The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Idaho.
Mr. Craig: Madam President, I am proud to follow my colleague from Arizona, who has been an outspoken Senator on the issue of our relationship to Iraq and to the current regime, constantly questioning, appropriately so, the role of Saddam Hussein and the risk he presents to our country.
Mr. Warner Madam President, if the Senator will yield, I ask for one minute to say to my good friend, Senator McCain, his leadership on this issue, in helping with the drafting of this resolution and working particularly with Senator Lieberman and Senator Bayh, has been invaluable.
I wanted to get into a colloquy with Senator McCain, but I was drawn away from the floor for a moment. Maybe we will have that colloquy a little later.
Mr. Craig: Let me thank the Senator from Virginia for those comments, and certainly thank him for his leadership on this resolution. I also appreciate the leadership of the Senator from Arizona.
I am one of those who early on in August, and into early September, spoke with some degree of hesitation because I thought it was important what is happening today happen; that our country become fully engaged in this debate; and that the President make his case before the world and before the American people. That has happened.
As we know, for more than a decade Saddam Hussein has defied the international community, flagrantly ignoring and violating dozens of U.N. resolutions. Today, intelligence has produced beyond doubt that Saddam Hussein continues to acquire and produce chemical and biological weapons. It is also very apparent this dictator continues his quest to develop nuclear weapons.
Last night, our President made that most important speech to the Nation. Much of what was spoken last night was the reality of the risk. We should make no mistake, the acquiring of weapons of mass destruction by Saddam Hussein is a very clear, imminent, and present danger to the United States, our allies, and to the stability of the Middle East. To do nothing in response to this buildup of weapons and this threat would be irresponsible on the part of our Nation and this body. We cannot sit back and wait on an aggressive act of terrorism to occur and consequently be forced into a position where we must face our fellow Americans and explain a horrific act that could have been prevented. It would be imprudent and irresponsible as a Senator of the United States, who is sworn to protect the freedoms of this great Nation and to defend our fellow countrymen.
In this new century and in a post-9/11 era, it is clear we face a new threat. Unfortunately, this new threat requires a course of action previously not undertaken in order to deter this menace to our freedoms and to our peace. However, we must take this new course to defend our Nation and our allies responsibly and with assurance. Remember, this is a regime that ordered the use of chemical weapons against its own people; invaded two neighbors; committed genocide against more than 50,000 northern Iraqis; drove 2 million refugees into neighboring countries; launched ballistic missiles into different countries; destroyed over 4,000 villages in Iraq, and on a daily basis fires at U.S. and coalition aircraft patrolling the United Nations no-fly zones.
As a matter of fact, since the year 2000, Iraq has fired upon U.S. and British aircraft over 1,600 times. This year alone, Iraq has fired on the United States and Great Britain 406 times. These acts are the tip of the iceberg of a long list of violations as Saddam Hussein attempts to provoke the United States and her allies. As a result, it is clear and evident we have a moral obligation to the international community to halt further threats and attacks by this dictator. Since September 11, 2001, many in Congress have asked the question: Why did the events of this day, September 11, 2001, occur? And more importantly, how could these tragedies have been prevented?
Let me say that again. Many Senators, and I am one of them, have asked how September 11 could have been prevented.
As the goal of congressional investigations into our intelligence communities is aimed at preventing these incidents in the future, so, too, is the opportunity before us to prevent attacks by a rogue regime. In the future, I am certain no Senator wants to be placed in the position where we will have to call an investigation and ask why a tragedy has occurred at the hands of Saddam Hussein, and why it was not prevented when we knew it could happen and we had the opportunity to do something about it.
In order to avoid an ugly predicament, the option of prevention is in place today. Today we must ask ourselves, In the future, do we want, once again, to pose the same question that has now haunted us for over a year? When the civilian population of our country becomes the target instead of our men and women in uniform, then an offensive role of foreign policy is demanded over what I believe is currently a defensive or a reactionary form of foreign policy.
Since World War II, the United States has been the leader of the international world. We have made decisions, taken calculated risks, and engaged ourselves where no other nation would. However, at the end of the day, we have always led and/or brought along our allies. Once again, it is now evident the time is here for the United States to lead. It is prudent for our allies to follow. I believe most of them know that.
Had we known the events of last year were going to occur, we would have made every effort to stop them, to save the loss of thousands of American lives. I am certain the people of this Nation and this body would have called for and demanded all types of preemptive actions to stop the atrocities instead of, as we did, helplessly watching them occur. We were locked in what I believe was a post-cold war mindset that, in part, denied the obvious and rested on the false premise it just simply could not happen in this country.
Like previous warning signs seen throughout history, we are again witnessing the ominous warnings that Saddam Hussein intends to threaten the Middle East region of the world and the United States. In light of this, I cannot sit back, in good conscience, and wait for Saddam Hussein to improve his weapons of mass destruction before he occupies and threatens foreign countries, or worse, harms Americans and American interests and American friends.
As a free and democratic Nation, we have a responsibility that requires a thoughtful, open approach. As we embark on a new path to defend this Nation currently, we are, as the President did last night and, of course, a few weeks ago, addressing the United Nations, consulting with Congress and now working with and having had the resolution just presented to the Congress, forced or helped produce the debate in the Senate. It is evident by this process and by the steps taken, any decision we make will not be in haste. I am confident the manner in which our citizens will be informed will set a new precedent for future Congresses and for future administrations.
