The Presiding officer (Mr. Kohl): The Senator from Vermont is recognized.
Mr. Jeffords: I thank my good friend.
Mr. President, I have come to discuss, not unexpectedly, the situation in Iraq and what our country ought to do in response to that threat.
As has happened many times before when faced with a potential threat to our national security and to the security of our allies, we must carefully evaluate that threat, and decide how best to deal with it.
It is imperative we not make a rash decision that will have lasting consequences for generations to come.
I am very disturbed by President Bush's determination that the threat from Iraq is so severe and so immediate that we must rush to a military solution. I do not see it that way.
I have been briefed several times by Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, CIA Director Tenet, and other top administration officials. I have discussed this issue with the President. I have heard nothing-- nothing--that convinces me that an immediate preemptive military strike is necessary or that it would further our interests in the long term.
Saddam Hussein's desire to acquire weapons of mass destruction is of grave concern. Based on the information that has been provided to me by this administration, I believe this threat is best dealt with in the context of the United Nations.
The U.N. must move aggressively to ensure unfettered inspections and bolster its efforts to stop the proliferation of materials that can be used in the production of weapons of mass destruction.
I urge the U.N. Security Council to take immediate and strong action to deal with Iraq and its infractions. Should Iraq fail to comply with the United Nations resolutions, it is incumbent on the United States to aggressively work with member nations to develop a means to bring Iraq into compliance.
But at this time, I cannot in good conscience authorize any use of military force against Iraq other than in the context of a U.N. Security Council effort.
If we receive information that the threat is more imminent, or if the United Nations' effort fails, then the President should come back to Congress for consideration of the next step.
Providing the President with authorization at this time for unilateral U.S. military action would undercut U.N. Security Council efforts to disarm Iraq.
We must ensure that any action we take against Iraq does not come at the expense of the health and strength of our Nation, or the stability of the international order upon which our economic security depends.
I spoke at length on the Senate floor last week about pressing problems that will determine the future strength of our Nation:
Grossly inadequate funding for education, declining access to affordable health care, degradation of our environment, and erosion of pension security for many hard-working Americans.
Saddam Hussein is as bad a dictator as they come. His past actions speak volumes about his true intentions. But is the only solution to this dilemma a military solution? Experience tells us otherwise. Ten years of containment through enforcement of two no-fly zones and U.N. economic sanctions have prevented Saddam Hussein from rebuilding his military to any significant extent especially with respect to our security. His military strength remains significantly weaker than when he moved against Kuwait more than a decade ago.
There is much speculation about his weapons of mass destruction program, but no evidence that he has developed a nuclear capability, and less that he could deliver it. While there is talk of cooperation between Iraq and al-Qaida, and I don't doubt that there has been some cooperation, I have not seen any hard evidence of close cooperation. There is, however, a great deal of evidence of Saddam's paranoia and his distrust of all but his closest inner circle. He has wiped out any viable political opposition and tightly holds all the reins of control. Even if he were to develop a nuclear capability, which he does not have, I have a hard time believing that Saddam Hussein would turn these weapons over to any organization, particularly a terrorist organization, after he has paid so dearly to acquire them.
Our greatest problem, it seems to me, is that we have very little good intelligence on what is going on inside Iraq. We know that Saddam Hussein's intentions are bad, but we don't have a clear picture of what his capabilities actually are, or if a threat exists. Clearly, we need to get United Nations inspectors on the ground immediately. The inspectors must have unfettered access to all suspected sites in Iraq. This is proving to be a major challenge for the United Nations, but the United Nations is much more likely to succeed if the United States is squarely behind its efforts, and not standing off to the side, secretly hoping that it will fail.
We should give the United Nations the opportunity to step forward and deal with Iraq and its infractions. In my estimation, the United States stands to gain much more if we can work with the United Nations to deliver a multilateral approach to disarming Iraq, even providing military force, if necessary. If the United Nations fails to press for the disarmament of Iraq or is blocked in its efforts, then I would expect the President to come back to Congress for further discussion of the alternatives.
