Senate Floor Speech
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison
October 9, 2002 -- Page: Page: S10149

MRS. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I thank the Senators from Virginia, Arizona, and Connecticut for all of the efforts being made to bring a full debate on this issue to the Senate.

Congress has no greater responsibility under the Constitution than to provide for our Nation's common defense. There is no decision we make that requires more careful consideration than a decision to authorize the use of armed forces and, in so doing, send America's sons and daughters into harm's way.

Shortly after I was elected to the Senate, our Nation suffered through the brutal battle in Mogadishu, Somalia. It left 18 of our soldiers dead. Our mission was vague. There was no clear American national security threat in Somalia. The President did not come to the American people and explain the rationale for continued military involvement.

The impact of this uncertainty became very clear to me soon after the tragedy when I met a constituent on a flight from Washington, DC, to Dallas.

He came up to me and said: Senator, my name is Larry Joyce. I am your constituent.

I said: Hi, Larry, how are you doing? What were you doing in Washington?

He said: I was burying my son in Arlington National Cemetery.

His son Casey had been killed in the street ambush that was depicted in the book "Black Hawk Down,'' also a movie.

Colonel Joyce said to me, with tears rolling down his face: Senator, I am a military man. I served two tours in Vietnam. And now my son Casey, on his first mission as an Army Ranger, is not coming home. Senator, I can't tell you why.

I vowed that day that I would never vote to send an American into battle unless I could answer that question. I want to be able to face any parent and say: This is the national security interest of our country, and that is why your child signed up and was willing to fight and was sent to do so.

Since Somalia, I have come to the Senate floor to express grave reservations about deployments to Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo. In each case, I called on the President to come to Congress, make the case to the American people, and outline the U.S. security interest.

After the tragic events of 9/11, President Bush sought and received the authorization to use force to find and destroy the terrorists who had launched that heinous crime. There was no question in my mind and in the minds of most Members of Congress that our national security demanded our support of the President.

Today, President Bush seeks congressional authorization to use military force to deal with the threat Saddam Hussein poses with weapons of mass destruction. We must answer the major question for America: What is the U.S. security interest? Why Saddam? Why now?

It is a question I thought about as I sat among the hushed crowds at the Pentagon's memorial service on September 11, 2002. It was a poignant moment. I was surrounded by those who had suffered so much and many who will ultimately bear the consequences of the decision we are about to make.

I doubt there is anyone in America who doesn't feel as I do. If we could have prevented 9/11, we certainly would have. We didn't have warning, and we paid a heavy price.

It is this experience that has led President Bush to think in a different way about protecting our homeland. I believe he doesn't want to wait until an enemy is finished building his deadly arsenal and ready to attack from a position of strength. It is one thing to turn three commercial airliners into weapons of mass destruction. It is another to have a nuclear missile ready to deploy or to arm an unmanned aerial vehicle with anthrax ready to ship anywhere in the world.

Each generation of Americans has been called to defend our freedom. Each time, our forefathers and mothers have answered the call. Our generation's time of national trial has come. We are being called to stop a new kind of enemy, different from any we have ever fought before. This enemy is not just contained in one country or two, it is spread throughout the world and even within our own borders. This enemy purposely kills itself in order to harm others.

This enemy is patient, building resources and striking when and where we are least prepared. This enemy uses a different method each time. This enemy requires a new kind of defense. That is what the President is attempting to build.

The cold war ended when the Iron Curtain and Berlin Wall came tumbling down. The post-cold-war era ended when the World Trade Center towers came crashing down. September 11 made it abundantly clear that the strategy of deterrence alone is not enough.

The President recently released a new national security strategy. It articulates a policy of preemption and dominance. Some fear that our new national security strategy is too bold. A bold defense does not cause calamities to occur, but a lack of action will. It is not our defense strategy that will provoke attacks on the United States. Rather, it is when we fail to act or fail to lead that our enemies strike. It is when they think we have become soft and complacent that they will kill innocent Americans again.

We have learned hard and valuable lessons these past few years. The first terrorist attack on the World Trade Center occurred in 1993, a bombing that killed 6 Americans and injured more than 1,000. What did we do? In 1996, Hezbollah extremists bombed the United States military barracks at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, killing 19 American servicemembers and injuring 500 others. What did we do? In 1998, al-Qaida terrorists bombed the United States Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing and injuring hundreds. What did we do? In 2000, al-Qaida terrorists again attacked Americans, this time bombing the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen, killing 17 American servicemembers and injuring scores more. What did we do?

Then came the devastating attacks of 9/11. Our Nation finally was awakened. We put the pattern together to see the threat to the very freedom that we cherish. We did do something. We took action against our enemy swiftly and boldly after 9/11. Now we must follow through.

The President has asked for authority to meet this threat. Congress gave him wide latitude to root out terrorism. We and our allies are doing that job in Afghanistan, the home base of al-Qaida.

We have liberated millions and millions of innocent Afghanis from the cruel Taliban regime.

Now the President is asking for authority to go into Iraq. Why Iraq? Why now? Because we have learned the lessons of complacency. We have learned the lessons of not being prepared.

The President has solid information that with a small amount of highly enriched uranium, Iraq could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. We know Iraq already has the means to deliver it. He has hard intelligence that Iraq has chemical and biological weapons and small, unmanned aerial vehicles to disseminate them, potentially killing thousands of people anywhere in the world. The President is saying: "Do we wait for the attack, or do we take steps to prevent it?'' Our post-9/11 defense strategy demands that we prevent it.

Saddam Hussein has fired on coalition aircraft patrolling the no-fly zones over Iraq 2,500 times since the Gulf War. Saddam Hussein has rewarded the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. He has attempted to assassinate the former U.S. President who led the international coalition that defeated him in the Gulf War. His No. 1 enemy is the United States of America.

So if all diplomatic efforts fail, and if the U.N. weapons inspectors are not allowed unfettered access to suspected sites, our President wants to be able to take away Saddam Hussein's means to destroy us and our allies.

It is our responsibility to give the President the authorization he needs. The question of whether the security of the United States is threatened has been answered. The answer is yes.

It is with a heavy heart and a realization of the consequences that I will vote yes. But it would be a burden I could not carry to vote no and then, a year or 2 from now, see a preventable attack kill thousands more innocent Americans or our allies.

Mr. President, we are going to meet this test of our generation. We are going to protect the freedom and the way of life that the beacon to the world of the way life should be. We can do no less.