling its military technology, especially ballistic missiles, to whoever will pay the highest price. Desperate and strapped for cash, it is the country most likely to sell or transfer weapons of mass destruction to terrorists or nations that support terrorism.

In its single-minded focus on Iraq, administration officials at first refused to acknowledge that a nuclear crisis even existed. Only very recently has the Administration begun to devote the attention this crisis deserves.

Nevertheless, the administration continues to focus on Iraq. They are now suggesting an easy war, with few casualties. But our military leaders, especially those with significant combat experience are skeptical. On December 18, a press report said that the commandant of the Marine Corps is concerned that civilian leaders in the Pentagon are underestimating the risks of war, and that military chiefs have challenged the optimistic view that Saddam Hussein's government will collapse soon after a military campaign begins.

In December, we heard dire new forecasts about what war with Iraq would actually be like. U.S. intelligence officials warned that Saddam Hussein may pursue a ``scorched earth'' policy if the war goes badly. They said that Hussein may try to destroy Iraq's oil fields, power plants and food facilities.

In the Armed Services Committee, we heard testimony from General Hoar and others about the dangers to our troops of urban guerilla warfare.

War will be a disaster not just for the soldiers who suffer and die, but for the vast numbers of innocent civilians who will be affected. In December, the media reprinted a confidential U.N. planning document predicting a humanitarian crisis in the wake of war with Iraq. U.N. officials also predicted a halt to Iraqi oil production, serious degradation of Iraqi transportation, sanitation and power facilities, and the ``outbreak of diseases in epidemic if not pandemic proportions.'' The document also predicted a flow of up to 900,000 refugees.

War will not be as easy as the administration would like us to believe. It may well turn into the first great humanitarian catastrophe of the 21st century.

The debate giving the President authority to use force against Iraq occurred over 3 months ago. Since then, circumstances have changed so significantly that Congress

must consider the issue of war and peace again.

The administration is also not adequately considering the massive political commitment that will be required to Iraq's long-term reconstruction. If we wage this war without allies, the United States will assume a massive and lonely responsibility to rebuild Iraq, preserve its territorial integrity and prevent chaos. Going to war alone will impose massive new responsibilities that could extend for years, if not decades.

The Senate debated giving the President authority to use force against Iraq over three months ago. Since then, circumstances have changed so significantly that Congress must consider the issue of war and peace again.

Since our debate last fall, we have finally implemented, with our allies, an active process to verify Iraq's disarmament. That process is working and should be allowed to continue. We must help this process along and give persuasive intelligence information to U.N. weapons inspectors.

It is possible that the inspections process will fail or that new evidence will be uncovered about the threat from Saddam Hussein. But under the current conditions, I continue to believe that this is the wrong war at the wrong time.

If we rush to pull the trigger against Iraq, we will invite catastrophe and condemnation. America, which has long been a beacon of freedom for people around the world, will turn into a symbol of brute force and aggression. The world may come to see us as a dangerous rogue state, needing to be contained and deterred. This is not the America that Abraham Lincoln called ``the last, best hope of mankind.'' War now would be alien to our values, contrary to our interests, and must not be waged.

Mr. President, I rise today to express my deep concerns that we are not as prepared as we should be for the consequences of a war with Iraq.

I have complete confidence in the ability of our armed services to defeat Iraq. We have a superb military which is, without a doubt, the most effective and most professional fighting force ever fielded in the history of mankind.

We can all be proud of our dedicated military men and women. It is their dedication and willingness to risk their lives in the service of their country that places a special responsibility on our shoulders. Our responsibility is to ensure that their service is not expended in the vain pursuit of ill-defined objectives and that our national security is truly enhanced.

In my capacity as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I meet with many of our field commanders. Prior to our debate last session on H.J. Res. 114 concerning war with Iraq, I met with one of our senior commanders just returned from the war against terrorism. He told me ``keep asking the hard questions'' about the consequences of committing American troops to a war on Iraq. I have heeded his advice, and it is the reason I stand today to discuss the consequences of war on Iraq.

