The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. Lieberman: Madam President, I believe there is an order. I ask unanimous consent that I be able to speak for a moment.
The Presiding Officer: Is there objection?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Lieberman: Madam President, I thank the Senator from Iowa for his strong and thoughtful statement and for his expression of intention to vote for this resolution--all the more significant, as he pointed out, because he was one of two Republican Members of the Senate to vote against the similar resolution prior to the gulf war. And I think his support--a respected and solid Member of the Senate, as he is--gives encouragement to those of us who are the sponsors of this resolution that when the final roll is called, we will enjoy the broad bipartisan support that I truly believe this resolution deserves and the moment requires.
I thank my colleague and the Chair.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. Reid: Madam President, I alert Members that at 1:30 or a quarter to 2, thereabouts, there will be a vote. Knowing that the Senator from Arizona usually does not speak for long periods of time, it will probably be closer to 1:30. There will be a vote on the Graham amendment, the pending amendment.
Mr. McCain: Madam President, 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. Graham: Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Graham: Madam President, I rise in support of an amendment which I have offered which will increase the authority of the President of the United States to use force to protect the people of the United States.
This amendment will designate a set of international terrorist organizations for whom the President does not now have the authority to use force as within the range of his authority.
There has been a lot of discussion over the past several months about connecting the dots, seeing a pattern out of what might appear to be isolated independent events. It is always easier to do that after the disaster, after September 11, than it is before. I consider us today as standing before the event has occurred, and I think we can begin to see the pattern of the dots today. What are those dots? What is that pattern?
First, a new element has been added to our assessment of national security risk. That is the element of what is the risk to Americans in the homeland. When we went to war in Korea, we did not ask the question: What will this mean to our people at home? We did not ask that question in Vietnam. We did not ask that question when we voted together to authorize the President to use force in the Persian Gulf. This is a new phenomenon in the paradigm of American and national security consideration.
The second dot is, who poses the greatest risk inside the homeland? In my judgment, it is those nations, organizations, and persons who possess three primary characteristics: One, access to weapons of mass destruction; two, a hatred for the United States; and three, a significant presence of trained operatives within the United States. It is that triumvirate which makes our enemy lethal.
The third dot, that we have the opportunity to reduce the risk of that triumvirate. We can do it by rolling up the terrorists here at home, or we can do it by cutting off the support which the terrorists are receiving from abroad. I suggest we ought to be doing both.
If we are going to effectively attack over there, it requires we have the resources, a strategy, and the authorization to use the force against our enemy over there.
The next dot is a surprising dot. It is essentially a void. Unlike many Members of this Chamber--and I will cite one who just a few moments ago gave a speech in which he implied the President of the United States today has the authority to take on international terrorists who meet these requirements: Access to weapons of mass destruction, hatred of the United States, and a significant presence inside the United States of America. The answer is, no, the President today does not have such authority. In my judgment, the Congress should grant this authority and do so concurrent with the granting to the President his power to use force in Iraq, because it is that act of giving the authority to commence war in Iraq that is going to raise the risk of those terrorists among us attacking.
Those are the dots I see. That is the sequence I think the dots lead us to.
There is one thing we agree upon, and that is that Saddam Hussein is an evil man. He is a tyrant. He has used chemical and biological weapons on his own people. He has disregarded United Nations resolutions calling for inspections of his capabilities and research and development programs. His forces regularly fire on American and British jet pilots enforcing the no-fly zones in the north and south of his country. And he has the potential to develop and deploy nuclear weapons, a potential that we need to monitor closely.
Saddam Hussein lives in a tough neighborhood. It is a neighborhood in which the United States has a number of commitments and threats. The underlying resolution suggests Saddam Hussein is the ultimate bully, the baddest dog in this rough neighborhood, and that taking him out now and for good is in the Nation's highest priority.
I respectfully disagree. And in so disagreeing, I am, or at least I was, joined by the President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense.
Less than 13 months ago, 9 days after the terrorist attack of September 11, the President declared our top national priority to be a war on terrorism. This is what he said:
Our war on terror begins with al-Qaida but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.
In his State of the Union speech on January 29 of this year, President Bush restated our priority:
Our nation will continue to be steadfast and patient and persistent in the pursuit of two great objectives. First, we will shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist plans, and bring terrorists to justice. And, second, we must prevent the terrorists and regimes who seek chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from threatening the United States and the world.
That is what the President said on January 29.
