The Presiding Officer. The Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. Byrd: Mr. President, I take the floor at this time to urge the joint leadership of the Senate to delay the vote on cloture which is set this moment for 10:15 tomorrow morning. I urge the leadership of this body to consider and to help bring about an order that will vitiate that vote on cloture tomorrow morning at 10:15.
I make my plea on behalf of the mothers, fathers, grandmothers, and grandfathers of this country, the fate of whose sons, daughters and grandchildren hinges upon the outcome of the vote on cloture; shutting off the debate of this Senate, shutting it down to 30 hours, with each Senator to have only 1 hour unless other Senators can be prevailed upon to seek unanimous consent to yield that Senator additional time, with the exception of the managers, the majority leader, and the minority leader, who have an additional 2 hours automatically.
What is involved is the fate of the service men and women in this country who may have to go to Iraq, the fate of the reserves, the fate of our National Guardsmen and Guardswomen in this country who may have to go to Iraq.
This decision is going to be made no later than 10:15 tomorrow morning unless it is changed. This is a fateful decision. It involves the treasure of this country. It involves the blood of our fighting men and women. It is too momentous and too far reaching a decision to be signed, sealed, and delivered by 10:15 tomorrow morning.
I know it is in accordance with the rules of the Senate. Nobody knows the rules of the Senate more than I do, and nobody has used the rules of the Senate more than I have in past years. But I say that this rule, which is perfectly within order, should be set aside because of the fateful, momentous, and far-reaching implications and ramifications of this vote.
If we go through with this vote, Senators are going to have 1 hour each, up to 30 hours, and only amendments which are germane can be offered. This is too much, and I appeal to the sense of justice, the sense of right, and the sense of our duties to our people. I appeal to all Senators and to the leadership that we seek to get unanimous consent to put off that vote, to delay it.
Mr. Sarbanes: Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. Byrd: Yes, I yield.
Mr. Sarbanes: I ask the very able and distinguished Senator from West Virginia--it is my understanding that the motion to proceed to this resolution took place a week ago. Is that the Senator's understanding?
Mr. Byrd: Mr. President, I yield to the Senator for such a parliamentary inquiry.
The Presiding Officer. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Sarbanes: Parliamentary inquiry. When did the Senate proceed to this resolution?
The Presiding Officer. It appears from the Journal, the Senate proceeded to this measure on October 4.
Mr. Sarbanes: October 4, and today is October 9. October 4, I am told by the Chair. Today is October the 9th, on a resolution that may take the Nation into war.
Mr. Byrd: That includes Saturday and Sunday.
Mr. Sarbanes: The distinguished Senator, I think I am correct in recalling, was the leader of the Senate at the time we did the Panama Canal treaties.
Mr. Byrd: The Senator is correct.
Mr. Sarbanes: Did the Senator recall there were two treaties, the neutrality treaty and the canal treaty itself? We went to the neutrality treaty. Floor debate began on February 6 of 1978. We voted on March 16 of 1978. So we had a period from February the 6th until March 16 to consider that treaty.
We then went to the Panama Canal treaty. We began debate on March 17 of 1978 and we voted on that treaty on April 18 of 1978. In other words, roughly 6 weeks on one treaty and a month on the other treaty.
Mr. Byrd: Yes.
Mr. Sarbanes: Neither of which involved the prospect of going to war.
Mr. Byrd: Exactly.
Mr. Sarbanes: Now, as I understand it, we are facing the prospect of, in effect, terminating all debate, precluding a lot of potential amendments, and ending this matter in about one week's time, a matter of this grave import. I ask the Senator if that is correct.
Mr. Byrd: Absolutely correct. Absolutely correct.
Mr. Sarbanes: I make this observation to my colleague. It seems to me it is a sad commentary.
Mr. Warner: Might I make an observation along the lines of the distinguished colleague now debating this?
The Presiding Officer. The Senator from West Virginia has the floor.
Mr. Byrd: Then I will be glad to yield.
Mr. Sarbanes: The distinguished Senator from Virginia, I have been watching him. He is marshaling the war forces on the floor of the Senate.
Mr. McCain: Is this regular order?
Mr. Sarbanes: I see as part of that process, any time anyone speaks, he wants to make an observation. I would be happy to hear it so I get an opportunity to respond.
