After listening to constituents, evaluating the reports of diplomatic, intelligence and military authorities and searching my conscience, I have concluded that this is one of those times.  Our nation must act by any means necessary, including military action, to remove the government of Saddam Hussein.

     Failure to act will result in calamity for America.  We will likely suffer attacks by enemies using chemical, biological and nuclear weapons that will result in deaths that dwarf the grim casualty roll of September 11, 2001. These attacks will strike people here in our own land as well as around the world.

At the request of President Bush, I have helped to form a small group of Members of Congress from both political parties.  We share the conviction that our duty to protect the people of the United States requires us to remove the Iraqi government from power. We are working to write and pass a Resolution authorizing our nation to take any steps necessary to replace the Iraqi dictatorship with a government that will practice peace.

     Iraq today possesses chemical weapons, such as sarin gas, and biological weapons, such as anthrax and smallpox virus. Some experts believe Iraq presently has small nuclear bombs that could fit into a suitcase. Intelligence authorities who have served under Democratic and Republican administrations alike agree that Iraq will soon possess more powerful nuclear weapons.  Some think this will happen in a matter of years.  Others believe it will be a matter of months.
     
In 1991, the Persian Gulf War ended when Saddam Hussein's government, driven from its occupation of Kuwait, agreed to permit the United Nations to find and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and the facilities needed to produce them.  Iraq never complied with this Agreement.  Between 1991 and 1998, on twelve occasions the United Nations cited Iraq for violating the Agreement. After each finding, Iraq again promised to comply.  After each promise, Iraq refused to permit the required inspections. Finally, in 1998, Iraq evicted U.N. weapons inspectors from the country. They have not been back since.

     On September 12 of this year, President Bush brought this case to the United Nations.  He asked the nations of the world to join our effort to disarm Iraq. Good friends like Great Britain and Israel have stepped forward to help. I am confident that many other nations will join the cause.  Our diplomats will continue working to broaden international support.  Make no mistake, however.  Saddam's weapons of mass death are not pointed at the Germans who minimize our peril or the Arab states who criticize our actions.  These weapons are meant to kill Americans. We must destroy those weapons and displace their owners before we suffer a mass catastrophe.

Many patriotic and thoughtful Americans oppose our proposal to remove the government of Iraq.  Because I respect their concerns and share their dread of war, I have listened carefully to their arguments.

     Some say that Saddam's regime cannot deliver its weapons of mass death against Americans. This is not the case.  American troops fighting terrorist cells in the Middle East are within range of Iraqi missiles that could carry chemical or biological weapons.  The greatest risk, however, is an attack on our homeland. If terrorists carried into America a quantity of weapons-grade smallpox virus that could fit into a plastic sandwich bag and released it through the ventilation ducts of a shopping mall, tens of thousands of innocent people would die. In the new warfare of terrorism, our enemies do not need ballistic missiles.  They can attack us by using ventilation systems, airplanes, or the mail.

     Others contend that Iraq will never use these weapons because their use would constitute an act of suicide.  Do we really want to stake the lives of our people on the rationality of a dictator who has already used mustard gas and other chemical weapons against the people of Iran, Kuwait and the Kurdish minority of his own country?

     Even if Saddam Hussein avoids the suicide option, his regime could secretly transfer these weapons to terrorist groups and then deny responsibility as Americans bury our dead. If the weapons no longer exist, neither does the risk of their secret transfer.

     Some voices argue that the Iraqi government needs to be given another chance to comply with its weapons inspection agreement.  They point to the testimony of former U.N. Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter, who contends that we have already destroyed most of Iraq's weapons. Several dozen weapons inspectors have led U.N. efforts since 1991.  Every single one of them disagrees with Mr. Ritter.  Every other inspector concludes that there were many weapons we never found before Iraq expelled the inspectors four years ago; that the Iraqis have increased the deadliness and quantity of these weapons since then; and that it is impossible to find and destroy these weapons in a country as big as Iraq without the total cooperation of the host government.

     Others ask: why now?  They claim that all of the dangers I outline here have existed since 1991, and that we are rushing to war unnecessarily.
They ignore two changes. First, in the four years in which no inspections have occurred, Iraq has built a more lethal arsenal of weapons.  The other change is a lesson we have learned. We received a wake-up call on September
11,2001.  If we wait for terrorists to attack us, they will.  The fact that we have endured the threat of the Iraqi arsenal since 1991 is not evidence of how smart we have been.  On the contrary, it is evidence of how lucky-and careless-- we have been.

     Finally, many observers point out that we will have to work to make certain that the government that replaces Saddam Hussein's regime is an improvement over the present situation.  This will be no easy task.  But under any circumstances, a government that does not wield weapons of mass destruction is preferable to one that does-especially the murderous government of Saddam Hussein.  A new Iraq holds out the promise that the United States can live in friendship with a peaceful and progressive Arab state.

     In 1991, I listened respectfully to President George H. W. Bush outline his case to attack Iraq.  I voted no.  I did so because I concluded that eviction of Iraq from Kuwait was not a compelling reason to risk American lives.  If Saddam Hussein were such a menace, why not go all the way and remove him?

     In the ensuing eleven years, as Iraq's power has grown, so has our vulnerability to a new kind of warfare. We were shocked on September 11 because we never understood just how vulnerable we are in our ordinary lives.
Today, wherever they can, the hateful forces behind that attack plot their next opportunity to strike. They have a potent ally in Iraq. Saddam
Hussein can offer them chemical and biological weapons.  The day is coming when he will be able to offer nuclear weapons.  Maybe that day is here already.  Whether Saddam acts through his own military or in silent conspiracy with terrorist cells, we are vulnerable to his weapons of mass death as long as his government controls them.

     Removal of Saddam Hussein's regime may not require a military attack by the United States.  His own people may