Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

In the dramatic and uncertain months in the spring and summer of 1776, thirteen separate colonies on these young shores began the historic and unprecedented establishment of a new nation - committed to the ideal that all persons are created equal.

In the more than two centuries since, the American Revolution has always been a work in progress, both in fulfilling its principles here at home and in supporting the cause of freedom around the globe. As Thomas Jefferson, all too aware of his own failings and his country's imperfections, reminds us: "Every generation needs a new revolution." We have seen this in our own times, in recent weeks, as we passed through the latest stage in the civil rights revolution, and put behind us, I believe forever, any acceptability for any suggestion that America was better off as a segregated society, separate and unequal.

We declare our belief in the common purpose of our country every morning in our schools and in Congress, every week from stadiums to community centers, when we pledge allegiance to these United States of America -- one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

But if we are truly to be one nation in this new century, we must honestly face conditions in our country today and truly advance the cause of opportunity for all. The last thing we need is policies that divide us at home by race or riches. The ideals of America are not realized but denied by a relentless ideology of tax giveaways for the few -- and then even more tax giveaways for the few.

And if we are truly to fulfill our role abroad, we must keep another pledge of 1776 - a decent respect for the opinions of others. A new unilateralism is as dangerous to our country and our cause as the old isolationism once was.

From World War II through the Cold War to the Gulf War, from Franklin Roosevelt to the first George Bush, we prevailed by building great coalitions for defense and democracy. Today we are far from that standard. Our standing and support among the peoples of Europe and in other lands abroad is at or near the lowest point in half a century. We can be strong without dividing the Western Alliance. Indeed, we will be stronger.

Both at home and overseas, we need policies that unite, not divide - policies that do not divide us here at home into the favored and the ignored, that do not separate us from other nations that share our ideals. Instead, on the basis of our principles, at this decisive time in history, we must renew our sense of common purpose.

In a time of testing for America, every American should bear a fair share of the burden. We must put aside policies which lavish benefits on some, while ignoring what it is like to be poor and struggling, to be unemployed, to be old and phased out of a career, to be a woman, to be a worker, to be disabled, to be gay, to be an immigrant, to be a victim of discrimination. And we must weigh in the balance not just the claims of the privileged, but the growing strains that other families now face as education, healthcare and housing costs soar.

The rich, the poor, workers and business, all contributing to a better America and a better world: This is how we waged and won our battles in the past, from the defeat of tyranny to the progressive reforms of our social and economic life. The rich and business contributed along with the worker and the immigrant. They were not accorded great tax cuts or disproportionate benefits. The road to prosperity was not paved with handouts to those at the top.

Few would deny that President Bush deserves immense credit for the way he united America and rallied the entire international community after the appalling attacks of September 11th. He offered impressive leadership during the conflict in Afghanistan and in the early months of the continuing battle against Al Qaeda.

But few can also deny that after that, we squandered too much of the good will of the world community because we seemed so intent on immediate, unilateral war with Iraq.

Surely, we can have effective relationships with other nations without adopting a chip-on-the-shoulder foreign policy - a my-way-or-the-highway policy that makes all our goals in the world more difficult to achieve.

As we meet, one hundred fifty thousand members of our armed forces will be in the Gulf by the end of the month, ready to go to war if the President gives the order.

I continue to be convinced that this is the wrong war at the wrong time. The threat from Iraq is not imminent, and it will distract America from the two more immediate threats to our security - the clear and present danger of terrorism and the crisis with North Korea.

The far more likely reality is that an assault against Iraq - especially without broad international support - will not advance the defeat of Al Qaeda, but undermine it. It will antagonize critical allies and crack the global coalition that came together after September 11th. It will feed a rising tide of anti-Americanism overseas, and swell the ranks of Al Qaeda recruits and sympathizers. It will strain our diplomatic, military and intelligence resources and reduce our ability to root out terrorists abroad and at home. It could quickly spin out of control, and engulf other nations in the region too.