The Presiding Officer. The regular order is the Senator from Maryland may ask a question of the Senator from West Virginia.
Mr. Byrd: Mr. President, I share that feeling, and in due time we will get that explanation.
At this moment I appeal, I appeal to the Members of the Senate to find a way to give unanimous consent to put aside this vote on tomorrow and delay it so as to give this Senate more time to debate and to act upon this resolution, which is so weighty, involving, as it does, the most serious, the most solemn question that can ever face this Senate, the question of peace or war. We are being hurried by the rules of the Senate, we are being hurried into reaching a decision that is premature.
I appeal to my colleagues. I appeal to my colleagues. The people out there in the country deserve better than this. They deserve a decision taken after due time, due consideration, ample consideration, ample opportunities to offer amendments and to have them decided.
As it is under the rules of the Senate, we will be forced tomorrow at 10:15 a.m. to vote on cloture. If enough Senators voted against cloture, that would be one thing. If 41 Senators opposed it--or put it this way: If those who support this resolution cannot get 60 votes tomorrow, then we would automatically have additional time.
I am concerned the way this Senate is being stampeded, stampeded. I don't blame any Senator in particular. Every Senator here is acting in accordance with the rules. I am asking that in this peculiar, unique situation involving so much of the country's treasury, in blood and in dollars, I am asking the Senators join with me in putting off this decision. It can be done. It can be done by unanimous consent. That is not asking too much. That is not asking too much.
We are talking about people who are in the military of this country who may have to go to war in a foreign country, depending on this vote tomorrow.
Mrs. Boxer: Will the Senator yield?
Mr. Warner: Will the Senator yield?
Mr. Byrd: Let me first yield to the distinguished Senator from Virginia for a question, without losing my right to the floor.
Mr. Warner: I thank my colleague and dear friend from West Virginia.
To both of my colleagues, the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from West Virginia, this debate, as stated, started on the 4th, which was last Friday.
The Presiding Officer. The Chair advises the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Maryland that on further review of the Journal, this debate began on October 3, rather than October 4.
Mr. Warner: Fine.
I had the privilege of being on the floor last Friday afternoon for over 5 hours with this debate on that side of that aisle, led by my distinguished colleague from West Virginia. The Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, participated. The Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, participated. We had 5\1/2\ hours. I returned to the floor on Monday. We had another roughly 6 hours of debate. Tuesday is fresh in the minds of all. And here we are.
This is the point I wish to make. I share with my distinguished colleague the seriousness of this vote. It is a vote, hopefully, to ensure a resolution which will act as a deterrent, I say most respectfully, a deterrent, to the use of force, a resolution that will support the United Nations that is this very hour working to possibly craft a 17th resolution which would call for inspections. It is timely that the United Nations hear from not only our President, who gave a brilliant speech, but a unified Congress with these resolutions.
I can conclude my remarks by saying in 1990/1991, I and all of the Members here--most of us were involved in that debate--the record shows the debate began on January 10, 1991, on the Persian Gulf resolution. There were two resolutions, one submitted by myself and the distinguished Senator, Mr. Lieberman, the other by the then-majority leader, Mr. Mitchell. That debate started on the 10th. It concluded 2 days later, just 2 days later, on January 12, 1991, concluding with 2 votes on both resolutions.
So that ended up sending men and women of the Armed Forces, ours and other nations', into harm's way. Let us hope we have had adequate time, having begun on the 3rd, as stated by the Chair, and now we are here today with 13 amendments which have just been submitted, which will be respectfully treated by this body in due course, I hope expeditiously.
The rule is being complied with. This is clear. But it is 13 amendments.
Mr. Sarbanes: Will the Senator yield?
Mr. Byrd: I yield.
Mr. Sarbanes: Will the Senator agree with me the timetables which the Senator from Virginia just set out, both in 1991 and now, show a deterioration in the Senate's level of commitment in terms of debate on important matters of State?
Now, we do not have to go back that far. The time period I cited was 24 years ago, just shy of a quarter of a century. We took up an important matter of foreign policy, the Panama Canal treaty--two of them, 4 weeks on one and 4 weeks on the other. Now we are here with a resolution to take us to war, and we are told, Well, you know, we have been on it not quite a week. As the Senator pointed out, there was an intervening weekend. Then we are cited as a precedent, Well, in 1991 we did it in a few days.
