As we consider the President's 2004 defense budget request, we should give careful attention to the excellent insights offered by Dr. Cambone.
In his September 1999 speech at the Citadel, then-candidate George Bush declared that, if elected, he would seize on an opportunity created by what he called a ``revolution in the technology of war.'' As a result of that revolution, he said, power ``is increasingly defined not by mass or size but by mobility and swiftness. Influence is measured in information, safety is gained in stealth, and force is projected on the long arc of precision-guided weapons. This revolution perfectly matches the
strength of our country, the skill of our people, and the superiority of our technology. The best way to keep the peace,'' he said, ``is to redefine war on our terms.''
The President went on to sketch his vision of the armed forces. He said, ``Our forces in the next century must be agile, lethal, readily deployable, and require a minimum of logistical support. We must be able to project our power over long distances, in days and weeks, rather than months. Our military must be able to identify targets by a variety of means, from a Marine patrol on the ground to a satellite in space, and then it must be able to destroy those targets almost instantly with an array
of weapons from the submarine-launched cruise missile to mobile long-range artillery.''
``Our land forces,'' he said, ``must be lighter, our light forces must be more lethal, and all must be easier to deploy. And, these forces must be organized in smaller, more agile formations, than cumbersome divisions.'' ``On the seas, we need to pursue promising ideas . . . to destroy targets from great distances.'' ``In the air, we must be able to strike from across the world with pinpoint accuracy with long-range aircraft and perhaps with unmanned systems.'' ``In space, we must be able to
protect our network of satellites essential to our flow of commerce and defense of our country.''
As a way of underscoring his determination to bring about the transformation of the military forces of the United States, the President reminded the audience of another time of what he called ``rapid change and momentous choices.'' ``In the late 1930s, as Britain refused to adapt to the new realities of war, Winston Churchill observed, `The era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedience, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences.'
''
Well, that period of consequences arrived here in this city just two years later, on September 11, 2001. The remainder of this talk will focus on how we have answered the call laid down by the President during his candidacy. Let me sum them up: He asked us to do three things. He asked us to assure the well-being of the men and women in uniform and the civilians who work for the Department. He asked us to provide the means to them to defeat today's threats. He asked us to take on the transformation
of the defense establishment to meet the challenges of the future. Before I take on each in turn, that is to say, what we've done for our people, how we've met today's challenges, and what we are doing for the future, let me take a moment to tell you what we think transformation is, and what it is not.
What it is, we think, is a continuing effort over time. It is not a static objective in time. So, if you are looking to judge this transformational process or the progress that we have made, and you try to pin it to a certain place in a certain time and use a static measure, you will be disappointed and probably mislead yourself and others.
Secondly, it is a change in culture. A change in culture that is reflected in what we do, how we do it, and the means we choose to accomplish our objectives. I can't stress enough the importance of the change in culture that comes with the transformation. Those of you who have watched various companies merge and come apart over the last decade or so will understand just how important changes in culture are to a transformational effort.
It's also about balancing risk. We have identified risk in four categories. The first area of risk has to do, not surprisingly, with our people. Are we keeping them in proper trim, as it were? Do they have the means to do their training; are they able to see their families; do they live in decent housing? Second, are we able to conduct operations today at a minimum of risk not, mind you, without risk, but at a minimum of risk, by assuring that our people are well positioned, well led, and have
the proper means to conduct operations? Third, have we made the investments that are necessary to prepare for the future? and lastly, our business practices; have we gone any way toward reforming them? It is our belief that those four categories of risk need to be properly balanced. We cannot over-invest in any one and expect to succeed in all.
Now, let me say a word about what we think transformation is not. It is not change for its own sake. Nor is it measured as a success or a failure on the basis of programs that have been cancelled, programs that have been completed, or programs that have begun. It is easy to keep score that way, and we will, in a few
minutes, talk about some of the programs that we have cancelled and programs that we have begun. But, again, that is not a very good scorecard of the progress of this transformational effort.
I call you back again to what transformation is. It's about culture, about what we do, how we do it, and the means we choose to accomplish those objectives. If you were going to develop a checklist to measure transformation, I offer you the following set of points. There are seven, and I'll give them to you in fairly quick order.
The first would be to look at the guidance that we have given both to our civilian and military personnel. Some of that guidance is available to you, for example, in the form of the National Security Strategy that has been published by the White House and the Quadrennial Defense Review that was published by the Department of Defense. Others are not available to you--except when they're leaked to the newspapers--for example:
The Nuclear Posture Review, which reconfigured our nuclear forces, and allowed the President to take the steps to reduce the size of our nuclear offensive arsenal and to incorporate into our future strategic force conventional weapons as well as nuclear weapons. The Contingency Planning Guidance, which is given to our combatant commanders and signed out by the President, and which directs combatant commanders to prepare plans for contingencies now and into the future that reflect the tenets of
the strategy that was laid down in the National Security Strategy and the Quadrennial Defense Review. But guidance is fine going back to my point about culture, however: Are we changing the culture? It is often changed by changes in organizations. And I have to tell you, we have changed organizations quite extensively within
the Department. We have done so with the aim of enabling what we call joint operations, i.e., the ability of our land, sea, air, and space forces to be combined under the control of a single combatant commander and used in ways that are most appropriate to achieving the objectives of the campaign that he has laid out.
We have changed the structure of our commands: We have added a combatant command for the United States called Northern Command. It ``stood up'' just recently. We have merged our Space Command and the old Strategic Command into a new command designed to make use of the new instruments of strategic power. We have changed the mission of our Special Operations Command. We have undertaken changes to our organization in the office of the Secretary of Defense. The Army, the Navy, the Air Force--each
of them has restructured their staffs and their functions.
Third, I said we were interested in joint operations. Well, it turns out the Department
[Page: E292] GPO's PDF
of Defense does not have a joint concept to guide the conduct of joint operations. What we have are concepts that have been generated by each of the services about how they would prefer to fight. We have, however, no overarching concept for the employment of the joint force. So we have, indeed, set about that task. I would expect by springtime, probably early summer,
that we will, indeed, have a joint operational concept that will begin to frame for our services how they ought to go about the task they have under Title X--to man, train, and equip the armed forces of the United States.
But the services--the fourth point of the seven--have not been lagging behind. If, for example, you look at what the Navy is proposing, what the Army is proposing, what the Air Force and the Marines are proposing, you will see their effort to begin transforming their own service and to make it friendly to the joint operational environment. But it's not enough to say we want to fight joint, we have to train joint, so we have taken steps to put in place a substantial amount of funding to enable
joint training, and we will do it for the most part in a virtual environment, but this will be an enormous step in the direction toward joint operations.
What about our investments? Investment is made up of a combination of RDT&E--research, development, test and evaluation--coupled to what we procure. We will talk in a few minutes about that investment, but I do believe that, if you look at it, you will begin to notice that it is favoring the enabling of joint warfare. So, as we look through our choices during the course of our just-completed program review, we constantly came back to the same question: What will this investment do for joint warfighting?
Lastly, processes and practices within the Department of Defense. Under Secretary Wynne and Dr. Zakheim, both of whom have spoken to you, and others are working very hard to alter the manner in which we do our business. This will be the most transforming thing the Department of Defense can do. We can spend a great deal of time on any of these seven points, but let me ask you to bear in mind a summary point that arises out of them: Because we do not know who our adversaries may be either in the
near term or the long term; or how they may choose to fight; but because we do know that modern technology is available to our adversaries or potential adversaries, as readily as it is available to us; and because we know that as a democratic society we are vulnerable to attack: We decided to pursue our strategy for transformation in a
way that would provide our combatant commanders with what we are calling a portfolio of capabilities. We have tried to avoid the point solution to any particular problem. We are looking to equip them with a portfolio of capabilities with which that combatant commander can conduct joint operations. The reason I mention this to you is that, as you begin to review the budget programs and think your way through what that means, you've got to keep coming back to the question: Has the Department chosen
the right set of capabilities to support joint operations?
Next, let me outline what those capabilities and joint operations are intended to provide. Let me tick off a list of six points for you that we think are the appropriate characteristics by which to measure these capabilities. First, does it permit the force to rapidly transition from its steady state peacetime garrison its training its presence mission does it allow it to transition rapidly into combat operations? Second, do we have a set of capabilities that will provide timely and wide-ranging
effects applied to targets throughout the full depth--the full depth--of an adversary's battle space? Third, can we apply those effects to both fixed and mobile targets? Fixed targets are a delight; they sort of stay right where you always thought they were.
It's the ones that move around that vex us all, and it's very, very difficult trying to track and attack those targets. Fourth, does it provide us the kind of persistent surveillance we're going to need especially for the purposes of tracking mobile targets.
Let me digress here for a moment. The difficulties we see in the efforts to gain intelligence is a function of how hard it is to gain that intelligence. If one has only a periodic view of events, it is difficult to collect and stitch that information together. To the extent that we are able to provide a persistent level of surveillance for our combatant commanders, they will be able to make their plans with a great deal more knowledge and information than they have today. We must continue to
dominate the air, we need to learn how to operate from sea bases, and we need to improve our ground maneuverability. Fifth, the above capabilities need to allow us, as well, to hold at risk an adversary's command and control network as well as his weapons of mass destruction. Sixth and last, but not least by any means, they are capabilities that we must have in order to be able to force any fight in which we find ourselves to a rapid conclusion.
That concludes the top-level chapeau of what we're trying to do and why. Let me turn to our program proposals. I'll begin with the most important resource that we have, which is our people. We have, since 2001, made a substantial effort to increase the pay and benefits of our troops. We have, in fact, gone farther than others might have thought. We have gone to a targeted pay raise for our senior enlisted and mid-career officers to ensure that we keep the talent that we need and develop the skill
sets that a military 10 and 15 years from now is going to require. We have also managed to reduce to near-elimination within two years the kinds of out-of-pocket expenses that our personnel have to pay for their housing when they live on the economy. In terms of housing on bases, we will have eliminated
most of (the substandard) housing by 2007, and we will have privatized a lot of that housing, particularly with respect to the Navy and Army. And, as I said, we have gone a long way toward providing the kind of joint, national training that we think our people are going to need in the years to come.
In addition to our people, we need a firm foundation, a solid foundation, in what we call our operations and support activities and in the infrastructure that is part of the Defense establishment. Toward that end, we have included in the proposal that we sent to the President, and that he will send on to Capitol Hill, a great deal of additional monies over this program period designed to support our operations and maintenance budgets. We did this for a very good and sound reason. Over the years,
what has happened is that funds for operations and maintenance, the daily upkeep of the force, has been systematically underfunded. The consequence of systematically underfunding it has been that, in the event, in any given year, when those bills begin to mount, the services went looking for dollars. Where that money came from traditionally
has been out of the investment account, that is, out of procurement and out of RDT&E. What we are looking to do is to stabilize the investment programs by funding the O&M accounts. That is a principled approach to what we are trying to do. So, the hope is that over time, those investments will be more stable than they have been in the past.
Investments. With respect to the investments, as I said, we have both RDT&E and procurement in the account.That account is up substantially, on average, over what was in the plan that we found when we arrived at the beginning of 2001. What is interesting about it is that, proportionally, we have increased the RDT&E accounts a bit more than we have the procurement accounts. There's a reason for that. One is that it signifies a certain leaning by the Department toward reducing the risks of having
inappropriate forces and equipment in future years.
It also reflects an approach toward funding some of our near-term efforts, particularly with respect to the Navy, which will fund the first ship of four new classes of ships that it intends to begin during the course of
this program. It will fund that first ship of each class out of its RDT&E accounts because in fact those ships are, indeed, experimental, from the point of view of the Navy. The services, in trying to meet the demands of transformation, have made some important decisions about shifting their resources. You will discover, for example, when looking at the Army's accounts, that: It will have moved roughly $20 billion out of programs it might have funded in its '02 program into different accounts.
It has, since 2002, terminated 24 systems, and it has reduced or restructured another 24. It has done so for two reasons: first, in order to be able to fund its highest priority for modernization.
Second, at the same time, the Army, over this coming program period, will shift something on the order of $13-14 billion into the development of its Future Combat System. That is, indeed, its transformational system. The Navy, from the period of 2002 until the end of this program period: will have retired 36 ships. Some of those ships could have been modernized. Service life extension programs could have been conducted for those ships. The Navy decided to retire them, take the savings, and invest
those savings into a number of new classes of ships. Those ship classes include a new littoral combat ship, a new cruiser, a new destroyer, a new helicopter-deck ship, and a new prepositioning ship, and it includes resources shifted to a new design for the next generation of aircraft carrier. The Air Force, for its part, has moved
something on the order of $20 billion in its budget. It has retired a number of older aircraft, it has done some internal consolidations of its squadrons. It has funded its highest priorities which are its readiness and people and, importantly, it has made commitments to a number of programs which I will discuss in a moment.
So, there is a great deal of work going on inside the Department in terms of reallocating resources. It's not simply a matter of having been afforded more money by Congress, but rather, we have taken steps to move dollars inside the accounts in the Department. Now, when we're done, what we think, is that that capabilities package that I talked about will enable us to better perform what we think are six of the most important operational goals for our force. Let me give them to you: First, we
have to defend what we call our bases of operation, that is to say, the United States, our people, our forces abroad, and our allies. We have to protect them not only against the kinds of attacks that occurred two years ago in New York and at the Pentagon, but also against missile strikes and other forms of offensive operations. We have to be able to project and sustain our forces abroad. Recalling the President's words, we need to be able to move quickly in order to bring the fight to a quick conclusion. Third, we need to be able to deny sanctuary to our adversary. This is where the issue of persistent surveillance, for example, comes into play. If we're trying
[Page: E293] GPO's PDF
to find terrorists
hiding in remote places, we have to have the ability to essentially sit on top of them and their activities and watch them and follow them as they go about their business. But having done that, we have to be able to attack an adversary no matter where they are and no matter how deep inside the land mass they may be or where they might be on the oceans or in the
air. Fourth; we have got to enhance our space capabilities. We are highly dependent upon space for both commercial and defense needs, and we will have made a substantial investment in enhancing those capabilities. Fifth, we need to do what is necessary to leverage our information advantage Last, we need to ensure that the information on the network is secure.
So, in making our investment set, let me tick off for you some of those which have probably gotten your attention for a variety of reasons. The first is missile defense. The President committed to bringing about a missile defense for the United States. We have invested quite heavily in the RDT&E program for missile defense. The President has decided that, beginning in 2004, we will begin to deploy a small number of interceptors inside a test bed arrangement that we have developed for the testing
of our land-based missile defense capabilities. Those interceptors will give us a modest capability against a small number of long-range ballistic missile warheads launched at the United States. That test bed is located on land, so the President has asked us as well to see if we couldn't put some missile defense interceptors aboard ship by about the 2004 time frame as well, and we have committed to doing so.
