The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Connecticut is recognized.
Mr. Lieberman: Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his very strong statement on behalf of the resolution Senators Warner, Bayh, McCain, I, and others have put before the Senate. I also thank my friend and colleague from Florida, Senator Nelson, for his strong statement on behalf of the amendment we have offered. I think together they form bookends that are bipartisan and quite strong in endorsing our resolution, and also in responding to some of the complaints, or questions, or criticisms about it that have been made in this first day of direct debate on it, which I do want to do a little bit more of myself.
Mr. Nickles: Will the Senator yield for a moment?
Mr. Lieberman:Yes.
Mr. Nickles: I compliment the Senator for his leadership on this. I have actually read the resolution. I think it is a very good product, bipartisan, due in large part to the Senator's leadership. I remember working with him on the 1991 resolution, as well as Senator Warner and many others who were on the floor 11 years ago. So I thank my friend and colleague from Connecticut. We have had the pleasure of working together on many issues, and this is one of the most important. The Senator's leadership is very notable and commendable, and I thank him for it.
Mr. Lieberman: Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his kind words. I remember our work together in 1991. We are older and maybe wiser. In any case, I am proud to be working with the Senator and others on both sides of the aisle in a good cause.
I want to say, as he talked about reading the resolution--and I think that is important and I hope all our colleagues will read it--not just the "resolved" part, but the "whereas," the preamble.
There have been suggestions here and there that either this resolution we have adopted was sort of patched together in a hurry, or that the White House just dictated it. The good news is this resolution is the result of a bipartisan, bicameral, House-Senate negotiation with the White House in a spirit of accommodation and compromise as part of a desire to go forward together. Some significant changes were made in the resolution from the original draft sent by the White House that were requested by Members of Congress, including particularly Members on the Democratic side of the aisle.
I just want to mention very briefly those changes. They include, first, support for and prioritization of American diplomatic efforts at the U.N. Just so there would be no doubt that what we were authorizing or intending to authorize was a unilateral, go-it-alone, "don't care what anybody else says in the world" military strike at Saddam Hussein, it is not that. In fact, at the heart of this resolution is the authority given to the President to enforce United Nations resolutions in great number, which have been consistently ignored, violated, denied, and deceived by Saddam Hussein over the decade.
While Congress is only able to authorize the President, as Commander in Chief, to take military action, the clear implication that I read into our resolution--but more than that, the clear statement of intention of the President should we face the moment we hope we do not face, when either Saddam does not respond to the U.N. or the U.N. itself refuses to authorize action to enforce its resolutions, then I think the President has made clear, and those of us who are sponsoring the resolution have made clear, that the United States will not go it alone and we will not have to, as a result of the decision to go to the U.N., as a result of the consultation with allies in Europe and Asia, in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world, as a result of the discussion and debate here and what I hope will be strong bipartisan support of this underlying resolution.
If we come to that moment where we have no other choice but war, then it is clear that we will have allies in good number at our side. That was one of the items we added to the resolution.
We also limited the scope of the authorization to Iraq and resolutions of the United Nations related to Iraq. The initial language submitted by the White House had a third clause which would justify military action, and that was to give the President authority to take military action to restore international peace and security to the region. That was a good step forward to grant the President authority but to limit the authority.
I take it also to be a limitation on duration, although some have spoken today and in previous days about the fact that this is unlimited. This is limited to the duration of authority necessary to address the current and ongoing threats posed by Iraq. When those threats are over, the authority is gone. Because the connection between sections 1 and 2 of the material parts of the resolve clause, which is the conditions that would justify military action, are joined by the word "and" and not by the word "or," I think it is meant to clarify that this authority applies only to the relevant United Nations resolutions regarding Iraq.
There was another significant change. We also asked the White House and they agreed to put in language that requires the President to submit to Congress a determination, prior to using force, that further diplomatic means will not protect the national security of the American people or lead to enforcement of U.N. resolutions--another way, consistent incidentally with the gulf war resolution of 1991, to make it clear in this resolution that the policy of the United States is not to go to war first but to go to war last, after all other means of achieving Saddam's disarmament have failed.
We also require the President to submit to Congress a determination, prior to using force, that taking military action against Iraq is consistent with continuing efforts by the United States and other nations to take the necessary actions against international terrorists or terrorist organizations.
Justifiable concern was expressed that somehow a potential war against Iraq would interrupt, disrupt, deter the ongoing war on terrorism.
As I said, I think the two are connected because Saddam is a terrorist and supports terrorism and has had contacts with al-Qaida, but this makes clear the President has to make a determination publicly to Congress that these two are not in conflict and then requiring the President to comply with the War Powers Act which mandates regular consulting and reporting procedures.