This body, this Nation, and this President are methodically weighing the options on the table and assessing the threats we face. We have to include we want and need international support. Fortunately, we currently have the support of some of our closest allies. I do not want to stray from working with the United Nations, of course. We will work with them, and we are. Right now, Colin Powell is pursuing a new resolution out of the Security Council. At the same time, I recognize in the end, in the defense of this Nation, it is the responsibility of this President and of this Congress to make sure that happens. It is critically important that in the end, if you abide by the concept written in the book, "The Law of Nations," then we have no recourse but to act ourselves, if we believe a failure to act would cost lives, put our freedoms at risk, and put our citizens at risk.
While Article 51 of the United Nations charter is not so clearly defined, we have seen in recent history preemptive action taken by nations that were upheld by the U.N. For example, in 1962, President Kennedy took preemptive measures during the Cuban missile crisis by swiftly imposing a naval quarantine on Cuba to halt the delivery of offensive weapons by the Soviet Union. In 1967, Israel launched preemptive attacks on several Arab States after Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Syria began moving troops to the Israeli border.
In 1991, the United States committed to liberate Kuwait. In 1991, the United States was then, as we are now, leading an effort. By the time the conflict in Iraq began, we had the support of the international community to carry out our objective.
I am confident, should we decide to use force, by the time the United States and her closest allies engage Iraq, we will again have the support of the international community.
It is called the responsibility of leadership. It is recognized as the role we play in the world today. I say this because the international community realizes the evidence is clear when it comes to Saddam Hussein. In addition, Saddam Hussein will once again violate U.N. resolutions, further invalidating that body, and denying weapons inspectors access in a way that should be open and complete and without any form of restriction.
I do not take this vote lightly when it comes, as men and women across the State of Idaho and across the country are put in harm's way. For those who have decided to wear the uniform of our armed services, I want to assure the people of Idaho and the United States, any decision made regarding the use of force will be made with confidence, in consultation with Congress, and with the interests of the security of this great Nation; foremost in all of our minds.
I believe the justification for engagement has been made and the option to use force will be granted. I believe we must still have as an end game, an exit strategy, a recognition of the role we play in a post-Saddam-Hussein Iraq, if that is to occur, and I believe this President, along with quality people he has placed around him, will continue to consult with this Congress as those strategies are developed. I am confident we will pursue all means, as is evident today by the efforts of this administration. But in the end, there is the most important responsibility for the Senate of the United States to play. That is to do what we are doing here, to speak out on it, to allow the American people to know all the differences that occur as it comes to facing a most important issue like this.
I thank my colleague from Virginia for the leadership he has demonstrated. He recognizes the significance and the importance of this debate and the decision that will ultimately be made in the course of this week as we stand in support of the Commander in Chief and the President of the United States, in full consultation with the Congress, as we shape a foreign policy that is a policy of decades to come, in recognition that for the first time in this Nation's history, it is the citizen, not the soldier, who becomes the target of the new wars. With that, a new form of foreign policy, a new relationship, and a new dialog for this country has just begun.
I yield the floor.
Mr. Reid: Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Byrd be recognized for up to 15 minutes at 12:15 today.
The Presiding Officer (Ms. Stabenow): Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. Byrd: Did the Senator wish to make a remark?
Mr. Warner I wanted to reply for 2 minutes.
Mr. Byrd: I yield, without losing my right to the floor, to the Senator from Virginia.
Mr. Warner I wish to thank our colleague and compliment him on a very fine recitation of the facts relating to the vote we will soon take.
The Senator raised the important question of the preemptive issue. That has been an issue on the minds of a number of our colleagues. If he would allow me, I ask unanimous consent to have printed, following my remarks, a list of the times the Senator enumerated, the times the Presidents of the United States, going back as far as 1901, have initiated action preemptively to protect the security interests of this country. They have done it under the well-recognized international law or maxim of anticipatory self-defense.
With the advent of high-tech now, with so many other changed factors throughout our 215-year history of this Republic and this body of the Senate, there have to be changes. The Senator was right on point of the need this time to recognize those changes and to understand better this doctrine of taking preemptive action, if that is necessary to protect the security interests of this country.
I ask unanimous consent this be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
Questions: Has the United States ever conducted "preemptive" military operations before?
Yes: Panama (Colombia)--1901; Dominican Republic--1904, 1914, 1965; Honduras--1912; Nicaragua--1926; Lebanon--1958; Cuba (Naval Quarantaine)--1962; Grenada--1983; Libya--1986; Panama (Just Cause)--1989; Somalia--1992; Sudan/Afghanistan--August 1998; Iraq (Desert Fox)--December 1998; and Kosovo--March 1999.
International law recognizes a concept of "anticipatory self-defense" if a country is imminently threatened. And there are other examples--but the bottom line is that confronting or striking Iraq is not preemptive. We have been in conflict with Iraq for twelve years and they have never complied with original terms for ending conflict.
Mr. Craig: Madam President, I thank the Senator from Virginia.
I agree. This country, this Commander in Chief, and we as Senators cannot be denied the right to take preemptive action when clear evidence indicates that the citizens of our country are at risk.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. Byrd: Madam President, I see the distinguished Senator from Connecticut wanted to speak. Does he wish to speak at this point?
Mr. Lieberman: I thank the Senator from West Virginia. I wonder if the Senator--I know the Senator wishes to speak for more than 15 minutes--if he would allow me to speak for not more than 7 or 8 minutes now, without yielding his right to the floor thereafter.
Mr. Byrd: Madam President, I make that request.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Lieberman: Madam President, as the debate continues, I want to address myself to some of the history and also to some of the threat today. This is a most interesting book that somebody gave me, that is most timely. It came out very recently. I don't know the exact date. It is called "The Threatening Storm: The Case for Invading Iraq." It is written by Kenneth Pollack, who worked for the Central Intelligence Agency. In the period of 1990, he was one of only three who earlier in 1990 were advising their superiors, and then ultimately the President of the United States, that an Iraqi attack against Kuwait was imminent, it was going to happen. Over time, he worked for the National Security Council under President Clinton. He is now at the Saban Center, a think tank here in Washington associated with the Brookings Institution.