We have made a very large investment in transformational communications. What do I mean by that? It has three parts. We are committed to the development of a laser-based communications satellite, which will allow us to communicate by light via space. Today, we do it by radio-frequency waves, both from ground to satellite and from satellite to satellite. What we hope to be able to do is to do that by light. Essentially, we hope to move fiber optics into space. We have, as well, made a very large
investment in expanding what we call our global information grid which is, itself, a fiber-optic net, which will be expanded substantially. We have made major investments in command, control, communications, and computing systems. We have made a similar investment in assuring the information net will work within that transformational communications system.
In order to gain the persistence that I have talked about, we have made investments in systems like Global Hawk, which is an unmanned drone aircraft that is loaded with sensors. You have read, I'm sure, of the exploits of Predator, a much smaller drone that has been used extensively in Afghanistan. But we have also
invested in a space-based system, which is a radar. The idea is that, if we are able, around 2012, to put up a constellation of satellites, these radar satellites would enable us to have the kind of persistent surveillance that I talked about a few moments ago. If you take the information that is available on the space-based radar and other surveillance assets and imagine moving them through a system that I described that is essentially a fiber-optics system, you can understand how fast we can
move that information, how much information we can move, and the fact that we can move it and deliver it in formats that are useful to the receivers. If we can do that, and we believe we can, we will be able to see, bear, talk, act, and assess much more rapidly than any adversary we could encounter. If we can do that, in near-real time, we will have achieved what many might want to call information superiority.
Shipbuilding. Let me take a moment there. We have committed to about seven ships a year if we can do it. That will enable us to stabilize the shipbuilding base over the course of the FYDP, but we also have made a major decision with respect to the Navy's follow-on aircraft carrier, called CVN-21. The Navy has taken many of the improvements that would have been included in a ship that they had believed would begin building in FY2011 and has moved many of those technologies and changes in the organization
and internal structure of the ship and its equipment sets back to the carrier that is slated to begin construction in FY2007. With respect to combat air forces, we have studiously gone about the business of attempting to create competition for the missions in this area. As you know, we have the F-22, the F/A-18. They are the main aircraft in production. The Joint Strike Fighter is intended to follow on toward the end of this decade, but in addition, we have made investments to improve our capabilities with respect to unmanned combat aerial vehicles (UCAVs), unmanned aerial vehicles like
Global Hawk and Predator, and their successors. We have made an investment in a national aerospace initiative which will stress hypersonic missile technology which will allow us to move at very rapid speed. As the principal proponent of that program likes to say, ``Speed kills.'' You can imagine
that hitting a target at 7 or 8 Mach will do real damage to that target. Lastly, we have tried to look at whether or not we can revive a conventional ballistic missile capability which would, as the President said, allow us to strike around the world at a moment's notice with pinpoint accuracy.
The Army, for its part, is deep into its transformational effort in keeping with the President's words about being more lethal and quicker to move and not taking so long to build up. The Army is attempting to do so with its objective force and its so-called ``Future Combat System.'' They are hopeful to come in this Spring with their proposals on how they intend to proceed with this program, and as I said a moment ago, they have invested near to $14 billion over the FYDP for that program. Those
are some of the highlights of the investment strategy, and let me just tick off for you some of those changes. When we started in 2001 on this process of transforming our capabilities, we didn't have a missile defense capability; by 2004, we hope to have a limited capability. We were using conventional radio-frequency waves for our satellite communications; we hope to move to laser-based communications. We didn't have a space-based radar program; we do now, and we hope we can deploy it by 2012. We had no submarines that could launch large numbers of conventional cruise missiles. Well, we've taken four submarines out of the strategic force, took the nuclear weapons off them, and we intend to put conventional cruise missiles on them and use them as strike platforms well into the next decades. I've already mentioned the carriers. We will have a CVN-21 beginning in FY-07. The surface fleet was aging. It will shrink a bit in the coming years, only to begin to increase its numbers as we go into the 2006-7-8 time frame. We will have four new ship classes. We merged the tactical air programs of the Navy and the Air Force. I've mentioned the family of UAVs and the UCAVS, and I've mentioned the housing and the facilities improvements. So, let me conclude. We are a nation at war; we do not know how long it will last, but it is unlikely to be short. We cannot know where all of its battles will be fought.There are multiple fronts in this war, and
there is no single theater of operations. We do know that we are all at risk, at home and abroad, civilians and military alike. We do know that battles and campaigns will be both conventional and unconventional in their conduct. Some of those battles and campaigns will be fought in the open, and others will be fought in secret, where our victories will be known to only a few. For the Department of Defense, it means that we now plan and fight today's battles even as we prepare for that longer campaign. In light of this, let me remind you of how the President assesses his 1999 speech at the Citadel. Two years later, in December of 2001, he returned to the Citadel and said the following: ``The need for military transformation
was clear before the conflict in Afghanistan and before September 11. At the Citadel in 1999, I spoke of keeping the peace by redefining war on our terms. We have,'' he said, ``a sense of urgency about this task, the need to build this future force while fighting the present war is an urgent need.'' And then he said, ``It's like overhauling an engine when you're
going 80 miles an hour, but we have no other choice.'' So, mindful of the urgency to transform, as the President expressed in his Citadel speech a year ago, I can say that we will press this war to its conclusion. But even as we do, we will plan and prepare for the future when that war is won, and the world itself has been transformed. Thank you very much.
*************************************
CHEM/ BIO AND WMD TERRORISM
************************************
3A) Agriculture Security Assistance Act
By Mr. AKAKA:
S. 427. A bill to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to assist States and communities in preparing for and responding to threats to the agriculture of the United States; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
By Mr. AKAKA:
S. 430. A bill to amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to enhance agricultural biosecurity in the United States through increased prevention, preparation, and response planning; to the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry.
Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to address the threat of bioterrorist attacks on American agriculture by introducing the Agriculture Security Preparedness Act, ASPA, and the Agriculture Security Assistance Act, ASAA.
Thomas Jefferson described the four pillars of American prosperity as agriculture, manufacturing, commerce and navigation. Two hundred years later, our government is working to protect and defend all critical sectors of our society. But are we doing enough to protect American agriculture from either deliberate or naturally occurring disease outbreaks?
Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson stated in September 2002 that the administration has not paid enough attention to protecting agriculture while Secretary of Agriculture Ann Venneman stated that agricultural biosecurity is her highest priority.
What is at risk when I speak of ``agricultural security?'' Quite simply, a threat to agriculture is a threat to the Nation. My legislation will assist efforts by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, USDA, new Department of Homeland Security, DHS, to ensure the first pillar of American prosperity.
Agriculture terrorism can impact the safety of our food supply and public health. A large scale agricultural disaster, much like risks to our information and communication systems, also would undermine American economic security. Agricultural activity accounts for approximately 13 percent of the U.S. gross domestic product and nearly 17 percent of domestic employment. Based on the economic damage caused by the 2001 foot and mouth disease, FMD, epidemic in Great Britain, a single outbreak of FMD
could cost the U.S. economy over $10 billion.
Every State has its own agricultural strengths and economy. My State of Hawaii generates more than $1.9 billion in agricultural sales. The agriculture sector employs, either directly or indirectly, 38,000 people in Hawaii. The State's crops range from sugarcane and pineapple to coffee and macadamia nuts. However, Hawaii also has to $28 million milk industry and nearly $25 million worth of cattle and hogs. When the additional losses in tourism and travel are considered, we can see the economic
impact on Hawaii or any State from an agricultural disease emergency would be devastating.
Pests and diseases are difficult to control when they are introduced accidentally. According to a National Academy of Sciences study on agricultural security, a deliberate infestation demands even more precautions and research and development.
The Agriculture Security Preparedness Act and the Agriculture Security Assistance Act give Federal and State partners responsible for responding to threats against our agriculture the tools they need to operate efficiently and effectively. Moreover, my legislation amends the Homeland Security Act to give agriculture security the attention it deserves as a component of our critical infrastructure.
An agricultural disease outbreak, whether of natural or deliberate origin, will require coordinated efforts by the USDA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA, and DHS, the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, and the Departments of Health and Human Services, HHS, Defense, Transportation, and Justice. USDA is the lead agency in responding to agricultural emergencies and has created a homeland defense council and increased border inspection and research activities. These are promising
steps. I am happy to see that the USDA and FEMA are in the process of drafting a national response plan for emerging agriculture diseases. My legislation will compliment these efforts and encourage coordination and
preparedness on the Federal, State, regional, and local level.
The Agriculture Security Preparedness Act will enhance agricultural biosecurity through strengthened interagency and international coordination. The Act will establish senior level liaisons in DHS and HHS to coordinate with USDA on agriculture disease emergency management and response. My legislation also tasks DHS and USDA to work with the Department of Transportation to address one of the largest risk factors in controlling the spread of a plant or animal disease--the movement of animals, plants,
and people between and around farms.
Agricultural disease outbreaks will continue to be rare occurrences in the United States. However, high-risk animal and plant diseases are endemic in some part of the world. The Agriculture Security Preparedness Act will help train American veterinarians and emergency responders, and provide much needed help overseas, through bilateral mutual aid agreements. The
[Page: S2597]
Act also directs the Department of Justice and USDA to take a long-overdue look at local
and State laws that may impede or contradict response plans for an agricultural disease emergency.
The Agricultural Security Assistance Act will assist States and communities preparing for and responding to threats to the Nation's agriculture. Rapid detection and swift response is imperative to contain the spread of any disease, and my bill will help remove delays and impediments for local and state officials responding to outbreaks.
The bill directs USDA to work with each State to develop and implement response plans. My legislation establishes grant programs for communities and states to incorporate modeling and geographic information systems into planning and response activities totaling over $15 million. This funding also will help animal health professionals participate in community emergency planning activities and assist farmers and ranchers strengthen the biosecurity measures on their own property.
In most cases of a suspected or actual agricultural disease outbreak, initial response will come from the impacted community and State. Federal resources, coordinated by USDA, will augment State capabilities. Federal assistance and guidance also is needed long before an outbreak occurs. My legislation will increase Federal, State, and local abilities to develop resources and response mechanisms to contain and eradicate agricultural diseases when they are discovered on U.S. soil.
I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bills be printed in the RECORD.
There being no objection, the bills were ordered to be printed in the RECORD, as follows:
S. 427
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Agriculture Security Assistance Act''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) some agricultural diseases pose a direct threat to human health;
(2) economic sabotage, in the form of agroterrorism, is also a concern;
(3) the United States has an $80,000,000,000 livestock industry;
(4) an outbreak of an agricultural disease, whether naturally occurring or intentionally introduced, could--
(A) have a profound impact on the infrastructure, economy, and export markets of the United States; and
(B) erode consumer confidence in the Federal Government and the safety of the food supply of the United States;
(5) as with human health and bioterrorism preparedness, enhancing current monitoring and response mechanisms to deal with a deliberate act of agricultural terrorism would strengthen the ability of the United States to diagnose and respond quickly to any animal health crisis;
(6)(A) activities to ensure the biosecurity of farms are an important tool in preventing--
(i) the intentional or accidental introduction of an agricultural disease; and
(ii) the spread of an introduced agricultural disease into an outbreak; and
(B) most surveys of producers indicate discouraging and dangerous trends in basic elements of farm security activities;
(7)(A) a national response plan, developed by the Department of Agriculture and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, would determine how interdependent agricultural health and emergency management response functions will be coordinated to ensure an orderly, immediate, and unified response to all aspects of an outbreak of an agricultural disease;
(B) the Department of Agriculture, in cooperation with State and industry partners, would implement the plan as needed; and
(C) State and local partners would need assistance to implement their shares of the plan;
(8) States and communities also require assistance to prepare and plan for agricultural disasters;
(9)(A) rapid detection of an agricultural disease is imperative in containing the spread of the agricultural disease; and
(B) potential delays and difficulty in detection may complicate decisions regarding appropriate control measures; and
(10)(A) planning for a response to an outbreak of an agricultural disease will vary from State to State, reflecting--
(i) the level of awareness;
(ii) the perception of risk;
(iii) competing time demands; and
(iv) the availability of resources; and
(B) State response capability would be significantly enhanced if State agricultural and emergency management officials were to jointly develop a comprehensive agricultural disease response plan.
SEC. 3. AGRICULTURE SECURITY ASSISTANCE.
(a) IN GENERAL.--Title VIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296; 116 Stat. 2220) is amended by adding at the end the following:
``Subtitle J--Agriculture Security Assistance
``SEC. 899A. DEFINITIONS.
``In this subtitle:
``(1) AGRICULTURAL DISEASE.--The term `agricultural disease' means an outbreak of a plant or animal disease, or a pest infestation, that requires prompt action in order to prevent injury or damage to people, plants, livestock, property, the economy, or the environment.
``(2) AGRICULTURAL DISEASE EMERGENCY.--The term `agricultural disease emergency' means an outbreak of a plant or animal disease, or a pest infestation, that requires prompt action in order to prevent injury or damage to people, plants, livestock, property, the economy, or the environment, as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture under--
``(A) section 415 of the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7715); or
``(B) section 10407(b) of the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8306(b)).
``(3) AGRICULTURE.--The term `agriculture' includes--
``(A) the science and practice of activities relating to food, feed, and fiber production, processing, marketing, distribution, use, and trade;
``(B) family and consumer science, nutrition, food science and engineering, agricultural economics, and other social sciences; and
``(C) forestry, wildlife science, fishery science, aquaculture, floraculture, veterinary medicine, and other environmental and natural resource sciences.
``(4) AGROTERRORISM.--The term `agroterrorism' means the commission of an agroterrorist act.
``(5) AGROTERRORIST ACT.--The term `agroterrorist act' means a criminal act consisting of causing or attempting to cause damage or harm to, or destruction or contamination of, a crop, livestock, farm or ranch equipment, a material, any other property associated with agriculture, or a person engaged in agricultural activity, that is committed with the intent--
``(A) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; or
``(B) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.
``(6) BIOSECURITY.--
``(A) IN GENERAL.--The term `biosecurity' means protection from the risks posed by biological, chemical, or radiological agents to--
``(i) plant or animal health;
``(ii) the agricultural economy;
``(iii) the environment; and
``(iv) human health.