President Bush has said that war with Iraq is a last resort, and we must hope he still means it. As long as United Nations inspectors are on the ground and have access to suspected weapon sites, there is no sound reason to rush to pull the trigger of war. Our government has only recently been giving significant intelligence information to the inspectors about specific places where we believe Saddam is storing or developing weapons of mass destruction.

For weeks and months, the Administration argued that inspectors would not find anything. Now they have. But the discovery of empty chemical warheads is not a sign that we need to go to war. Far from it. It's an indication that inspections work. And it's a reason to give the inspectors more time.

If our goal is disarmament, we are likely to accomplish more by inspections than by war. The international community accomplished greater disarmament during seven years of inspections than it did during the Gulf War. With the presence of inspectors, Saddam will find it difficult and probably impossible to pursue weapons of mass destruction.

In 1792, James Madison wrote: "War contains much folly, as well as wickedness, that much is to be hoped from the progress of reason; and if anything is to be hoped, everything ought to be tried." Madison's words are as relevant today as they were more than 200 years ago. Let the inspections proceed in Iraq. We ought to use reason, and try everything, before resorting to war.

In the meantime, America must devote more effective attention to both the nuclear crisis in North Korea and the terrorist threat lurking across the world. The United States has long been concerned by North Korea's drive to obtain nuclear weapons and by its sale of missiles to rogue nations that provide refuge or resources to terrorists - missiles that could easily be fitted with chemical, biological, or even nuclear weapons.

The sudden emergence and escalation of the crisis with North Korea is the result of a U.S. foreign policy that was AWOL on that issue for the first 21 months of the Bush Administration. Then the Administration lurched into an unsustainable over-reaction when it initially refused even to talk unless the North Koreans backed down. Even as our ally South Korea sought to engage the North, the U.S. rebuffed any dialogue at all, leading to an embarrassing deterioration in our relations with South Korea.

What a contrast with the previous Administration, when peace was a consistent priority in our foreign policy and there was a clear understanding of the complex challenge on the Korean peninsula. I have great respect for Governor Bill Richardson, but it is ridiculous that North Korean envoys had to travel to Santa Fe, New Mexico to find someone in America to talk to.

Now, with the inspectors gone and North Korea gone from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, we face an urgent crisis, with nothing to prevent that nation from quickly producing a significant amount of nuclear materials and nuclear weapons for its own use, or for terrorists hostile to America and our allies. We know that North Korea has not only sold missiles to countries like Libya and Syria, but has given Iran the technology to build missiles on its own. Desperate and strapped for cash, North Korea is the country most likely to market nuclear material and nuclear weapons to terrorists.

And if that regime does develop nuclear weapons, it will encourage or force others to do the same. Even a modest nuclear arsenal in the hands of Kim Jong Il could ignite a dangerous new arms race in Asia if South Korea and Japan feel compelled to assemble a nuclear arsenal for their own protection. And if the North Korean government ever collapses, we could well find it difficult or impossible to keep its nuclear materials from falling into the wrong hands.

Above all, we cannot afford to lose momentum in the ongoing fight against terrorism. We know that the probability of further attacks on America is high. Recent months have seen a steady rise in deadly assaults in countries like Yemen and Kuwait, Indonesia and Kenya, where hundreds of innocent men and women have been slaughtered.

Plainly, we remain unacceptably vulnerable at home. Our hospitals and clinics are not prepared for a chemical or biological attack, let alone a nuclear one. Our 400,000 local law enforcement officers and firefighters still lack basic equipment such as radios and computers to communicate quickly and effectively with federal authorities and local agencies. All suitcases are now being checked at our airports, but we still do not inspect all shipping containers at our seaports. Our railways and subways are not secure, and neither are our borders. We need to deal with all these and many other challenges to our readiness, at a time when the federal authorities charged with such responsibilities are being significantly diverted to implement the massive reorganization needed to create the new Department of Homeland Security.