Just Monday of this week, on the anniversary of the commencement of the war in Afghanistan, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld recommitted himself to the war on terrorism. The Secretary repeated the statement he had made one year earlier:
Our objective is to defeat those who use terrorism and those who house or support terrorists. The campaign will be broad, sustained, and we will use every element of American power.
The Secretary of Defense proceeded to say:
Today, Afghanistan is no longer a safe haven for terrorists, but there is no question that free nations are still under threat. Thousands of terrorists remain at large in dozens of countries. They're seeking weapons of mass destruction that would allow them to kill not only thousands but tens of thousands of innocent people. Our objective in the global war on terror is to prevent another September 11th, or an attack that is far worse, before it happens.
The war on terrorism did not begin in Afghanistan. For us, it began in the United States of America on September 11th, 2001. It began and it continues in our homeland. As we assess the many challenges faced by the United States--and Saddam Hussein is clearly among those challenges--we must ask: What is our greatest responsibility? In my opinion, the answer is easy: Securing the peace and safety of the homeland or our great Nation.
And what is the most urgent threat to our peace and security? In my judgment, it is that shadowy group of international terrorists who have the capabilities, the materials, conventional and weapons of mass destruction, the trained core of zealots united by their hatred for the United States, and the placement of many of those bombthrowers so they are sleeping among us, waiting for the order to assault.
For the better part of 2 years, 19 of those killers took silent refuge in the sanctuary of the United States, silent refuge until they struck us on September 11. Three thousand twenty-five innocent lives later, we have learned the bitter lesson of the power of those who live dual lives in our communities. To the outside they were appearing to be unexceptional, while they were prepared to do the most unimaginable evil. Those who committed mass murder left behind a much larger number of terrorists, continuing their dual existence of duplicity.
How many of these are there, Mr. President? What are the skills they possess? What are their plans and intentions? Why are they so driven by hatred? The answer is we know only dimly.
Unfortunately, our ability to tear out these weeds from our home garden is limited because the attention we have paid to understanding this enemy next door has been grossly inadequate.
The Inspector General at the Department of Justice issued a report just last month, in September. That report concluded:
The Federal Bureau of Investigation serves as the Federal Government's principal agency for responding to and investigating terrorism.
But the IG report went on:
The FBI has never performed a comprehensive, written assessment of the risk of a terrorist threat facing the United States.
So we arm for battle with a shield of ignorance at home. Unfortunately, one of the realities of the startup of the proposed Department of Homeland Security is that, for at least a transition period, Americans will be even more vulnerable in the homeland. Agencies such as the Coast Guard, Border Patrol, Immigration Service, which will play a key role in protecting our perimeter defenses, will be distracted as organizational relationships of decades or more are reshuffled. And a final increased vulnerability is the likelihood that, if war starts and intensifies in Iraq, this very conflict thousands of miles away could spark a wake-up call to action from the sanctuaries of the Middle East and Central Asia to the sleepers in your hometown.
Mr. President, I refer you to the front-page story in today's Washington Post, which talks about the possibility of counterattacks in the United States after a war commences in Iraq.
The first prong of our defense here in the homeland, which is to root out the terrorists among us--both because of the instability of the days through which we are and will be living and our lack of preparation through the quality of intelligence we need--is not a shield that should give us great hope.
Thus, the importance of a second strategy for disrupting and decapitating the enemy among us--attacking them at their source, just as we have done with such devastating effectiveness against al-Qaida in Afghanistan. One of the reasons the anticipated second, third, and fourth wave of terrorist acts have not occurred since September 11 is the military assault we began on October 7, 2001, has largely dismantled the command-and-control operations of al-Qaida, making it more difficult for them to support and provide financing and logistics to their large number of operatives in the United States.
I believe we need to adopt a similar strategy of disruption and dismantlement. What is it going to take to do so? First, it is going to require the President of the United States have the authority to use that necessary force to dismantle, as he said in his State of the Union speech, the terrorist camps, terrorist plans, and the command-and- control centers of these organizations. Here we come to a point of widespread confusion, and that is the President already has this authority.
On Sunday afternoon, a prominent foreign policy spokesman appeared immediately after Senator Shelby and myself on a talk show and, in passing in the hallway, she said, "I support the position that you have taken that we need to go after these international terrorists, but doesn't the President already have the authority to do so?" I quickly explained that the answer was no. I think she was stunned at the vulnerability we have and by the limited authority the President has.
Our colleague, the Senator from Texas, today in her remarks implied she thought the President of the United States had the authority to attack international terrorism broader than those who are directly linked to the events of September 11.
If I might say, the very language of the resolution we are considering today carries the same inference.
