19.Sep.2002 Transcript from the Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing
The Dean of the Congress --
The West Virginian of the 20th Century
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<BACK to MAIN PAGE<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<BACK to MAIN PAGE<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
SENATOR BYRD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding these hearings.
Mr. Secretary,
to your knowledge,
did the United States
help Iraq
to acquire
the building blocks
of biological weapons
during the Iran-Iraq War?
Are we,
in fact,
now facing
the possibility
of reaping
what we have sown?
SECRETARY RUMSFELD: Certainly not to my knowledge.
I have no knowledge of United States companies or government being involved
in assisting Iraq develop chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
SENATOR BYRD:
Mr. Secretary,
let me read to you
from the 23.Sep.2002,
Newsweek story.
I read this,
I read excerpts,
because my time is limited.
"Some Reagan officials even saw Saddam as another Anwar Sadat,
capable of making Iraq into a modern secular state,
just as Sadat had tried to lift up Egypt
before his assassination
in 00.000.1981.
But Saddam had to be rescued first.
The war against Iran was going badly by 1982."
"Iran's human-wave attacks threatened to overrun Saddam's armies.
Washington decided to give Iraq a helping hand.
After Rumsfeld's visit to Baghdad
in 00.000.1983,
U.S. intelligence began supplying the Iraqi dictator
with satellite photos
showing Iranian deployments.
"Official documents
suggest
that America may also have
secretly arranged for tanks
and other military hardware
to be shipped to Iraq
in a swap deal:
American tanks to Egypt,
Egyptian tanks to Iraq.
"Over the protest of some Pentagon skeptics,
the Reagan administration began allowing the Iraqis to buy
a wide variety of 'dual-use,'
equipment and materials
from American suppliers.
"According to confidential Commerce Department export control documents obtained by Newsweek,
the shopping list included
a computerized database
for Saddam's Interior Ministry,
presumably to help keep track of political opponents,
helicopters to help transport Iraqi officials,
television cameras for video surveillance applications,
chemical analysis equipment
for the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission, IAEC,
and,
most unsettling,
numerous
shipments of the
bacteria,
fungi,
protozoa
to the IAEC.
"According to former officials
the bacterial cultures could be used to make biological weapons, including anthrax.
The State Department also approved the shipment of 1.5 million atropine injectors
for use against the effects of chemical weapons
but the Pentagon blocked the sale.
"The helicopters,
some
American officials
later
surmised,
were used to spray poison gas on the Kurds.
The United States
almost certainly
knew
from
its own
satellite imagery
that
Saddam
was
using
chemical weapons
against
Iranian
troops.
"When Saddam bombed
Kurdish rebels
and
civilians
with a lethal cocktail
of mustard gas,
sarin,
tabun
and VX
in 1988,
the Reagan administration
first blamed Iran
before acknowledging,
under pressure
from congressional Democrats,
that the culprit were Saddam's own forces.
There was only token official protest at the time.
Saddam's men were unfazed.
An Iraqi audiotape later captured
by the Kurds
records Saddam's cousin,
Ali Hassan al-Majid,
known as Ali Chemical,
talking to his fellow officers
about gassing the Kurds.
'Who is going to say anything?'
he asks,
'the international community?
F-blank them
!'"
Now can this possibly be true?
We already knew that
Saddam was dangerous man
at the time.
I realize that you were not in public office at the time,
but you were dispatched to Iraq by President Reagan
to talk about
the need to improve relations between Iraq and the U.S.
Let me ask you again:
To your knowledge
did the United States help Iraq to acquire the building blocks of biological weapons during the Iran-Iraq war?
Are we, in fact,
now
facing the possibility
of reaping
what
we
have sown?
The Washington Post reported
this morning
that the United States
is stepping away
from efforts
to strengthen
the Biological Weapons Convention.
I'll have a question on that later.
Let me ask you again:
Did the United States help Iraq to acquire the building blocks of biological weapons during the Iran-Iraq War?
Are we, in fact,
now facing the possibility
of reaping what we have sown?
SECRETARY RUMSFELD:
I have not read the article.
As you suggest,
I was,
for a period in late '83 and early '84,
asked by President Reagan to serve as Middle East envoy
after the Marines
-- 241 Marines were killed in Beirut.
As part of my responsibilities I did visit Baghdad.
I did meet with Mr. Tariq Aziz.