Our common purpose demands that we put the safety of all Americans first. And it requires a recognition that we are all in this together - and all of us must be asked what we can do.

The President says the war on terrorism requires us to tighten our belts. But he refuses to ask the wealthiest taxpayers to share the burden; in fact, he proposes the opposite. In the midst of repeated calls to sacrifice, he is advocating massive new tax breaks primarily for those with the highest incomes. But under the Bush tax plan already enacted, the wealthiest 1% of taxpayers will each save an average of $50,000 a year. Now he proposes to give each of them even more - an additional $25,000 a year. He sees no need for them to share in the national sacrifice. That policy is wrong. We cannot say it is wartime for the rest of America, but still peacetime for the rich.

In this closely divided Congress, the two parties are sharply divided about where to go from here. Most Republicans want more tax cuts targeted primarily on wealthy individuals and corporations. Most Democrats want more resources for education, health care, and other key domestic priorities. Instead of seeking a victory of party, both sides should do what's right for the country. Together in Congress, we should first determine how much we can afford overall, based on the ten-year budget estimates, and then allocate half to tax cuts - including both the President's recent proposal and the portion of the tax cuts already enacted that have not yet taken effect - and half to other important priorities.

This approach will demonstrate our new bipartisan common purpose for America. It will be fiscally responsible. It will strengthen our economy for the long term, while we fairly address the most pressing needs of our society and our national security.

And let me say plainly to my fellow Democrats: If we cannot achieve a fair and fiscally responsible compromise, there is no assured political safety in just going along with President Bush. Not a single Senate Democrat who voted against the Bush 2001 tax cut was defeated. Tom Harkin openly campaigned on his opposition to the unfairness of that tax cut - and, facing his toughest opponent, won by his biggest margin ever.

We as Democrats serve our country and our party best when we state, debate, and proudly defend the principles at the heart of our purpose. The lesson of 2002 is clear. We will not succeed if we fail to stand up and speak out.

We must stand up and speak out for a commitment to quality education for all our citizens from birth through college as a cornerstone of America's common purpose. Today it is America's common problem. School and college populations are surging, but the shortage of trained teachers is worsening. So is the shortage of child care workers. For a quarter century, the federal government has failed to live up to its pledge of full funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. And now the Administration is abandoning the President's unequivocal promise of full funding for the school reforms required by the No Child Left Behind Act. That legislation was signed into law with great fanfare by President Bush a year ago. But when the klieg lights go out and the bunting comes down and the cameras leave, the money isn't there. Needed resources for education are denied, even as new tax breaks for the wealthy are sought. The Administration promised No Child Left Behind, but their policy, as Tom Daschle has said, is better characterized as No Millionaire Left Behind.

It is time to make education a genuine high priority - to invest in more training for teachers, more after-school activities, and smaller class sizes, not larger ones. More accountability for results means more investment is needed, not less.

With the nation's youngest children, we must be smarter from the start. Because of all that First Lady Laura Bush is doing, more Americans than ever understand the central importance of early educational experiences for very young children. We in Congress and the Administration must match Mrs. Bush's commitment with our own. A dollar spent on early learning may well be the most effective education dollar of all - more effective than a dollar spent at any other stage of schooling.

For too long, the doors of higher education have been closed to too many because they cannot afford the cost. Double-digit tuition increases and hard-pressed education budgets in the states will make it harder to realize the hope of a college education.

Just as Social Security is a promise to senior citizens, we should make "Education Security" a promise to every young American. If you work hard, if you finish high school, if you are admitted to a college, we should guarantee that you can afford the cost of the four years it takes to earn a degree. Surely, we have reached a stage in America where we can say it and mean it - cost should never again be a disqualification for college.