This is a most compelling piece of work. It speaks history here. It talks about the great history--the Senator from West Virginia is in the Chamber--the great classic history of Iraq. This, after all, is the place where the Biblical Garden of Eden grew, along beside the Tigris and the Euphrates. It is the place where Abraham, the father of the three great monotheistic faiths was when God called out to him and found his heart steadfast. Of course, in succeeding times it has had great periods of progress and leadership--unfortunately, not in recent times.
But as we deal with Saddam today--those of us, including myself, who favor the resolution we have offered as an amendment, a substitute today--we tend to recite phrases about what a brutal dictator Saddam is, and his ambitions. He has used weapons of mass destruction. I think in this debate from time to time we have to go back to the details.
There is a brief biography, in this book, of Saddam, of the radical upbringing he had, of the extent to which he fell under the so-called pan-Arabist influences, to create a power that would gain control over the entire Arab world. I want to read one quote from this book--again, "The Threatening Storm" by Kenneth Pollack:
Saddam considers himself a great man of history, someone marked to accomplish great deeds. In his vast personality cult he is constantly compared with great figures of Iraq's past.
Saddam believes himself destined to be the new leader of the Arabs, and he makes it apparent that this role will be a political-military role, meaning that he will achieve his position through some combination of conquest and acclaim. Addressing a unit of the Republican Guard, Saddam proclaimed that the honor of the Arab nation could not be achieved unless "Iraq's arm reached out [beyond Iraqi territory] to every point in the Arab homeland." He has worked assiduously to make Iraq strong so that it can dominate the region militarily, acquire new territorial prizes, and become the champion of the Arabs. Saddam has said often and loudly that his goal is to create a new Arab union of some kind, headed by a powerful Iraq, that will be a new superpower.
This is based on a thorough research of Saddam's history, of his statements, of his actions. Why did he invade Iran in the 1980s? Why did he invade Kuwait in the early 1990s? It is all part of realizing this ambition. Why has he developed weapons of mass destruction and used them, as this book points out--not once. There was a terrible genocide at Halabja. But he used chemical weapons repeatedly, and indeed experimentally, against the Kurds. Hundreds of thousands of people were killed. Against the Iranians--hundreds of thousands of people killed.
I read somewhere today--elsewhere; I forget where it was--that Saddam is the first person since Hitler who has used chemicals for the purposes of mass death.
So this history is chilling. I do not manufacture it. It is there. It is why it is so critically important to bring this madman back within the constraints of the United Nations resolutions and the peace that he agreed to at the end of the gulf war.
Should Saddam be allowed to continue to develop these weapons of mass destruction and become the controlling hegemonic power he has long dreamed of becoming in the Arab world, Lord protect us. Lord protect the Arab world, when you think of the brutal dictatorship he has represented--no freedom, no opportunity for his people. And what about the rest of us, with Saddam in control of so much of the world's oil supply?
So this history is very current as we consider all the options we have tried over the decade since the gulf war to disarm this dangerous dictator, and why those of us who have sponsored this resolution believe that the moment has come, as the President has said, effectively to say to Saddam: Either disarm or we are going to be forced to go to war to disarm you. We don't want to do this. But you represent such a danger to your neighbors, among whom we have such strong allies whose support is so critical to us, whose energy supply is so critical to our economy and that of the rest of the world, that if you don't disarm, we are going to have to take military action to do that.
That is the history, the chilling history that affects the present and is why the four of us, and others now who have cosponsored this resolution, have done so--to prevent this man from achieving his evil ends.
There have been many thoughtful statements on the floor. Mr. Stevens, the senior Senator from Alaska, spoke yesterday. Here is a proud, patriotic American, a veteran of World War II. He analogized this dictator we are facing to Hitler. Remember the lessons he was hearing in high school of the dangers represented by Hitler and the extent to which, if we didn't stop him then, we would have to stop him at a much higher price later on. I think the balance we have to strike here in deciding how to act is a similar balance. Do we act now, or do we act later, at much greater cost in blood, in treasure?
Mr. Warner Madam President, may I just add to my colleague's remarks--he referred to Senator Stevens. He was in the Chamber a few moments ago talking with me. We shared those days because I was of that generation.
Saddam Hussein possesses, today, an arsenal of weapons far more dangerous to the whole world than Hitler ever possessed. That was brought out in the colloquy yesterday. I thank my colleague.
Mr. Lieberman: I thank my friend.
The Presiding Officer (Mrs. Clinton): The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. Lieberman: I thank my colleague from West Virginia for yielding me time. I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. Byrd: I thank the Chair.
Madam President, I thank and commend all those Senators who have been speaking in support of the resolution that will soon come before the Senate for a decision by the Senate. I think they have rendered a service. I commend Mr. Lieberman. I commend Mr. Warner And I commend those others who are cosponsors of the resolution. I commend them on their high level of argumentation they have put forth. This is what the country needs. The country needs to hear more of this, and I have only the utmost admiration for those who feel as they do in support of this resolution.
The Senate is the anchor of the Republic, and it is here on this battlefield many of the country's great Senators have expounded their views and taken sides, one way or the other, on the great issues that have come before the Nation over this period of more than 200 years.
I have listened, as best I could, to the various Senators who, for the most part this morning, have spoken in support of the resolution, S.J. Res. 45, which will be at least soon attempted to be amended by S.J. Res. 46.
