|
|
|
Source: Congressional Record, pp. S10301-10303. [Page: S10301] GPO's PDF Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I am honored to be part of this historic debate. Before I get into the substance of my remarks, I thank all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their excellent debate. I have listened to a great deal of it. This is how the Senate ought to work and ought to be. This is a fine day for the Senate. Today we are faced with the most solemn decision a lawmaker can make: whether or not to authorize the use of military force. I approach this decision with caution, deliberation, and seriousness. As is our tradition, there has been a great debate on this issue over the last 2 months. We have discussed multiple strategies for dealing with Saddam Hussein, and advanced many arguments for and against the use of military force. Some of these remain under consideration, others have been wisely tabled. For example, the President's original plan of not consulting Congress or the United Nations has thankfully been abandoned. In considering our next step, I have spent considerable time listening to experts, attending briefings, talking with constituents, and even praying to arrive at a sound conclusion. I believe that there are two points--one on each side, standing in equipoise--that focus my attention, and that embody the tension felt by all of us. On the one hand, going to war is the most serious, even awesome decision--awesome in the biblical sense of angels trembling before God--that a lawmaker is called on to make. Invasion means that thousands of our sons and daughters, the flowers of their generation, will be put in immediate harm's way should we invade. I have an 18-year-old daughter, who along with her sister is the joy of my life. When I think of thousands of young people her age who have volunteered to serve, and of the previous generations of Americans who have willingly laid down their lives in past wars, and to whom we are eternally grateful, I am filled with awe and dread. Poised against the solemnity of war is the fact that a major, if not the primary function of government is to secure the safety of its people--to protect the citizenry from threats, both foreign and domestic. Discharging this responsibility is the very essence of a state and, if a real danger exists, the government has a [Page: S10302] GPO's PDF solemn obligation to protect its citizenry.These two looming issues push and pull against one another and yield the ultimate question we debate today` Does Saddam Hussein threaten the citizenry of America to the point that we must now consider the unthinkable option of authorizing war in order to protect ourselves? Saddam Hussein is an evil man, a dictator who oppresses his people and flouts the mandate of the international community. While this behavior is reprehensible, it is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and potential future support for terrorist acts and organizations, that make him a terrible danger to the people to the United States. If our other efforts to thwart the threat posed by Hussein do not work, is war justified? If justified, how long can we leave Hussein alone before we need to act? The struggle for these answers come in a brand new context. Our's is a brave new post 9/11 world, a time and place where things are different and more dangerous than before, much as we wish they weren't. Those who would use terror--or those who would aid and abet that terror--pose a new danger to every one of us living in the United States, whether in midtown Manhattan or the wheat fields of Kansas. I have seen firsthand the devastation that comes from being unprepared and unprotected. On September 12, I peered into the dark and smoky crater at the World Trade Center with horror, an image that still burns in my memory. I have met with the families of victims and heard about their losses, and shed tears over the evil and mendacity of our enemies. I know it is my solemn obligation to do everything I can to ensure that my city, State, and country never again endure such an atrocity. Yet, at the same time, I know that war must be our last resort. When I consider that Hussein could either use or give to terrorists weapons of mass destruction--biological, chemical or nuclear--and that he might just be made enough to do it--I find, after careful research, the answer to my question: we cannot afford to leave him alone over the next 5 or even 3 years. I say this with caution and worry. But I have searched my mind and my soul and cannot escape this conclusion: Saddam Hussein left unfettered will at some point create such a danger to our lives that we cannot afford to leave him be. In the post 9/11 world, inaction is not an option: at some point, Hussein must be de-fanged. The question is how and when? Do we mobilize our military for battle? Do we take pains to ensure that other possible options are exhausted first? I say yes to both--proceed on parallel tracks: prepared for the worst and work toward, and pray for, the best; empower the President to act to protect our national security but hope it will not be necessary. Let me first address the question of how by making three points. One, we must certainly try less costly, less ultimate options before we choose the last resort, war. Our first option must be working with our allies at the United Nations to secure a strict resolution that will compel Saddam Hussein to disarm and submit to unlimited and unrestricted inspections. The administration believes a unified Congress that authorizes the President to wage war will importune the United Nations to take the kind of vigorous and unified action that has eluded that body for the last 11 years: real inspections, real sanctions, real threats of military force. I hope and pray they are right. Let me repeat: inspections and sanctions backed by the threat of military force. These must come first. These are the reasons to favor this resolution. And if after exhausting