The language of the resolution states that:
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 who planned, authorized, committed, or aided in the terrorist attack that occurred on September 11.
The fact is the only group the President has authority to use force against is those who planned, authorized, committed, or aided in the terrorist attack that occurred on September 11. The President specifically was denied the authority to take on the other terrorist groups who, in my judgment, represent the greatest threat inside the American homeland today.
Let me just give a little bit of history. On September 12, President Bush requested robust authority to launch a full-scale war on terror. He sent to the Congress a proposed resolution which stated:
The President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, harbored, committed, or aided in the planning or commission of the attacks against the United States on September 11, 2001, and to deter and preempt any future acts of terrorism or aggression against the United States.
That is what the President asked for on September 12, 2001. But Congress demurred. They only granted the President the power to use necessary force related to those nations or organizations and persons which were determined to be connected to the tragedy of September 11. Al-Qaida was not only our bull's-eye, it was the totality of the target. Two days after the Congress gave the President this limited authority, President Bush, on September 20, expanded the scope of the war:
In a joint session of Congress, our war on terror begins with al-Qaida, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped, and defeated.
From that point until today, Mr. President, the stated mission of the United States in the war on terror has fallen well beyond the authority we have given to the President of the United States to deliver on that mission.
The President continues:
. . . to be limited to those nations, organizations, and persons who can be indicted as conspirators and participants in September 11.
This limited authority to use force has made it possible for America and our allies to crush the Taliban and severely cripple al-Qaida. The amendment I offer would extend that power to the President to use necessary force through the next still vigorous and violent band of terrorists.
Against whom would the President by this amendment be given power to use force? The State Department has identified 34 international terrorist organizations, approximately two-thirds of which are in the region of the Middle East and central Asia. They list five, in addition to al-Qaida, that have these characteristics: They currently receive support from a state that possesses weapons of mass destruction; they have a history of hating and killing Americans; and they have the ability today to strike within the United States of America.
Who are these groups? I will name them and then talk about the A team: The Abu Nidal organization, Hamas, the Islamic Resistance Movement, the Palestine Islamic Jihad, and the Palestine Liberation Front.
Who is the A team? The A team is Hezbollah, "the party of God." Hezbollah was formed in 1982 in response to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. This organization, which is based primarily in Lebanon and Syria and financed from Iran, is a radical Shi'a group which takes its ideological inspiration from the Iranian revolutions and teachings of Ayatollah Khomeni.
Hezbollah formally advocates the ultimate establishment of Islamic rule in Lebanon and liberating all occupied Arab lands, including Jerusalem. It has expressed as a goal the elimination of Israel. Although closely allied with and closely directed by Iran, the group may have conducted operations that were even beyond those approved by the Government of Iran.
While Hezbollah does not share the Syrian regime's secular orientation, the group has been a strong tactical ally in helping Syria advance its political objectives in the region.
What are some of the activities of Hezbollah? It is known or suspect to have been involved in numerous anti-U.S. terrorist attacks, including the suicide truck bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut in April of 1983; the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut in October 1983; the U.S. Embassy annex in Beirut in September of 1984; three members of Hezbollah are on the FBI's list of the 22 most wanted terrorists for the hijacking of TWA flight 847 during which a U.S. Navy diver was murdered; elements of the group are responsible for the kidnaping and detention of U.S. and Western hostages.
The group also attacked the Israeli Embassy in Argentina in 1992 and is suspect in the 1994 bombing of the Israeli Cultural Center in Buenos Aires, and the Senator from Texas stated, in her judgment, they were also responsible for Khobar Towers.
This group receives a substantial amount of financial, training, weapons, explosives, diplomatic, and organizational aid from Iran and receives diplomatic, political, and logistical support from Syria. Hezbollah has a significant presence of its trained merchants of death placed in the United States of America.
Mr. President, you will note that several of these organizations gravitate around one axis of evil: Iran. And not surprisingly.
Yesterday, October 8, former FBI Director Louis Freeh testified before the joint inquiry on the attacks of September 11 which are being conducted by the House and Senate Intelligence Committee. Mr. Freeh cited the conclusions of the National Commission on Terrorism that:
Iran remains the most active state supporter of terrorism. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Ministry of Intelligence and Security have continued to be involved in the planning and execution of terrorist acts. They also provide funding, training, weapons, logistical resources, and guidance to a variety of terrorist groups, including the Lebanese Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.
My amendment says that those five groups should also be brought within the ambit of evil that the President of the United States should be entitled to use force against to protect the security of the people of the United States of America.