Madam President, I am not against just any and every resolution of this nature. I could very well be for a resolution. If this debate were to go on for a while, or perhaps to go until after the election, giving us time to debate it thoroughly, giving Senators time to amend it, modify it, to change it, it might very well be I, too, could support a resolution. After all, that is what we should strive for. We should strive for a national consensus.
If this country is going to engage in a military conflict in the near future, it should not be a slapdash resolution that in its makeup looks, for all intents and purposes, as though it were just thrown together, it was a cut-and-paste operation.
I would hope we could come to a conclusion, after ample debate, that we could join hands across the aisle, join hands between the two parties, join hands with the executive branch. I would hope we could do that. And I do not think that is beyond the realm of possibility.
I think it would be possible to develop a resolution which might get a unanimous vote in this Senate, but it would take time. It cannot be this resolution which would be unanimous because it will not be unanimous.
My concerns about this resolution are, in the main, two--two concerns. Getting into further detail, I can express several concerns. But in the main, I would say my concerns are two in number.
One, this resolution authorizes the President to determine and authorizes the President to use military forces as he will, when he will, how he will, and wherever he will, as long as the thread is tied to Iraq, and beyond that--I do not have the resolution in front of me-- as long as it is tied, by the thread, to "defend[ing] the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforc[ing] all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq."
Madam President, I can talk in considerable detail and at considerable length with respect to the "whereas" clauses and with respect to the authorization section, section 3. Suffice it to say this is a blank check, this authorization paragraph is a blank check, given over to the Chief Executive, not just this one but Chief Executives who will succeed him. There is no sunset provision. There is no termination under this authorization. It can go on and on and on until Congress sees fit to terminate it.
So it is open-ended. It is a blank check. And it cedes the decisionmaking power of the Congress under the Constitution to declare war. It cedes that to a Chief Executive--for the moment, Mr. George W. Bush. Succeeding him, who knows? But it is open-ended.
If Congress is going to waive that part of the Constitution which gives power to the Congress to declare war--and I am not sure Congress can waive that--but if it is going to, why don't we at least have a sunset provision? Why don't we at least have a cutoff at which time the cession of that power is no longer existent? Is that asking too much?
No. 1, my opposition to this resolution in the main is because Congress is ceding--lock, stock, and barrel--its power to declare war, handing that over to a Chief Executive and, by its own terms, as much as to say, that President will determine that. He will use the military forces of these United States--that means the Marines, the Air Force, the Army, the Navy, all the military forces of this country--he shall use all of the military forces of this country in whatever ways he determines, wherever he determines, whenever he determines, and for as long as he determines. That is the way it is written--lock, stock, and barrel.
Congress might as well just close the doors, put a sign over the doors and say: "Going fishing." Put a sign on the Statue of Liberty up here: "Out of business." That is exactly, that is precisely what we are about to do, if we vote for this resolution as it is currently written. If there is anybody who disagrees with me, they can try to show me that. But they cannot refute the words written in this resolution. All the "whereases" constitute nothing more than figleaves, beautifully dressed, beautifully colored, pretty figleaves, with sugar on them.
My second objection in the main is that Congress is being stampeded, pressured, adjured, importuned into acting on this blank check before Congress goes out for the election. Doesn't that make this somewhat suspect? Recall, it was only in late August, around August 23, I believe it was, I read in the newspaper where the President was concerned about the intensified talk that was going on with reference to his plans in respect to an attack on Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld, in that same newspaper report, referred to it as a "frenzy." So even the President, 6 weeks ago, was seeking to allay the concerns of the people in Washington, people all over the country, with respect to any "plans" that he might have to attack Iraq. In other words, he was saying: Cool it.
Well, that was just 6 weeks ago. Then all of a sudden, the whole focus of attention in this country seems to be directed several thousand miles away from these shores to a country called Iraq, to which the distinguished Senator from Connecticut correctly alluded as that great land between the two great rivers, the old Biblical country of Mesopotamia.
So those are my two concerns. Here we are, with all of this pressure to act, act now. I am somewhat mystified by the rush pell-mell to embrace this resolution which, as I understand it, is pretty much the administration's handicraft, and the House may be about to vote on the same.
I wonder what has gotten into our Democratic leaders that they would embrace this kind of thing. They have a right to do that. Every Senator has a right to vote any way he wants, any way his good sense is directing him. But I have been mystified at the rush, at the frenetic activity on the part of leaders of the Congress, of the other body. They embraced this thing down there on the White House lawn.
We should take more time. The American people have questions that they want answered. I have had more than 9,000 telephone calls in the last 5 days that my office has been open, more than 9,000 coming from all over the country, virtually all urging the Senate to slow down, to ask questions, and to fully consider what we are about to do. I hope more people will call. They don't need to call me. They know what my position is. But I hope they will call the Members of Congress, Senate and House Members, Republicans and Democrats, call all the Members. Urge them to stop, look, and listen, look at what we are about to do. We are about to put beyond the reach of Congress the decision to declare war.
I listened to the President's speech. I didn't hear anything new. I didn't hear anything that I hadn't already heard prior to this time. He demonized Saddam Hussein. That is quite all right with me. I think Saddam Hussein is lower than a snake's belly myself. I wouldn't shed any tear if anything happened to him. That is not the question. We have known these things.
I asked the CIA Director myself, within the last 2 or 3 weeks in my office and in room 407: You are not a policymaker, but you are the expert with respect to intelligence. What is there that you can tell me, what is there that you can tell Congress that is new that indicates we wait beyond this election at our peril? What is it that is new that we haven't known? I am talking to the Director of Central Intelligence.
I said: What is it that is new that we haven't known 2 months ago, 6 weeks ago, 3 months ago? They don't have anything.
I asked Secretary Rumsfeld. And he will say: Oh, I will tell you what is new, September 11 of last year.