Not only, it seems to me, does it make my point in terms of the willingness of the Senate to carry on the great national debate that ought to take place on important issues of war and peace, but this is a matter of most fundamental importance.
I ask the Senator. It seems to me it would require the kind of attention and debate that is warranted by an issue of that magnitude.
Mr. Byrd: Mr. President, the distinguished Senator is indubitably correct. There can be no more solemn, no more serious, no more far- reaching a decision than the one which the Senate is approaching.
All of the talk about how many hours or how many days we spent on some previous resolution or subject is entirely aside the point; entirely aside the point.
What I am saying here--and every Senator here knows it--is tomorrow morning at 10:15, we will follow the rules of the Senate. We are going to vote on cloture on the Lieberman resolution, as modified. It has been modified. I don't know how many Senators know that. This resolution has been modified. I only learned about it today. It has been modified in such a way that there is no longer a preamble, or what is considered a preamble. The words "whereas"--I would like to discuss each of these whereas clauses. The whereas clauses have all been changed to "since," which means the preamble is now a part and parcel of the resolution. There is no separate preamble here.
So the wheels have been greased. The wheels of legislative action of debate have been greased.
So here we are now faced with a vote tomorrow morning at 10:15. How many of us are going to be here beyond 6:00 today? It is only 5 minutes to 3 now. How many of us will be here beyond 6:00 today? Then tomorrow, what time are we coming in? 9:00, 10:00?
So we see how little time this Senate is going to be able to focus its full attention on this far-reaching resolution which carries within its pages the fate, the possible fate of this Nation; the fate of hundreds or thousands, or tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands of servicemen and our National Guardsmen throughout this country. We are holding their fate in our hands.
I say that the rules of the Senate in this instance are being utilized so strictly they are made more demanding.
Why do we have to rush these cloture motions on a matter of this great moment? Why couldn't we have waited and debated this? What is all the hurry?
I say to Senators, and I appeal to the people out there who are watching through those lenses, I appeal to the people in the 50 States and the territory and possessions of this country to rise up and to let themselves be heard. Don't vote for cloture. Let us put off this cloture vote. That is not asking too much. That is not asking too much.
I hope Senators will consider this seriously. Let's not vote on this tomorrow morning at 10:15.
Mrs. Boxer: Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. Byrd: Yes. I yield for a question.
Mrs. Boxer: I thank the Senator for putting this debate in the proper context and for pointing out what the solemn duty really is in the Senate.
I want to ask my friend a couple of questions.
Has my friend heard, as I have, the President himself and many of his representatives, including Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, and Ari Fleischer, repeat over and over again that the President has not yet made a decision to go to war? Has my friend heard that?
Mr. Byrd: There is no question. No farther back than August 21, I read in the newspapers that the President was concerned about the agitation, about all of the commotion--these are my words--that is taking place here concerning his--the President's--plan. Secretary Rumsfeld on that occasion referred to this agitation as a "frenzy". That is my recollection. Go back and check; no farther than August 23.
Here we were being told there were no such plans. As we approach it, the drive is on. We are being stampeded. They are saying, Oh, the vote will take place this week.
Why all the hurry?
I hope we will have an opportunity to debate this resolution. We haven't had a full opportunity to debate this resolution. It has just been modified overnight. Nobody has really had an opportunity to debate each whereas clause.
There are amendments that are going to be offered. We are not going to have a chance to debate those amendments. The distinguished Senator from Michigan has an important amendment.
Mrs. Boxer: If I might ask just a couple of questions--I wanted to say to my friend that not only did they say in August this was a frenzy, and the press was paying so much attention to it, and chastising the press for talking about Iraq--no. They were in a frenzy. But just two nights ago, our President said he has not made a decision to go to war. Colin Powell said that before the Foreign Relations Committee, on which I proudly serve. Condoleezza Rice repeated it. Ari Fleischer repeated it. I tried to check out the history where the President has not made the decision to go to war--over and over again through his operatives, and he himself said it--yet he is coming to this Congress and quickly wants to have a resolution, not just backing a new United Nations resolution, which I think we all feel is very important, and with tough inspections. In fact, most of us believe there should be enforcement of inspections, if need be, which is in Carl Levin's amendment, which I look forward to voting on.