In view of this threat from Saddam Hussein, which I believe is missing, I urge the Congress not to adjourn sine die upon completion of its work this fall, but to be ready to return to session at any time prior to the New Year if further action against Saddam Hussein should become necessary.
We must also work with the United Nations to stop the flow of those materials needed for producing weapons of mass destruction. There is a great deal more that we could do to tighten international nonproliferation regimes. Rather than supporting and empowering international efforts to stop the flow of nuclear materials and force greater transparency in chemical and biological commercial production facilities, the Bush administration has undercut these efforts and refused to participate in attempts to strengthen existing nonproliferation regimes. For example, last fall, at the Biological Weapons Convention review conference, the Bush administration scuttled efforts by our closest allies, most notably Great Britain, to strengthen the international biological weapons inspection regime.
The administration has actively undermined efforts to monitor and verify the existing international moratorium on nuclear weapons testing.
Additionally, we should be putting more resources into the Nunn-Lugar program, which has had some success at preventing the export from the former Soviet Union of nuclear weapons materials and scientific know- how. Saddam Hussein is not the only deranged dictator who is willing to deprive his people in order to acquire weapons of mass destruction.
Just think of what progress we could make on nonproliferation if we were to put one fraction of the cost of a war against Saddam Hussein into efforts to prevent the emergence of the next nuclear, chemical, or biological threat. Strong efforts at strengthening international nonproliferation regimes would truly enhance our Nation's future security.
In our preoccupation with Saddam Hussein, we must not lose sight of potential crises in several other areas of the world. The India- Pakistan nuclear confrontation and the standoff over Kashmir have demanded a great deal of American effort during the past year. We cannot rule out a re-emergence of this nuclear threat. The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians continues to claim lives and threaten the stability of the region. Without U.S. prodding and even direct involvement, there is little chance that a peace process could resume there. War with Iraq could have an inflammatory effect upon that situation, and potentially risk the security of Israel as well. A war with Iraq would diminish our focus on bringing stability to Afghanistan, risking a return of anarchy to an area we have just given American lives to stabilize. While Pakistan has stood with us this year, a lessening of U.S. attention to Afghanistan could significantly undercut our influence in Islamabad. And the larger war on terrorism, our top concern just a few months ago, would take a back seat to a protracted war with Iraq and a major reconstruction effort. Yes, we must worry about Saddam. But we must not do so in a manner that reduces our ability to deal with these other threats.
I fear that this administration is, perhaps unwittingly, heading us into a miserable cycle of waging wars that isolate our Nation internationally and stir up greater hatred of America. This cycle will generate more enemies, while undercutting our support from a broad coalition of allies--coalitions that have proven to be the hallmark of all successful peacemaking efforts in recent years.
We owe it to the American people not to rush into a war, but to work with the institutions that we fought so hard to develop for just this eventuality. If multilateral efforts fail, then the President should come back to Congress for consideration of the next course of action. I cannot support a resolution that puts this Nation on a path to war without first exhausting diplomatic efforts. Now is the time to put the international system to work for us, and consider unilateral military action only as a last resort.
I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer: The assistant majority leader.
Mr. Reid: Mr. President, we are running ahead of time with our scheduled speakers. I have not had an opportunity to speak to the manager of the bill, but I have spoken to the staff. Senator Kennedy comes to speak automatically at 3:40. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Cleland be recognized at 3:30 for 10 minutes.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. Allard: Mr. President, the Senator from Connecticut will speak for the next 10 minutes or so, and then we will be on schedule for our 3:30 speaker.
Mr. Lieberman: Mr. President, as one of the four lead sponsors of the amendment in the nature of a substitute resolution, I appreciate very much the thoughtfulness of my colleagues in addressing the resolution we put forward, including those who have expressed reservations or objection to it. I will take a few moments to respond to a few of those, as time allows.
One of the concerns expressed was that our resolution essentially provides the President with a blank check and, at its worst, according to the critics, is in derogation of the Constitution of the United States.