Well, of course, that is over a year old. What is so new that it requires this Senate and the House of Representatives to vote before we go out for the election? Why so much interest in the election? That is not by my choice that the administration is pushing for a vote before the election. That is not my choice; that is their choice. And I am not sure but that this effort on their part might be turned against them in the election. I think if the American people are fully aware of what this administration is advocating, fully aware of what we are about to do, the people of this country will rise up. They will let their voices be heard.
They have questions. "What is this going to cost me?" they will say. Mr. John Q. Citizen will say: What is this going to cost me? What about my son? What about my daughter? What about my grandson? How many American lives are going to be lost if we invade Iraq? What is going to be the cost? What is going to happen to Iraq after its defeat? Who is going to run the government of Iraq then? Are we going to have American fighting men and women in Iraq for 2 months, 6 months, a year, 2 years, 5 years, 10 years? Answer these questions, Mr. Administration.
Tell me, also, what is going to happen to homeland security. Already the focus is being shifted away from homeland security. I can see it.
Mr. Warner Will the Senator yield?
Mr. Byrd: Not just yet.
Mr. Warner I understood the time was 15 minutes.
Mr. Byrd: I believe I have these 15 minutes now under a previous order.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator is correct.
Mr. Byrd: I simply want to finish----
Mr. Warner Madam President, of course, we go into recess at 12:30.
Mr. Byrd: I do not yield at the moment. I will be happy to yield in a moment. The Senator has been on the floor all morning--he and his compatriots over here who are boosting this unfortunate resolution. So I want a few minutes now, and then I will be happy to yield.
Mr. Warner For one short question.
Mr. Byrd: Then what is the focus? What about homeland security? What might happen on the southern border, on the northern border of this country, in the ports of this country, at the airports of this country? What might happen? The American people today are concerned about the safety right here in this area, the safety of their own schoolchildren. They are concerned about these things that are going on all around us. What is going to happen to homeland security? I don't hear much about it over this last couple weeks or more. This attack on Iraq we have been talking about--the President says: If you do not do it, I will. If you don't do it, we will. Well, this concerns me.
What kind of a face are we going to present to the world with this kind of cowboy, macho attitude? What kind of face are we presenting to the world? Does the world still see us as a law-abiding Nation that lives by the rule of law? Is that what we recommend to other countries? Are we a country that loves liberty, freedom, justice, the rule of law, or is this going to make us look like a bully? I used to play a tune on my fiddle called "The Bully of the Town"--"I am looking for the bully of the town." Is that the kind of face Uncle Sam is going to present to the world? It sounds like it when the President says to the U.N.: If you don't do something, we will.
Madam President, I am simply saying we ought not have this vote before this election. This election is going to distract members from concentrating, from focusing on the question of war or peace. It is already doing it. It is already doing it.
So there are lots of questions the American people want answered. What about the economy? Is this going to affect the American economy? What about my job? What about my health insurance? What about us older folks? What about prescription drugs? You do not hear much about that now. Everything is tuned to Iraq. The American people are being led to believe something may happen tomorrow--and something may happen right here within our own shores. But they are being led to believe Saddam is such a threat we don't dare wait until after the election. Saddam doesn't present that kind of imminent threat to this country. He doesn't have these kinds of weapons that he would level at this country before the election. Now, something could happen in our midst before the election. It can happen tonight. It can happen today. It has been happening in this area over the past several days, with a sniper taking six lives, and he shot eight persons.
People are concerned about issues here at home. We should not try to divert their attention to a threat. I don't say Saddam is not a threat. I say he is not the immediate threat the administration is trying to make him out to be at this point. We have some time. We ought to utilize it. We cannot let Saddam Hussein continue to have weapons, such as biological and chemical weapons. We cannot let him acquire weapons of mass destruction. But there is some time, and I think it is very important we get the United Nations involved here, and the President has made a good start in that direction. He made a fine statement when he spoke to the U.N. He put the burden on them. He laid it at their door. They have been recreant in their duty.
We should utilize the time we have to let the U.N. marshal its forces and try to get other countries to assist this country in carrying the burden. Eleven years ago, the cost of that war was $61.1 billion, and other countries helped shoulder the expenses, with the exception of about $7.5 billion. We ought to be seeking to get others' help.
We ought to let the inspectors go back in and have restrictions such that they will have a full and free opportunity to inspect wherever they want, wherever they think they should. So I am for all that. I am not one who says Saddam is not a threat; he is a threat, but he has been a threat for many years. I think it is a disservice to the American people to insist their elected representatives in the House and Senate showdown on this fateful decision before the election. Now, that is highly suspect. To those who are pushing it, I have to say it is suspect.
Why do they want this vote before the election? I am not the one who determines when the election will fall. We know it is going to take place on November 5. Where is the threat that is so imminent to this country we have to declare war here and now, before the election? It is a distraction. Our Senators and House Members need to be concentrating on the matter, debating it, debating other matters. There are many more matters that cry out for the attention of this country. Why should we not be giving attention to them and not be distracted in this vote by what may happen to me on November 5, if I vote this way or that way? That is not right. It is wrong. It is not doing right by the people of this country. They are entitled to better than that.
So I have two main concerns. One, we are ceding the constitutional authority to declare war, and it is open-ended, a blank check. Mr. President, here it is, you can have it. We will just go fishing. You take it and we are out of it. We are out of business. We are out of business for the next year or 2 years or as long as this piece of paper--this blank check--is in effect. You have it. We are cheating the people back home when we vote for that kind of resolution.
Madam President, I have much more to say, but I told the Senator from Virginia I would be glad to yield. I do that now, without losing my right to the floor.