``(B) INCLUSIONS.--The term `biosecurity' includes the exclusion, eradication, and control of biological agents that cause agricultural diseases.
``SEC. 899B. RESPONSE PLANS.
``(a) IN GENERAL.--
``(1) STATE PLANS.--The Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, shall assist States in developing and implementing State plans for responding to outbreaks of agricultural diseases.
``(2) REQUIRED ELEMENTS.--Each State response plan shall include--
``(A) identification of available authorities and resources within the State that are needed to respond to an outbreak of an agricultural disease;
``(B) identification of--
``(i) potential risks and threats due to agricultural activity in the State; and
``(ii) the vulnerabilities to those risks and threats;
``(C) potential emergency management assistance compacts and other mutual aid agreements with neighboring States; and
``(D) identification of local and State legal statutes or precedents that may affect the implementation of a State response plan.
``(3) REGIONAL AND NATIONAL RESPONSE PLANS.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall work with States in developing regional and national response plans to carry out this subsection.
``(4) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection such sums as are necessary for fiscal year 2004 and each fiscal year thereafter.
``(b) MODELING AND STATISTICAL ANALYSES.--
``(1) IN GENERAL.--In consultation with the Steering Committee of the National Animal Health Emergency Management System and other stakeholders, the Secretary of Agriculture shall conduct a study--
``(A) to determine the best use of epidemiologists, computer modelers, and statisticians as members of emergency response task forces that handle foreign or emerging agricultural disease emergencies; and
``(B) to identify the types of data that are not collected but that would be necessary for proper modeling and analysis of agricultural disease emergencies.
``(2) REPORT.--Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this subtitle, the Secretary of Agriculture shall submit a report that describes the results of the study to--
``(A) the Secretary of Homeland Security; and
``(B) the heads of other appropriate governmental agencies involved in response planning for agricultural disease emergencies.
[Page: S2598]
``(c) GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM GRANTS.--
``(1) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Secretary of the Interior, shall establish a program to provide grants to States to develop capabilities to use geographic information systems and statistical models for epidemiological assessments in the event of agricultural disease emergencies.
``(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection--
``(A) $2,500,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
``(B) such sums as are necessary for each fiscal year thereafter.
``(d) GRANTS TO FACILITATE PARTICIPATION OF STATE AND LOCAL ANIMAL HEALTH CARE OFFICIALS.--
``(1) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Secretary of Agriculture, shall establish a program to provide grants to communities to facilitate the participation of State and local animal health care officials in community emergency planning efforts.
``(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.
``SEC. 899C. BIOSECURITY AWARENESS AND PROGRAMS.
``(a) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary of Agriculture shall implement a public awareness campaign for farmers, ranchers, and other agricultural producers that emphasizes--
``(1) the need for heightened biosecurity on farms; and
``(2) the reporting of agricultural disease anomalies.
``(b) ON-FARM BIOSECURITY.--
``(1) IN GENERAL.--Not later than 240 days after the date of enactment of this subtitle, in consultation with associations of agricultural producers and taking into consideration research conducted under the National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 (7 U.S.C. 3101 et seq.), the Secretary of Agriculture shall--
``(A) develop guidelines--
``(i) to improve monitoring of vehicles and materials entering or leaving farm or ranch operations; and
``(ii) to control human traffic entering or leaving farm or ranch operations; and
``(B) disseminate the guidelines to agricultural producers through agricultural education seminars and biosecurity training sessions.
``(2) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--
``(A) IN GENERAL.--There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection--
``(i) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
``(ii) such sums as are necessary for each fiscal year thereafter.
``(B) EDUCATION PROGRAM.--Of the amounts made available under subparagraph (A), the Secretary of Agriculture may use such sums as are necessary to establish in each State an education program to distribute the biosecurity guidelines developed under paragraph (1).
``(c) BIOSECURITY GRANT PILOT PROGRAM.--
``(1) IN GENERAL.--Not later than 240 days after the date of enactment of this subtitle, the Secretary of Agriculture shall develop a pilot program to provide incentives, in the forms of grants or low-interest loans, each in an amount not to exceed $10,000, for agricultural producers to restructure farm and ranch operations (based on the biosecurity guidelines developed under subsection (b)(1))--
``(A) to control access to farms or ranches by persons intending to commit an agroterrorist act;
``(B) to prevent the introduction and spread of agricultural diseases; and
``(C) to take other measures to ensure biosecurity.
``(2) REPORT.--Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of this subtitle, the Secretary of Agriculture shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report that--
``(A) describes the implementation of the pilot program; and
``(B) makes recommendations on expansion of the pilot program.
``(3) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.--There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection--
``(A) $5,000,000 for fiscal year 2004; and
``(B) such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years 2005 through 2007.''.
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.--The table of contents in section 1(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296; 116 Stat. 2135) is amended by adding at the end of the items relating to title VIII the following:
``Subtitle J--Agriculture Security Assistance
``Sec..899A..Definitions.
``Sec..899B..Response plans.
``Sec..899C..Biosecurity awareness and programs.''.
--
S. 430
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) SHORT TITLE.--This Act may be cited as the ``Agriculture Security Preparedness Act''.
(b) TABLE OF CONTENTS.--The table of contents of this Act is as follows:
Sec..1..Short title; table of contents.
Sec..2..Findings.
Sec..3..Agricultural biosecurity.
``Subtitle J--Agricultural Biosecurity
``Sec..899A..Definitions.
``Chapter 1--Interagency Coordination
``Sec..899D..Agricultural disease liaisons.``Sec..899E..Transportation.``Sec..899F..Regional, State, and local preparation.``Sec..899G..Study on feasibility of establishing a national plant disease laboratory.
``Chapter 2--International Activities
``Sec..899J..International agricultural disease surveillance.``Sec..899K..Inspections of imported agricultural products.``Sec..899L..Bilateral mutual assistance agreements.
``Chapter 3--Response Activities
``Sec..899O..Study on feasibility of establishing a national agro ter ror ism and eco ter ror ism incident clear ing house.``Sec..899P..Review of legal authority.``Sec..899Q..Information sharing.
Sec..4..Inclusion of agroterrorism in terrorist acts involving weapons of mass destruction.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--
(1) the intentional use of agricultural disease agents to attack United States agriculture threatens an industry that accounts for approximately 13 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States;
(2) the economic impact of a worst-case agricultural disease affecting multiple farms in multiple States could be measured in billions of dollars, including the costs of eradication, production losses, and other market repercussions;
(3) agricultural diseases can be naturally occurring (such as the outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in Great Britain during 2001) or intentionally created by malicious actors;
(4) risk factors affecting the spread of a plant or animal disease include--
(A) animal density;
(B) animal and plant concentration points (such as auction markets, sale barns, and grain lots);
(C) plant and animal movement;
(D) individuals moving on and off farms;
(E) wildlife; and
(F) weather conditions;
(5) the rapid and widespread movement of animals and crops is an integral part of United States agriculture and the principle means by which an agricultural disease will spread if an agricultural disease occurs;
(6) response planning and mitigation requires the coordination between the animal health and agricultural community, transportation officials, and representatives of the shipping and trucking industry;
(7) the United States Department of Agriculture and State departments of agriculture have responsibility for the protection of the agricultural resources of the United States;
(8) in the event of an agricultural disease, the Department of Agriculture and State departments of agriculture will need the support and resources of other Federal, State, and local agencies that carry out traditional emergency management and response functions;
(9) while the introduction of an infectious foreign animal disease (such as foot-and-mouth disease) will be the primary threat addressed by an agricultural security plan, the principles used to prevent, detect, control, or eradicate such a disease will apply to large-scale outbreaks of other diseases and other agricultural diseases that affect agriculture;
(10) numerous Federal agencies have authorities and responsibilities relating to public, animal, and wildlife health, safety, and management;
(11) the highest priority of the United States, in connection with agricultural diseases, is to prevent the introduction of, detect, control, and eradicate an agricultural disease as quickly as practicable and return the United States to a disease-free status;
(12)(A) the Incident Command System was adopted by the National Fire Academy as the model system of the Academy in 1987 and was later endorsed by the International Association of Chiefs of Police and the American Public Works Association;
(B) the Incident Command System is used by many Federal agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the United States Fire Administration, while responding to emergencies; and
(C) the Secretary of Agriculture, acting through the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, should incorporate the Incident Command System in all agricultural disaster emergency response plans; and
(13) since agricultural diseases will continue to be rare occurrences in the United States, the Department of Agriculture and Federal, State, and local partners will need to reinforce preparedness, training, and response mechanisms--
(A) through an all-hazard approach to all agricultural disaster emergencies; and
(B) by gaining field experience in foreign countries where high-risk agricultural diseases are endemic.
SEC. 3. AGRICULTURAL BIOSECURITY.
(a) IN GENERAL.--Title VIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296; 116 Stat. 2220) is amended by adding at the end the following:
[Page: S2599]
``Subtitle J--Agricultural Biosecurity
``SEC. 899A. DEFINITIONS.
``In this subtitle:
``(1) AGRICULTURAL DISEASE.--The term `agricultural disease' means an outbreak of a plant or animal disease, or a pest infestation, that requires prompt action in order to prevent injury or damage to people, plants, livestock, property, the economy, or the environment.
``(2) AGRICULTURE.--The term `agriculture' includes--
``(A) the science and practice of activities relating to food, feed, and fiber production, processing, marketing, distribution, use, and trade;
``(B) family and consumer science, nutrition, food science and engineering, agricultural economics, and other social sciences; and
``(C) forestry, wildlife science, fishery science, aquaculture, floraculture, veterinary medicine, and other environmental and natural resource sciences.
``(3) AGROTERRORISM.--The term `agro ter ror ism' means the commission of an agro ter ror ist act.
``(4) AGRO TER ROR IST ACT.--The term `agro ter ror ist act' means a criminal act consisting of causing or attempting to cause damage or harm to, or destruction or contamination of, a crop, livestock, farm or ranch equipment, a material, any other property associated with agriculture, or a person engaged in agricultural activity, that is committed with the intent--
``(A) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; or
``(B) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion.
``(5) BIOSECURITY.--
``(A) IN GENERAL.--The term `biosecurity' means protection from the risks posed by biological, chemical, or radiological agents to--
``(i) plant or animal health;
``(ii) the agricultural economy;
``(iii) the environment; and
``(iv) human health.
``(B) INCLUSIONS.--The term `biosecurity' includes the exclusion, eradication, and control of biological agents that cause plant or animal diseases.
``(6) ECOTERRORISM.--The term `ecoterrorism' means the use of force or violence against a person or property to intimidate or coerce all or part of a government or the civilian population, in furtherance of a social goal in the name of an environmental cause.
``CHAPTER 1--INTERAGENCY COORDINATION
``SEC. 899D. AGRICULTURAL DISEASE LIAISONS.
``(a) AGRICULTURAL DISEASE MANAGEMENT LIAISON.--The Secretary shall establish a senior level position within the Federal Emergency Management Agency to serve, as a primary responsibility, as a liaison for agricultural disease management between--
``(1) the Department; and
``(2)(A) the Federal Emergency Management Agency;
``(B) the Department of Agriculture;
``(C) other Federal agencies responsible for agriculture disease emergency response;
``(D) the emergency management community;
``(E) State emergency officials and agricultural officials; and
``(F) affected industries.
``(b) ANIMAL HEALTH CARE LIAISON.--The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall establish within the Department of Health and Human Services a senior level position to serve, as a primary responsibility, as a liaison between--
``(1) the Department of Health and Human Services; and
``(2)(A) the Department of Agriculture;
``(B) the animal health community;
``(C) the emergency management community; and
``(D) affected industries.
``SEC. 899E. TRANSPORTATION.
``The Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary, shall--
``(1) publish in the Federal Register proposed guidelines for restrictions on interstate transportation of an agricultural commodity or product in response to an agricultural disease;
``(2) provide for a comment period for the proposed guidelines of not less than 90 days;
``(3) establish the final guidelines, taking into consideration any comments received under paragraph (2); and
``(4) provide the guidelines to officers and employees of --
``(A) the Department of Agriculture;
``(B) the Department of Transportation; and
``(C) the Department .
``SEC. 899F. REGIONAL, STATE, AND LOCAL PREPARATION.
``(a) ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.--The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, shall cooperate with regional, State, and local disaster preparedness officials to include consideration of potential environmental impacts of response activities in planning responses to agricultural diseases.
``(b) DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE.--The Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the Secretary, shall--
``(1) develop and implement information-sharing procedures to provide information to and share information among Federal, regional, State, and local officials regarding agricultural threats, risks, and vulnerabilities; and
``(2) cooperate with State agricultural officials, State and local emergency managers, representatives from State land grant colleges and research universities, agricultural producers, and agricultural trade associations to establish local response plans for agricultural diseases.
``(c) FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY.--The Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, shall--
``(1) establish a task force, consisting of agricultural producers and State and local emergency response officials, to identify best practices for regional and State agricultural disease programs;
``(2) distribute to States and localities a report that describes the best practices; and
``(3) design and distribute packages containing exercises for training, based on the identified best practices, in the form of printed materials and electronic media, for distribution to State and local emergency managers and State agricultural officials.
``SEC. 899G. STUDY ON FEASIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A NATIONAL PLANT DISEASE LABORATORY.
``Not later than 270 days after the date of enactment of this subtitle, the Secretary of Agriculture shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on the feasibility of establishing a national plant disease laboratory, based on the model of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, with the primary task of--
``(1) integrating and coordinating a nationwide system of independent plant disease diagnostic laboratories, including plant clinics maintained by land grant colleges and universities; and
``(2) increasing the capacity, technical infrastructure, and information-sharing capabilities of laboratories described in paragraph (1).
``CHAPTER 2--INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITIES
``SEC. 899J. INTERNATIONAL AGRICULTURAL DISEASE SURVEILLANCE.
``Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this subtitle, the Secretary of Agriculture, in consultation with the Secretary of State and the Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development, shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on measures taken by the Secretary of Agriculture--
``(1) to streamline the process of notification by the Secretary of Agriculture to Federal agencies in the event of agricultural diseases in foreign countries; and
``(2) to cooperate with representatives of foreign countries, international organizations, and industry to devise and implement methods of sharing information on international agricultural diseases and unusual agricultural activities.
``SEC. 899K. INSPECTIONS OF IMPORTED AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS.
``The Secretary shall--
``(1) cooperate with the Secretary of Agriculture and appropriate Federal intelligence officials to improve the ability of the Department of Agriculture to identify agricultural commodities and products, livestock, and other goods imported from suspect locations recognized by the intelligence community as having--
``(A) experienced agricultural terrorist activities or unusual agricultural diseases; or
``(B) harbored agro ter ror ists; and
``(2) use the information collected under paragraph (1) to establish inspection priorities.