Respectfully, I object to both of those descriptions. Let me take the first, which is the question of the Constitution. The Constitution says in article I, among the powers enumerated in section 8 that the Congress of the United States is to have, is the power to declare war. That is stated. Incidentally, in the same clause there are other powers: To grant letters of marque and reprisal and make rules concerning captures on land and water.
Though the Congress of the United States, for various reasons, has not formally declared war since December of 1941, that is the effect of the resolution before the Senate, to authorize the President to take military action to put American troops into combat, into war. That is the extent of the description in the Constitution.
The authority that would be given to the President under our resolution is entirely within that constitutional grant to the Congress, which is to give the President the authority to defend the national security of the United States--and again, no blank check here--against the continuing threat posed by Iraq. It is targeted to that particular point, based on the conclusions about Iraq's danger to the United States stated in the preamble or the whereas clauses. "And"--not "or"--and this authority is given not only to protect the security of the United States against the threat imposed by Iraq and to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.
So one may disagree with the conclusions that those who are sponsoring this resolution have reached about the clear and present danger Iraq under Saddam Hussein represents to America's national security, but I respectfully do not think anyone can convincingly claim this resolution is in any sense unconstitutional. It is well within the authority granted to the Congress under article I of the Constitution. Nor is it, in any sense, a blank check. It is circumscribed by the terms I have just described, "and"--not "or"--two grounds of authority. It is not a blank check. It is a check that can only be spent within the parameters set out in those two clauses.
I might add, the Congress also is given by the Constitution the power to appropriate funds. That is the ultimate power that Congress has, to make sure this is not a blank check either in terms of what the money can be spent for or how much money can be spent.
Questions have been raised about the urgency of this matter and the timing of the request by the President for this authority. I said earlier today and I will say briefly again that in the case of this Senator, I have believed now for more than a decade that we have been much too patient--in fact, have been in error at the end of the Persian Gulf war for not moving to remove Saddam Hussein from power when his military was in disarray. We knew what his goals were, what his record was. We knew by statements he made that he had the ambition to be the leader of the Arab world, the modern-day Saladin, to have Baghdad become the capital of the Arab world, of the Persian Gulf. That, of course, would be terrible for the Arab world, terrible for the world, and terrible particularly for the United States of America.
Over the last decade, for those who believe we are acting precipitously in passing and offering this resolution, we have tried everything else to get Saddam Hussein to keep the promise he made at the end of the gulf war. We have tried sanctions, embargoes, inspections, trade restrictions, the Oil for Food Program, even limited military action. None of them has worked.
I repeat briefly some of the history. In February of 1991 after the Iraqi military was vanquished in the Persian Gulf war, Saddam Hussein, effectively to preserve his leadership of that country, signed an agreement accepting all U.N. Security Council resolutions passed after his invasion of Kuwait as a condition for the termination of hostilities. That included Resolution No. 687 which required that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction be "destroyed, removed or rendered harmless." In that Resolution 687, it goes on to require that inspectors be allowed into Iraq.
Saddam Hussein systematically withheld information, used every available method of deception. I have an article from Time magazine of September, 1995, 7 years ago, which describes how much we knew about the deception that Saddam Hussein--the cheating and retreating, as the article said, that Saddam Hussein had gone through to frustrate the will of the United Nations and how much we have learned in admissions that were made as the United States mobilized forces to invade Kuwait: That the Iraqis had admitted they had begun filling 191 bombs and Scud missile warheads with deadly biological agents such as anthrax and botulism toxin, which were to be mounted on missiles, planes, and drone aircraft and dropped on enemy troops, fewer than half of whom had received the appropriate germ warfare vaccinations.
One Iraq report, reading from the article in Time magazine 7 years ago, stated that shortly before invading Kuwait in August of 1990, Saddam ordered a crash program to have a nuclear weapon built by April of 1991.
Interestingly, a month before this article was printed in Time magazine, Baghdad rushed to give some documents to the U.N. to jump ahead of Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamel al-Majid, who had defected. He had been a senior general in charge of the nuclear and biological weapons program. Hussein, according to the article, knew he could not keep him quiet, so he decided to try to make points with the U.N. by producing a flood of information. It was devastating in its content in terms of the deadly toxins of which he was developing an enormous inventory.