Mr. Warner Madam President, I simply say to my colleague, most respectfully, I feel this was not a cut-and-paste job. Senators Lieberman, Bayh, McCain, myself, and other Senators have contributed. Senator Lott had an open-door policy to engage persons on this issue.
I draw your attention, most respectfully, to section 3, authorization for the use of force.
This is not a blank check. It restricts this authority clearly to Iraq, and if I might read it: Authorization. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to, one, defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; two, enforce all relevant United Nations security resolutions regarding Iraq.
That is a very clear mandate, and once those two criteria are met, this authority ceases.
Madam President, my understanding is that at the hour of 12:30 p.m., the Senate will stand in recess.
Mr. Byrd: Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for 10 minutes.
Mr. Warner Madam President, I most respectfully say to my colleague, I am under firm instructions on this side--so many Senators are gathering at the caucuses who otherwise would follow this important debate. I will be happy to resume with Senator Byrd----
Mr. Reid: If my friend, the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, will yield, I have a unanimous consent request, about which I have spoken with the Senator from West Virginia, for Senators to speak this afternoon.
The Presiding Officer: Is there objection?
Mr. Warner Reserving the right to object, Madam President, can we possibly accommodate my colleague from West Virginia so he can finish this lineup, and I will be prepared to come to the floor with him, can I suggest, at the hour of 2 o'clock?
Mr. Reid: The Senator wishes to speak at 2 o'clock.
Mr. Byrd: I would love to do that.
Mr. Reid: If necessary, I will preside at 2 o'clock, but we have presiders starting at 2:15 p.m.
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from West Virginia be recognized for 10 minutes beginning at 5 after the hour.
Mr. Byrd: Madam President, reserving the right to object, I can finish in 10 minutes now.
Mr. Reid: I understand that, but the other side has objected to that.
Mr. Byrd: After 2 o'clock, I might be constrained to talk longer.
Mr. Warner Madam President, given that opportunity, can we agree then the 10 minutes expires--I am about to join the Secretary of State, Mr. Colin Powell--at the hour of 12:42 or 12:43 p.m.? If that is correct, that will be fine.
Mr. Reid: Reserving the right to object, Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that at 2:15 p.m., in addition to Senator Byrd speaking now for 10 minutes, Senator Mikulski speak; at 2:35 p.m, Senator Gregg; Senator Jeffords at 3 o'clock; there will be a Republican at 3:20 p.m.; Senator Kennedy at 3:40 p.m.; a Republican at 4 o'clock; Senator Carper at 4:20 p.m.; a Republican at 4:50 p.m.; Senator Feingold at 5:30 p.m.; a Republican 6 o'clock; and one of the two, Reid/Reed, at 6:30 p.m.
Mr. Warner I have no objection.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. Byrd: Madam President, for how long am I recognized now?
The Presiding Officer: Ten minutes.
Mr. Byrd: I thank the Chair.
I call the Senate's attention to an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer of October 6 entitled "Allied Support On Iraq Exaggerated, Officials Say":
President Bush and some of his top aides, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, have exaggerated the degree of allied support for a war in Iraq, according to senior officials in the military and the Bush administration.
These officials, rankled by what they charge is a tendency by Rumsfeld and others to gloss over unpleasant realities, say few nations in Europe or the Middle East are ready to support an attack against Iraq unless the United Nations Security Council explicitly authorizes the use of force.
In the latest sign that international support for the administration's plans is soft, key ally Turkey said Friday that it would participate in a campaign against Iraq only if the world body blessed it.
"An operation not based on international law cannot be accepted," a Turkish presidential spokesman said after a meeting of top Turkish civilian, military and intelligence officials in Ankara.
The backing of Turkey, which borders Iraq's north, is vital because it hosts air bases at Incirlik and elsewhere that would be necessary to conduct a major air campaign against Iraq and protect the ethnic Kurdish population in northern Iraq from Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's retaliation.
"Turkey is the key," a senior administration official said.
Turkey, which also has a large Kurdish population, is concerned that Iraq's Kurds would try to form their own mini- state and that a war with another Muslim country could aggravate tensions between Islamists and secularists in Turkey and damage the Turkish economy.
Turkey is not alone: No country near Iraq has agreed to serve as a launching pad for a U.S. strike without U.N. authorization, the senior official said. He and others spoke on condition of anonymity.
As they have tried to persuade Congress to give Bush broad war-making authority, Rumsfeld and other officials have sought to create the impression that there is widespread international support for the Iraq endeavor. That, one top official said, "is at best premature and at worst deceptive."
Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the total article from the Philadelphia Inquirer of October 6 be printed in the Record at the close of my remarks.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. Byrd: Madam President, I quote another article from the Philadelphia Inquirer, this one October 8, 2002, entitled: "Officials' Private Doubts On Iraq War":
While President Bush marshals congressional and international support for invading Iraq, a growing number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats in his own government privately have deep misgivings about the administration's double-time march toward war.
These officials say administration hawks have exaggerated evidence of the threat that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein poses--including distorting his links to the al-Qaeda terrorist network; have overstated the amount of international support for attacking Iraq; and have downplayed the potential repercussions of a new war in the Middle East.
They say that the administration squelches--squelches-- dissenting views that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House's argument that Hussein poses such an immediate threat to the United States that preemptive military action is necessary.
"Analysts at the working level in the intelligence community are feeling very strong pressure from the Pentagon to cook the intelligence books," said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
A dozen other officials echoes his views in interviews with the Inquirer Washington Bureau. No one who was interviewed disagreed.
How much time do I have left, Madam President?
The Presiding Officer: Four and a half minutes.
Mr. Byrd: I thank the Chair.