But our President is asking us to give him the authority to go to war alone--alone, with no one else. Other Senators will say that is silly, Senator Boxer. We are not going it alone. Read the resolution of Senator McCain. He can go it alone. That is the deal.
Some say we are doing it because we want to force the U.N. to act. I agree with Senator Levin. I think it takes the heat off the United Nations.
But the question I ask of my friend is this: In closing, here we are being asked to give the President authority to take this country to war without any help, without any other nation, without any of our allies, before he has made a decision to do so. And I want to ask my friend this because I know he has been here a very long time. He is an Officer of the Senate.
Has my friend been briefed on how many of our military people, men and women, it will take to go to this war?
What will the casualties be? How much will it cost? How long will we have to stay there? What happens afterward? What is the impact in the region? Will Saddam Hussein use his weapons of mass destruction on the battlefield against our people? And what protections do they have?
Those are just a few questions. I want to ask my friend, have those questions been answered? I have asked them. They have not been answered. Perhaps my friend, having so many more years here, might have the privilege of a response to that before we are asked to take our people to war.
Mr. Byrd: Mr. President, there are many questions the American people want answered. There are many questions the American people are entitled to have answers to.
I am only pleading here that the Senate give itself time to explore these questions on behalf of the people whom we serve. Give ourselves time. We haven't had time. We have been rushed through this thing. Now, because of the rules of the Senate, we are going to have to vote tomorrow morning at 10:15 on a question that involves peace or war, a question that involves great sacrifices for this country.
Nobody knows how great those sacrifices may be. And there are many questions that need to be answered. What will we do once Iraq is defeated? What will we do with Iraq? Will our service men and women be required to go there? Will they have to stay there 2 months after the defeat of Iraq? 6 months? 1 year? 2 years? 5 years? 10 years?
Who is going to pay for reviving the economy of Iraq? Where are the moneys coming from to pay the costs of what may be a war of short duration? of what may be a war of long duration? What is the President's plan? What is the administration's plan? Are we going to use the heavy ground option or the heavy air option, or both the heavy ground option and the heavy air option?
Go over to the hospitals surrounding this Capitol and take a look at the emergency rooms. See how many people are in those emergency rooms. See how short on personnel those hospitals are. I know. I have had my wife in a hospital just recently with an appendectomy. Those hospitals are short on beds.
What about the veterans hospitals? What about an upsurge, if it comes, in casualties of Americans? Are we prepared for this? Are we prepared?
What is going to happen on the war here at home, homeland security, the security of our country? Look around us here. Just look at the morning papers. The television is full of it. The people of this area are concerned about their children, about the public schools, and they are being asked not to come to school, not to have recesses.
Here we are talking about war in Iraq, when the focus is being taken off the war here at home. The people's eyes are on home, what is happening around us. Here is a sniper in this area. He has already killed six people at least, and they don't know what he looks like, where he lives, nothing about him, except he is a marksman. He is sure a marksman.
Here we are being told: Tomorrow morning at 10:15 we are going to come to the moment of decision. I say it is not right to the American people that we do that.
Mr. Kennedy: Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. Byrd: I do not intend to hold the floor too much longer. I yield to this Senator, and then I will yield to my friend.
Mr. Kennedy: Mr. President, I have been listening to the Senator over several days. One of the points he makes so effectively is the fact that even if we have been on the resolution a few days, we were, I was reminded, on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 21 days, the energy bill 23 days, the trade bill 19 days, and the farm bill 18 days.
But even if we have been on this bill, would the Senator not agree with me that the principal debate has been on the resolutions, not the real impact of the war and what would happen to American troops who would be involved--the numbers of American troops who would be involved--what the impact is going to be on our battle with al-Qaida, what is going to be the impact in terms of the region, in terms of what Saddam may do?
I would be interested in the Senator's comments on that.
Secondly, I would be interested in the Senator's comments on the report this morning in the Washington Post--I am so glad it was declassified--in which the Central Intelligence Agency effectively has agreed that--quoting the paper----
Unprovoked by a U.S. military campaign, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein is unlikely to initiate a chemical or biological attack against the United States, intelligence agencies concluded in a classified report. . .