Of course, we know since the inspectors were ejected in 1998 and Saddam has now had, after his deception of the years that preceded, 4 years to build up his inventory which our intelligence and allied intelligence confirm has grown, remains, and is today more threatening and more powerful in terms of weapons of mass destruction, unconventional, than he had ever been before.
I want to go back to one final quote. On February 15 of 1991, as we had won a victory in the gulf war, Saddam said:
Every Iraqi child, woman, and old man knows how to take revenge. They will avenge the pure blood that has been shed, no matter how long it takes.
That is undoubtedly why Saddam tried to assassinate former President Bush in 1993. That is why our State Department continues to designate Iraq under Saddam as a state sponsor of terrorist groups that have killed Americans. That is why we cannot rest until he is disarmed, which is the purpose of this resolution--disarm or face military action.
I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer: Under the previous order, the Senator from Georgia is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. Cleland: Mr. President, I find it the height of irony in the midst of our discussion on potential war with Iraq and potential use of force and committing young Americans into harm's way--and I indicated my support yesterday for the bipartisan resolution that would authorize the use of force to go after weapons of mass destruction in Iraq--I find it ironic in the midst of this debate about whether to commit American forces to a national objective somewhere in the world, that in the Washington Post yesterday an article was entitled "New Pension Benefits Imperil Defense Bill. In Cost-Conscious Move, Bush Vows to Veto Entire Budget if Item Isn't Eliminated."
The message in the article is disturbing to me because the item referred to is something called concurrent receipt.
I might say currently under law there is an untenable situation where, if someone has served 20 years in the American military and additionally gets wounded in that service, they cannot draw their retirement which they have earned and their disability compensation which they are entitled to, concurrently. They cannot do that. So I find it ironic in the midst of the time when the President is calling upon us to authorize the use of force somewhere in the world, he is opposing the use of concurrent receipt or the ability of our troops, our servicemen and women who have served 20 years or more and get wounded in that effort, to draw those entitlements concurrently. He opposes that and has threatened to veto the almost $400 billion defense authorization bill because of that one item. That is unconscionable.
This article says the President has threatened to veto the defense authorization bill for fiscal year 2003 in order to block the Defense Department from paying veterans and military retirees the very compensation they have earned.
I am puzzled. I am flabbergasted by the President's position and the veto threat. He goes on television one night and threatens war to accomplish our national objectives, and the next moment says he is going to veto the entire defense authorization bill which would help pay for that very war because he doesn't agree with the Senate's position here, where we stand foursquare behind those who have gone in the military, served more than 20 years, and gotten wounded.
I can't understand it. Surely, with all the benefits and quality-of- life provisions we have in our laws supporting our military families, and authorizing weapons systems, and passing, as we passed in this body, a defense authorization bill of $393.4 billion--that the President has threatened to veto this package over a question that ought to be a nonstarter, a no-brainer, is very alarming. The fact is, if somebody serves in the American military 20 years or more and gets wounded in that service, what they are actually entitled to is not authorized.
I challenge anyone who opposes the repeal of the concurrent receipt: Just what are we talking about here? What is the cost to our military personnel who put their lives on the line? And what is the cost to our Nation when nobody else wants to do that because we are not giving them their just due? We have to address this issue and protect our military retirees and veterans. To ignore it is actually the height of hypocrisy, and dishonors the very men and women who serve in uniform.
How can we as a Nation, in good conscience, in a matter of hours, ask our military men and women to put their lives on the line in the future if they know this country will not take care of them?
That is idiotic. The defense authorization bill is in conference between the House and the Senate. It is my hope we can find the right compromise that will make sure we take care of our veterans and retirees. I urge that the House and Senate adopt legislation that will address this issue, and I ask the President and the Secretary of Defense rethink their position and stand up for our veterans and military retirees who are unfairly affected by the current law. We need to change it.