Continuing the article:
They cited recent suggestions by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice that Hussein and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network were working together.
Rumsfeld said Sept. 26 that the U.S. government had "bulletproof" confirmation of links between Iraq and al- Qaeda members, including "solid evidence" that members of the terrorist network maintained a presence in Iraq.
The facts are much less conclusive. Officials said Rumsfeld's statement was based in part on intercepted telephone calls in which an al-Qaeda member who apparently was passing through Baghdad was overheard calling friends or relatives, intelligence officials said. The intercepts provide no evidence that the suspected terrorist was working with the Iraqi regime or that he was working on a terrorist operation while he was in Iraq, they said.
Rumsfeld also suggested that the Iraqi regime had offered safe haven to bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar. While technically true, that, too, is misleading. Intelligence reports said the Iraqi ambassador to Turkey, a longtime Iraqi intelligence officer, made the offer during a visit to Afghanistan in late 1998, after the United States attacked al-Qaeda training camps with cruise missiles to retaliate for the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. But officials said the same intelligence reports that bin Laden rejected the offer because he did not want Hussein to control his group.
In fact, the officials said, there is no ironclad evidence that the Iraqi regime and the terrorist network are working together, or that Hussein has ever contemplated giving chemical or biological weapons to al-Qaeda, with whom he has deep ideological differences.
I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of this article from the Philadelphia Inquirer, dated October 8, 2002, be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered. (See exhibit 2.)
Mr. Byrd: The President indicated he would lead a coalition, and I hope he will. I hope he will continue to work until he gets a solid coalition together. But if, as the President claims, America will lead a coalition against Iraq, it certainly appears that we have much work to do. The first article I read from the Philadelphia Inquirer bears out a clear message: We have asked the United Nations to act and we should give the United Nations that opportunity.
Last night, the President of the United States asked Congress to fully consider the facts in this debate, but I believe that many of the facts are still unclear. We have many questions that demand answers, and we need the time to find those answers.
So I suggest we try to get the facts, and the representatives of the American people in Congress need the facts, the clear, unadulterated facts, before Congress votes on the resolution.
The questions I have are the same questions the American people have. A poll published last Sunday in the New York Times reports that a majority of Americans think that Congress is not asking enough questions about Iraq policy. By a 2-to-1 margin, those polled would prefer to see U.N. inspectors have more time to do their job. Sixty- five percent of those polled think it is better to wait for allies before any attack on Iraq--in other words, not go it alone.
Obviously, the American people are far from convinced that we must attack Iraq. I think as time goes on, if this matter is fully debated, we will find a reverse in the polls from what we have been seeing lately. We are going to find that the American people are not all that ready to invade Iraq all by themselves; not all that ready to put the U.N. aside and say we will go it alone--if you do not do it, we will-- and not all that ready to send their boys and girls, their men and women, their loved ones, to war in a foreign land without leaving it up to Congress as to when war should be declared.
I yield the floor.
Exhibit 1
From the Philadelphia Inquirer, Oct. 6, 2002
Allied Support on Iraq Exaggerated, Officials Say
By Warren P. StrobelWashington.--President Bush and some of his top aides, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, have exaggerated the degree of allied support for a war in Iraq, according to senior officials in the military and the Bush administration.
These officials, rankled by what they charge is a tendency by Rumsfeld and others to gloss over unpleasant realities, say few nations in Europe or the Middle East are ready to support an attack against Iraq unless the United National Security Council explicitly authorizes the use of force.
In the latest sign that international support for the administration's plans is soft, key ally Turkey said Friday that it would participate in a campaign against Iraq only if the world body blessed it.
"An operation not based on international law cannot be accepted," a Turkish presidential spokesman said after a meeting of top Turkish civilian, military and intelligence officials in Ankara.
The backing of Turkey, which borders Iraq's north, is vital because it hosts air based at Incirlik and elsewhere that would be necessary to conduct a major air campaign against Iraq and protect the ethnic Kurdish population in northern Iraq from Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's retaliation.
"Turkey is the key," a senior administration official said.
Turkey, which also has a large Kurdish population, is concerned that Iraq's Kurds would try to form their own mini- state and that a war with another Muslim country could aggravate tensions between Islamists and secularists in Turkey and damage the Turkish economy.
Turkey is not alone: No country near Iraq has agreed to serve as a launching pad for a U.S. strike without U.N. authorization, the senior official said. He and others spoke on condition of anonymity.
As they have tried to persuade Congress to give Bush broad war-making authority, Rumsfeld and other officials have sought to create the impression that there is widespread international support for the Iraq endeavor. That, one top official said, "is at best premature and at worst deceptive."
The defense secretary told a House of Representatives committee Sept. 18 that Bush aides "know for a fact" that the United States would not be fighting Iraq along if it failed to obtain a U.N. resolution. "There are any number of countries that have already announced their support," he said.
Bush said Thursday that if the United Nations and Iraq didn't eliminate Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, "the United States in deliberate fashion will lead a coalition to take away the world's worst weapons from one of the world's worst leaders."
Several officials said that while those statements were technically true, there was a coalition yet. Diplomats said privately that only staunch ally Britain and Bulgaria--a member of the U.N. Security Council that wants to join the U.S.-led NATO alliance--had said they were willing to act without United Nations cover.
Secretary of State Colin L. Powell has been working intensively to persuade other U.S. Security Council members to back a tough resolution that would force Iraq to accept strict new rules for inspections or face a U.S.-led invasion. He has run into stiff resistance, particularly from France and Russia, both of which hold veto power on the council.
Along with those countries, the United States presumably would need an OK to use military bases in Persian Gulf countries such as Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain and Qatar. In Qatar the United States has been extending a runway to accommodate more combat planes, and some war planners hope to persuade Jordan to let U.S. and British special forces attack suspected missile bases and weapons facilities in western Iraq from its territory.