``SEC. 899L. BILATERAL MUTUAL ASSISTANCE AGREEMENTS.
``The Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of Agriculture and the Secretary, shall--
``(1) enter into mutual assistance agreements with other countries for assistance in the event of an agricultural disease--
``(A) to provide training to veterinarians and agriculture specialists of the United States in the identification, diagnosis, and control of foreign agricultural diseases;
``(B) to provide resources and personnel to foreign governments with limited resources to respond to agricultural diseases; and
``(C) to participate in bilateral training programs and exercises; and
``(2) provide funding for personnel to participate in related exchange and training programs.
``CHAPTER 3--RESPONSE ACTIVITIES
``SEC. 899O. STUDY ON FEASIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A NATIONAL AGRO TER ROR ISM AND ECO TER ROR ISM INCIDENT CLEARINGHOUSE.
``Not later than 240 days after the date of enactment of this subtitle, the Attorney General, in conjunction with the Secretary of Agriculture, shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report on the feasibility and estimated cost of establishing and maintaining a national agroterrorism incident clearinghouse to gather information for use in coordinating and assisting investigations on incidents of--
``(1) agroterrorism committed against or directed at--
``(A) any plant or animal enterprise; or
``(B) any person, because of any actual or perceived connection of the person with, or support by the person of, agriculture; and
``(2) ecoterrorism.
[Page: S2600]
``SEC. 899P. REVIEW OF LEGAL AUTHORITY.
``(a) IN GENERAL.--The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, shall conduct a review of State and local laws relating to agroterrorism and biosecurity to determine--
``(1) the extent to which those laws facilitate or impede the implementation of current or proposed response plans with respect to agricultural diseases;
``(2) whether an injunction issued by a State court could--
``(A) delay the implementation of a Federal response plan; or
``(B) affect the extent to which an agricultural disease spreads; and
``(3) the types and extent of legal evidence that may be required by State courts before a response plan may be implemented.
``(b) REPORT.--Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this subtitle, the Attorney General shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report that describes the results of the review conducted under subsection (a) (including any recommendations of the Attorney General).
``SEC. 899Q. INFORMATION SHARING.
``The Secretary of Agriculture, in cooperation with the Attorney General, shall develop and implement a system to share information during all stages of an agro ter ror ist act.''.
(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.--The table of contents in section 1(b) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296; 116 Stat. 2135) is amended by adding at the end of the items relating to title VIII the following:
``Subtitle J--Agricultural Biosecurity
``Sec..899A..Definitions.
``Chapter 1--Interagency Coordination
``Sec..899D..Agricultural disease liaisons.``Sec..899E..Transportation.``Sec..899F..Regional, State, and local preparation.``Sec..899G..Study on feasibility of establishing a national plant disease laboratory.
``Chapter 2--International Activities
``Sec..899J..International agricultural disease surveillance.``Sec..899K..Inspections of imported agricultural products.``Sec..899L..Bilateral mutual assistance agreements
``Chapter 3--Legal Definitions and Response Activities
``Sec..899O..Study on feasibility of establishing a national agroterrorism and ecoterrorism incident clearinghouse.``Sec..899P..Review of legal authority.``Sec..899Q..Information sharing.''.
SEC. 4. INCLUSION OF AGROTERRORISM IN TERRORIST ACTS INVOLVING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.
Section 2332a(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``or'' at the end;
(2) in paragraph (3), by striking the comma at the end and inserting ``; or''; and
(3) by inserting after paragraph (3) the following:
``(4) against private property, including property used for agricultural or livestock operations;''.
By Mr. BAUCUS:
3B) Report on Proliferation of WMD
REPORT ON NATIONAL EMERGENCY REGARDING PROLIFERATION OF WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION--MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES (H. DOC. NO. 108-41) -- (House of Representatives - February 25, 2003)
[Page: H1282] GPO's PDF
---
The SPEAKER pro tempore laid before the House the following message from the President of the United States; which was read and, together with the accompanying papers, without objection, referred to the Committee on International Relations and ordered to be printed:
To the Congress of the United States:
As required by section 204(c) of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, 50 U.S.C. 1703(c), and section 401(c) of the National Emergencies Act, 50 U.S.C. 1641(c), I transmit herewith a 6-month periodic report prepared by my Administration on the national emergency with respect to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction that was declared in Executive Order 12938 of November 14, 1994.
George W. Bush.
The White House, February 25, 2003.
3C) War on Terror and Human Rights in China
WAR ON TERROR AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN CHINA -- (Senate - February 27, 2003)
[Page: S2987] GPO's PDF
---
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, attention is understandably on Iraq this week as we move ever closer to a decision on use of military force there to disarm the regime of Saddam Hussein. But as we contemplate whether such action makes sense in terms of protecting our people from the threat of global terrorism, it is important that we not lose sight of important developments in other parts of the world.
Earlier this week, Secretary of State Powell visited Beijing, reportedly to seek the support of China's leaders in dealing with Iraq and North Korea. This makes sense, since China has the power to veto any U.N. resolution on Iraq and is reputed to have influence
[Page: S2988] GPO's PDF
with Kim Jong-Il. Our relations with China have warmed since September 11, as its support was deemed important to the success of the ``war on terrorism,'' both in Afghanistan and beyond. Unfortunately,
China's leaders appear to have a very different agenda for this war. As the Chinese would say, we are sleeping in the same bed but having different dreams.
Earlier this month, Wang Bingzhang, a Chinese democracy activist who has lived most of the past 20 years in New York as a U.S. legal permanent resident, was sentenced to life in prison following a secret trial on charges of espionage and ``leading a violent terrorist organization.'' Chinese authorities had had him in custody, unbeknownst to his family, since last July, when he was apparently abducted while visiting Vietnam and brought across the border into China . The Chinese authorities have
presented no public evidence linking Wang to any violent activities. Since being exiled to Canada in 1979, however, he has advocated peaceful democratic change in China , founding the magazine China Spring in New York in 1982 and serving as an adviser to the outlawed China Democracy Party. He sneaked across
the border into China in 1998, when the China Democracy Party was attempting to organize and register itself within the boundaries of Chinese law, and was detained and deported. The Chinese Communists clearly see him as a nuisance, and the ``war on terrorism'' provided a convenient excuse to silence him.
Last month, Chinese authorities executed a former Tibetan monk, Lobsang Dhondrup, who was accused of carrying out a series of bombings in Sichuan Province. Lobsang was detained near the scene of one of the bombings last April. But the only evidence made public against him was his confession, which was very likely extracted through torture. He was killed immediately after the Intermediate Court for the Ganzi Tibetan Prefecture upheld his death sentence. The same day, the Sichuan Provincial High
Court in Chengdu rejected the appeal of Tenzin Delek Ripoche, a senior Tibetan Buddhist monk and social and environmental activist, and reaffirmed his suspended death sentence in connection with the same case. Chinese authorities have provided no public evidence linking Tenzin to the bombings, according to Human Rights Watch.
A third man, Tsereng Dhondrup, was given 5 years for merely circulating petitions in defense of Lobsang and Tenzin. Authorities are thought to be holding 10 other ethnic Tibetans in connection with the bombings but will not release their names or locations.
Mr. President, I do not dispute for a moment that Chinese authorities have the right--indeed the duty--to take firm measures against terrorism within their borders, just as we are doing here. The bombings in Sichuan, which took innocent life, were without question terrorist acts, as were the bombings this week on Beijing university campuses, and they should be condemned. The imperative to combat terrorism does not absolve any nation, however, of its obligation to respect basic human rights, including
the right to due process. Whether Lobsang was involved in the bombings in Sichuan we may never know. But Assistant Secretary of State Lorne Craner has expressed ``deep concern'' as to whether Lobsong received a fair trial, according to the Washington
Post. Neither Lobsang nor Tenzin was allowed to choose his own defense attorney. Tenzin was held incommunicado for 8 months, up to the day of his trial, and appeal hearings were closed to the public on the grounds that ``state secrets'' were involved.
These cases illustrate a deeply cynical misappropriation of the anti-terrorist struggle by a repressive regime to suppress legitimate dissent, persecute restive minority groups, and literally get away with murder. Administration officials maintain that, while seeking China's cooperation in combatting international terrorism, they have at the same time made clear that China should not interpret that as a license to violate basic human rights. But violate them they have, and apparently with increasing
frequency.
In the Northeast Chinese Rustbelt city Liaoyang, two labor leaders--Yao Fuxin and Xiao Yunliang--are awaiting sentencing following their January 15 trial for ``inciting the subversion of the political authority of the state.'' The prosecution said they conspired to ``overthrow the socialist system.'' In fact, what they did was organize protest marches last spring for workers laid off from a state-owned plant that went bankrupt in 2001, owing them several months of back wages, as well as pension
and other benefits and severance allowances. Workers suspected the plant's management had embezzled funds that should have been used to pay those benefits. The authorities declared the protests illegal and arrested Yao, Xiao, and two other organizers.
According to labor activists in Hong Kong who have been monitoring the case, Yao and Xiao were held for several months without formal charges and were denied access to their lawyer on the grounds that the case involved ``state secrets.'' The initial indication was that they had been arrested for illegal assembly. But when the workers of Liaoyang continued to rally behind their leaders and the case attracted international attention, Chinese authorities asserted that the men had carried out ``destructive
activities,'' including car-bombings and destroying public property.
This was something not even the Liaoyang police and prosecutors had alleged. Even the local representative of the official Communist Party labor organization called the allegations ``a complete fabrication.'' Nonetheless, when formal charges were finally announced against the men last month, they were charged not just with illegal assembly but with the much more serious offense of subversion. At their four-hour trial January 15, the prosecution made no attempt to tie Yao and Xiao to any violent
activities. Instead, they argued, Yao and Xiao had subverted the authority of the Chinese state by attending preparatory meetings of the then not-yet-banned China Democracy Party back in 1998 and communicating with ``hostile foreign elements,'' such as Agence France Presse and the Wall Street Journal.
Here again, China's rulers have appropriated the language of anti terrorism to persecute people who have done nothing more than challenge the authority of the Communist Party through peaceful means.
Meanwhile, throughout China , the brutal suppression of the Falungong spiritual movement, which President Jiang Zemin has branded an ``evil cult,'' continues. Charles Li, a U.S. citizen Falungong practitioner, is about to enter his sixth week of detention in Jiangsu Province, where he returned to spend Chinese New Year with his parents.
Authorities have not charged him, and he has been allowed only one half-hour meeting with U.S. consular officials. Initial reports indicated he was accused of hijacking television broadcasts to spread the banned Falungong message. But his friends and associates maintain he was not even in China when those incidents occurred. His actual sin appears to be having had the temerity to serve a subpoena on the Mayor of Beijing, when he visited San Francisco last year, under the Alien Tort Claims Act
and Torture Victim Protection Act, as was his right as a U.S. citizen on U.S. territory under U.S. law.
Why is it that we are seeing so many egregious violations of basic human rights in China in such a short span of time? Could it be that the senior leadership in Beijing knows that the world's attention is currently focused elsewhere? Could it be they think U.S. criticism of their actions will be muted, since the administration needs their support, or at least their acquiescence, on Iraq and North Korea? Or could it be that President Jiang and his cohorts, who will step down next month, want to
clear the dockets so that Hu Jintao and the new crew can begin with a clean slate? Remember that Jiang rode to power on the tide of blood from Tiananmen Square, and he has snuffed out anything that even smelled of political reform ever since.
I hope China's incoming leaders, by virtue of their shared generational experience, will adopt a more enlightened view toward political modernization than their predecessors did. They are less likely to do so if they infer that the rest of the world is not paying attention or doesn't care. We must keep the disinfectant of sunlight focused on them, and anyone else who would deny people their basic freedoms and
[Page: S2989] GPO's PDF
dignities in the name of ``stability,'' ``security''
or the ``war on terror.''
*************
IRAQ
*************
4A) The Need for Further UN Action on Iraq
Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to lay on the record information that needs to be brought to the attention of this body and every American as we struggle with the current crisis involving our relationship with Iraq.
We have seen a lot of information, in the media, a lot of public protests, both against and for action that this country might need to take, but there has been one major part of the debate that has been missing.
As we talk about Saddam Hussein and the need for him to abide by the agreement that he reached with the U.N. And the U.N. Security Council 12 years ago, as we discuss the fact that the U.N. inspectors have not yet been able to determine that he in fact has taken apart his weapons of mass destruction, there is in fact one set of facts, Mr. Speaker, that are obvious, that are documented, and that need action.
It is for this reason that I rise this evening to present to this body, our colleagues, our country and the world, the facts that will support a resolution that I will introduce in this body on Thursday of this week, a bipartisan resolution, with the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cardin) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), and a whole host of other Democrats and Republicans, that calls for the President to require and request the U.N. to convene a special war crimes
tribunal to hold Saddam Hussein accountable for the egregious acts against human beings that he has perpetrated over the past 20 years.
Mr. Speaker, it is certainly time that the world holds Saddam Hussein accountable.
Mr. Speaker, the facts are all over the place. They have been documented by human rights groups, by Amnesty International, by agencies of the U.N. and the U.S. Government, and by other nations around the world. In fact, there have been specific actions taken by the U.N. The United States budget in fiscal year 2001 and 2002 contributed $4 million to a special U.N. Iraqi War Crimes Commission to document the evidence, some of which I am going to put out this evening.
The United Nations Security Council and the Commission on Human Rights have repeatedly condemned Iraq's human rights record. On April 19, 2002, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights passed a resolution drawing attention to ``the systematic widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law by the Government of Iraq resulting in an all-pervasive repression and oppression sustained by broad-based discrimination and widespread terror.''
In fact, the United Nations Security Council Resolution 674 called on all states to provide information on Iraq's war-related activities and atrocities to the U.N.
Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to me as we heard Americans, especially those coming from Hollywood, recently on our national media outlets, praising and defending Saddam Hussein as a man who can be trusted, as someone who will do the right thing if just given the right amount of time.
It is amazing to me that this country went to war just a few short years ago, pushed very aggressively by France and Germany, to remove Milosevic from power in Yugoslavia because he was allegedly committing war crimes.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am no fan of Milosevic. In fact, I think he is where he belongs, in the Hague before a war crimes tribunal. But, Mr. Speaker, tonight I am going to lay out the evidence that will make the case that Saddam Hussein makes Milosevic look like a common street criminal. In fact, I am not the only one that feels this way, Mr. Speaker.