This body stood foursquare behind them. As a matter of fact, one of my combat veterans in this great body here, fellow Vietnam veteran Senator John Kerry from Massachusetts, he and I and others are sending a letter to the President of the United States, urging him to recant that position on threatening to veto the very defense authorization bill we will need to go to the very war he is trying to crank up.
I see this as the height of irony. At one moment we are threatening to put our young Americans into harm's way. At the other moment the President said he is going to veto the entire defense authorization bill because of one item. What is that one item we are paying at the request of this great body? Those who serve 20 years or more and get wounded, they get their just due.
I appreciate my colleague, Senator Reid from Nevada, for pushing this issue and bringing it to national attention as the chairman of the Personnel Subcommittee in the Armed Services Committee. We feel very strongly in our committee and in the Armed Services Committee of this body on this issue.
I yield the floor.
Mr. Reid: Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. Cleland: I yield.
Mr. Reid: I worked on this situation a long time. I appreciate the Senator from Georgia coming, lending your prestige, I underscore that, on this very important issue. As the Senator said, this is a simple issue, whether someone who has put in his time in the military, whether it is 10 or 20 or whatever years it is--20 or 30--whatever it is, and then, I say to my friend from Georgia, the distinguished Senator, then finds himself, because he has a disability--it could be 100 percent or whatever percent disability--he has to make a choice. He can't get both pensions, both of which are earned.
If there were ever an example of how a country owes this to these people, this is it. I say to my friend from Georgia, thank you very much. The Senator from Georgia, I know, as I do, goes to VFW halls and the other veterans' organizations, and we see there large numbers of World War II veterans. I am not happy to say this, but a thousand are dying every day. These men--and very few women, from World War II; as we went back, there were more women involved--deserve this. As in Korea. I have a friend the Senator from Georgia knows, who was my high school teacher, the Governor of the State of Nevada, who lost a limb in Korea. He had to make a choice. He cannot do both. He spent time in the Air Force, in the Marines, in the Army and, under this goofy law he cannot draw both pensions if, in fact, he was entitled to them.
This is just senseless. So I appreciate very much the Senator from Georgia recognizing the importance of this and lending his prestige.
No one can come and speak on veterans' matters with more authority than the Senator from Georgia. I say to the Senator, not only have you received injuries, but you are also the person who ran the Department of Veterans Affairs. You have seen it from all sides. I appreciate very much your being here, helping on this legislation the conference committee must approve. It is simply just unfair if they do not.
Mr. Biden: Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. Cleland: I do.
Mr. Biden: I apologize for not hearing the Senator's entire remarks. On what I heard at the end, I fully concur.
Mr. Warner: Will the Senator use his microphone?
Mr. Biden: I beg your pardon.
Does the Senator actually believe the President would veto this? I mean, the President speaks so glowingly and lovingly--and I believe he means it--about our veterans and our responsibilities and our obligations. If you laid out to the American people what we are talking about here, they would understand this just does not make sense.
Most people--who are not veterans, who are not disabled, who do not participate in any way--I think assume the law is as you and Senator Reid and myself and others are trying to change it.
I ask the Senator, A, do you really believe the President would veto this? And, B, what is the real reason for the veto? I mean, is there something I am missing here?
Mr. Cleland: The Senator is right in his sense of being absolutely dumbfounded by this. I am absolutely perplexed. I would certainly hope the President of the United States, the Commander in Chief, would not veto a defense authorization bill worth $394 billion, that this body passed, on a spurious issue that it costs money to pay those who fight our wars. It sure does, especially those who get wounded in our wars. It sure does. If we can find the money for war, certainly we can find the money to take care of those who fight our wars. It is just as simple as that to me.
So I thank the Senator from Delaware for his question.
Mr. Warner: Mr. President, if I could, because I have been aligned with the distinguished Senator from Nevada, Senator Levin, and others on both sides of the aisle, together with our colleague from Georgia, about this concurrent receipt--this Senator knows of no time the President of the United States has directly spoken to this issue. Thus far, only the individuals who are working in the budgetary matters at OMB have. As you mentioned yesterday, I say to the Senator from Nevada, Mr. Chu, who is a principal adviser to the Secretary of Defense, had made comments.