None of those countries has told Washington it will be forthcoming without U.N. support, the officials said.
One senior military officer called Rumsfeld's comments "misleading."
"`Fine,' `locked in,' `positive,' `concrete'; those words aren't being used over here," another Pentagon officer said.
Some analysts said that if the confrontation with Iraq came to war, most countries would choose to join in rather than risk displeasing the United States or missing out on the spoils.
"You will have regimes which, if we force the issue, will support us," said Anthony Cordesman, a military expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a conservative center for national-security studies. But those countries want diplomatic cover, he said.
Some allies also want assurances on other issues, Cordesman said.
Turkey, for example, wants debt relief for its teetering economy along with promises that there will be no independent Kurdish state in Iraq. Russia wants a free hand to pursue alleged terrorists in neighboring Georgia, Iraq to pay roughly $8 billion in debt, and Washington to lift Cold War- era trade restrictions.
Exhibit 2
From the Philadelphia Inquirer, Oct. 8, 2002
Officials' Private Doubts On Iraq War
(By Warren P. Strobel, Jonathan S. Landay and John Walcott)Washington.--While President Bush marshals congressional and international support for invading Iraq, a growing number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats in his own government privately have deep misgivings about the administration's double-time march toward war.
These officials say administration hawks have exaggerated evidence of the threat that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein poses--including distorting his links to the as-Qaeda terrorist network; have overstated the amount of international support for attacking Iraq; and have downplayed the potential repercussions of a new war in the Middle East.
They say that the administration squelches dissenting views and that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House's argument that Hussein poses such an immediate threat to the United States that preemptive military action is necessary.
"Analysts at the working level in the intelligence community are feeling very strong pressure from the Pentagon to cook the intelligence books," said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity.
A dozen other officials echoed his views in interviews with the Inquirer Washington Bureau. No one who was interviewed disagreed.
They cited recent suggestions by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and National Security Advisory Condoleezza Rich that Hussein and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network were working together.
Rumsfeld said Sept. 26 that the U.S. government had bulletproof" confirmation of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda members, including "solid evidence" that members of the terrorist network maintained a presence in Iraq.
The facts are much less conclusive. Officials said Rumsfeld's statement was based in part on intercepted telephone calls in which an al-Qeada member who apparently was passing through Baghdad was overhead calling friends or relatives, intelligence officials said. The intercepts provide no evidence that the suspected terrorist was working with the Iraqi regime or that he was working on a terrorist operation while he was in Iraq, they said.
Rumsfeld also suggested that the Iraqi regime had offered safe haven to bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar.
While technically true, that, too, is misleading. Intelligence reports said the Iraqi ambassador to Turkey, a longtime Iraqi intelligence officer, made the offer during a visit to Afghanistan in late 1998, after the United States attacked al-Qeada training camps with cruise missiles to retaliate for the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. But officials said the same intelligence reports said that bin Laden rejected the offer because he did not want Hussein to control his group.
In fact, officials said, there is no ironclad evidence that the Iraqi regime and the terrorist network are working together, or that Hussein has ever contemplated giving chemical or biological weapons to al-Qeada, with whom he has deep ideological differences.
Non of the dissenting officials, who work in a number of different agencies, would agree to speak publicly, out of fear of retribution. Many of them have long experience in the Middle East and South Asia, and all spoke in similar terms about the unease with the way the U.S. political leaders were dealing with Iraq.
All agreed that Hussein was a threat who eventually must be dealt with, and none flatly opposed military action. But, they say, the U.S. government has no dramatic new knowledge about the Iraqi leader that justifies Bush's urgent call to arms.
Some lawmakers have voiced similar concerns after receiving CIA briefings.
Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D., Ill.) said some information he had seen did not support Bush's portrayal of the Iraqi threat.
"It's troubling to have classified information that contradicts statements by the administration," Durbin said. "There's more they should share with the public."
Several administration and intelligence officials defended CIA Director George Tenet, saying Tenet was not pressuring his analysis but was quietly working to include dissenting opinions in intelligence estimates and congressional briefings.
In one case, a senior administration official said, Tenet made sure that a State Department official told Congress that the Energy and State Departments disagreed with an intelligence assessment that said hundreds of aluminum tubes Iraq tried to purchase were intended for Baghdad's secret nuclear-weapons program. Analysts in both departments concluded that the Iraqis probably wanted the tubes to make conventional artillery pieces.
Other examples of questionable statements include:
Vice President Cheney said in late August that Iraq might have nuclear weapons "fairly soon." A CIA report released Friday said it could take Iraq until the last half of the decade to produce a nuclear weapon., unless it could acquire bomb-grade uranium or plutonium on the black market.
Also in August, Rumsfeld suggested that al-Qeada operatives fleeing Afghanistan were taking refuge in Iraq with Hussein's assistance. "In a vicious, repressive dictatorship that exercises near-total control over its population, it's very hard to imagine that the government is not aware of what's taking place in the country," he said. Rumsfeld apparently was referring to about 150 members of the militant Islamic group Ansae al Islam ("Supporters of Islam") who have taken refuge in Kurdish areas of northern Iraq. However, one of America's would-be Kurdish allies controls that part of the country, not Hussein.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. Warner Madam President, it is in the true spirit of this institution, which Senator Byrd knows so well, that we exchange viewpoints as we have done Friday, yesterday, and again today, and we will continue to do that. Hopefully, these facts which the Senator deems essential--and I also--will be brought to the attention of this body. I thank my colleague.
Mr. Byrd: And I thank my colleague.