What strategy should be used against the designated international terrorist groups? The decision will be left to the President. The Congress invested its confidence in the judgment of the President on September 18 of last year when it gave him the power to use force against the Taliban and al-Qaida. If the underlying resolution is adopted, he will have the authority to use force against Iraq.
This amendment will give the President the next stage of powers which he will be required to have in order to wage war on terror and to do so to a successful conclusion. The President would have the authority and the subsequent accountability to use these three authorities in whatever sequence and with whatever impact he deems to be in our national interest.
In this stage on the war on terror, the President has already fashioned a war plan: To take out the training camps, the incubators from which in the 1990s thousands of youth were given the skills and the determination to be hardened assassins; to attack the terrorists' plans, to disrupt and dismantle.
Many of these operations, and particularly the training camps, are flourishing today in the orbit of Iran. We should empower the President to take those acts that are going to be necessary to protect the security of the United States.
Director Freeh, in his remarks yesterday, spoke of the need for a full arsenal of weapons to triumph over terrorists. Director Freeh said:
We must recognize the limitations inherent in a law enforcement response. As we see at this very moment in history, others, to include Congress, must decide if our national will dictates a fuller response.
I am not prepared to say the only response I want against these five organizations that have access to weapons of mass destruction, that have a history of killing Americans and have a capability to do so here at home because of a significant presence of their operatives among us, that we are going to tell the President of the United States that he does not have the authority to attack with force these terrorists groups where they live and to disband and dismantle their capability of continuing to provide support to their agents in the United States.
I believe our national will and our obligation to the security of the American people, especially their security on our native soil, demand a fuller response to meet this fuller challenge.
I conclude by saying that I am not optimistic about the prospects for this amendment, but I am deeply concerned, and I am deeply saddened. I am concerned in part because I see us making life-and-death decisions without consideration because we do not have access to what might be critical, and I would suggest determinative, information. I believe the national security interests are being put at risk by this information not being available.
I am saddened because I fear the action we are going to take will increase the risk at home without increasing our capability to respond to that risk.
I have been described as a cautious man. I will accept that label. I do not see the world as a simple set of blacks and whites. I see the world as a complex of grays. That leads to caution. I believe that caution today is to recognize that we are not dealing with one evil, as evil as Saddam Hussein might be. We are dealing with a veritable army of evils.
We must be prepared to respond to that army of evils. I believe the step we can take today is to give to the President of the United States the opportunity to exercise his judgment as to whether he believes it would be appropriate to use U.S. force against these five international terrorist groups which represent, in my judgment, the most serious urgent threat to the interests of the United States of America, including a threat to Americans at home.
I urge the adoption of this amendment.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. Lieberman: Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Florida for the thoughtful statement he has made. I agree with so much he has said, certainly about the threats that are represented by the terrorist groups cited in his amendment, but I want to explain why I have reluctance about the amendment. It is for reasons that are both procedural and substantive.
The resolution offered by Senator McCain, Senator Warner, Senator Bayh, myself, and others--including the occupant of the Chair, the Senator from Georgia--is the result of a detailed, open, and sincere process of negotiation between Members of both Chambers, both parties, and the White House.
This is not to say it is a perfect document, but in responding to the threat to our national security posed by Iraq under the leadership of Saddam Hussein, it represents our best effort to find common ground to dispatch our constitutional responsibility and to provide an opportunity for the broadest bipartisan group of Senators to come together and express their support of action to enforce the United Nations resolutions that Saddam Hussein has constantly violated, and in so doing endangered his neighbors, his people and, of course, the rest of the world, including us. We have a well-worked-over and finely calibrated document.
In his amendment, the Senator from Florida has opened new territory, and I am reluctant to see that added to this resolution, all the more so since the new territory he opens up was considered in the immediate aftermath of the attacks against us on September 11 when the initial resolution in which the President sought to have authority to take action against terrorists generally--not just those who had planned, authorized, committed, or aided terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11 of last year--was rejected or was opposed by a large number of Members of the Senate, including particularly those on the Democratic side, and in that sense the amendment offered by the Senator from Florida may well reopen concerns expressed by many Senate Democrats about granting too much authority to the President at this point.
Let me get to the essence of what is said. Clearly, I agree with what the Senator has said, and I agree wholeheartedly with his description of the terrorist groups he has cited, specifically five in number, and the extent to which they represent a threat to the areas in which they operate, as well as the American people.