And I did meet with Saddam Hussein
and spent
some time
visiting with them
about the war they were engaged in with Iran.
At the time our concern,
of course,
was Syria
and Syria's role in Lebanon
and Lebanon's role in the Middle East
and the terrorist acts
that were
taking place.
As a private citizen
I was assisting only for a period of months.
I have never heard anything like what you've read,
I have no knowledge of it whatsoever,
and I doubt it.
SENATOR BYRD:
You doubt what?
SECRETARY RUMSFELD:
The questions you posed
as to whether
the United States of America
assisted Iraq
with the elements that you listed in your reading of Newsweek
and that we could conceivably now be reaping what we've sown.
I think
--I doubt both.
SENATOR BYRD:
Are you surprised that this is what I've said?
Are you surprised at this story in Newsweek?
SECRETARY RUMSFELD:
I guess I'm at an age and circumstance in life
where I'm no longer surprised
about what I hear in the newspapers.
SENATOR BYRD:
That's not the question.
I'm of that age, too.
Somewhat older than you,
but how about that story I've read?
SECRETARY RUMSFELD:
I see stories all the time that are flat wrong.
I just don't know.
All I can say...
SENATOR BYRD:
How about this story?
This story?
How about this story,
specifically?
SECRETARY RUMSFELD:
As I say,
I have not read it,
I listened carefully to what you said
and I doubt it.
SENATOR BYRD:
All right.
Now the Washington Post reported
this morning
that the United States is stepping away from efforts
to strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention.
Are we not sending exactly the wrong signal to the world,
at exactly the wrong time?
Doesn't this damage our credibility in the international community
at the very time that we are seeking their support
to neutralize the threat of Iraq's biological weapons program?
If we supplied,
as the Newsweek article said,
if we supplied the building blocks for germ and chemical warfare
to this madman in the first place,
this psychopath,
how do we look to the world
to be backing away
from this effort
to control it
at this point?
SECRETARY RUMSFELD:
Senator,
I think it would be a shame
to leave this committee
and the people listening
with the impression
that the United States
assisted Iraq
with chemical or biological weapons
in the 1980s.
I just do not believe that's the case.
SENATOR BYRD:
Well, are you saying
that the Newsweek article is inaccurate?
SECRETARY RUMSFELD:
I'm saying precisely what I said,
that I didn't read the Newsweek article,
but that I doubt its accurate.
SENATOR BYRD:
I'll be glad to send you up a copy.
SECRETARY RUMSFELD:
But that I was not in government at that time,
except as a special envoy for a period of months.
So one ought not to rely on me
as the best source
as to what happened
in that mid-'80s period
that you were describing.
I will say one other thing.
On two occasions
I believe when you read that article,
you mentioned the IAEC,
which as I recall is the International Atomic Energy Commission,
and mentioned that if some of the things that you were talking about
were provided to them,
which I found quite confusing
to be honest.
With respect to the Biological Weapons Convention,
I was not aware that the United States government had taken a position with respect to it.
It's not surprising
because it's a matter for the Department of State,
not the Department of Defense.
If in fact they have indicated,
as The Washington Post reports,
that they are not going to move forward
with a
-- I believe it's an enforcement regime,
it's not my place to discuss the administration's position
when I don't know what it is.
But I can tell you,
from a personal standpoint,
my recollection is
that the biological convention
never, never
was anticipated
that there would even be thought of
to have an enforcement regime.
And that an enforcement regime on something like that,
where there are a lot of countries involved
who are on the terrorist list
who were participants in that convention,
that the United States has,
over a period of administrations,
believed that it would not be a good idea,
because the United States would be a net loser
from an enforcement regime.
But that is not the administration's position.
I just don't know what the administration's position is.
SENATOR LEVIN:
We're going to have to leave it there, because you're way over.
SENATOR BYRD:
This is a very important question.
SENATOR LEVIN:
It is indeed + you're over time.
I agree with you on the importance, but you're way over time, sir.
SENATOR BYRD:
I know I'm over time,
but are we going to leave this in question out there dangling?
SENATOR LEVIN:
One last question.
SENATOR BYRD:
I ask unanimous consent that I may have an additional five minutes.
SENATOR LEVIN:
No, I'm afraid you can't do that.
If you could just do one last
--well, wait a minute,
ask unanimous consent,
I can't stop you from doing that.