I am concerned that we are not sufficiently prepared either materially or psychologically for a protracted occupation of Iraqi territory, nor are we sufficiently well prepared domestically for possible terrorist attacks on American soil.

My constituents ask me why the President has chosen to fight Iraq at this time or what his objective is in so doing. I do not have a good answer for them because the President has yet to provide one.

Certainly it is true that Saddam Hussein has resisted and ignored over the past 12 years United Nations resolutions calling for Iraqi disarmament of its weapons of mass destruction. Certainly it is true that Saddam Hussein has oppressed the Iraqi people and carried out terrible attacks against the Kurds and Shia tribes of Southern Iraq. Certainly it is true that Saddam Hussein has paid only grudging lipservice to recent efforts by the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission, UNMOVIC, to discover and eliminate Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.

However, none of those issues justifies going to war now if we are unprepared for the consequences of war and if we do not have a clear exit strategy for getting out of Iraq. It would be far better to take the time to ensure that we are prepared for both the consequences at home and abroad before sending our superb military into combat in a distant land.

The reasons for war have increased in number and difficulty as we build up our forces in the gulf. At first, the President asserted that war was to end Saddam Hussein's program for developing weapons of mass destruction. More recently, the President has added that our objective is to ``help the Iraqi people rebuild their economy, and create the institutions of liberty in a unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors.'' The President argues for war because he believes that ``success in Iraq could also begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace, and set in motion progress towards a truly democratic Palestinian state.'' Mission creep is already occurring, and the mission has not begun.

In February testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, retired General Anthony C. Zinni asked, ``do we want to transform Iraq or just transition it out from under the unacceptable regime [. . . .]'' and he added, ``defining the problem, however, is only half the task. The other half deals with how you solve the problem. I have not seen a lot of specifics in this area.''

The mission of an American occupation to establish a democratic Iraq is well-meaning but difficult to implement. Indeed, as I read testimony and speeches by administration officials, I am struck by how many new objectives are being added to our mission: for example, establish the rule of law and an independent judiciary; create a free enterprise system; end weapons of mass destruction programs; make an American ally; create a bulwark against terrorism; forge a secular and democratic state; reform the educational system; and develop a free press. These are extremely ambitious programs for a country that has little, if any, historical experience and no recent experiences in any of these conditions. Perhaps we should be bringing democracy to our allies in the region.

A well-defined objective is crucial for a mission's success. Will the objective be a discrete military mission: seek and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, or an open-ended goal to bring democracy to a country that has no experience in democracy? The administration now indicates that both goals are intertwined: to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction we must create a democracy in Iraq. Perhaps that is the case. But the opposite is also possible: a democratic Iraq responsive to the will of the Iraqi people, continuing to share borders with countries traditionally hostile to Iraq--including Iran which we have learned this week is well on its way to developing nuclear weapons--may feel compelled to restart its weapons of mass destruction program out of self-preservation.

Let us be clear: we can take weapons away from Iraqi leaders but we cannot erase the knowledge of how to make those weapons from the minds of Iraqi scientists. That capability will always remain. Weapons scientists and engineers will not unlearn what they have learned. To make another Iraqi WMD program impossible, we need to develop solid support for an international regime with enforcement mechanisms to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the means to deploy them.

Unfortunately, the President's rush to war is undermining the very international consensus we need to forge to prevent proliferation.

International cooperation is essential both in the short term and in the long term. In the short term, it is essential for our goal of ending the threat from Iraq. A stable international coalition is the basis for managing any future crisis. In the long term, it is essential to prevent the spread and use of weapons of mass destruction.

The administration insists that all it needs is a ``coalition of the willing'' to go to war. That may be true for war, but will there be a coalition to pay the costs of an indefinite occupation of Iraq? Without international support, the United States will pay the direct cost for our military presence and reconstruction. Our struggling economy will also pay an indirect cost adding to our sky-high deficit. Already it looks more like a coalition for war of the compensated than a coalition of the willing.