I respectfully disagree with him that the President of the United States would not be authorized, without this action, to take action against any of these groups--the Abu Nidal organization, Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestine Islamic Jihad, Palestinian Liberation Front--if the President, as Commander in Chief, concluded that any one of those groups or its members posed a threat to the security of the American people or any group of Americans. It seems to me that is inherent in the authority given to the President, as Commander in Chief, under article II, section 2 of the Constitution, followed by other descriptions of the authority that the President has in that regard, and not just the general constitutional authority but the specific acts of this Congress that have dealt with terrorism and have established a counterterrorism center at the Central Intelligence Agency, counterterrorism programs in the FBI, counterterrorism activities in the Department of Defense and the Department of State, all of them funded by Congress.
Implicit in that is not that the money was funded just to study or investigate but that there is a presumption that if all of those programs produce evidence that any one of those groups is seeking to do damage to any one of the American people or group of Americans, then the President is authorized implicitly, inherently, in his authority as Commander in Chief to take action against them. In fact, as has been testified to publicly, the Special Operations Forces of our military, an extraordinary group we are fortunate to have in our service, has been working on programs together with the intelligence community and various nations around the world to watch--using the term "watch" in the broadest sense of the term--and be prepared to take specific action, not just court action.
After September 11, we have made a transition to understanding that terrorists are at war with the United States so there are times when the best defense we can give is not to build a case in court but to take military action to stop the terrorists from striking before they ever do.
So while I appreciate and support the concerns of the Senator from Florida, my own conclusion is that they would do some damage to the broad support that otherwise will come together for the resolution that we have introduced that deals with the immediate problem of Saddam Hussein, and that in the end it is not necessary because the President, as Commander in Chief, has the inherent authority, under the Constitution and the laws of the United States, to take exactly the action that the Senator's amendment would specifically authorize him to do.
I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. Warner: Mr. President, I associate myself with the remarks of our distinguished colleague from Connecticut and therefore I will not elaborate given the shortage of time.
I say to my colleague from Florida, I am very impressed by his statement today. I think there is merit to be found. I draw the Senator's attention to Public Law 107-40. As the Senator recalls, that is the amendment that the Congress adopted on September 14, 2001, and that dealt with the authorization for use of military force against those responsible for the recent attacks against the United States.
It seems to me that particular statute and that body of law is the place where an amendment like that of the Senator from Florida should be placed, and I say that with all due respect.
My further added observation is that our Secretary of State is now busily engaged at the United Nations with regard to the possible framework of a possible 17th resolution. The draft amendments before the Senate and the House of Representatives are indeed the subject of those discussions.
At this time, to broaden that base could well in some respects jeopardize the efforts on behalf of the United States and others to craft a tough resolution directed clearly at the weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussein, and those surrounding his regime.
I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Florida.
Mr. Graham: I will reserve a few moments to close when others who wish to speak on this motion to table have completed their remarks.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCain: Mr. President, I inform my friend from Florida, under the normal procedures, as soon as I made a motion to table, the vote would begin. But if the Senator from Florida would like for me to ask unanimous consent for him to speak up to how many minutes he would like to before the vote, I would be pleased to propound that.
Does the Senator from Connecticut want to speak again?
Mr. Lieberman: I ask for an additional 2 minutes.
Mr. McCain: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator from Connecticut be permitted to speak for 2 minutes without my losing my right to the floor.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. Lieberman: From the text of the resolution we have submitted in section 4(b) after our authorization, we require, as soon as feasible, but not later than 48 hours after exercising such authority--that is, directly deploying forces of the United States--that the President has to make available to the Congress his determination that--and there are two sections he has to report. The material section is this: The President has to declare to Congress that pursuant to this resolution-- which is to say deploying forces for the purpose of enforcing U.N. resolutions against Iraq in protecting the national security of the American people against Iraq--is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided terrorists in the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.
I stress that this is not limited to those terrorists who acted against us on September 11.
I see in this further support for the end goal, which the Senator from Florida has, which is to make sure the war against Iraq does not deter our war against terrorism and not just against al-Qaida but against any terrorist group that threatens the people of the United States, including the five the Senator from Florida enumerated.
I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCain: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following my remarks and making the motion to table the Graham amendment, Senator Graham be recognized for up to 10 minutes, and immediately following that, the vote occur on my motion to table.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. McCain: Mr. President, I commend the Senator from Florida for his thoughtful statement about the threat of terrorist organizations of global reach posed to American national security. The Senator from Florida has devoted much of his time and professional energies to investigating the terrorist threat in great detail as chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Again, I thank the Senator for the superb job he has done as chairman of the Intelligence Committee in probably the most trying times this country has experienced since World War II--from an intelligence standpoint, perhaps the most difficult times. And I am grateful we have a man of his caliber in a leadership role. He is an eloquent and thoughtful spokesman on these issues.