Let me quote from a recent op-ed that ran this past Sunday, written by Richard Holbrooke. Now, Richard Holbrooke was the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations under President Bill Clinton. Let me quote from Mr. Holbrooke's op-ed that ran nationwide this past weekend.
``When one considers that Saddam Hussein is far worse than Slobodan Milosevic and that Iraq has left a long trail of violated Security Council resolutions while there were none in Kosovo.'' So Richard Holbrooke, the U.N. Ambassador under President Clinton, has publicly acknowledged as recently as this past week that, in his opinion, Saddam Hussein is far worse than Slobodan Milosevic.
This country went to war to oust Slobodan Milosevic. This country murdered innocent Serbs with bombs to oust Slobodan Milosevic. And who pushed this country? France and Germany, because the French and Germans were concerned that Milosevic was in their neighborhood.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, in a quote from a book just recently released, The Threatening Storm, by the expert on Iraq during the Clinton administration in both the CIA and the Security Council, Ken Pollack, one section documents the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq, and I want to quote from this book, which I think every Member of this body should read. It is page 122, discussing the Iraqi state and security. Again, this individual, Ken Pollack, is an acknowledged intelligence expert on Iraq. This is
what he said:
``Max Van der Stoel, the former United Nations Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Iraq, told the United Nations that the brutality of the Iraqi regime was of an exceptionally grave character, so grave that it has few parallels in the years that have passed since the Second World War.''
In other words, Mr. Speaker, that the Saddam Hussein regime has not been equaled since Adolf Hitler. Not Slobodan Milosevic, who the Germans and French supported militarily to remove, but not since Adolph Hitler.
Let me continue. ``Indeed, it is to comparisons with the obscenity of the Holocaust and Stalin's mass murders that observers are inevitably drawn when confronted with the horrors of Saddam's Iraq. Saddam's Iraq is a state that employs arbitrary execution, imprisonment and torture on a comprehensive and routine basis.''
A full catalogue is not yet totally available, but tonight we are going to put on the record, Mr. Speaker, the examples that are available.
[Page: H1325]
Let me read again some from Ken Pollack's account, and these are not the most pleasant facts, but they are facts, Mr. Speaker.
``This is a regime that will gouge out the eyes of children to force confessions from their parents and grandparents. This is a regime that will crush all the bones in the feet of a 2-year-old girl to force her mother to divulge her father's whereabouts. This is a regime that will hold a nursing baby at arm's length from its mother and allow the child to starve to death to force the mother to confess. This is a regime that will burn a person's limbs off to force him to confess or comply, a regime
that will slowly lower its victims into huge vats of acid, either to break their will or simply as a means of execution. This is a regime that applies electric shocks to the bodies of its victims, particularly their genitals, with great regularity. This a regime that in 2000 decreed that the crime of criticizing the regime, which can be as harmless as suggesting that Saddam's clothing did not match, would be punished by cutting out the offender's tongue.
[Time: 22:45]
A regime that practices systematic rape against its female victims. A regime that dragged in a man's wife, daughter, and female relative and repeatedly raped her in front of him. A regime that forced a white-hot metal rod into a person's anus or other orifices. A regime that employs thallium poisoning, widely considered one of the most excruciating ways to die. A regime that beheaded a young mother in the street in front of her house and children because her husband was suspected of opposing
the regime. A regime that used chemical warfare on its own Kurdish citizens, not just on the 15,000 that were killed and maimed at Halabja, but on scores of other villages all across Kurdistan. A regime that tested chemical and biological warfare agents on Iranian prisoners of war and used the POWs in controlled experiments to determine the best ways to disperse these agents to inflict the greatest damage.
All of this, Mr. Speaker, I quote, and is from the documentation by Ken Pollack, the intelligence expert on Iraq during the Clinton administration in the book available to everyone in America entitled ``The Threatening Storm.''
But, Mr. Speaker, it is not just Ken Pollack. In fact, the citations and documentations of the violations of human rights by Saddam Hussein are overwhelming and comprehensive. As a member of the Human Rights Caucus in this Congress, I am outraged that there has been no solid vocal outcry, not just from this body and America, but from those countries in Europe, especially Germany and France, who claim to be for the human rights of innocent people.
Let me summarize. The methods of torture, the human rights abuses documented by our special military commission looking into our own POWs that Saddam held against the Geneva Convention that controls the treatment of prisoners. Let me read the documentation in summary.
Americans experienced the following: 21 service members captured during Desert Storm were all covered by the Geneva protections. They were beaten to the rhythm of songs. The beatings were done by led pipes, by clubs, by rifle butts, by rubber hoses, by black jacks and batons, by kicks and punches to the face, neck, ears, prior injuries, genitals and kidneys. Malice to their knees, cat-o'-nine tails, burning of individuals with cigarettes, including the butts being placed into open wounds. Urination
on POWs. Genital investigations and harassment to determine if POWs were circumcised as Jews.
Mock executions, threatened dismemberment, threatened castration, cattle prod shocking, talkman shocking, electrocuted wires run around a person's head attached to the ears, causing massive convulsions in the jaw, knocking out teeth, sexual abuse, fingernail extraction, person hung by their feet with barbed wire.
Mr. Speaker, these were American citizens, and this is how they were treated by Saddam Hussein in direct violation of the international agreements on caring for prisoners of war. This was not made up, Mr. Speaker. These are documented cases involving America's sons and daughters.
Where is the outcry in America? Where is the outcry in Hollywood and from those experts on TV and the movies who claim to know all about how Americans were treated by this madman in Baghdad? And what about the actions that have been documented by Amnesty International, by all of the major groups that monitor human rights of what Saddam did against the Kuwaitis and the Kurds?
Let me again run through some of those cases that have been documented, including knifings, boring holes in bodies with drills, tongue and ear removal, hammering nails into hands, eye-gouging, inserting broken bottlenecks into rectums, pumping air and gasoline through people through their rectums and other orifices and then igniting the gasoline until the bodies exploded. Pouring acid on skin, forcing detainees to watch the torture, rape and execution of others and relatives, random and unjustified
killings, electric shocks to the mouth, forcing women to eat flesh cut from their own body, removal of eye balls, placement of people into rotating washing machines, execution by electric drill, cutting with razors, rubbing salt into wounds, castrations, blow torches, suspension from ceiling fans.
Mr. Speaker, all of these actions are documented and conducted and ordered by Saddam Hussein and those people currently in control in Baghdad.
Where is the outrage, Mr. Speaker? France and Germany, pushing America to go in to remove Milosevic who committed ethnic cleansing; none of the charges against Milosevic at the Hague at this point in time come anywhere near the atrocities that Saddam Hussein has been documented as having committed on a regular and routine basis. There is no shame in those countries, Mr. Speaker, because it is unbelievably a double standard and total hypocrisy.
Let us talk about some of the documented human rights violations within Iraq. Again, these are all documented, Mr. Speaker, documented through extensive files, portions of which I will lay into the RECORD this evening for our colleagues to review. In Iraq, this is what Saddam has done: killing of prison inmates to account for overcrowding. Loss of freedoms of speech, press, assembly, association, religion, movement and due process; arbitrary punishment of death for suspected violations
of laws, political disagreements and social actions; beheading of prostitutes and displaying of heads. Iraq is the country with the highest number of disappearances reported to the working group on enforced and involuntary disappearances established by the Commission on Human Rights. Beating of Iraqi soccer players because they lost a game. Refusal to permit visits by human rights monitors. Campaign of murder,
summary execution and protracted arbitrary arrests against religious followers of the Shia Muslim population, the Kurds. Harassment and intimidation of relief workers and U.N. personnel, removal of children of unwanted minority groups to get them from cities and regions, and only 48 percent of the supplied medicines and equipment to clinics and hospitals. The rest were in government warehouses overflowing.
This is a man who challenged our President to a debate. What an absolute joke, Mr. Speaker. This man deserves to debate no one. This man deserves to be taken to the Hague and deserves to have a war crimes tribunal convened to lay out all of the charges that have been brought forward against him in a formal way by the U.N., and this resolution we will put into place on Thursday will have this body go on record in asking that that be done.
Let us talk about the chronology of murder of Saddam Hussein, Mr. Speaker, again, all documented. Not documented by the U.S. Government; documented by international groups that monitor human rights, documented by the U.N. special rapporteur for human rights. Let us go through them in a chronological order.
In 1979, the purge of the Baath Party leadership, members were forced to confess to invented crimes and then arbitrarily executed. Family members were held hostage. In 1980, Saddam led the attacks on the Fayli Kurds, removal of the Kurds in Baghdad and the southern cities of Kut, Basra and Hilla. Forced expulsions from homes to Iran. Execution of most captured young males; there was an unknown amount of these young males that were executed. Fourteen tons of captured Iraqi secret police documents,
videotapes and pictures provided a character of Iraqi rule over the Kurds that has been matched by no one since the great Holocaust of World War II. In fact, there is enough paperwork to document over 200,000 murders.
Mr. Speaker, where are the French and the Germans who cried to America
[Page: H1326]
to get Milosevic out of power for his ethnic cleansing, when we have documentation through the U.N. and these NGOs that Saddam Hussein has been responsible for the murder of 200,000 people? In 1980, Mr. Speaker, the invasion of Iran, a clear violation of article 2, section 4 of the U.N. charter. Launch of indiscriminate attacks on civilian targets. Use of human shields, physical and
mental torture of captives, all documented, on-file offenses. Eight military offensives in 1988. Systematic campaign of extermination and genocide waged against the Kurdish population of northern Iraq. Code name Anfal comes from a Koranic verse that legitimizes the right to plunder women and the property of infidels.
During this time there were mass executions and indiscriminate killings of fighters and civilians. There was an order very similar to the Nazi order of ``sturm and nebel'' to proclaim thousands of square kilometers of Kurdistan to be a free-fire zone in which neither human nor animal life was to remain.
Saddam during that time used chemical weapons and poison gas. He forced resettlement. He destroyed between 1,000 and 2,000 villages. The estimated killings during that period was between 50,000 and 100,000; but it may be as high as 182,000 people. There were 16,496 reported disappearances in 1988.
Mr. Speaker, I cannot hear the French and the Germans. Where is their outrage, Mr. Speaker? Are the French so blinded by oil that their principles have gone down the cesspool? Was Slobodan Milosevic so bad that he is in the Hague being tried, but Saddam Hussein who has committed these crimes is not worthy of action by the U.N.?
Let us go on, Mr. Speaker. In 1990, the invasion of Kuwait, Saddam orders to kill any civilian found after curfew or bearing anti-Iraqi slogans on homes. A violation of the clear contravention of article 2, section 4 of the U.N. charter. Systematic torture as a method of extracting information. Holding thousands of foreign hostages to dissuade their countries from joining the coalition and used as human shields, including Americans.
In 1991, the invasion in March, attacks on civilians following a cease-fire in the cities of Basra, Najaf, Karbala; massive executions, bombarding residential areas, destroying religious shrines. And how about other actions before 2000, Mr. Speaker? Mass executions in a grave in Burjesiyya, a district near Zubair south of Basra, torturing and extended detentions preceding the deaths due to suspicion of political demonstrations. In April 14, 1999, 56 detainees charged with treason who were executed
at Abu Ghraib on August 10 of 1999; 26 prisoners were executed at Abu Gharaib prison. March of 1999, the bombarding of residential areas of tribes by an armored division number 6 in Basra, Al-Ghameigh, Bail Wafi and Bait Sayed Noor. January, February, 1999, destruction
of 52 houses of political opponents with bulldozers in Basra, nine in Jamhuriyah, five in Al-Zubier, seven in Al-Karmah, 12 in Abo Al-Khaseib, and five in Al-Tanumah. July 20, 1999, demolished six houses in Thawra after the detention of their entire families.
[Time: 23:00]
But here is a man, Mr. Speaker, who has a family of human rights abusers of the worst possible kind. It is not just Saddam.
His son, Udai Hussein, created the Saddam's martyrs, who go around, 30,000, dressed in black, and they are known for executing and doing gruesome public spectacles of killing the President's critics. In fact, he is known, when there is a sporting loss, for torturing and in some cases killing the athletes because they have not been successful. His group has also been known to abduct women from the streets.
Qusai Hussein, the deputy for his father's military security and intelligence, heads Amn al-Khass, and they have also conducted outrages against innocent people.
Finally, Lieutenant General Hussein Kamal Hassan al-Majid, is known as ``Chemical Ali'' for his brutality against the Kurds, especially for his use of weapons procurement and weapons of mass destruction, and being able to sneak in those supplies that the U.N. has prohibited.
This individual defected. He returned to Iraq after having received a pardon. What happened? Saddam murdered him and he murdered his family, his own blood relatives.
Mr. Speaker, we have people in this country and we have people in France, we have Jacques Chirac, saying we should trust Saddam Hussein, just give him time. Mr. Speaker, it is time to lay the facts on the table. It is time to hold Saddam Hussein accountable.
Whether one is for military action or against it, this resolution does not discuss that. Whether one supports Iraq, whether one disagrees and does not support Iraq, whether one thinks there should be more time, 2 months, 5 months, 12 years, it does not apply to this resolution. This resolution simply says that we must hold this regime responsible for the crimes they have committed against humanity.
Mr. Speaker, I call upon my colleagues to hold this man accountable, at least equal to the way we are holding Slobodan Milosevic accountable.
Mr. Speaker, just a few short years ago there were claims from the administration that there would be mass graves that we would find in Serbia containing perhaps millions of bodies. Well, several years after the fact, the truth did not quite bear that out. That is not to lessen the atrocities of Milosevic; he is a war criminal, make no mistake about it. But there was a gross exaggeration of what he had done, even though the crimes he committed were outrageous. He is being held accountable for
those crimes right now at the Hague, in a trial that has been going on for almost a year.
Mr. Speaker, the French and the Germans, where were they in this case? They were pushing America: Get your troops over here, America. Get this man out of power. He is a brutal dictator. He has committed ethnic cleansing. Help us rid Europe of him because of the crimes he has committed against humanity. In the words of Richard Holbrooke, who was our U.N. Ambassador during the nineties under Bill Clinton, Slobodan Milosevic does not come anywhere near Saddam Hussein in terms of committing war crimes.
Mr. Speaker, do I detect a double standard here? Do the French think that Milosevic is worse than Saddam? The U.N. does not think so. Are the French denying the facts of the U.N. special rapporteur? Are the French and Germans not realizing the gross atrocities that have occurred against human beings, or do they not want to admit to what occurred?