SENATOR INHOFE:
I object.
SENATOR BYRD: Mr. Chairman?
SENATOR LEVIN:
Just one last question.
Would that be all right so you could wind that up?
Senator Byrd,
if you could just take one additional question.
SENATOR BYRD:
I've never -- I've been in this Congress 50 years.
I've never objected to another senator having a few additional minutes.
Now Mr. Chairman,
I think that the secretary should have a copy of this report,
this story that
-- from Newsweek
that I've been querying him about.
I think he has a right to look at that.
SENATOR LEVIN:
Could somebody take that out to the secretary?
SENATOR BYRD:
Now, while that's being given to the Secretary,
Mr. Secretary,
I think
we're put into an
extremely bad position before the world
today
if we're going to walk away
from an international effort
to strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention against germ warfare,
advising its allies that the U.S. wants to delay further discussions
until 2006.
Especially in the light of the Newsweek story;
I think we bear some responsibility.
SENATOR INHOFE: Mr. Chairman
I ask for a point of order.
SENATOR LEVIN:
Can we just have this be the last question,
if you would just go along with us please,
Senator Inhofe?
SENATOR INHOFE:
I'll only say though,
in all respect to the Senator from West Virginia,
we have a number of senators here.
We have a limited time of six minutes each,
and we're entitled to have our six minutes.
That should be a short question if it's the last question.
SENATOR LEVIN:
If we could just make that the last question and answer,
I would appreciate it.
The chair would appreciate the cooperation of all senators.
Secretary Rumsfeld,
could you answer that question please?
SECRETARY RUMSFELD:
I'll do my best.
Senator,
I just in glancing at this,
and I hesitate to do this
because I have not read it carefully.
But it says here that,
``According to confidential Commerce Department export control documents obtained by Newsweek,
the shopping list included.''
It did not say that there were deliveries of these things.
It said that Iran
-- Iraq asked for these things.
It talks about a shopping list.
Second,
in listing these things,
it says that they wanted television cameras for video surveillance applications,
chemical analysis equipment for the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission, the IAEC
-- and that may very well be the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission,
which would be --
mean that my earlier comment would not be correct,
because I thought it was the International Atomic Energy Commission.
But this seems to indicate it's the Iraq Commerce Commission.
SENATOR BYRD: Mr. Chairman,
may I say to my friend from Oklahoma,
I'm amazed that he himself wouldn't yield me time for this important question.
I would do the same for him.
Mr. Chairman,
I would like to ask...
SENATOR CLELAND:
I yield my five minutes, Senator.
SENATOR BYRD:
I thank the distinguished senator.
Mr. Chairman,
I would like to ask the Secretary
-- and I don't just like to ask him --
I asked him to review Pentagon records
to see if the Newsweek article is true or not.
Will the Secretary do that?
SECRETARY RUMSFELD:
It appears that they're Department of Commerce records,
as opposed to Pentagon.
But I can certainly ask that the Department of Commerce
and,
to the extent that it's relevant,
the Department of State,
look into it and see
if we can't determine
the accuracy or inaccuracy
of some aspects
of this.
Yes, sir.
SENATOR LEVIN:
And we go one step further than that.
I think the request is
that the Defense Department search its records.
Will you do that?
SECRETARY RUMSFELD:
We'll be happy to search ours,
but this refers to the Commerce Department.
SENATOR LEVIN:
We will ask the State Department and the Commerce Department
to do the same thing.
SECRETARY RUMSFELD:
We'd be happy to.
SENATOR LEVIN:
And we will also ask the Intelligence Committee
to stage a briefing for all of us on that issue,
so that Senator Byrd's question...
SENATOR BYRD: Mr. Chairman,
I thank the chairman.
SENATOR LEVIN:
Thank you very much, Senator.
SENATOR BYRD:
I thank the Secretary.
SECRETARY RUMSFELD:
Thank you.
SENATOR LEVIN: Senator Byrd,
we will ask
Senator Graham and Senator Shelby
to hold a briefing on that subject,
because it is a very important subject.
SENATOR BYRD: I thank the chairman.
--------
Senate Remarks: Reaping What We Have Sown in Iraq?
20.Sep.2002
Mr. President,
yesterday
at a hearing of the
Senate Armed Services Committee,
I asked a question of the Secretary of Defense.
I referred to a Newsweek article that appeared in the 23.Sep.2002 edition.