I spoke earlier this afternoon and said to my colleagues I did not understand why there were some who said this resolution was somehow in contravention of the Constitution. One might disagree with the evaluation we sponsors of the resolution have made about the danger of Iraq under Saddam or of the imminence of the threat, but clearly the language of this resolution is not only within the power that Congress is given by the Constitution to declare war, to authorize military action, but also, by complying with the War Powers Act, embraces the later section of article I that says Congress is empowered to adopt legislation to implement the powers the Constitution gives.
Finally, there is a requirement that the President report every 60 days to Congress on military operations and on the planning for close of conflict activities, such as reconstruction and peacekeeping. It is not too soon to begin to plan for that now. I had occasion to speak on this subject last night at the Wilson Center here in Washington.
The bottom line is the ultimate measurement of the success of war is the quality of peace that follows. We have an obligation not just to, if necessary, tear down the dictatorship that Saddam has built in Iraq, but to help the Iraqi people build up a government that will follow in a better life, better economy, and more freedom for themselves, and this reporting requirement will be an incentive for that to happen.
Obviously, I hope and trust our colleagues will read the resolution in full. I want my colleagues to understand a significant process of negotiation went on between Democrats and Republicans in the House and the Senate and the White House before this resolution, which the President does support, was introduced into the Senate.
I see my friend from Colorado.
Mr. Allard: Will my friend yield?
Mr. Lieberman: Madam President, I will be happy to yield to the Senator.
Mr. Allard: I thank the Senator from Connecticut for yielding.
Madam President, I wish to express again my appreciation for his leadership on this very important subject. He is recognized in the Senate as somebody who is an expert on Middle East affairs, and a lot of us lean on his opinion as we go through these debates.
I am sure the President appreciates the Senator from Connecticut sitting down and working with him in a bipartisan manner.
I compliment the Senator publicly for his fine work on this resolution.
Mr. Lieberman: Madam President, I say to my friend and colleague from Colorado, he is very gracious. I appreciate it. It is an honor to have this opportunity to be involved in this very important debate and to do so across party lines. I thank him for his thoughtful advocacy of this resolution and of a strong U.S. presence in this region generally. I appreciate it.
Madam President, not seeing anyone else who wishes to speak at this time, I want to begin to respond to some of the thoughtful questions that were raised by the Senator from Oregon, and to some extent by the Senator from Massachusetts, about the imminence of the threat that Iraq represents and the basic question of, why now? what is the rush?
For my own part, as I said earlier today, the question for me is, why not earlier? In other words, not, why now? but, why not earlier? We have gone through almost 11 years since the gulf war, since the armistice, the cease-fire agreement by which Saddam committed himself to adhere to the various U.N. resolutions and then proceeded rapidly to violate almost all of them, to play a cat-and-mouse game with the U.N. inspectors, testified to by so many of them, including the most memorable to me, Richard Butler, the Australian who headed the UNSCOM inspectors during the nineties, saying--and he used the word "lies." He said the Iraqis under Saddam kept telling lies about what they had and did not have.
The record sadly shows--and there is now an indisputable record in this regard--that they have a growing inventory of very deadly toxins, biological, and chemical weapons.
We say with some glibness, because we say it so much, that Saddam is probably the only leader of a country in the world today who has used chemical weapons. He has, and used them not just once but several times against the Kurdish people, citizens of Iraq, and on some occasions actually having medical personnel nearby to follow up, not to help those who were attacked, but to use them as if they were test objects, to see to what extent they were hurt or how they were killed. That is how brutal and inhumane this regime is.
All the time this deceit and deception was going on, we tried everything over and over to stop the violations of the U.N. agreements. Nothing worked--inspections, sanctions, Food for Oil, trade restrictions, and even limited military action.
That is why we come to this point where we have said enough is enough. There is no question, in terms of is this imminent, that the events of September 11, 2001, have affected our judgment. I say for myself they have affected my judgment. I have said now that I have felt this way about Saddam for a long time.
In 1998, former Senator Bob Kerrey, Senator McCain, Senator Lott, and I cosponsored the Iraq Liberation Act based on the constant deception and violation of the U.N. inspection team, kicking them out of Iraq. That act declared it American policy to no longer just contain Saddam, but because of the danger that he was brewing within his borders with chemical and biological weapons, ballistic missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles which he could deliver on targets near and far, that we had to adopt a new policy to change the regime. That was adopted into law in 1998.