I believe we are not ready for the cost of such an occupation both in terms of money and our military.

When the British conquered Iraq in 1917, the British military commander, Lieutenant General Sir Stanley Maude, said ``our armies do not come into your cities and lands as conquerors or enemies but as liberators.'' When the British departed Baghdad in the 1930s, Sir Kinahan Cornwallis observed, ``my own prediction is that they will all fly at each other's throats and that there will be a bad slump in the administration which will continue until someone strong enough to dominate the country emerges, or alternatively, until we have to step in and intervene.''

We should heed history before we attempt to make a future. The danger is that the war will end in a few weeks while crisis endures for a long time.

Just recently, the administration announced a $900 million contract for postwar Iraqi reconstruction. This is just a small down payment on what people in and outside the Government estimate may amount to over $100 billion, not including the cost of maintaining a long-term American troop presence in Iraq. A military presence will cost additional billions and tie down American forces, affecting training, rotation cycles, and recruitment of

our entire military. The cost will be borne largely by the American taxpayer unlike the first gulf war which saw Saudi Arabia and Germany contribute 44 percent of the operation.

Some suggest that Iraqi oil exports will pay for the occupation force and reconstruction efforts. But a recent study by the Council of Foreign Relations warns not to expect such a ``bonanza.'' The Iraqi oil industry is estimated to need $5 billion in investment and 3 years just to return to pre-1990 production levels, and Iraq is already carrying an external debt burden of $300 billion.

If, as some experts predict, our forces confront ethnic, tribal, and religious in-fighting and are besieged by terrorist attacks emboldened by pan-Islamic hostility to the American occupation, we may need a much larger force than the current 45,000 to 75,000 under review by the Pentagon. No doubt, as in the first gulf war, there will be score settling among Iraqis with vigilante justice and possibly open warfare. Many are predicting that Kurdish refugees expelled in 1968 from their homes in Kirkuk will pour back into this center of Iraqi oil wealth, bringing with them the possibility of war with Turkey seeking to protect Turkmen minority interests.

The Pentagon is reported to be planning on a 2-year military occupation of Iraq under a military governor that may be expanded to 5 years. Ironically, one of the first things this governor general will have to do is to rebuild the Iraqi military with professional training and new weapons. Time magazine reports that the Pentagon has ``only a rudimentary plan for rehabilitating the bulk of the [Iraqi] Army.'' But it is clear that we cannot demobilize over 400,000 Iraqi troops without adding to the problems in the civilian sector.

We are just beginning to plan for all these postwar problems. On February 11, 2003, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith announced that the President ``has directed his administration to begin planning now'' for reconstruction and testified that the administration was still ``conceptualizing'' peace. Now is too late for a war that may start this month. The Defense Department's Office of Reconstruction was opened only on January 20, 2003. Time magazine reported on March 2 that ``at this late hour, the Administration is not very ready for the peace.''

As Middle East expert Anthony Cordesman warned in testimony before the Foreign Relations Committee on February 7, 2003, ``we are rushing planning efforts without making adequate efforts to make up for our lack of knowledge. As a result, planners both outside and inside the U.S. government may end in doing more harm than good. . . .''

President Bush has stated that ``we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary and not a day more.'' I appreciate his candor, but I am deeply disturbed by such an open-ended commitment to deploying American troops. We may wear out our welcome long before we have accomplished the democratic transformation of the Middle East envisioned by the President.

I am also concerned over the lack of preparation at home for the possibility of terrorist attacks. Even the President is dissatisfied with the counterterrorism budget passed for this fiscal year. I am dissatisfied that we have not done more during the past 2 years. As chairman of the Governmental Affairs International Security Subcommittee, I began holding hearings on our preparedness against terrorist attacks in July 2001. I have continued to press for reform of our national and local preparedness. I agree with the President that the budget for this fiscal year was too small. We have done too little to defend ourselves against attack.