I agree that ultimately the war on terrorism will not be won until we have ended these groups' murderous activities and held them accountable for killing American citizens.
However, I must oppose the amendment because it provides our Commander in Chief with authority he has not requested. It is highly unusual for Congress to provide the President the authority to use military force to defend American security against a particular threat when the President himself has not requested such authority.
For the President to determine that the terrorist organizations listed in the Senator's amendment posed an imminent danger to the United States, and if the President requested congressional authorization to use military force to deal with that danger, I don't doubt Congress would have full consideration or debate to provide that authority.
It does seem unusual in a time of war, and in response to the President's request for congressional authorization to confront a threat he has identified as imminent, for Congress to identify and grant the President the authority to use military force to confront a different enemy.
The Graham amendment would increase beyond what was requested by the administration the scope of authority provided to the President. Including these groups in the resolution, unfortunately, muddies the strong message the United States must send to the United Nations Security Council and the world that we are intent on dealing with the threat posed by Iraq.
The President wants a strong statement authorizing the use of force against Iraq. He understands the value of an overwhelming congressional vote to American diplomacy and to demonstrating American seriousness to the world.
The pending resolution represents a carefully crafted, bipartisan, bicameral agreement on providing the President with the authority to use force against Iraq. This amendment is the product of negotiations between the Speaker of the House, Congressman Gephardt, the Democrat leader, and the White House. It was carefully crafted. We intentionally introduced the exact same language so that when the other body passes it and we pass it, it will be the exact same message. Modifying that agreement could reopen issues that otherwise have been resolved and would unnecessarily slow down consideration of a resolution that the President has requested and made clear is an urgent priority for his administration.
Yesterday, when asked about the amendment, Secretary Powell stated that Congress should focus in on the threat posed by Iraq. The Secretary also made clear the administration's desire that both Houses of Congress pass identical resolutions to send a message to the world that we are united in our resolve to confront Saddam Hussein and to send a message to Iraq that we are serious about doing so.
The administration opposes the Graham amendment on procedural grounds. The President has requested congressional authorization to use all means necessary to protect American national security against the threat posed by Iraq. For this body to supercede the President's request by identifying other threats to American national security--I could come up with a long list of such threats myself--would send a confused message to the American people and the world as we come together to end the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's regime.
Some have argued that the President's determination to hold Iraq to account would undermine the global war against al Qaeda. I believe this is a false argument, for as the president has said, Iraq and al Qaeda are two faces of the same evil. The Graham amendment would expand our global campaign to target not just al Qaeda but several of the most sophisticated terrorist organizations on earth. I would assume that anyone who worries about diversions from the war on terrorism would vote against expanding that war at this time.
I want to stress, however, that ultimately the war on terrorism will not be won until we have dealt with the threat posed by terrorist groups with global reach such as Hezbollah. Hezbollah and other organizations listed in the Graham amendment have killed Americans and deserve no quarter. They ultimately represent a grave threat to America--a threat that will not diminish until we have dismantled these organizations and held them accountable for murdering Americans.
The pending resolution is not the proper vehicle for this debate. I look forward to working with the Senator from Florida to address the threat posed by Hezbollah and the other terrorist organizations he has listed.
I urge my colleagues to support the request of our Commander in Chief by tabling the Graham amendment.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter from the White House.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
The White House,
Washington, October 9, 2002.Hon. John McCain,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.Dear Senator McCain: Thank you for asking the Administration's position on the Graham amendment to the Iraq Resolution. The Administration opposes it.
The Lieberman-Warner-Bayh-McCain amendment represents a carefully crafted bipartisan, bicameral agreement on providing the President with use-of-force authority against Iraq. The Graham amendment would increase--beyond what was requested by the Administration-- the scope of authority provided to the President, and introduce additional elements to the resolution. Modifying the agreement now, as the Graham amendment would, could reopen issues otherwise resolved and unnecessarily slow consideration of this important resolution.
Sincerely,
Nicholas E. Calio,
Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs.
Mr. McCain: I say to my friend from Florida that the administration's message is very clear that they do not disagree with his assessment of the threat. He is held in the highest regard by all who have observed his distinguished work as chairman of the Intelligence Committee.