Let me go through some more evidence, Mr. Speaker. I take this information from the Report on Iraqi War Crimes prepared under the auspices of the U.S. Army.
This was released on March 19, 1993, as a result of an intense investigation of our own citizens who were captured by Saddam. These are specific cases. Americans and members of this body can ask for the documentation of these cases and they can get them.
POW number 1, file number 176.1. Our own Americans were exhibited as war prizes. They were urinated on. They were beaten constantly, including to the rhythm of a song on a radio.
POW number 2, file number 176.2. He was abandoned by his captors in spite of having a broken leg. In fact, they put an Arab headdress on him.
POW number 3, file number 176.3. Saddam's troops beat and kicked him while being transported; punched him in the face; hit him in the head with a rifle; kicked him in a circle, and injured his leg; beaten severely with a lead pipe; and from the guards' boots smeared on the face. He had multiple cigarette burns all over his body from Saddam's leaders.
POW number 4, file number 176.4, American POW. Dragged by the hair, kicked by the captors, sexually molested during transport, slapped and spat upon, threatened with death. That was a female, Mr. Speaker.
Where are those in America expressing outrage at what this man ordered to be done to our citizens?
POW number 7, file number 176.7. Karate-chopped, forced to make a videotape.
POW number 9, beaten with fists, batons, rifle butts; kicked in the head and legs broken; beaten to the rhythm of a song; knocked unconscious many times; forced to make a videotape; beaten in the stomach and back with club, resulting in long-term pain to his kidneys; eye injuries from his beatings.
[Page: H1327]
Mr. Speaker, these are actions documented by Saddam Hussein against American citizens. We have Saddam Hussein now on international TV proclaiming he is for peace, he is against war. Mr. Speaker, cut me a break. Are we that naive? Are we that short of our memory that we do not understand what this man has done over the past 20 years?
Let me go through some more examples, Mr. Speaker.
As we know, in capturing a prisoner-of-war, the only thing a prisoner has to do is to state their surname, first and last name and rank, their date of birth, and their army or unit that they are involved with. That is all they have to give under the special protections under the Geneva Convention. That is it.
In the case of our POWs, Saddam consistently, along with his military, grossly abused their rights and tortured them. In fact, he forced them to do things that are absolutely sickening to read.
POW number 12, assaulted twice with a cattle prod; beaten with a hard rubber stick while being interrogated by the voice; assaulted with a stun gun; an AK-47 placed against his head and threatened with execution as a war criminal; threatened with dismemberment; shocked with a Talkman; multiple beatings.
POW 13, struck with hands, fists, a wooden club, blackjack, and sticks; punctured his eardrums; loosened his teeth from the beatings; beaten so severely he could not walk and could not stand.
Mr. Speaker, there is a lawsuit that has been filed in the courts of the District of Columbia. The lawyer represents these brave American POWs who are suing Saddam and Iraq because of what he did to them. Is America going to stand behind these brave young people? Are we going to stand up and hold Saddam accountable for what he did, or can they only sue civilly in a court, as documented by this lawsuit?
Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask special permission to have texts of this lawsuit entered into the RECORD, even though it will cost extra money, because I want every one of our colleagues and every American to understand the facts of what was done to our citizens by Saddam Hussein and by his evil subordinates in his military.
Let us go on to Article 32, documented by the Army also back in 1993, the specifics of some of which I mentioned already.
Iraq's violation and Saddam's violations of Article 27 and 32, which were absolutely outrageous: torturing Kuwaiti nationals. Widespread and barbaric actions, such as beatings on all parts of the body with various implements; beating people while they were suspended in air; hanging with cables; breaking appendages; knifings; extracting their finger- and toenails; boring holes in their body with drills; cutting off their tongues and ears; cutting off their body parts with saws; gouging out their
eyes; castrations; hammering nails into their hands; shootings; rapes; inserting broken bottlenecks into their rectums; pumping air or gasoline into their orifices; pouring acid on their skin; Asian and Kuwaiti women routinely raped by Iraqi soldiers; all of this documented by the official commission of our Army and sent to the U.N. for further action.
How about some specific cases, Mr. Speaker, that were also filed with the U.N. that took place in Kuwait City?
[Time: 23:10]
This Kuwaiti citizen file number 66.01015 was arrested by the Iraqis at his home on the 23rd of December 1990 and held until mid-December. During his captivity he received repeated beatings and electric shocks to his mouth, nose and genitalia. He was suspended from the ceiling and subjected to mock executions. He witnessed the torture of other Kuwaitis by techniques which included forced ingestion of gas causing abdominal pains, forcing a woman to eat flesh cut from her own body, an execution
by ax, removal of eyeballs, dismemberment, burning with a hot iron, execution by electric drill, and placement of a person into a large rotating washing machine.
Mr. Speaker, we are not dealing with a human being. We are dealing with an animal. We are not dealing with a person that we can have some feeling of a moral authority. This man is the lowest of the low, Mr. Speaker. It has all been documented through thousands of pieces of information assembled by nonprofit organizations, organizations concerned with human rights violations by governments around the world and by the U.N. itself. It has been documented. It is time to hold him accountable.
Mr. Speaker, here is a man, with all the documentation we have, who some people say we should trust. If you listen to Jacques Chirac, whose country has millions of dollars of oil contracts with Saddam Hussein and who himself is a personal friend of Saddam's, we should trust this man. Shame on Jacques Chirac. Mr. Speaker, shame on Jacques Chirac. By defending someone like Saddam Hussein, by not having his government take action to hold this man accountable, he has no moral authority. In fact,
in my opinion he has no credibility.
Our government, Mr. Speaker, can do the right thing. Members on both sides of the aisle have introduced resolutions in the past 10 years. The Senate has voted on a resolution in the past 10 years. One of my Democrat colleagues offered a resolution, has an amendment in the Committee on International Relations just recently holding Saddam accountable.
This body has repeatedly publicly called on the U.N. to hold Saddam accountable, and I think we should do it again, Mr. Speaker. And so, therefore, this Thursday I will introduce along with colleagues from both sides of the aisle, there are already over 25 co-sponsors, and I urge all of my colleagues to sign on to a resolution to ask our President to appeal to the U.N. to convene a special war crimes tribunal against Saddam Hussein.
Mr. Speaker, we did that for Milosevic, and he is today being tried for those crimes he committed against innocent people in the former Yugoslavia. Innocent Kosovars, innocent Serbs, innocent Montenegroans, innocent people that Milosevic thought he could abuse. He deserves the full weight of the punishment meted out by that special tribunal.
Is Saddam Hussein any less deserving of a tribunal? Are all of these cases documented by the U.N., by these NGOs, by other governments, should we just discard them and pretend that they do not exist and let Saddam go on as if nothing has happened?
Mr. Speaker, we have not done right by the American people. We talk about the need to deal with Saddam because he has chemical precursors for his weapons of mass destruction, because he has missiles that will go longer than what the U.N. said he could. They are all violations, and they are all material breaches of the agreements that were reached by Saddam and the U.N. 12 years ago. But why, Mr. Speaker, is there not more discussion about this man for the evil person that he is?
The U.N. special rapporteur said, No one has come close to this kind of activity since World War II, since the great Holocaust. No one, Mr. Speaker, including Milosevic. Is the world going to ignore the activities of Saddam Hussein? Are we going to ignore the atrocities he committed against our own people when they were captured? If that is the case, then international agreements mean nothing. The Geneva Convention has no basis. The Helsinki Final Act has no meaning. If we are not going to hold
leaders who commit such outrageous acts accountable, then we might as well not have those acts, those agreements existing in the first place.
Mr. Speaker, this body, our body can take action soon, to lay out to the world those who support military action and those who oppose military action, that regardless of whether or not you think war is inevitable, there is one thing that we all can agree on: Saddam Hussein is a war criminal. There is no doubt about that.
Those who understand the facts, those who look at the documents, those who see the evidence understand that this man comes as close to Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin as anyone that we have seen in the last several decades.
And so, Mr. Speaker, I appeal to our colleagues to co-sponsor this legislation before I drop it. Our colleagues have that opportunity. Democrats and Republicans are already on. We have over 25 Members and that was in the
[Page: H1328]
first day. I would hope that we would end up with over 300 co-sponsors and send a signal to the world that Saddam Hussein is an unacceptable leader because of his war crimes.
Again, Mr. Speaker, and I know I have said this before, but it really irks me because initially I opposed the Kosovo war, not because I support Milosevic, he is a war criminal, but because I felt that we had not brought Russia in to use their influence to get Milosevic out of power. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I led a delegation to Vienna with five of our Democrat colleagues and five of our Republican colleagues. We took a State Department official. And with the support of our State Department, we
flew to Vienna; and for 2 days around the clock working with the leaders of the Russian political factions, we fashioned a statement that called Milosevic a war criminal for his ethnic cleansing. We laid the groundwork with the help of the Russians that became the basis of the G-8 document to end the war 10 days later.
Mr. Speaker, we were prodded into war against Milosevic by the French and the Germans. They were bold back then. They did not want to put their own troops in harm's way without America being there. So we went into Kosovo. America was the number one supplier of the military. There were more American planes than there were any other nation, even though Yugoslavia is not far away from France and Germany. The French and Germans came in after us, but they pushed us the whole way. And why? Because
they said Milosevic was a war criminal who had abused people. And they were right. But, Mr. Speaker, so is Saddam Hussein, only a far worse war criminal than Milosevic ever was. Those are not my words. Those are the words of Richard Holbrook, U.N. Ambassador for the United States under President Clinton in an op-ed he wrote this past week. Those are the words of the special rapporteur of the U.N. who said that Saddam Hussein's regime has no equal since World War II.
[Time: 23:20]
Mr. Speaker, I would hope that every one of our colleagues would cosponsor the resolution to hold Saddam Hussein accountable for war crimes. It is a very simple resolution and I at this point in time enter that resolution into the Record so that all of our citizens, all of our colleagues can see the text, the documents, the actions, that we now request of the United Nations against Saddam Hussein.
H. Res. --
Whereas in 2001 and 2002, the Department of State contributed $4,000,000 to a United Nations Iraq War Crimes Commission, to be used if a United Nations tribunal for Iraqi war crimes is created;
Whereas the United Nations Security Council and the United Nations Commission on Human Rights have repeatedly condemned Iraq's human rights record;
Whereas Iraq continues to ignore United Nations resolutions and its international human rights commitments;
Whereas on April 19, 2002, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights passed a resolution drawing attention to ``the systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law by the Government of Iraq, resulting in an all-pervasive repression and oppression sustained by broad-based discrimination and widespread terror'';
Whereas United Nations Security Council Resolution 674 calls on all states or organizations to provide information on Iraq's war-related atrocities to the United Nations;
Whereas Iraq's aggressive pursuit of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons, and its past use of weapons of mass destruction against its own people and Iraq's neighbors illustrates the danger of allowing Saddam Hussein to go unchallenged;
Whereas torture is used systematically against political detainees in Iraqi prisons and detention centers;
Whereas this regime gouges out the eyes of the victims, crushes all of the bones in their feet, and burns a person's limbs off to force him to confess or comply; and
Whereas citizens of Iraq live in constant fear of being tortured, kidnapped, or killed: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That consistent with Section 301 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1992 and 1993 (Public Law 102-138), House Concurrent Resolution 137, 105th Congress (approved by the House of Representatives on November 13, 1997), and Senate Concurrent Resolution 78, 105th Congress (approved by the Senate on March 13, 1998), the Congress urges the President to call upon the United Nations to establish an international criminal tribunal for the purpose of indicting,
prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law.
Mr. Speaker, in fact, the resolution which does not have yet a number, lays out the fact that we spent, as I said earlier, $4 million in each of the past 2 years for a special U.N. Iraqi War Crimes Commission. It is already in place, continuing from the 1990s. American tax dollars are being used to support this U.N. effort.
This war crimes commission has, in fact, seen resolutions passed by the Security Council and the Commission on Human Rights as recently as April 19 of 2002, U.N. Security Council Resolution 674, all of which deal with Saddam Hussein's abuses of human rights. This resolution says, and resolves, that consistent with section 301 of the Foreign Relations Authorization Act, the House concurrent resolution and the Senate concurrent resolution, that the Congress urges the President to call upon the
United Nations to establish an International Criminal Tribunal for the purpose of indicting, prosecuting, and imprisoning Saddam Hussein and other Iraqi officials who are responsible for crimes against humanity, genocide, and other criminal violations of international law.
Mr. Speaker, we can do no less.
4B) Conservatives Against a War with Iraq
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, most people do not realize how many conservatives are against going to war in Iraq.
A strong majority of nationally syndicated conservative columnists have come out against this war. Just three of the many, many examples I could give include the following:
Charlie Reese, a staunch conservative, who was elected a couple of years ago as the favorite columnist of C-SPAN viewers, wrote that a U.S. attack on Iraq ``is a prescription for the decline and fall of the American empire.''
Paul Craig Roberts, who was one of the highest-ranking Treasury Department officials under President Reagan and now a nationally syndicated conservative columnist, wrote: ``An invasion of Iraq is likely the most thoughtless action in modern history.''
James Webb, a hero of Vietnam and President Reagan's Secretary of the Navy, wrote: ``The issue before us is not whether the United States should end the regime of Saddam Hussein, but whether we as a Nation are prepared to occupy territory in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years.''
It is a traditional conservative position, Mr. Speaker, to be against huge deficit spending.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that a very short war, followed by a 5-year occupation of Iraq, would cost the U.S. $272 billion, this on top of an estimated $350 billion deficit for the coming fiscal year.
It is a traditional conservative position to be against the U.S. being the policeman of the world. That is exactly what we will be doing if we go to war in Iraq.
It is a traditional conservative position to be against world government, because conservatives believe that government is less wasteful and arrogant when it is small and closer to the people.
It is a traditional conservative position to be critical of, skeptical about, or even opposed to the very wasteful, corrupt United Nations; yet the primary justification for this war, what we hear over and over again, is that Iraq has violated 16 U.N. resolutions. Well, other nations have violated U.N. resolutions; yet we have not threatened war against them.
It is a traditional conservative position to believe it is unfair to U.S. taxpayers and our military to put almost the entire burden of enforcing U.N. resolutions on the U.S.; yet that is exactly what will happen in a war against Iraq. In fact, it is already happening, because even if Hussein backs down now, it will have cost us billions of dollars in war preparations and moving so many of our troops, planes, ships and equipment to the Middle East.