At this point in time I find no foundation to associate the President personally with this decision. Furthermore--and then I will yield right away--being an active member of the conference of the four principals between the House and the Senate, the targets are moving back and forth. There is the Senate version, there is the House version, and there is the amended Senate version. There is also one Senator McCain and I have talked about, and that is, should we move forward on concurrent receipts, we would do it in the context of the Purple Heart winners and those who have injuries that are directly associated with having served in combat zones. That may not be to the liking of all of us, but all types of options are being explored.
I know at this time no basis of fact that the President is personally involved.
Mr. Reid: Mr. President, I do not know what is the proper procedure at this time. The Senator from Georgia has the floor. But with the permission of the Chair and the Senator from Georgia, I would like to direct a question to my friend, the distinguished ranking member of the Armed Services Committee.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. Reid: The Senator will recall yesterday, on the floor, I said, I do not think the President knows what the people are saying. I think if the President really knew what people were saying--we are robbing Peter to pay Paul on people who have injuries, people who are disabled because of their service in the military--I do not think the President would do that. I hope not. That is what I heard coming from the distinguished Senator from Delaware, that I do not think this is President Bush's personality; at least I hope not.
I say, though, to my friend, as I said yesterday, I really do believe a person who is injured in combat--and I cannot speak from experience, as can my friends, such as Senator Kerry, Senator Inouye, and Senator Cleland, what combat is like. I do not really know. But I do know people who have disabilities in the military. No matter how they received those disabilities, I believe they are entitled to that disability payment. I think it may be an easy way out for some to just say: Well, if you are injured in combat, you are entitled to your disability pay, but if you are injured on the back lines by a tank running over you, or a truck hitting you, or falling off a truck doing work to take care of those people on the front lines, then you are not. But I say, whether that person is 3,000 miles away or 30,000 miles away from the front lines, I think they are entitled to that compensation for disability just as well as someone else. That is a comment I make to my friend from Virginia prior to your making a decision in that conference.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. Warner: Mr. President, I say to my good friend he is very correct and accurate, as always, in what he stated yesterday as not being associated to the President personally.
I say to the Senator, I associate myself with your goal of having broader concurrent receipts. But I am faced, as the ranking member of the committee, with the reality of the situation. We will have to ascertain exactly: Is there a line at which the executive branch will accept some version of concurrent receipts? And we just have to bring that back to our colleagues.
Because if we were to experience a veto--I am not suggesting in any way it has been communicated other than through the staff to this Senator--our bill would go down. Twelve months of work by the Armed Services Committee would go down. Many benefits, pay raises for the men and women of the Armed Forces, new weapons--it all goes down on this one issue.
I say to the Senator, I share with you--I find it very hard to think that could come about. But, nevertheless, all of us having been here many years, under several Presidents, know there are junctures in conferences when this does happen. It is our responsibility--and I assume it--to try and ascertain, is there some form? And then we bring it back to our colleagues. If there isn't, then I think we should all recognize the situation.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. Reid: Mr. President, if I could respond very quickly.
Senator Byrd has been here--and I say this with dignity and respect-- and he has given us so many lectures on the Constitution. I have listened. I believe in the Constitution. We are a separate and equal branch of Government. The President cannot tell us what happens in conference. He can offer his opinion.
I say this, as I said yesterday, the President cannot sustain a veto on this matter. He cannot sustain a veto. I would put up before this body, any time, my veterans compared to the people who surround the President.
So I say to my friend from Virginia, a man of courage, integrity, and, as I said yesterday, a gentleman, hang in there. We are the third branch of Government. We deserve to be able to do what we have passed in this body. We cannot let the administration cow us on this because we are right. If he vetoes it, we will override the President.
Mr. Biden: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak 2 minutes on this point--just 2 minutes.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. Biden: Mr. President, I have been here 30 years. This is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. This is absolutely mind-boggling. This is brain dead. We have a roughly $400 billion defense bill. We may be asked to go to war. And some bureaucratic functionary, somewhere in the bowels of OMB--if that is what is to be believed--is suggesting that we hold up this bill because they do not want to allow disabled veterans to have concurrent receipt of their disability and their military pension. That is brain dead.