I thank my friend from Florida for his contributions. I know that in the days ahead he and I will be joining together with other Members of this body in addressing the serious threats to American national security which he has so eloquently described in his statement.
I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Florida.
Mr. Graham: Mr. President, I appreciate the thoughtful remarks of the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Arizona. The Senator from Arizona concluded with the hope that we may soon be working together on expanding our efforts to reach those who threaten us here at home. I only hope we will not have another 3,025 Americans unnecessarily exposed to the risks that I see if we do not supplement this resolution with the immediate authority of the President to use force against those organizations which have access to weapons of mass destruction, which have killed Americans, and which have substantial numbers of operatives inside the United States of America at this hour. I invite anybody to say Iraq doesn't meet those standards.
We are not talking about a threat 90 days from now. We are not talking about a threat that may come a year from now if nuclear material is made available. I am talking about a threat that can happen this afternoon.
Let us trace the history of what Congress did. The President asked for this authority on September 12, 2001. We denied it.
When I was in law school, one read the legislative history to try to arrive at legislative intent. It seems to me, just as a first-year-law legislative interpretation, that probably doesn't mean giving the President authority beyond that which is specifically provided. Therefore, the President of the United States, in my judgment, does not have the authority today to use force against Hezbollah or these other groups.
But even beyond the legal limits, let us talk about the pragmatics. The President of the United States in his State of the Union Address on January 29 said our first priority was terrorists--our first priority. And do you know what the first priority of the first priority was? The training camps. Why did he say that? Because those who were responsible said if there was one major mistake we made in the 1990s, it was allowing al-Qaida training camps to be a sanctuary where every year thousands and thousands of young people were converted into hardened assassins.
If that is the criticism we are going to have, because in the 1990s we allowed that to go on month after month and year after year, what is going to be our excuse today when similar training camps are in operation in Iran, Syria, and Syrian-controlled areas of Lebanon? And we are not going to give the President of the United States the authority to use force against those camps? It is inconceivable to me. The very fact that the President, recognizing this, has not acted against those camps is, in my judgment, the strongest verification that he doesn't think he has the authority to do so.
I believe it is not in our national interest to leave this question ambiguous. We want to deter groups such as Hezbollah from continuing to aid, or to provide aid, comfort, and support to their operatives who are placed in the United States. Until we reach the point that we can domestically, through law enforcement means and domestic intelligence, locate and eradicate those operatives who are in this country, we must pursue as aggressively as possible to cut off their support system.
I cannot believe we are saying we are not prepared today to make an unambiguous decision. We don't want to have the Hezbollah going to their lawyers and asking the question, What is the legislative interpretation of what Congress did on September 18, 2001? Does it put us under the gun? I don't want them to have that in their mind. I want them to know, with the clearest method we can write in English and that can be interpreted in all the languages these people speak, that we mean they are under the gun, and they are under the gun now.
There has been a lot of discussion about urgency. Why do we need to do things now? Why can't we wait for 60 days?
Let me tell you why we cannot afford to wait. We are taking an action by authorizing the President to take action against Saddam Hussein. I will stand first in line to say he is an evil person. But we, by taking that action, according to our own intelligence reports--and, friends, I encourage you to read the classified intelligence reports which are much sharper than what is available in declassified form--we are going to be increasing the threat level against the people of the United States. I think we have a moral and legal obligation to at the same time be taking what reasonable steps we can to confront that increased vulnerability.
If you do not like what I am suggesting, if you do not think we ought to give the President authority to use force against groups such as Hezbollah, what do you think we ought to do? Or do you disagree with the premise that we are going to be increasing the threat level inside the United States?
If you disagree with that premise, what is the basis upon which your disagreement is predicated? If you reject that, and believe that the American people are not going to be at additional threat, then, frankly, my friends--to use the term--blood is going to be on your hands. I think we are going to be at substantially greater threat.
I think there are some things we ought to be doing now. We certainly should be escalating the FBI intelligence and other efforts to root out the terrorists who are among us. But we also ought to be attacking the terrorists where they live because it is on the offensive--not the defensive--in my judgment, that we are going to eventually win this war on terror.
My friends, as I said, I am not optimistic about the adoption of this. I recognize there are backroom deals made. This is what people have come together on and locked down on, and say: We are locking down on the principle that we have one evil, Saddam Hussein. He is an enormous, gargantuan force, and that is whom we are going to go after.
That, frankly, is an erroneous reading of the world. There are many evils out there, a number of which are substantially more competent, particularly in their ability to attack Americans here at home, than Iraq is likely to be in the foreseeable future.