So as for myself, I have had this feeling about Saddam and his potential to use these weapons to expand his control of the Arab world. This is what I referred to earlier in the day in the incredibly timely book that has just come out by Kenneth Pollack, an expert on Iraq, called "A Threatening Storm." In that book, Mr. Pollack tells the life story of Saddam through the Baath Party, so-called pan-Arabic views, and the extent to which his dream and his ambition is to be the new Saladin of the Arab world and control the entire Arab world.
So that is what these weapons are for, and his Arab neighbors are the nearest and most immediate targets of that, many of whom are very good allies of ours and from whose countries we receive much of the oil that fuels our economy, as well as the economy of the rest of the world.
So this has been building. Yet September 11, 2001, has had a profound effect on all of us. Speaking for myself, it has had a profound effect on me.
We look back and we say we knew what Osama bin Laden was saying; we knew his hatred for the United States; we knew he had struck at the two American embassies in Africa; we knew he had attacked the USS Cole.
We made some attempt to strike back at him, but now having experienced the horror of September 11, 2001, don't we wish we had invaded Afghanistan, overthrown the Taliban, and disrupted al-Qaida before September 11, 2001? Of course, we all do. The will was not there, notwithstanding the warnings.
So in terms of imminence, this resolution uses the phrase "continuing threat," that we authorize the President to use the Armed Forces of the United States to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.
When we put together Saddam's hatred for the United States--I quoted earlier today, February 15, 1991, in defeat, after 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.
Surely, that was one of the reasons he attempted to assassinate former President Bush on a visit to Kuwait; why he, according not to this Senator or any other Senator but according to our own State Department, is one of seven nations on the State Department list of state sponsors of terrorism who has supported terrorist groups that have killed Americans.
So I read the word "continuing threat" as contained in our resolution to hold within it implicitly the words "grave and imminent" that some of our colleagues have said they wish were there.
The record shows that. The experience of September 11, 2001, shows that. I do not want to look back on some dark day in the near or not so near future, after some terrorist group supported by Saddam, or Iraq itself, has struck at allies of ours in the region or at American forces there or at Americans in the United States itself, which he is capable of doing, and say I wish we had taken action against him before he acted against us. We do not ever want to face a moment like that again.
So I believe the record before us, recited in some detail in the preamble, the whereas clauses of our resolution, argues loudly that the continuing threat referred to in the literal wording of the authorization clause is both grave and imminent and calls out for the action and the strength that this resolution requires.
The best way to achieve peace is to prepare for war. That is what has been said so many times in the past, particularly when dealing with a dangerous dictator like Saddam Hussein--and through his agents--an aggressor, a brutal killer himself.
There is no substitute for strength. We are a strong Nation and we are marshaling that strength before the United Nations, before the world community and directly to Saddam Hussein, hoping the message will get through and he will disarm without requiring the U.N., or an international coalition led by the United States, to disarm him. That is our hope. That is our prayer. But we will not achieve it unless our intentions are clear and strong.
There is a wonderful sentiment, an insight that I read a while ago from GEN Douglas MacArthur, obviously a great soldier but also a great student of warfare. MacArthur once said, and I quote: The history of failure in war can be summed up in two words, "too late"--too late in comprehending the deadly purpose of a potential enemy; too late in realizing the mortal danger; too late in preparedness; too late in uniting all possible forces for resistance; too late in standing with one's friends.
It is a brilliantly insightful and moving quote, and remarkably relevant to the challenge that our resolution puts before our colleagues--too late in comprehending the deadly purpose of a potential enemy, that is the case we are making, the continuing threat of Saddam Hussein, grave and imminent; too late in realizing the mortal danger-- that is the point that he continues to build an inventory of chemical and biological weapons that pose literally a mortal danger, the danger of killing Americans in great number if we do not stop him.
In the colloquy I had earlier today with the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, I expressed that there has been a lot of debate leading up to this resolution about whether Saddam has nuclear capacity and when he will achieve it. Is it going to be a year, 6 years, 10 years? I do not know, but I do know he possesses biological weapons today, deadly biological weapons, with the capacity to deliver them with ballistic missiles, and now increasingly sophisticated and small unmanned aerial vehicles, which when taken together could, in the worst nightmare scenario, create as much or more devastation and death than the kind of primitive nuclear weapon he will sooner or later possess. So that is the mortal danger in MacArthur's warning.
Too late in preparedness, well, that is what we are authorizing the President, as Commander in Chief, and our military to do. Too late in uniting all possible forces for resistance. We are working now with our allies, with the Iraqi opposition, finally, 4 years after the Iraq Liberation Act authorized our government to begin working with the broad-based Iraqi opposition to Saddam Hussein.