I am disturbed by the letter from FBI Special Agent Colleen Rowley to FBI Director Robert Mueller indicating that the FBI would not be able to ``stem the flood of terrorism that will likely head our way in the wake of an attack on Iraq.'' Last month the FBI issued a warning that ``lone extremists represent an ongoing terrorist threat in the United States.'' Certainly, steps have been taken to improve our law enforcement capability, but I believe much more needs to be done before we are as prepared as we should be. The President acknowledged as much when he announced in his State of the Union Address his intent to create by May 1 a new Terrorist Threat Integration Center. This Center is at least 3 years away from being fully staffed according to administration plans.

In other areas we are also behind. The Transportation Security Administration has just begun to assess the vulnerabilities of American airports to terrorist attack, especially from shoulder-launched missiles--that task force was set up after the deadly November 28 attack against an Israeli airline in Kenya. The President's plan to immunize 500,000 health care workers against smallpox in 30 days has only inoculated 4,200 and is draining money and personnel from other programs in State and local public health departments.

Many State and local law enforcement officials have yet to receive federal security clearances so that they can receive information about potential terrorist attacks. Our emergency health care system is already stressed to the breaking point as hundreds of emergency departments have been closed due to budgetary constraints even as the number of patient visits has increased. Few of the respirators operated by local firefighters and other first responder rescue teams were found to be effective against poison gas. Many reservists in our first responder units have been called to active military duty, depleting critical services at home.

The list of problems is endless. The ability to solve these problems is limited by time and by money. The bottom line is that we have a lot to do and a long way to go before we are as ready at home for war as we are for waging war far away.

If war does come, both in Iraq and here at home, we will all support our troops and do the best we can to confront the problems here. I believe that the security of all Americans would be better served by taking the time to be better prepared. Allowing United Nations inspectors to do their work in Iraq will deplete the number of weapons Saddam Hussein might aim at our troops--already 46 Al Samoud missiles have been destroyed--and build international support for resolving the Iraq crisis. We will have not only a coalition of the willing but a coalition of the strong.

If we pursue our current path, we will have a war lacking in many things essential to achieving complete success. It will be a war without broad international support, without sufficient planning for postconflict reconstruction and stability, without a definite exit time and strategy, and without a firm pricetag. Moreover, it will be a war with serious ramifications for our long-term readiness capabilities for homeland security and for managing other crises.

I ask for a point of clarification. I was waiting in the queue. I have no objection to the Senator from Arizona going first. I ask unanimous consent that directly following Senator McCain, I be granted a privilege of the floor for 20 minutes.

Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Arizona for his comments. He certainly is one who does know about war, and I believe he also believes that war should be a last resort.

I also thank the distinguished Senators from West Virginia and from Massachusetts for introducing this legislation which I have decided to be a cosponsor. Because of my support for the resolution which gave the President authorization for use of force, I felt I probably should come to the floor and explain my rationale for supporting the resolution offered by the Senator from West Virginia.

Essentially, Hans Blix's report Monday to the Security Council made it clear that, although there has been progress, Iraq is not fully living up to its obligations, nor is it fully cooperating. Then the President, in last night's State of the Union Message, made clear, I think, some outstanding questions.

The first question is: What has Iraq done with 500 tons of Sarin, mustard gas precursor chemicals, and VX nerve agents? That tonnage is missing. It has not been declared. It has not been revealed or has not been found.

The second question is: What has really happened to the 8,500 liters of anthrax which Iraq has stated it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991? But it cannot document that.

And third, what of the 650 kilograms of bacterial growth media? Those are critical items.

These are key and serious issues the answers to which clearly provide the evidence as to whether Iraq possesses chemical and biological weapons.

The fourth item is the U-2 plane. The United Nations, as we all know, has access to a U-2 plane to gather intelligence. However, Iraq has refused to provide it safe overflight. This remains another issue of major non-cooperation.

So the administration is correct in saying that Iraq needs to be immediately forthcoming and immediately cooperative with the inspectors. These issues need to be resolved. These are mega issues from anyone's point of view.