And, Mr. President--you are not listening; but I hope your staff is listening--stop this. Stop this. Stop this. It makes no sense, Mr. Chairman, to yield to blackmail that they'll veto this bill when the Senate has overwhelmingly voted for concurrent receipt. If you yield to this, Mr. Chairman, I will be dumbfounded--dumbfounded. I know you've worked a whole year. I have worked a whole year, and up to 8 years, on legislation.
But I can't believe you'd even listen to somebody who would say this. Why wouldn't you pick up the phone and call up the President and say: Mr. President, is this the deal? Is this the deal? Tell me straight up, boss. What is the deal? Because if it is, it is outrageous.
So I suggest we just pick up the phone and call the President. You have a close relationship with him. Call him. Ask him. Ask him. I pray to God he would not even think of saying to you: No. I will veto a $400 billion bill at the same time while nailing the veterans. Call him. Phone home.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Florida.
Mr. Graham: Mr. President, point of parliamentary inquiry: What is the business currently pending?
The Presiding Officer: The Lieberman amendment.
Mr. Reid: Parliamentary inquiry, under the order now before the Senate, we are on the Lieberman amendment. It is my understanding the Senator from Massachusetts is entitled to the floor.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Massachusetts is entitled to the floor.
Mr. Kennedy: I am glad to yield to the Senator from Florida.
Mr. Graham: Mr. President, I thank the Senator.
My purpose is to offer an amendment to the Lieberman amendment which is in the nature of a substitute. I send the amendment to the desk.
Mr. Warner: Could I inquire of the leader, before he departs the floor, regarding the order that is in now, we are dealing with matters relating to debate on Iraq; the nature of this substitute amendment is what?
Mr. Graham: It will add an additional authority to the President relative to the use of force.
Mr. Warner: This is an amendment to the matter that is pending before the Senate?
Mr. Graham: It is an amendment to the matter pending before the Senate, yes.
Mr. Warner: I see. Could I ask my colleague: We have been trying to work in a very cooperative way, Senator Lott and Senator Daschle, Senator Reid and myself, on the timing of these things. Has this matter been taken to the leadership?
Mr. Graham: I have discussed it with Senator Daschle.
Mr. Warner: And his views on it are?
Mr. Graham: I do not know what his views are.
Mr. Warner: I see. Could I ask the distinguished majority whip about the procedure at this point in time? I know on this side we have tried very hard to stay within the framework, although it is not clearly established, but the framework as to how this Iraq debate would go on and the timing of the introduction.
Mr. Reid: I would say to my friend from Virginia, the Senator from Florida wants to offer the amendment and then leave the floor.
Mr. Graham: I will not debate the amendment.
Mr. Reid: He has a right sometime today to offer the amendment. The Senator from Connecticut is aware of his wishing to offer this. He has a right to offer it, but it is just a question of when he would do it.
Mr. Warner: I don't dispute the rights. I am just trying to stay within the framework of the guidance being given by our respective leadership on the management of this matter.
Mr. Reid: The reason he did it this way is so we would not interrupt the order in effect.
Mr. Warner: Then the amendment would become the pending business, would it not?
The Presiding Officer: The clerk will report the amendment.
Mr. Warner: I asked the question as to whether or not it would become the pending business.
The Presiding Officer: The amendment will be reported, and it will become the pending business.
Mr. Warner: I thank the Chair.
The Presiding Officer: The clerk will report.
Mr. Warner: Is that the desire then?
Mr. Reid: I guess we should have mentioned it to you. I apologize we didn't do that. I think there was wide knowledge he was going to do this sometime today.
Mr. Warner: I am asking then if I might just have time to consult with our leadership, recognizing the Senator has a right, so I could get such instructions as my leader may wish to contribute.
Mr. Reid: I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The Presiding Officer: The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. Reid: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Reid: Mr. President, it is my understanding the clerk is going to report the amendment.