Finally, too late in standing with one's friends. Here we are talking about our friends in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf. Good friends. Arabs, mostly, but also obviously Israelis. I say "Arabs mostly" because if you follow the line of Saddam's ambitions, they are to control the Arab world. That is what the invasion of Iran was about, that is what the invasion of Kuwait was about.
If we give him the opportunity, that is what future invasions, using chemical, biological, and potentially nuclear weapons, will be about.
It is time to stand with our friends in that region. I repeat, the history of failure in war can be summed up in two words: Too late. Too late in comprehending the deadly purpose of a potential enemy. Too late in realizing the mortal danger. Too late in preparedness. Too late in uniting all possible forces for resistance. Too late in standing with one's friends. This resolution is our way of saying to the American people, to the United Nations, to our allies in the Middle East and to Saddam Hussein, this time we cannot, we must not, and we will not wait until it is too late.
I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Colorado.
Mr. Allard: Mr. President, I will make a few brief comments. I associate myself completely with the statement made by the Senator from Connecticut. I thought they were thoughtful comments. I also think Senator Nickles from Oklahoma, who spoke prior to him, did a nice job of laying out for the Senate this issue, whether we should move forward with the resolution the President has requested.
I believe the President seeks to avoid conflict. I don't think there is anyone in this Chamber who wants to see us go into a conflict as a first option. We are very much concerned about the lives of our men and women who serve in the military. We certainly do not want to put them at risk unnecessarily.
The question occurs, if Saddam Hussein fails to comply, are we prepared to use force? I look at it this way. Historically, if we look at Iraq and what has been happening, I don't think anyone can deny there is a buildup. We either address it now or we address it later. I am of the view the sooner we address this problem, the less the risk will be. If we continue to let the problem grow, it increases the risks to our men and women in the military who may be called into battle as a result of noncompliance with Iraq. Hopefully we do not reach that point.
I compliment the President on his leadership. It is the kind of leadership we need at this time. It is a judgment call. It is what every Senator has to make a decision about in his own mind, whether this is the right thing to do. The longer we hold this up, the risk is magnified. That puts the neighbors of Iraq at risk, it puts countries all around the world at risk.
There is no doubt in my mind Saddam Hussein has the capability of using weapons of mass destruction. He is capable mentally of doing that. He has done it before. He has used it on his own. If he can use it on his own, he would certainly be willing to use it any place else. If we look at biological weapons, there is not much doubt he has the capability to use biological weapons. Their threat is extremely serious. That is another threat that will continue to grow. We know he is out there trying to develop nuclear capability. That expands even more my concerns about an expanding risk as we continue to delay action.
We need to move forward. We need to move forward quickly. The sooner we get this resolved, the sooner we get the support from the United Nations, we can move forward, give the President that option, a final option, that, if necessary, he will go in, even unilaterally, to protect the interests of the United States, to protect the Americans, and, if necessary, protect our friends and allies in the Middle East.
There is a quote in the President's speech last night I will restate. He says approving this resolution does not mean military action is imminent or unavoidable. The resolution will tell the United Nations and all nations that America speaks with one voice and is determined to make the demands of the civilized world mean something. Congress will also be sending a message to the dictator in Iraq that his only choice is full compliance. That is key.
The time remaining for that choice is limited. We need to act quickly. I am glad we have this before the Senate. We should have had it earlier than this week, but hopefully we will get it out this week and move forward.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The Presiding Officer: The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. Reid: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The Acting President pro tempore: Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. Lieberman:Mr. President, I have a technical modification of the amendment that we offered earlier, and it is at the desk.
The Acting President pro tempore: The amendment is so modified.
The amendment (No. 4856), as modified, is as follows:
Strike all after the resolving clause and insert the following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This joint resolution may be cited as the "Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq".