Fulfilling that pledge will require renewed resolve by everyone involved - families, colleges, states, the federal government. Families should pay what they can afford. Colleges should commit to keeping tuition increases down. States should continue as much support as they can for students, in these hard economic times. And federal support should make up the substantial gap that remains.

A new common purpose also requires a better approach and a genuine commitment to health care for all our people. In the past decade, we have taken major steps to provide health care to some of those who lack insurance, especially through enactment of the Children's Health Insurance Program. But incremental steps, as important as they have been, are no longer enough as skyrocketing costs undermine our health care system as a whole.

It is time for bolder action. The fundamental reform we need is to guarantee that every job in America comes with health coverage. Those who get up each morning and work 40 hours a week, year after year, should earn not only a decent wage, but the basic social decency of health care at a price they can afford. A solid majority of businesses already provide health insurance to their employees, and the rest should fulfill that obligation, too.

For decades, we have required employers to contribute to Social Security and Medicare. We require them to pay a minimum wage, and contribute to unemployment insurance. Now it is time to say that they also have an obligation to contribute to the cost of health insurance for their workers.

How much coverage is enough? The answer is obvious. Employer-offered insurance should at least equal what the members of Congress provide for themselves and other federal workers under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program. Americans not eligible for job-based coverage should be able to purchase it through that federal employee program. Small businesses should be able to participate in this program as well, and the federal government should help them afford coverage for their employees.

The rapid acceleration of health costs and insurance premiums also requires decisive action, but there is a right way and a wrong way to respond. Arbitrary cutbacks for hard-pressed hospitals and physicians are the wrong remedy. Hospitals, physicians, nursing homes, and home health agencies require more support, not less, to survive the excessive cuts enacted in 1997 that were never intended to be so steep. It is irresponsible for Congress to keep on ignoring that mistake it made, which only an Enron accountant could love.

In addition, health providers and health insurers alike should adopt the modern information technology now available. Very large savings can be achieved if we stop running a 21st century health care system with antiquated administrative methods that drive up costs.

Full use of new techniques can also bring us closer to a revolution of another sort. Too often, our health care system measures progress by the number of procedures performed, not the number of patients cured. In fact, many steps that can improve the quality of care the most are often not reimbursed at all, such as home visits by nurse practitioners and training in self-care for patients with chronic conditions. It is time to heed the recommendation of the Institute of Medicine, and take a fresh look at ways to assess the results of modern medicine, not just emphasize the process. Patients want results. We should develop ways to reward providers for the quality of outcomes they achieve, not just the quantity of procedures they perform.

Large savings also can be obtained through preventive care and health promotion, and by doing more to see that the typical standard of care is closer to the best standard of care. A consensus is growing that better management of disease, especially chronic disease, can reduce costs, and improve quality as well.

At long last, we must also pass a Medicare prescription drug benefit for our seniors. Compromise is possible. It is shameful that we have failed to meet this urgent need before now.

We have to do all this and more on health care. But first we have to recognize that the challenge in health care is not just to move forward, but to prevent the Administration from moving America backward.

We must reject their insistence that stem cell research to cure afflictions like Alzheimer's Disease, Parkinson's Disease, and diabetes should be banned unless it passes an ideological litmus test.

We must oppose the reactionary view that health care is a commodity to be rationed by ability to pay - and that the way to reform Medicare is to privatize it and turn it into just another potential profit center for the benefit of HMOs and insurance companies. We must reject the preposterous proposal to misuse the health crisis as an excuse to modify the tax code and bestow even greater tax breaks on the healthy and wealthy.

It is increasingly clear that the only effective and fair answer to the worsening health crisis is to embrace a broader reform that represents our true common purpose. We were right to seek that goal in 1993 and 1994, and we have learned enough in the decade since then to achieve it now.

Finally, our common purpose requires us to act on the greatest unfulfilled promise of our country - the cause of civil rights.

Despite the extraordinary progress of the last half century, much remains to be done to make real the words inscribed above the entrance to the Supreme Court - "equal justice under law."