As long as the inspectors believe there is sufficient access and as long as Iraq has said, specifically Tariq Aziz, that Iraq will even offer greater cooperation, I would say there ought to be a period of time where Iraq provides to the world and to the inspectors, the answers to these questions. I think it is vital.

If Iraq is found to pose an imminent threat to the United States, then clearly we have to take action--with others I hope, if we can. But right now that is not the case. If, indeed, after consultations with the Security Council, the administration has clear evidence that Iraq is continuing an illegal program to produce chemical and biological weapons, or nuclear weapons, or possesses these weapons, the time has really come to make it public.

What the President did, in my view, was present very clearly, not only to the Congress of the United States but to the entire world, significant questions that need to be immediately addressed. Iraq must, in fact, step up to the plate.

The reason I believe this resolution--which essentially asks for time for inspections to continue, essentially urges a second vote at the Security Council--is right is because I believe this situation must stand on its own. The degree of threat and the degree of violation must be separately evaluated. But it is also part of a much bigger scenario and I want to spend time discussing that scenario here today.

I believe America's national security policy stands at a crossroads. I believe in the wake of 9/11, last year was fundamental in terms of the administration's articulation of what constitutes, to my mind, a brand new approach to foreign policy by the United States. Within about 8 months last year, the administration put out three separate documents. One of them was the National Security Strategy. The second was the Nuclear Posture Review. The third was the Doctrine of Preemption as represented in the President's speech at West Point.

Although individually each may appear innocuous, taken together these

documents are revolutionary. They posit a world in which the exercise of U.S. military power is the central organizing principle for international affairs in this new century. These documents, in fact, put forward a litany of ways in which the United States will make military activism and adventurism the basic tool for pursuing national security.

First, the National Security Strategy quite pointedly moves the United States away from the concept of deterrence and, to a great extent, substitutes preemption in its place.

Secondly, the administration's Nuclear Posture Review is extraordinarily provocative and dangerous. It blurs the line between the use of conventional and nuclear weapons. It suggests that certain events might compel the United States to use nuclear weapons first, even against non-nuclear states. And it calls for the development of a new generation of United States nuclear warheads, including ``mini- nukes.''

As was well documented in the press last year, the Review also discusses contingencies in which nuclear weapons might be used, including--and I quote--``a North Korean attack on South Korea or a military confrontation over the status of Taiwan'' in which our adversaries do not necessarily use nuclear weapons first.

The Review also addresses contingencies in which the United States might use nuclear weapons not in retaliation to a nuclear strike on the United States but to destroy enemy stocks of chemical or biological arms.

Karl Rove was specifically asked that question on television on Sunday, and he did not answer the question.

This Review also states that in setting requirements for nuclear strike capabilities, distinctions can be made among immediate, potential or unexpected contingencies, and that North Korea, Iraq, Iran, Syria and Libya are among the countries that could be involved in these immediate, potential or unexpected contingencies.

That is what makes what is being suggested here in Iraq--if you look at it, in its total expression--so troubling.

The fact of the matter is that several of the nations cited in the Nuclear Posture Review's contingencies lack nuclear weapons. Using nuclear weapons against them would be constitute first use. Under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the United States has agreed not to use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state unless that country attacks the United States ``in alliance with a nuclear weapons state.''

And finally, the doctrine of Preemption--which we may be seeing for the time with Iraq--asserts a unilateral right for the United States to preempt a threat against our Nation's security.

The doctrine says:

[T]he United States can no longer solely rely on a reactive

posture as we have in the past. . . . We cannot let our

enemies strike first.

Further on:

The greater the threat, the greater the risk of inaction--

and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory

action to defend ourselves.

Taken at face value, this means the United States holds for itself the right to strike against another sovereign nation--wage war, if you will--even in the absence of a clear and present danger, an immediate threat or provocative action, but based solely on the perception of a sufficient threat.

I deeply believe the administration's course in these areas stands in contrast to the successful bipartisan tradition of supporting a world ordered by law, with capable international institutions and reciprocal restraints on action.