It is a traditional conservative position to be against huge foreign aid, which has been almost a complete failure for many years now. Talk about huge foreign aid, Turkey, according to reports, is demanding 26 to $32 billion; Israel wants 12 to $15 billion; Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia want additional aid in unspecified amounts.
Almost every country that is supporting the U.S. in this war wants something in return. The cost of all these requests have not been added in to most of the war costs calculations. All this to fight a bad man who has a total military budget of about $1.4 billion, less than three-tenths of 1 percent of ours.
The White House said Hussein has less than 40 percent of the weaponry and manpower that he had at the time of the first Gulf War. One analyst estimated only about 20 percent.
His troops surrendered then to camera crews or even in one case to an empty tank. Hussein has been weakened further by years of bombing and economic sanctions and embargoes. He is an evil man, but he is no threat to us; and if this war comes about, it will probably be one of the shortest and certainly one of the most lopsided wars in history.
Our own CIA put out a report just a few days before our war resolution vote saying that Hussein was so weak economically and militarily he was really not capable of attacking anyone unless forced into it. He really controls very little outside the city of Baghdad.
The Washington Post 2 days ago had a column which said, ``The war in Iraq,
[Page: H1360] GPO's PDF
likely in the next few weeks, is not expected to last long, given the overwhelming U.S. fire power to be arrayed against the Iraqis. But the trickier job may be in the aftermath.''
Fortune Magazine said, ``Iraq, we win. What then? A military victory could turn into a strategic defeat ..... a prolonged, expensive, American-led occupation ..... could turn U.S. troops into sitting ducks for Islamic terrorists ..... All of that could have immediate and negative consequences for the global economy.''
Not only have most conservative columnists come out strongly against this war, but also at least four conservative magazines and two conservative think tanks.
One conservative Republican member of the other body said last week that the ``rush to war in Iraq could backfire'' and asked, ``We are wrecking coalitions, relationships and alliances so we can get a 2-week start on going to war alone?''
The Atlantic Monthly magazine said we would spend so much money in Iraq we might as well make it the 51st State. I believe most conservatives would rather that money be spent here.
It is a traditional conservative position to be in favor of a strong national defense, not one that turns our soldiers into international social workers, and to believe in a noninterventionist foreign policy, rather than in globalism or internationalism. We should be friends with all nations, but we will weaken our own Nation, maybe irreversibly, unless we follow the more humble foreign policy the President advocated in his campaign.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is very much against every conservative tradition to support preemptive war. Another member of the other body, the Senator from West Virginia, not a conservative but certainly one with great knowledge of and respect for history and tradition, said recently, ``This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This upcoming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world.''
Mr. Speaker, I would insert at this point my full statement in the RECORD.
Mr. Speaker, most people do not realize how many conservatives are against going to war in Iraq.
A strong majority of nationally-syndicated conservative columnists have come out against this war. Just three of many examples I could give include the following:
Charley Reese, a staunch conservative, who was selected a couple of years ago as the favorite columnist of C-Span viewers, wrote that a U.S. attack on Iraq: ``is a prescription for the decline and fall of the American empire. Overextension--urged on by a bunch of rabid intellectuals who wouldn't know one end of a gun from another--has doomed many an empire. Just let the United States try to occupy the Middle East, which will be the practical result of a war against Iraq, and Americans will be
bled dry by the costs in both blood and treasure.''
Paul Craig Roberts, who was one of the highest-ranking Treasury Department officials under President Reagan and now a nationally-syndicated conservative columnist, wrote: ``an invasion of Iraq is likely the most thoughtless action in modern history.''
James Webb, a hero in Vietnam and President Reagan's Secretary of the Navy, wrote: ``The issue before us is not whether the United States should end the regime of Saddam Hussein, but whether we as a nation are prepared to occupy territory in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years.''
It is a traditional conservative position to be against huge deficit spending.
The Congressional Budget Office estimated that a very short war followed by a five-year occupation of Iraq would cost the U.S. $272 billion, this on top of an estimated $350 billion deficit for the coming fiscal year.
It is a traditional conservative position to be against the U.S. being the policeman of the world. That is exactly what we will be doing if we go to war in Iraq.
It is a traditional conservative position to be against world government, because
conservatives believe that government is less wasteful and arrogant when it is small and closer to the people.
It is a traditional conservative position to be critical of, skeptical about, even opposed to the very wasteful, corrupt United Nations, yet the primary justification for this war, what we hear over and over again, is that Iraq has violated 16 U.N. resolutions.
Well, other nations have violated U.N. resolutions, yet we have not threatened war against them.
It is a traditional conservative position to believe it is unfair to U.S. taxpayers and our military to put almost the entire burden of enforcing U.N. resolutions on the U.S., yet that is exactly what will happen in a war against Iraq.
In fact, it is already happening, because even if Hussein backs down now it will cost us billions of dollars in war preparations and moving so many of our troops, planes, ships, and equipment to the Middle East.
It is a traditional conservative position to be against huge foreign aid, which has been almost a complete failure for many years now.
Talk about huge foreign aid--Turkey is demanding $26 to $32 billion according to most reports. Israel wants $12 to $15 billion additional aid. Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia want additional aid in unspecified amounts.
Almost every country that is supporting the U.S. in this war effort wants something in return. The cost of all these requests have not been added in to most of the war cost calculations.
All this to fight a bad man who has a total military budget of about $1.4 billion, less than \3/10\ of one percent of ours.
The White House said Hussein has less than 40% of the weaponry and manpower that he had at the time of the first Gulf War. One analyst estimated only about 20%.
His troops surrendered then to camera crews or even in one case to an empty tank. Hussein has been weakened further by years of bombing and economic sanctions and embargos.
He is an evil man, but he is no threat to us, and if this war comes about, it will probably be one of the shortest and certainly one of the most lopsided wars in history.
Our own CIA put out a report just a few days before our War Resolution vote saying that Hussein was so weak economically and militarily he was really not capable of attacking anyone unless forced into it. He
really controls very little outside the city of Baghdad.
The Washington Post, two days ago, had a column by Al Kamen which said: ``The war in Iraq, likely in the next few weeks, is not expected to last long, given the overwhelming U.S. firepower to be arrayed against the Iraqis. But the trickier job may be in the aftermath, when Washington plans to install an administrator, or viceroy, who would direct postwar reconstruction of the place.''
Fortune Magazine said: ``Iraq--We win. What then?'' ``A military victory could turn into a strategic defeat. . . . A prolonged, expensive, American-led occupation . . . could turn U.S. troops into sitting ducks for Islamic terrorists. . . . All of that could have immediate and negative consequences for the global economy.''
Not only have most conservative columnists come out strongly against this war, but also at least four conservative magazines and two conservative think tanks.
One conservative Republican member of the other Body (Sen. HAGEL) said last week that the ``rush to war in Iraq could backfire'' and asked: ``We are wrecking coalitions, relationships and alliances so we can get a two-week start on going to war alone?''
The Atlantic Monthly Magazine said we would spend so much money in Iraq we might as well make it the 51st state. I believe most conservatives would rather that money be spent here instead of 7,000 miles away.
It is a traditional conservative position to be in favor of a strong national defense, not one that turns our soldiers into international social workers, and to believe in a noninterventionist foreign policy rather than in globalism or internationalism.
We should be friends with all nations, but we will weaken our own nation, maybe irreversibly unless we follow the more humble foreign policy the President advocated in his campaign.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, it is very much against every conservative tradition to support preemptive war.
Another member of the other Body, the Senator from West Virginia, Senator BYRD, not a conservative but certainly one with great knowledge of and respect for history and tradition said recently:
``This is no simple attempt to defang a villain. No. This coming battle, if it materializes, represents a turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in the recent history of the world. This nation is about to embark upon the first test of the revolutionary doctrine applied in an extraordinary way at an unfortunate time. The doctrine of preemption--the idea that the United States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not imminently threatening but
may be threatening in the future--is a radical new twist on the traditional idea of self-defense.''
The columnist William Raspberry, again not a conservative but one who sometimes takes conservative positions, wrote this week these works: ``Why so fast. Because Hussein will stall the same way he's been stalling for a dozen years. A dozen years, by the way, during which he has attacked no one, gassed no one, launched terror attacks on no one. Tell me its because of American pressure that he has stayed his hand, and I say great. Isn't that
[Page: H1361] GPO's PDF
better than
a U.S.-launched war guaranteed to engender massive slaughter and spread terrorism ?''
Throughout these remarks, I have said not one word critical of the President or any of his advisors or anyone on the other side of this issue.
I especially have not and will not criticize the fine men and women in our Nation's armed forces. They are simply following orders and attempting to serve this country in an honorable way.
Conservatives are generally not the types who participate in street demonstrations, especially ones led by people who say mean-spirited things about our President. But I do sincerely believe the true conservative position, the traditional conservative position is against this war.
4C) We Should Step Back from the Brink of War with Iraq
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, is this really the time for the United States to lead an attack on Iraq and to make this the immediate centerpiece of our war on terrorism? I think not.
This is not to suggest that military action and war are never justified. Clearly, there are times when force is not only justified but is the most effective means of securing human rights, freedom and security. Knowing when to go to war is as important, however, as recognizing when a war is justified.
Liberating the people of Iraq from one of the world's most repressive regimes and preventing Saddam Hussein from acquiring nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction are all worthy goals that are beyond reasonable argument. But are we certain that we have reached the point where war is the only means of achieving these goals?
A few weeks ago I joined Senator McCain and other legislators at the Wehrkunde Conference. During the conference, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld confronted the Europeans, challenging them to join in military action to disarm Saddam. Most Europeans balked, and they continue to balk today. We may not be entirely alone, but we remain largely isolated, and that will not only make success in Iraq harder. It will also risk our long-term success in the war against al Qaeda and terrorism.
The administration speaks of a short war and assured success. But success in Iraq is not just about eliminating Saddam. Many military experts believe that that will be the easy part. Success in Iraq also means managing the ensuing social chaos, keeping a lid on the Middle East powder keg, thwarting terrorist attacks at home, rebuilding Iraq, and doing all of this when our own economy is faltering. Energy prices are rising and domestic priorities like health care and education are crying out for
attention.
The President should be commended for deciding to act through the United Nations with respect to Iraq. And Secretary of State Powell performed admirably in achieving the unanimous Security Council vote giving Iraq a last chance to disarm and instituting renewed inspections. Those were steps that earned us the support of the world community. But that support has dwindled as the administration presses for early action on a timetable that seems to be largely driven by the rising temperatures in
the Iraqi desert rather than the degree to which we have built international support. In fact, this has gone so far that some members of the Security Council seem prepared to repudiate the resolution they so recently approved.
The President's rhetoric has fueled the perception that America is eager for invasion, no matter what the rest of the world thinks. This perception has been compounded by seemingly shifting goals and rationales. President Bush did finally specify disarmament as opposed to regime change as the official goal of any U.S. invasion of Iraq. But the administration's emphasis has changed as it suited the President's case. It has been weapons of mass destruction one day, potential links to al Qaeda the
next, and Saddam's atrocious human rights record the day after that.
The point is not that these rationales are unfounded. Saddam is a ruthless tyrant who has attacked his neighbors and terrorized and murdered his own people. He has defied U.N. resolutions and has given every sign of trying to continue to evade disarmament.
[Time: 18:15]
The point is that it is difficult to believe the administration did not opt for war long ago whatever the consequences. Although we could be left virtually alone to bear the costs of winning the war and securing the peace, the administration has appeared intent on moving forward, seemingly with contempt for international opinion.
Although it seems that we are beyond the 11th hour and the clock is ticking, there are things we can and must do before taking military action against Iraq. I think continued diplomatic pressure and the threat of military action can force Saddam Hussein to disarm or seek permanent exile abroad. We should continue to apply this pressure through the United Nations.
Further, I think we must be more open to the idea of so-called coercive inspections, using our military buildup in coordination with the U.N. to test the effectiveness of a more robust inspection and disarmament process in Iraq. This would involve putting the most qualified people in the field, providing them with real-time intelligence, destroying forbidden items as soon as they are detected, strictly prohibiting Iraqi flying in the designated no-fly zones and reinforcing the authority of inspectors
with ground troops if necessary.
Mr. Speaker, I am an optimist by nature, but I am not naive. Coercive inspections alone may not be enough to disarm Saddam. But I believe they may be the best step now to build greater international support for forcing him to disarm. And as a strategic move in our larger role against terrorism, tightening the international noose on Saddam strikes me as a smarter option, at least in the short term, than opting now for a war with all its known and unknown consequences.
4D) War in Iraq
Mr. BENNETT. Mr. President, this morning's Washington Post has an especially long editorial. Indeed, it takes up the entire length of the editorial page. It is entitled ``Drumbeat on Iraq, a Response to Readers.''
I have a dear friend in Utah who wrote me. She was distraught--is distraught, I am sure--about the prospect of going to war and expressed a great many concerns.
I have been in the process of constructing what I hope is a responsible and thoughtful response to her concerns. As I read the editorial in this morning's Washington Post, I found that it does a better job than I could do of summarizing many, if not most, of the issues about which she is concerned. I want to read from sections of the editorial and then ask unanimous consent that it be printed in the RECORD at the end of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. BENNETT. In the editorial they say:
The right question, though, is not, ``Is war risky?'' but ``Is inaction less so?'' No one can provide more than a judgment in reply. But the world is already a dangerous place. Anthrax has been wielded in Florida, New York and Washington. Terrorists have struck repeatedly and with increased strength over the past decade. Are the United States and its allies ultimately safer if they back down again and leave Saddam Hussein secure? Or does safety lie in making clear that his kind of outlaw behavior
will not be tolerated and in helping Iraq become a peaceable nation that offers no haven to terrorists? We would say the latter. .....
As I say, I could not have put it better, which is why I have quoted it. I have raised the question on the floor before: What are the consequences if we do not follow through in Iraq? Some have said let's just leave the troops in place. And that means Iraq remains contained.
Leaving the troops in place is not an option. We must understand that the troops are where they are, poised to move into Iraq, because of the agreement of the governments in Qatar, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia, among others. Those governments will not allow our troops to remain on their soil indefinitely. They will not allow those troops to remain there while we contain Saddam Hussein for 6 months or 12 months or 12 years, which has been the period of ``containment'' that we have seen up until now.
We must either withdraw those troops and say we are
[Page: S2910] GPO's PDF
not going to move ahead militarily or, if Saddam Hussein does not disarm in accordance with the U.N. resolutions, those troops will move forward into his territory. We have no other choice: Move forward or withdraw.
For those who say the inspectors should be allowed to do their job, we must understand that the only reason the inspectors are there is because the troops are there. So we are coming down to the decision point, that is very clear.