That is the first time we have seen that public. That has been classified. Those of us who have been briefed on it have been unable to use that or to say that. That is a major kind of factor, I think, if we are being asked to vote on a resolution of war: to find out, in our Intelligence Estimate, that the possibility of American troops being affected by the use of chemical warfare increases dramatically-- dramatically--when we are putting Saddam Hussein's back against a wall.
This was a question that--I see in the Chamber the chairman of the committee, who was there at the time. I remember very clearly that moment.
But does not the Senator believe that this kind of statement is worth the opportunity for discussion and explanation, that we ought to hear at least what the reality is, that the American people ought to understand, and the parents of those servicemen ought to understand what their children are going to be faced with?
Does the Senator not agree with me that we have been talking about resolutions, and we ought to be talking about the whole issue of terror, the impact it is going to have on our society--whether we go to war--what the impact is going to be on our servicemen, on the region, and on our future?
I welcome the Senator's response to the general question about what this debate, to date, has been about, and then the specific issue that has been raised in the newspapers that has to be of central concern to people in relation to authorizing the President to engage in war and the chances of the use of chemical and biological weapons being increased dramatically if Saddam's back is up against a wall in a conflict.
Mr. Byrd: Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts. He has put his finger on several important points, one of which is this: The American people are just now awakening to the fact that the Senate and the House are about to pass a resolution that turns the power of the people, as measured by their elected representatives in Congress, over to a Commander in Chief--the power to determine when to go to war, the power to declare war. They are just now becoming awake to that fact.
The American people are just now beginning to focus on this. They have not been focused on this. They have not been focused on this. And they are just now beginning to.
Also, the article that the Senator raises, from today's newspaper, indicates there are many things that have a bearing upon this question that are just now coming to the surface. Organizations, persons, people with expertise, scientists, and so on, are just now beginning to focus, and their story is just now beginning to get through.
I think we owe it to ourselves. Why would we want to deny ourselves here in Congress the opportunity to have more facts, the opportunity to study this matter more seriously, the opportunity to debate it, the opportunity to draw up amendments?
Here we are faced, under rule XXII, with having to offer our amendments by 1 o'clock today, in the first-degree amendments. Now, I had to rush to get two amendments ready. I have many other matters that are demanding my time. And other Senators are in the same situation, or even worse situations.
So I plead with the Nation's representatives here in the Senate, with the leadership in the Senate, with the leadership in the other body. I plead with Senators to make every effort to try to get a unanimous consent request to waive this cloture vote on tomorrow.
We are shortchanging the American people. We are shortchanging ourselves as representatives of the American people. We are shutting ourselves out of the opportunity. And it is no fault of any particular Senator. It is the rule that we are up against here, and only by unanimous consent can we waive it.
But I plead in the name of the people of this country, in the name of the young men and women whose lives may be put on the line by the decision that this Senate will make tomorrow morning at 10:15. It is too weighty. It is too far-reaching. It is only fair to the people of America, who are going to be asked to give, in some instances, everything they have, if a war ensues. I tell you my friends, I don't want that on my conscience, not I. I apologize to Senators who have been standing here waiting.
I yield to the Senator from South Carolina.
Mr. Helms: Will the Senator yield for no more than 5 minutes?
Mr. Levin: Will the Senator yield for a question?
Mr. Byrd: Of course, I am entitled to yield for a question, but I would like to yield to the Senator from South Carolina. He has been on his feet.
Mr. Levin: Is the Senator yielding his right to the floor? If so, I would ask that before he does that, he open himself to a question.
Mr. Byrd: I have no intention of holding the floor. I do intend to offer an amendment, however, before I yield the floor.
Mr. Levin: If the Senator intends to yield the floor before Senator Helms speaks, would the Senator yield for a question first?
Mr. Byrd: Mr. President, I yield for a question.
Mr. Levin: My question is this: In addition to the fact that cloture, if invoked, will close off debate and have the effect which has been described here, it has another effect, does it not, which is that amendments following cloture must be strictly germane?