The Presiding Officer: The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Mr. Reid: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To provide substitute language that includes an authorization for the use of the United States Armed Forces to defend the national security of the United States against the threat posed by certain foreign terrorist organizations)
In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted by the amendment, insert the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq and International Terrorists Resolution".
SEC. 2. SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.
The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to--
(1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and
(2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.
SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) 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--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq;
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(3) defend the national security of the United States against the threat posed by the following terrorist organizations:
(A) The Abu Nidal Organization.
(B) HAMAS.
(C) Hizballah.
(D) Palestine Islamic Jihad. (E) Palestine Liberation Front.(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (a) to use force, the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon there after as may be feasible, but not later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--
(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and
(2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorists attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
(c) War Powers Resolution Requirements.--
(1) Specific statutory authorization.--Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.
(2) Applicability of other requirements.--Nothing in this resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.
SEC. 4. REPORTS TO CONGRESS.
(a) The President shall, at least once every 60 days, submit to the Congress a report on matters relevant to this joint resolution, including actions taken pursuant to the exercise of authority granted in section 3 and the status of planning for efforts that are expected to be required after such actions are completed, including those actions described in section 7 of Public Law 105-338 (the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998).
(b) To the extent that the submission of any report described in subsection (a) coincides with the submission of any other report on matters relevant to this joint resolution otherwise required to be submitted to Congress pursuant to the reporting requirements of Public Law 93-148 (the War Powers Resolution), all such reports may be submitted as a single consolidated report to the Congress.
(c) To the extent that this information required by section 3 of Public Law 102-1 is included in the report required by this section, such report shall be considered as meeting the requirements of section 3 of Public Law 102-1.
Mr. Reid: Senator Graham will speak on this at a later time. The Senator from Virginia, the manager of the bill, will ask for 2 minutes now. Regarding the order in effect that was gotten earlier today, I ask unanimous consent that we eliminate the times when the Senators are to appear. It just hasn't worked. Somebody finishes 10 minutes early, or 5 minutes late, and it throws everything off kilter.
So I ask unanimous consent that following the statement of the Senator from Virginia, Senator Wellstone be recognized for 5 minutes, and Senator Kennedy for 15 minutes; that we then have a Republican Senator for 20 minutes; Senator Carper for 20 minutes; a Republican for 30 minutes; and then that we have Senator Dodd for 30 minutes and a Republican for 30 minutes.
The Presiding Officer: Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Warner: Mr. President, I have just been handed the amendment of the distinguished Senator from Florida. I have looked it through. We will have a debate on it in due course. I must bring to the attention of the Senate that in the course of the drafting of the resolution by my good friend from Connecticut, myself, Senator McCain, and Senator Bayh, we took into consideration a lot of things and counseled with the administration.
The point I wish to make is that, at first glance, this amendment seems to restore, in some sense, the original words of S.J. Res. 45, which I read:
The President is authorized to use all means that he determines to be appropriate, including force, in order to enforce the United Nations Security Council resolution referenced above, to defend the national security interests of the United States against a threat posed by Iraq . . .
This is the key part:
. . . and restore international peace and security in the region.
My recollection is that, in the negotiation, the Democrat side of the aisle was strongly in opposition to that last phrase in S.J. Res. 45 and, therefore, Senator Lieberman and I and others took it out when we drafted ours, S.J. Res. 46. I just make that observation, and I find it a bit perplexing. Nevertheless, I have had the opportunity to state my point.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Florida is recognized.
Mr. Graham: Will the Senator yield for a moment?
Mr. Warner: I yield the floor on this. Under the time agreement, our two colleagues are to speak. I suggest the Senator address the Chair as to his desire.
Mr. Graham: Mr. President, it was our intention to maintain the amendment in all respects, other than adding the language that begins on page 2 at line 23 and runs through page 3 at line 4. That was our sole intent in offering the amendment in the form that we have done so. If there had been negotiations of which we were unaware that altered the underlying amendment, at the appropriate time it would be my intention to offer an amendment to make it conform to the proposal that adds what yourself and others have currently agreed to.
Mr. Warner: At the appropriate time, we will address that. I thank my colleagues.