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Since in 1990 in response to Iraq's war of aggression against and illegal occupation of Kuwait, the United States forged a coalition of nations to liberate Kuwait and its people in order to defend the national security of the United States and enforce United Nations Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq:
Since after the liberation of Kuwait in 1991, Iraq entered into a United Nations sponsored cease-fire agreement pursuant to which Iraq unequivocally agreed, among other things, to eliminate its nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs and the means to deliver and develop them, and to end its support for international terrorism;
Since the efforts of international weapons inspectors, United States intelligence agencies, and Iraqi defectors led to the discovery that Iraq had large stockpiles of chemical weapons and a large scale biological weapons program, and that Iraq had an advanced nuclear weapons development program that was much closer to producing a nuclear weapon than intelligence reporting had previously indicated;
Since Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease- fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq's weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;
Since in 1998 Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security, declared Iraq to be in "material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations" and urged the President "to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations" (Public Law 105-235);
Since Iraq both poses a continuing threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region and remains in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations by, among other things, continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability, actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability, and supporting and harboring terrorist organizations;
Since Iraq persists in violating resolutions of the United Nations Security Council by continuing to engage in brutal repression of its civilian population thereby threatening international peace and security in the region, by refusing to release, repatriate, or account for non-Iraqi citizens wrongfully detained by Iraq, including an American serviceman, and by failing to return property wrongfully seized by Iraq from Kuwait;
Since the current Iraqi regime has demonstrated its capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people;
Since the current Iraq regime has demonstrated its continuing hostility toward, and willingness to attack, the United States, including by attempting in 1993 to assassinate former President Bush and by firing on many thousands of occasions on United States and Coalition Armed Forces engaged in enforcing the resolutions of the United Nations Security Council;
Since members of Al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on theUnited States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;
Since Iraq continues to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations, including organizations that threaten the lives and safety of American citizens;
Since the attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, underscored the gravity of the threat posed by the acquisition of weapons of mass destruction by international terrorist organizations;
Since Iraq's demonstrated capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction, the risk that the current Iraqi regime will either employ those weapons to launch a surprise attack against the United States or its Armed Forces or provide them to international terrorists who would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would do so, and the extreme magnitude of harm that would result to the United States and its citizens from such an attack, combine to justify action by the United States to defend itself;
Since United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizes the use of all necessary means to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and subsequent relevant resolutions and to compel Iraq to cease certain activities that threaten international peace and security, including the development of weapons of mass destruction and refusal or obstruction of United Nations weapons inspections in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, repression of its civilian population in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688, and threatening its neighbors or United Nations operations in Iraq in violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 949;
Since Congress in the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1) has authorized the President "to use United States Armed Forces pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 678 (1990) in order to achieve implementation of Security Council Resolutions 660, 661, 662, 664, 665, 666, 667, 669, 670, 674, and 677";
Since in December 1991. Congress expressed its sense that it "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 as being consistent with the Authorization of Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution (Public Law 102-1)," that Iraq's repression of its civilian population violates United Nations Security Council Resolution 688 and "constitutes a continuing threat to the peace, security, and stability of the Persian Gulf region," and that Congress, "supports the use of all necessary means to achieve the goals of United Nations Security Council Resolution 688";
Since the Iraq Liberation Act (Public Law 105-338) expressed the sense of Congress that it should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove from power the current Iraqi regime and promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that regime;
Since on September 12, 2002, President Bush committed the United States to "work with the United Nations Security Council to meet our common challenge" posed by Iraq and to "work for the necessary resolutions," while also making clear that "the Security Council resolutions will be enforced, and the just demands of peace and security will be met, or action will be unavoidable";
Since the United States is determined to prosecute the war on terrorism and Iraq's ongoing support for international terrorist groups combined with its development of weapons of mass destruction in direct violation of its obligations under the 1991 cease-fire and other United Nations Security Council resolutions make clear that it is in the national security interests of the United States and in furtherance of the war on terrorism that all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions be enforced, including through the use of force if necessary;
Since Congress has taken steps to pursue vigorously the war on terrorism through the provision of authorities and funding requested by the President to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Since the President and Congress are determined to continue to take all appropriate actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such persons or organizations;
Since the President has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution an Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40); and
Since it is in the national security of the United States to restore international peace and security to the Persian Gulf region.
SEC. 3. 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. 4. 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; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
(b) Presidential Determination.--In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in 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. 5. 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 4 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. Lieberman:I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACting President pro tempore The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. Reid: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACting President pro tempore Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Reid: Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.
The ACting President pro tempore The cloture motion having been presented under rule XXII, the Chair directs the clerk to read the motion.
Rhe legislative clerk read as follows:
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on S.J. Res. 45, a joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq:
Thomas Daschle, Bill Nelson, Joseph Lieberman, Evan Bayh, Harry Reid, Pete Domenici, Joseph Biden, Patty Murray, Jay Rockefeller, Larry E. Craig, Trent Lott, John Warner, John McCain, Jesse Helms, Craig Thomas, Don Nickles, Frank H. Murkowski.
Mr. Reid: Mr. President, we have been able to accomplish a great deal today on this most important resolution. I think the debate has been pertinent. I think people have had a chance to express themselves without hindrance. We would hope that Senators would continue in the same vein. With these two cloture motions that have been filed, we are hopeful and confident that the debate on this will be brought to a close on Thursday morning and that following that we can complete work on the resolution. We certainly hope so.
In the meantime, we would hope people who have amendments to offer would do that and, if possible, we would like to have those amendments resolved prior to Thursday. If not, of course, if some of them are germane, they will be carried over until after our cloture votes.