Again, back to the editorial:
Some argue now that, because Saddam Hussein has not in the intervening half decade used his arsenal, Mr. Clinton was wrong. .....
I should say that the editorial quotes President Clinton as outlining the case against Saddam Hussein in 1998.
Some would argue now that, because Saddam Hussein has not in the intervening half decade used his arsenal, Mr. Clinton was wrong and the world can rest assured that Iraq is adequately ``contained.'' Given what we know about how containment erodes over time; about Saddam Hussein's single-mindedness compared with the inattention and divisions of other nations; and about the ease with which deadly weapons can move across borders, we do not trust such an assurance. Mr. Clinton understood, as Mr.
Bush understands, that no president can bet his nation's safety on the hope that Iraq is ``contained.'' We respect our readers who believe that war is the worst option. But we believe that, in this case, long-term
peace will be better served by strength than by concessions.
There is one other issue that was raised by my friend in Utah to which the editorial does not speak. This is the issue of first strike. My friend says we cannot cross the line of having the United States be involved in a first strike against a nation that has not attacked us.
One of the arguments I have heard on this score is that if we do it, we will set a precedent that will allow other nations to do it. Other nations that we do not want to do it will say we can do it because the United States did.
If I may, without being disrespectful to that argument, I would point out that Adolph Hitler did not need a precedent from the United States to attack Poland. He made up his own excuse. He pretended that Poland had attacked him. He dressed prisoners in Polish military uniforms, murdered them, and then had them found by German soldiers on German soil who said they were shot as they tried to invade Germany.
The setting of a precedent by the United States or the not setting of a precedent by the United States will have absolutely no effect on the actions of a brutal dictator who decides to attack his neighbors in a first strike fashion. Saddam Hussein didn't quote precedent when he attacked Kuwait in the early 1990s. He went ahead and did it, and would have done it again whether he had precedent or not.
Having said that, however, I want to review a little bit of American history. It may not be history of which we are proud, for those who say we have never committed a first strike, but it is history nonetheless of which we must be aware. I have not taken the time to research all examples of this because my memory provides me with enough to make the point.
I remember when Lyndon Johnson sent the Marines into the Dominican Republic, for what purpose I cannot recall. But this was not a country that had attacked us and we sent military forces in there on the grounds that there was some American interest that had to be protected.
Ronald Reagan sent the Marines into Grenada. His reason was that the legitimate Government of Grenada requested it.
In his book, ``The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Empire,'' Brian Crozier referred to the American military action in Grenada as one of the key turning points in the cold war. He said if the United States had not moved into Grenada and removed the Communist government there, the cold war would have lasted considerably longer and been more devastating.
There was no international clamor against President Reagan when he did this. He believed it was in America's best interests, and at least one historian has said it was not only in America's best interests, it was in the world's best interests for Ronald Reagan to have done what he did in Grenada.
In the waning days of his Presidency, the first President Bush sent American troops into Somalia. Somalia had not attacked us and did not represent any threat. The troops were there presumably on a humanitarian mission, but they were sent in to deal with a military situation in that country that President Bush thought had to be dealt with. Those troops were withdrawn by the Clinton administration. But, once again, this was not a circumstance where America had been attacked but one where an American
President sent American troops and there was no international outcry, no international complaint.
Shortly after I came to the Senate, President Clinton invaded Haiti. Our former colleague, Sam Nunn, was in Haiti just prior to the time when the American military entered that country, and he debriefed a number of us after he came back. He pointed out that the only reason there was not bloodshed when the American troops entered Haiti was because the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Colin Powell, went with Senator Nunn and former President Jimmy Carter to Haiti and General Powell
was able to convince the Haitian general in charge of their military that it was not dishonorable for the Haitian general to save the lives of his troops and allow the Americans to come in without military opposition.
As I recall it from Senator Nunn, the Haitian general was determined that it was his duty as a military man to resist any invasion of his country, no matter how hopeless that resistance might be. And he gathered his family around him, his wife and his children, hugged them together and said: This is our last night on Earth because tomorrow the Americans are invading and I will be killed.
As I say, General Powell sat down with the Haitian general, convinced him that his first duty as a military officer was to protect the lives of his troops, and that he was not doing a dishonorable thing if he did not mount a hopeless resistance against the Americans.
Once again, there was no international outcry against the American decision to send troops into Haiti. Looking back on it, it was not necessarily a wise thing to have done. We replaced a brutal dictator much beloved by American conservatives with a brutal dictator much beloved by American liberals. But the average Haitian has not seen any improvement in his or her lifestyle. Indeed, those who have been to Haiti recently tell me things are worse now than they were before the Americans invaded.
Then we have the former Yugoslavia, a country that represented no threat to the United States and had not attacked the United States, but the United States led a national coalition in war upon that nation.
Why did we do it? We did it because, under Milosevic, that nation had produced enough casualties within its borders to begin to approach 20 percent of the size of the Holocaust. They killed that many of their own people, and the Americans felt that was a serious enough challenge to require us to go ahead.
Now we have just heard a speech by the Senator from Michigan with respect to North Korea. We are being asked, Why are we not doing more with respect to North Korea? I will not respond to the Senator from Michigan or the Democratic leader in that vein. But I will point out that the attitude around the world and, indeed, here in the Senate is why the United States isn't taking care of this. If I might add one word to that question, Why isn't the United States taking care of this unilaterally? In
other words, the United States should handle this all by themselves, according to speeches that are made here and in the world community.
I run through this history simply to make this point: It is not accurate to say the proposed action in Iraq is either unprecedented in American history or illegal under American or international law. The action that is proposed with respect to Iraq is in the tradition of these humanitarian missions that I have described.
Some of them have gone wrong. Some of them have turned out not to produce a humanitarian result. But in every case there was no prior complaint raised against the proposal that we do this on the ground that this was an unacceptable first strike against a
[Page: S2911] GPO's PDF
defenseless neighbor. In every circumstance, it went forward with full approval. I voted against the move into Haiti. But the President appropriately came to the Congress and got approval before he did
it.
President Bush has come to the Congress, and by a 77-23 vote in this body and an equally lopsided vote in the other body, has approval before he goes into Iraq. This is not a stealth attack like Pearl Harbor under the cover of night. This is something that has been debated and laid before the United Nations. The United Nations, by a 15-0 vote in the Security Council, announced to Iraq if she did not disarm, she would face serious consequences, and serious consequences in United Nations speak
means war. This is not something that is done hidden or in a corner or in the dark.
So we come back now to the fundamental question: Is it safer to go ahead with an operation in Iraq than it is to pull down the American troops and bring them home? I agree with the editorial writers of the Washington Post. This is an agonizing decision. This is not one to be made lightly, and I am sure from conversations with him that the President is not going to make it lightly. He is going to weigh all of the consequences. But I believe in the end he will come to the same conclusion that the
Washington Post editorial writers have come to and that I have come to. Whatever the unknowns on either side, the present evidence suggests that the most dangerous thing we could do with respect to the situation in Iraq is to back down if Iraq does not comply with the United Nations resolution. To pull our troops
out of Iraq does not comply with the demands that the world has made upon it. The safest thing to do if Iraq does not comply is to carry through with the resolution that was adopted on this floor by an overwhelming margin, adopted in the Security Council of the United Nations unanimously, and not hold back.
I yield the floor.
[From the Washington Post, Feb. 27, 2003]
``Drumbeat'' on Iraq? A Response to Readers
``I have been a faithful reader of The Washington Post for almost 10 years,'' a recent e-mail to this page begins. ``Recently, however, I have grown tired of your bias and endless drumbeating for war in Iraq.'' He's not the only one. The national and international debate over Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, and our editorials in favor of disarming the dictator, have prompted a torrent of letters, many approving and many critical. They are for the most part thoughtful and serious;
the antiwar letters in particular are often angry and anguished as well. ``It is truly depressing to witness the depths Washington Post editors have reached in their jingoistic rush to war,'' another reader writes. It's a serious charge, and it deserves a serious response.
That answer, given the reference to ``Washington Post editors,'' probably needs to begin with a restatement of the separation at The Post between news and editorial opinion functions. Those of us who write editorials have no influence over editors and reporters who cover the news and who are committed to offering the fairest and most complete journalism possible about the standoff with Iraq. They in turn have no influence over us.
For our part, we might begin with that phrase ``rush to war.'' In fact there is nothing sudden or precipitous about our view that Saddam Hussein poses a grave danger. In 1990 and 1991 we supported many months of diplomacy and pressure to persuade the Iraqi dictator to withdraw his troops from Kuwait, the neighboring country he had invaded. When he failed to do so, we supported the use of force to restore Kuwait's independence. While many of the same Democrats who oppose force now opposed it then
also, we believe war was the correct option--though it was certainly not, at the time, the only choice. When the war ended, we supported--in hindsight too unquestioningly--a cease-fire agreement that left Saddam Hussein in power. But it was an agreement, imposed by the U.N. Security Council, that demanded that he give up his dangerous weapons.
In 1997 and 1998, we strongly backed President Clinton when he vowed that Iraq must finally honor its commitments to the United Nations to give up its nuclear , biological and chemical weapons--and we strongly criticized him when he retreated from those vows. Mr. Clinton understood the stakes. Iraq, he said, was a ``rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.''
When we cite Mr. Clinton's perceptive but ultimately empty comments, it is in part to chide him and other Democrats who take a different view now that a Republican is in charge. But it has a more serious purpose too. Mr. Clinton could not muster the will, or the domestic or international
support, to force Saddam Hussein to live up to the promises he had made in 1991, though even then the danger was well understood. Republicans who now line up behind President Bush were in many cases particularly irresponsible; when Mr. Clinton did bomb Iraqi weapons sites in 1998, some GOP leaders accused him of seeking only to distract the nation from his impeachment worries. Through the end of Mr. Clinton's tenure and the first year of Mr. Bush's presidency, Saddam Hussein built up his power,
beat back sanctions and found new space to rearm--all with the support of France and Russia and the acquiescence of the United States.
After Sept. 11, 2001, many people of both parties said--and we certainly hoped--that the country had moved beyond such failures of will and politicization of deadly foreign threats. An outlaw dictator, in open defiance of U.N. resolutions, unquestionably possessing and pursuing biological and chemical weapons, expressing support for the Sept. 11 attacks: Surely the nation would no longer dither in the face of such a menace. Now it seems again an open question. To us, risks that were clear before
seem even clearer now.
But what of our ``jingoism,'' our ``drumbeating''? Probably no editorial page sin could be more grievous than whipping up war fever for some political or trivial purpose. And we do not take lightly the risks of war--to American and Iraqi soldiers and civilians first of all. We believe that the Bush administration has only begun to prepare the public for the sacrifices that the nation and many young Americans might bear during and after a war. And there is a long list of terrible things that could
go wrong: anthrax dispersed, moderate regimes imperiled, Islamist recruiting spurred, oil wells set afire.
The first question, though, is not ``Is war risky?'' but ``Is inaction less so?'' No one can provide more than a judgment in reply. But the world is already a dangerous place, Anthrax has been wielded in Florida, New York and Washington. Terrorists have struck repeatedly and with increasing strength over the past decade. Are the United States and its allies ultimately safer if they back down again and leave Saddam Hussein secure? Or does safety lie in making clear that his kind of outlaw behavior
will not be tolerated and in helping Iraq become a peaceable nation that offers no haven to terrorists? We would say the latter while acknowledging the magnitude of the challenge, both during and especially after any war that may have to be fought. And we would say also that not only terrible things are possible: To free the Iraqi people from the sadistic repression of Saddam Hussein, while not the primary goal of a war, would surely be a blessing.
Nor is it useful merely to repeat that war ``should only be a last resort,'' as the latest French-German-Russian resolution states, or that, as French President Jacques Chirac said Monday, Iraq must disarm ``because it represents a danger for the region and maybe the world ..... But we believe this disarmament must happen peacefully.'' Like everyone else, we hope it does happen peacefully. But if it does not--if Saddam Hussein refuses as he has for a dozen years--should that refusal be accommodated?
War in fact has rarely been the last resort for the United States. In very recent times, the nation could have allowed Saddam Huss-
sein to swallow Kuwait. It could have allowed Slobodan Milosevic to expel 1 million refugees from Kosovo. In each case, the nation and its allies fought wars of choice. Even the 2001 campaign against Afghanistan was not a ``last resort,'' though it is now remembered as an inevitable war of self-defense. Many Americans argued that the Taliban had not attacked the United States and should not be attached; that what was needed was a police action against Osama bin Laden. We believed they were wrong
and Mr. Bush was right, though he will be vindicated in history only if the United States and its allies stay focused on Afghanistan and its reconstruction.
So the real questions are whether every meaningful alternative has been exhausted, and if so whether war is wise as well as justified. The risks should be minimized. Everyone agrees, for example, that the United States would be stronger before and during a war if jointed by many allies, and even better positioned if backed by the United Nations. If waiting a month, or three months, would ensure such backing, the wait would be worthwhile.
But the history is not encouraging. The Security Council agreed unanimously in early November that Iraq was a danger; that inspectors could do no more than verify a voluntary disarmament; and that a failure to disarm would be considered a ``material breach.'' Now all agree that Saddam Hussein has not cooperated, and yet some countries balk at the consequences--as they have, time and again, since 1991. We have seen no evidence that an additional three months would be helpful. Nor does it strike
us as serious to argue that the war should be fought if Mr. Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder agree, but not if they do not. If the war is that optional, it should not be fought, even if those leaders do agree; if it is essential to U.S. national security, their objections ultimately cannot be dispositive.
In 1998, Mr. Clinton explained to the nation why U.S. national security was, in fact, in danger. ``What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of
[Page: S2912] GPO's PDF
mass destruction? ...... Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating
destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal.''
Some argue now that, because Saddam Hussein has not in the intervening half-decade use his arsenal, Mr. Clinton was wrong and the world can rest assured that Iraq is adequately ``contained.'' Given what we know about how containment erodes over time; about Saddam Hussein's single-mindedness compared with the inattention and divisions of other nations; and about the ease with which deadly weapons can move across borders, we do not trust such an assurance. Mr. Clinton understood, as Mr. Bush understands,
that no president can bet his nation's safety on the hope that Iraq is ``contained.'' We respect our readers who believe that war is the worst option. But we believe that, in this case, long-term peace will be better served by strength than by concessions.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I send a resolution to the desk and ask unanimous consent that it be held at the desk.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SANTORUM. Thank you, Mr. President.
Return to the Congressional Report Weekly.