these options, Saddam Hussein remains a threat, I believe other nations will support and follow us as we pursue the last option, war. Working cooperatively with our allies in the United Nations must be a paramount priority for us all. We need their help not simply to force effective disarmament in Iraq ; they are also key players in an historic fight--the war on terror. They provide us with intelligence to protect ourselves from future attack; they permit us to pursue our enemies in foreign lands so that our foes know that they have no haven from justice; and they cooperate to help us choke off terrorists' financial support. Without their help and co-operation, the war on terror would be much more difficult to wage. Therefore, their support for our efforts on Iraq is essential for our safety as a nation. This new resolution puts far more emphasis on international cooperation first and is a substantial improvement over what the President originally proposed. Unfortunately, time and again, Hussein has shown that the only language he understands is the language of power. By empowering the President to use force, we will send a message to both Hussein and the nations of the world that the threat of force is real and that we are serious about disarming him. Without this possibility, Hussein will never allow inspections, and the probability of more terror and horror will increase. A determined U.N., backed by the possibility of force, may finally convince Saddam Hussein to submit to the real inspections he has evaded for the last 11 years. Second, should we go to war, the President must see to it that we don't lose vigilance in other aspects of the war on terror, apart form Iraq , both abroad and at home. Al-Qaida and other groups will continue to target our citizens; we must not let down our guard. Countries like Syria and Iran will continue to aid and abet terrorists; we must keep a watchful eye. The President and the Secretary of Defense have assured us that, if war become necessary, our military can launch a successful invasion of Iraq without compromising these efforts. In addition, if there is a war in Iraq , we must not let it diminish our efforts to make our homeland more secure--our airports, sea ports, rail lines, nuclear facilities, and our communications infrastructure all remain unacceptably vulnerable. I have been quite critical of the administration on this point and again urge them to refocus their efforts. We are about to spend billions of dollars to reduce threats abroad; we should spend a similar amount to safeguard ourselves at home. Third, the President must begin to pay attention to our economy. Up to this point, he has failed to do so. The American people are particularly nervous about our economic future and the prospect of war only deepens these fears. The President and Congress must address this issue immediately. People must have secure, family-supporting jobs, access to quality health care, and the ability to pay for necessities like college tuition and prescription drugs. Our epoque of prosperity has quickly given way to an era of uncertainty. I believe we can reverse that trend. Our Nation is big enough and strong enough to secure our safety abroad and increase our prosperity at home. I urge the President to pay equal attention to both causes, which he has not done up to now. As I have discussed, I believe at some point we will have to confront Saddam Hussein. We should coordinate with our allies in the United Nations; maintain focus on terrorist threats at home and abroad; and make a concerted effort to revive our economy. That is how our Government can secure the safety of its people. The second question is when to act. Evidence suggests that we probably have some time before the growing threat posed by Saddam Hussein would require military action. If I were President, I would not go to war now. My next step would be, as ours must be, to explore fully the compelling force of a determined United Nations. Given the President's recent statements of support for action through the U.N.; if he were to invade Iraq now after passage of the resolution, he would have completely misled Congress and the American people. As he said in Cincinnati on Monday. Approving this resolution does not mean that military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations, and all nations, that America speaks with one voice and it is determined to make demands of the civilized world mean something. [Page: S10303] GPO's PDF I will, therefore, take the President at his word and do my very best to hold him to it. I realize the resolution before us would allow the President to act sooner than that. If I had drafted the resolution, it would surely have been different. However, if each of us insisted on our own resolution, we would have 535 resolutions, each with one vote, no concensus--only paralysis. In our post 9/11 world, there are no good choices, only less bad ones. As we move toward final passage, the choice before us is this resolution--imperfect as it is--or none at all. Saddam Hussein, his pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and the will he has shown to use them, makes the non-at-all option unacceptable. So I will vote for this resolution. More than anything else we can do, this resolution will show Hussein and nay naysayers in the United Nations that we are serious about this war on terrorism. We understand the challenges of this brave new world and we are prepared to meet them. We do not want to send our sons and daughters to war, yet we can never again find ourselves unprepared: the risks are far too great. Certainly action--any type of action--poses real danger and must be taken with great caution and concern. But sometimes doing nothing is riskier than acting. This is one of those moments. Therefore, I will cautiously cast my vote for the Lieberman resolution. I pray that we shall not have to use the awesome authority it grants. I yield back the remainder of my time. |
|
|