That article asserted that the Reagan administration
allowing the Iraqis to buy a wide variety of materials
that could be used
as the foundation
for chemical
and
biological weapons.
Specifically during yesterday's hearing,
I asked Secretary Rumsfeld:
"Mr. Secretary, to your knowledge,
did the United States help Iraq to acquire the building blocks of biological weapons during the Iran-Iraq War?
Are we, in fact, now facing the possibility of reaping what we have sown?"
The Secretary quickly and flatly denied any knowledge,
but said he would review Pentagon records.
I suggest that the
Administration speed up that review
for today
my concerns have grown.
-----------------------------------------------
A letter from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention <../../../byrd_newsroom/byrd_cdc1995letter/byrd_cdc1995letter.html>,
which I submit for the Record,
and other documents
show
that the United States may,
in fact,
be preparing to reap
what it has sown.
The CDC letter,
written in 1995
by former Director David Satcher to Senator Donald W. Riegle, Jr.
, points out that
the United States Government
provided nearly two dozen viral and bacterial samples to Iraqi scientists
in the 1985.
According to the letter from
Doctor Satcher to Senator Donald Riegle,
many of the materials
were hand-carried
by an Iraqi scientist to Iraq
after he had spent three months training
in a C-D-C laboratory.
The Armed Services Committee is requesting information from the Departments of Commerce,
State, and Defense
on the history of the United States
providing the building blocks for weapons of mass destruction to Iraq.
I recommend that the
Department of Health and Human Services
be included in that request as well.
We do not need obfuscation&denial.
The American people need the truth.
The American people need to know
whether the United States is,
in large part,
responsible for the very Iraqi weapons of mass destruction
which the Administration now seeks to destroy.
We may very well have created the monster that we seek to eliminate.
The Senate deserves to know the whole story.
The American people deserve answers.
--------------
Senate Remarks:
Providing a Cookbook for Iraqi Biological Weapons
26.Sep.2002
Amidst the wall-to-wall reporting on Iraq that has become daily grist for the nation's news media,
a headline in this morning's
USA Today
leaped out from the front page:
"In Iraq's arsenal, Nature's deadliest poison."
The article describes the horrors of botulinum toxin,
a potential weapon in Iraq's biological warfare arsenal.
According to the Journal of the American Medical Association,
botulinum toxin
is the most poisonous substance known.
We know that Saddam Hussein produced thousands of litres of botulinum toxin
in the run up to the Gulf War.
We also know where some of the toxin came from:
The United States,
which approved shipments of botulinum toxin
from a non-profit scientific specimen repository
to the government of Iraq
in l986 and l988.
I asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
about these shipments
during an Armed Services Committee hearing
a week ago,
and I repeat
today
what I said to him then:
In the event of a war with Iraq,
might the United States
be facing the possibility
of reaping what it has sown?
The threat
of chemical and biological warfare
is one of the most terrifying prospects
of a war with Iraq,
and one that should give us
serious pause
before
we embark
on a course of action
that
might lead to an all-out,
no holds barred,
conflict.
Earlier that week,
British Prime Minister Tony Blair
released an assessment
of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program
which contained the jolting conclusion
that Iraq could launch chemical or biological warheads
within 45 minutes
of getting the green light
from Saddam Hussein.
The British government assessment,
while putting
Iraq's chemical and biological capabilities
in starker terms than perhaps we have seen before,
closely tracks
with what U.S. officials have been warning for some time:
Saddam Hussein has the means and the know-how
to wage biological and chemical warfare,
and he has demonstrated his willingness
to use such weapons.
By the grace of God,
he apparently has not yet achieved nuclear capability.
On the matter of biological warfare,
General Richard Myers,
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
testified before the
Senate Armed Services Committee
last week
that many improvements have been made
to the protective gear worn by soldiers
and to the sensors used to detect chemical or biological agents.
But according to the
USA Today article on botulinum toxin,
U.S. troops would be just as vulnerable to botulinum toxin
today
as they were during the Gulf War.
"There's still no government-approved vaccine,
and the only antitoxin
is made by extracting antibodies
from the blood of vaccinated horses
using decades-old technology,"
the article states.
Last year's
anthrax attack on the United States Senate
gave all of us in this chamber
first-hand experience with biological warfare,
and new insight into the insidious nature of biological weapons.