But we are going to say we are going to ignore those and we are going to allow them to continue to fester among us. I do not wish to be part of that decision. I am concerned by those who see only one evil, who believe we must all commit ourselves to the arrangement that has been made by a few who have that view of the world. I urge my colleagues to open there eyes to the much larger array of lethal, more violent foes who are prepared today to assault us here at home.
I said in my closing remarks that I was concerned and saddened. I am saddened because I know my colleagues would not knowingly place U.S. lives in unnecessary peril. I am as sure as I have ever been of anything in my life, the peril here in America caused by the action we are about to take could be substantially reduced by giving to the President of the United States the additional powers to send the strongest possible message, and, if necessary, the force to eradicate those who are evil and who have placed evildoers among us, and who are prepared to awaken those evildoers to attack. The responsibility is ours.
Thank you, Mr. President.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. McCain: Mr. President, I move to table the----
Mr. Reid: Will the Senator yield for a question, first?
Mr. McCain: I am glad to yield to the Senator from Nevada.
Mr. Reid: Mr. President, I have the greatest respect for the Senator from Florida, but the Senator from Arizona and I came to the Congress together. And I hope that my friend from Florida was not implying the Senator from Arizona was involved in any backroom deals because I have never known the Senator from Arizona to be involved in any backroom deals.
Mr. McCain: I have been singularly unsuccessful in orchestrating any backroom deals in the years I have served here, I say to my friend from Nevada. And I thank him.
Mr. President, I move to table the pending Graham amendment and ask for the yeas and nays.
The Presiding Officer: Is there a sufficient second?
There appears to be a sufficient second.
The question occurs on agreeing to the motion to table Graham amendment No. 4857.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. Reid: I announce that the Senator from Louisiana (Ms. Landrieu) is necessarily absent.
Mr. Nickles: I announce that the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Ensign) is necessarily absent.
The result was announced--yeas 88, nays 10, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 231 Leg.]
| YEAS--88 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Akaka | Allard | Allen | Bayh | Bennett |
| Biden | Bingaman | Bond | Boxer | Brownback |
| Bunning | Burns | Campbell | Cantwell | Carnahan |
| Carper | Chafee | Cleland | Clinton | Cochran |
| Collins | Conrad | Craig | Crapo | Daschle |
| DeWine | Dodd | Domenici | Dorgan | Durbin |
| Edwards | Enzi | Feingold | Feinstein | Fitzgerald |
| Frist | Gramm | Grassley | Gregg | Hagel |
| Harkin | Hatch | Helms | Hollings | Hutchinson |
| Hutchison | Inhofe | Inouye | Jeffords | Johnson |
| Kennedy | Kerry | Kohl | Kyl | Leahy |
| Levin | Lieberman | Lott | Lugar | McCain |
| McConnell | Mikulski | Miller | Murkowski | Murray |
| Nelson (NE) | Nickles | Reed | Reid | Roberts |
| Santorum | Sarbanes | Schumer | Sessions | Shelby |
| Smith (NH) | Smith (OR) | Snowe | Specter | Stabenow |
| Stevens | Thomas | Thompson | Thurmond | Voinovich |
| Warner | Wellstone | Wyden | ||
| NAYS--10 | ||||
| Baucus | Breaux | Byrd | Corzine | Dayton |
| Graham | Lincoln | Nelson (FL) | Rockefeller | Torricelli |
| NOT VOTING--2 | ||||
| Ensign | Landrieu | |||
The motion was agreed to.
The Presiding Officer (Mr. Johnson): The majority leader is recognized.
Mr. Daschle: Mr. President, I wanted to inform my colleagues, after consultation with the distinguished Republican leader, that it is our intention, assuming we get cloture tomorrow--the cloture vote will be cast on the resolution tomorrow--it would be my intent to stay in for the full 30 hours, or whatever period of time would be required to complete our work on the resolution.
I said at the beginning of the week, it would be my determination to finish our debate on this resolution before the end of the week and that is still my determination. So if cloture is achieved, we would go for whatever length of time to accommodate Senators who wish to be heard under the rules of cloture.
We would expect, therefore, a vote on final passage on the resolution prior to the time we leave this week. I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from West Virginia. Mr. Byrd: Mr. President, shortly I will yield to my distinguished senior colleague, Mr. Thurmond, for not to exceed--what time does he want?
Mr. Nickles: Five minutes. Mr. Byrd: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may yield to my senior colleague, Mr. Thurmond, for not to exceed 5 minutes, without losing my right to the floor.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