But the administration's emphasis on unilateral action, its dismissal of international law, treaties, and institutions, and its apparent focus on the military, especially as documented in the National Security Strategy, the doctrine of Preemption and the Nuclear Posture Review, have created widespread resentment in the international community.

I believe that these documents are the clearest statements in writing of the administration's long-term intentions, and I find them questionable and seriously disturbing.

I must also tell you that Secretary Powell essentially said to me: Well, the Nuclear Posture Review really isn't operative. But, nonetheless, that is a doctrine that was released. It is serious in its ramifications. And the way this relates to Iraq is Iraq may be the first test case. If there are chemical and biological weapons--and there very well might be--does this then justify the use of a nuclear weapon to destroy them? The Nuclear Posture Review puts this on the table as an option. I think we need to know.

So I ask these questions because I think they must be asked. And this is as good a time as any.

If we are going to depend on the might of the sword to right wrongs, and in so doing risk committing our own wrongs, how are we better off?

Coalitions, alliances, treaties, peacekeepers, inspection regimes-- all can and have been successful instruments in deterring adversaries, safeguarding American lives and U.S. security interests, and in resolving disputes, conflicts, and crises.

So, Madam President, I remind this body that since World War II, there has been strong bipartisan support of a United States which has embraced international cooperation, not out of vulnerability or weakness but from a position of strength.

House Joint Resolution 114, which I supported, and which authorizes the use of force against Iraq, specifically calls for a Presidential determination, that--and I quote--``reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.''

That finding, that determination, required by our resolution--for which 77 of us voted--has not yet been made. The evidence has not yet been laid out. The conclusions have not yet been drawn.

What happened to the missing anthrax, the missing botulinum toxin, the missing VX nerve agent, the missing precursor chemicals, has not yet been determined. So that is why I come to the floor to say that it is critical that Iraq fully cooperate. It is critical that the inspectors be allowed to continue.

If Iraq does not come clean, if Iraq does not submit the documentation as to the disposition of these chemicals and biological agents, then a legitimate conclusion can be drawn. But the reason I believe arms inspections must be given a chance to succeed and must continue is that I believe Iraq is just one small part of a larger sea- change in U.S. national security policy. It is a small part of the doctrine of Preemption, in which we move against a perceived or real threat. It is a small part of the Nuclear Posture Review, which says the United States would countenance the use of nuclear weapons against hard and deeply buried targets or biological or chemical weapons.

So I believe that restraint is the proper course. It means that diplomacy is a prudent course, and it means that if international law-- if international bodies are to have any relevance in this new millennium--then the Security Council itself must respond.

It is my deep belief that in the long run a foreign policy oriented toward cooperation and consultation will prove to be a more effective guarantor of U.S. national security than one of unilateral impulse and confrontation.

Let us remember that we are currently engaged in a war on terror. It is a war that, if we are to win it, will require the cooperation of our friends and allies.

There is no doubt in my mind that if the United States acts precipitously against Iraq, Taliban and al-Qaida fighters in the hinterland of Afghanistan are gathering today and are prepared to strike against our forces there and against the government of Hamid Karzai.

And let us recall that beyond Iraq, there are a host of other challenges--the situation in the Middle East, the nuclear crisis on the Korean peninsula--that require international cooperation and action. So I am deeply concerned that if we are not careful in our approach to Iraq, if we do not present a just case, if we do not build an international coalition, we may well precipitate the very events we are trying to prevent. For example, a preemptive unilateral attack against a Muslim nation may well create a divide between the United States and the Muslim world so deep and so wide that it

will bring with it negative consequences for decades, and unforeseen ones.

I deeply believe that if Iraq is in possession of weapons of mass destruction, it poses a real threat to the entire international community; and there is no doubt, as the President pointed out, that Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator.

But at this point I believe it would be a tremendous mistake for the United States to unilaterally attack Iraq, and I urge the administration to go slow, let the inspectors do their work, and build that international coalition. War should be a last resort, not a foregone conclusion.

Madam President, I yield the floor.