And that attack involved only about a teaspoon or so of anthrax sealed in an envelope.
The potential consequences of a massive bio-weapons attack against soldiers on the battlefield
boggle the imagination.
My concerns over biological warfare were heightened
last week
when I came across a report in Newsweek
that the United States government had cleared numerous shipments
of viruses, bacteria, fungi + protozoa to the government of Iraq
in the mid-1980s,
at a time
when the U.S. was cultivating
Saddam Hussein as an ally against Iran.
The shipments included anthrax and botulinum toxin.
Moreover,
during the same time period,
the Centers for Disease Control (CDC)
was also shipping
deadly toxins to Iraq,
including vials of West Nile fever virus and Dengue fever.
This is not mere speculation.
I have the letters
from the CDC and the American Type Culture Collection
laying out the
dates of shipments,
who they were sent to,
and what they included.
This list is extensive and scary
- anthrax, botulinin toxin + gas gangrene
to name just a few.
There were dozens and dozens of these pathogens
shipped to various ministries within the government of Iraq.
Why does this matter today?
Why do I care about something that happened nearly 20 years ago,
when Saddam Hussein was considered to be a potential ally
and
Iran's Ayatollah Khomeni was Public Enemy Number One in the United $tate$?
I care because it is relevant to today's debate on Iraq.
This is not yesterday's news.
This is tomorrow's news.
Federal agencies have documents
detailing exactly what biological material was shipped to Iraq from the United States.
We have a paper trail.
We not only know that Iraq has biological weapons,
we know the type,
the strain,
and the batch number of the germs
that may have been used to fashion those weapons.
We know the dates they were shipped,
and the addresses to which they were shipped.
We have in our hands
the equivalent of a
Betty Crocker cookbook of ingredients
that the U.S. allowed Iraq to obtain
and that may well have been used to concoct biological weapons.
At
last week's
Armed Services Committee hearing,
Secretary Rumsfeld said
he had no knowledge of any such shipments,
and doubted that they ever occurred.
He seemed to be affronted
at the very idea
that the United States
would ever countenance
entering
into such a deal
with
the
devil
.
Secretary Rumsfeld
should not
shy away
from this information.
On the contrary,
he should seek it out.
No one is alleging
that the United States
deliberately
sneaked biological weapons to Iraq
under the table
during the Iran-Iraq war.
I am confident
that our government
is not
that
stupid.
It was simply a matter of business as usual.
We freely exchange information and technology
including scientific research with our friends.
At the time,
Iraq was our friend.
If there is any lesson to be learned from the Iraq experience,
it is that we should choose our friends more carefully,
and exercise tighter controls
on the export of materials
that could be turned
against
u$
.
This is not the first time I have advocated stricter controls on exports.
In fact,
I added an amendment to the
1996
Defense Authorization Act
that was specifically designed
to curb the export of dual-use technology
to potential adversaries of the United States.
In the case of the biological materials shipped to Iraq,
the Commerce Department
and the
CDC
have lists of the shipments.
The Defense Department
ought to have the same lists
so that the decision makers will know exactly
what types of biological agents
American soldiers may face in the field.
Doesn't that make sense?
Shouldn't the Defense Department know what's out there,
so that the generals can know
what counter-measures they might need to take to protect their troops?
I believe the answer to those questions is yes,
and so I am sending the information I have to Secretary Rumsfeld.
No matter how repugnant he finds the idea
of the U.S. even inadvertently aiding Saddam Hussein
in his quest to obtain biological weapons,
the Secretary should have this information at hand,
and should make sure that his field commanders also have it.
The most deadly of the biological agents that came from the U.S.
were shipped to the government of Iraq
by the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC),
a non-profit organization that provides biological materials
to industry, government + educational institutions around the world.
According to its own records,
the ATCC
sent 11 separate shipments
of biological materials
to the government of Iraq
between 1985 and 1988.
The shipments included
a witches brew of pathogens
including
anthrax,
botulinum toxin,
and
gangrene.
Meanwhile,
the CDC was shipping toxic specimens to Iraq
- including West Nile virus
and
Dengue fever
- from 00.Jan.1980 until 13,Oct.1993
The nexus between
the U.S.- approved shipments of pathogens
and
the development of Iraq's biological weapons program
is particularly disturbing.
Consider the following chain of events:
In May of 1986,
the ATCC reported the first shipments of anthrax and botulinum toxin to Iraq.