The struggle for civil rights in the United States has been too important - the suffering too great - for this cause to be treated as just another bargaining chip in politics. Civil rights is not an issue on which to buy and spend "capital" - or to concoct any so-called Southern strategy, no matter how politely it is put. Support for civil rights in one arena does not compensate for the abuse of civil rights in another.

So let me say this plainly. The eloquent denunciation of past segregation last month does not justify support for judges with unacceptable civil rights records now. Professions of a commitment to equality are empty when they are followed by a frontal attack on affirmative action, issued of all days on Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday, and accompanied by inflammatory and blatant distortions equating affirmative action with quotas - which all of us oppose.

An Administration that takes such a course, whether out of conviction or political calculation, is no friend of minorities and no force for civil rights. It is now the responsibility of other branches of government to right the balance, and reverse the Administration's retreat from equality. The Senate must refuse to confirm judicial nominees who are hostile to the core values of a diverse democratic society.

We know that at critical times in the past, the federal courts have not always lived up to the nation's ideals. With decisions like Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, and others, even the Supreme Court has sometimes upheld injustice. But it was also the federal courts which took the first fundamental steps to dismantle the evil of segregation, and the Supreme Court was not the only federal court responsible for this historic transformation. The broad mandate of Brown v. Board of Education was implemented by courageous Southern judges like Elbert Tuttle, John Minor Wisdom, and Frank Johnson, who acted at great personal risk, in the face of anger, violence, and even death threats.

All three of these judges were appointed by an earlier Republican President. It is therefore deeply discouraging that this Republican president continues to put forward judicial nominees who are plainly hostile to civil rights, and other basic rights, including reproductive rights.

The Administration and Senate Republicans seem determined to wage this battle. They should not be in any doubt - we will use every means at our disposal to protect the federal courts and defeat any and all nominees who will not uphold these fundamental rights.

Within a few months, the Supreme Court will decide whether to protect or dismantle affirmative action in our colleges and universities. All of us who believe in the fullness of America's promise must speak up and be heard on this far-reaching issue. Our diversity is our greatest strength. It always has been - and it always will be - a compelling governmental interest. Our institutions of higher education today are on the front lines in the battle to enable minority and low-income students to take their seats at the table of opportunity, and we must not let them down.

It is also time for Congress to act to protect all Americans from hate crimes and from discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation. No men or women in 21st century America should have to live in fear that they can become victims of violence or lose their jobs solely because of who they are.

Finally, we must do more, especially at this difficult time, to uphold America's long and proud tradition as a nation of immigrants. It is wrong to try to build a wall around our country to strengthen our security. Terrorism is the problem - not immigration. We are strong enough to protect our borders and our people, and compassionate enough to welcome those who seek America's refuge and its promise.

The ideals that we stand for here at home and around the world are indispensable to our strength. We abandon those ideals if, in the name of homeland security, we embrace, without respect for the Constitution, measures such as military tribunals, monitoring of attorney-client communications without court orders, detention of U.S. citizens without legal counsel or fair judicial review, wholesale invasions of privacy, or mass registration and fingerprinting of Muslims and Arabs.

We are now at a major cross-road in our history. The 9/11 attack has forced us all to think profoundly about what is great in America. All through our shock and grief, the people's courage never failed. The attack was one of the nation's saddest hours, but the response was one of our finest hours.

That hour must not be lost. It can mark the beginning of a new era of common purpose. The unselfishness we saw in 2001 must not give way to selfishness in 2003. The noble caring for one another that we celebrated then must not be succeeded now by a retreat from our ideals. Yes, our country is strong. But it can be stronger - not just in the power we hold, but in the promise we fulfill of a nation that truly does make better the life of the world. If we rededicate ourselves to that great goal, our achievements will reverberate around the globe, and America will be admired anew for what it must be now, in this new time, more than ever - "the last, best hope of earth."