A second shipment
including anthrax and botulinum toxin
was sent to Iraq
in September of 1988.
At approximately the same time
that the first shipment was sent -
in April of 1986 -
Iraq turned from studying literature on biological warfare
to experimenting with actual samples of anthrax and botulinum toxin.
The turning point,
according a report to the
United Nations Security Council
from the UN weapons inspection team,
came
when
"bacterial strains were received from overseas"
and
delivered to an Iraqi biological weapons laboratory.
In April of 1988,
the UN weapons inspectors reported
that Iraq began research on the biological agent
Clostridium perfringens,
more commonly known as
gas gangrene.
Clostridium perfringens cultures
were among the materials shipped to Iraq by the ATCC
in both 1986 and 1988.
These are
only a few examples
of the pathogens
that Iraq is known to have imported
from the United States.
It is not known
how many of these materials were destroyed
following the Persian Gulf War,
or
how many Iraq continues to possess,
whether they are still viable,
or whether in its pursuit of biological weapons,
Iraq has developed ways
to extend the shelf life of toxic biological agents.
There is much that we do not know about Iraq's biological warfare program.
But there are two important facts in which we can have great confidence:
Iraq has biological weapons,
and
Iraq obtained biological materials from the United States
in the 1980s.
I asked Secretary Rumsfeld, at
last week's
Armed Services Committee hearing,
whether we might be reaping what we have sown in Iraq,
in terms of biological weapons.
The question was rhetorical,
but the link between
shipments of biological material from the United States
and
the development of Iraq's biological weapons program
is
more than
just an historical footnote.
The role
that the U.S.
may
have played
in helping Iraq
to pursue biological warfare
in the 1980s
should serve as
a strong warning
to the President
that
policy decisions regarding Iraq
today
could have far reaching ramifications on the Middle East
and
on the United States
in the future.
In the 1980s,
the Ayatollah Khomeni was America's sworn enemy,
and
the U.S. government courted Saddam Hussein
in an effort to undermine the Ayatollah and Iran.
Today,
SathaN Hussein is
America's biggest enemy,
and the U.S. is said to be making
overtures
to Iran.
The Washington Post reported today that the President
is expected to authorize military training
for at least 1,000 members of the Iraqi opposition
to help overthrow
Saddam Hussein.
The opposition groups include
the Kurds in the north,
and
the Shiite Muslims in the south.
The decision to provide military training to Iraqi opponents of Saddam Hussein
would mark a major change in U.S. policy,
ending a prohibition on lethal assistance to the Iraqi opposition.
It is not a decision that should be undertaken lightly.
Although
Administration officials
told the Post
that initial plans called for modest steps
that would allow members of the Iraqi opposition
to provide liaison to the local population
and perhaps guard prisoners of war,
the officials did not shut the door
on providing training and equipment
for more lethal activities.
"Nobody is talking about giving them guns yet.
That would be a dramatic step,
but there are many dramatic steps yet to be taken,"
one official was quoted as saying.
Has the Administration
adequately explored
the potential ramifications
of creating ethnic armies of dissidents in Iraq?
Could the U.S. be laying the groundwork for a brutal civil war in Iraq?
Could this proposed policy change precipitate a deadly border conflict
between the Kurds and Turkey?
Could we perhaps be setting the stage for a Shiite-ruled Iraq
that could align itself with Iran
and result in the domination of the Middle East
by hard-line Shiite Muslims
along the lines of the Ayatollah Khomeni?
These are legitimate and troubling questions,
and they should be carefully thought through
before we unleash
an open-ended attack
on Iraq.
There are many outstanding questions
that the United States should consider
before marching in lockstep
down the path
of committing
America's military forces
to affect
the immediate overthrow
of Saddam Hussein.
The peril of biological weapons
is only
one
of those considerations,
but it is an important one.
The more we know now,
the better off our troops will be
in the future.
Decisions involving war and peace
- the most fundamental of life and death decisions -
should never be rushed or muscled through in haste.
Our founding fathers understood that,
and wisely vested in the Congress,
not the President,
the power to declare war.
Congress has been presented with a presidential request
for authorization to use military force against Iraq.
We now have the responsibility
to consider that request
carefully,
thoroughly,
and
on our own timetable.
I urge my colleagues
to do just that
and
avoid the pressure
to rush to judgment
on such an
important
matter.
###