In preparation for the answer to that question, I want to say the following: The alternative amendment which I intend to offer is an amendment which says we should seek the U.N. to authorize force-to- force inspections, to authorize member states to use force-to-force inspections--in other words, to go multilaterally with force--but does not at this time authorize a go-it-alone approach. That is my alternative.
My alternative also specifically provides--this is the question----
Mr. Helms: Will the Senator yield, please? Can there be an understanding, when you have completed, that I be recognized for 5 minutes? I won't take that long. Would that be agreeable with the Senator?
The Presiding Officer (Mr. Carper). Is there objection to the unanimous consent request?
Mr. Kerry: Reserving the right to object, I would simply request that after the Senator from North Carolina has spoken, I be recognized.
Mr. McCain: I object.
The Presiding Officer. Objection is heard.
Mr. Levin: The rest of my question is this----
The Presiding Officer. Is there objection to the unanimous consent request of the Senator from North Carolina?
Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Levin: The alternative resolution which I intend to offer has a provision in it which will be prohibited from being included if cloture is invoked because even though it is obviously relevant to this debate, it is not strictly germane under our rules. I want to ask the Senator about this.
Part of my alternative resolution says: Let us go to the U.N. Let us go together. Let us go multilaterally. Let's have the strength of the world community behind us because it avoids a lot of negative consequences and gives us great strength in proceeding against Saddam to go with the world. But part of my resolution is that Congress would not adjourn sine die so that the Congress could resume session, if necessary, to promptly consider proposals relative to Iraq if, in the judgment of the President, the U.N. Security Council does not promptly act on a resolution to enforce inspections. That is an important part of the resolution that I intend to offer.
But is it not true, I ask my good friend from West Virginia, if that part of the resolution is ruled not strictly germane, although it is obviously relevant, that means I would not be able to offer the resolution in that form? And is that also not a very negative result of cloture being invoked? Does that not deny us an opportunity to vote on something which is so important to this debate?
Mr. Byrd: It is, indeed, most unfortunate.
Mr. Levin: I will be offering the resolution in two forms: One that contains this important language which would fall if cloture is invoked; one that does not contain it, which it seems to me would then be denying the Senate an opportunity to consider, debate, deliberate a full alternative to the President's go-it-alone approach.
Mr. Byrd: That is one of the penalties this Chamber will pay, that the Senator will pay, that the American people will pay as a result of a rule, a rule which I support and have supported. But here we are, caught in a situation where without adequate debate, we have been pushed to a cloture vote in the drive--and I don't mean to criticize any person, it is a stampede--in the drive to have this decision made before the Members of Congress go home for the November elections.
Mr. Warner: Could I reply to the Senator from Michigan?
Mr. Byrd: That is less than 4 weeks away. It is most unfortunate.
Mr. Warner: May I ask the Senator from Michigan a simple question?
The Presiding Officer. The Senator from West Virginia has the floor.
Mr. Warner: Could I just ask the Senator from Michigan a simple question? Did you not have the right to offer an amendment on Friday, Monday, Tuesday? That question has been open to the Senator.
Mr. Byrd: I am going to give up the floor very shortly.
The Presiding Officer. Under the unanimous consent request earlier, the Senator from North Carolina is recognized for 5 minutes, once the Senator from West Virginia has concluded.
Mr. Levin: I believe there was only debate on Friday and Monday, no amendments. I am informed, debate only.
Mr. McCain: I would ask my colleagues, please, let's observe the rules of the Senate.
The Presiding Officer. The Senator from West Virginia has the floor.
Amendment No. 4868 To Amendment No. 4856, As Modified
Mr. Byrd: Before I yield the floor, I call up amendment No. 4868 and ask that it be stated by the clerk.
The Presiding Officer. The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes an amendment numbered 4868 to amendment No. 4856, as modified:
(Purpose: To provide statutory construction that constitutional authorities remain unaffected and that no additional grant of authority is made to the President not directly related to the existing threat posed by Iraq)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. 5. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this joint resolution--
(1) is intended to alter the constitutional authorities of the Congress to declare war, grant letters of Marque and Reprisal, or other authorities invested in Congress by Section 8, Article I of the Constitution; or
(2) shall be construed as granting any authority to the President to use the United States Armed Forces for any purpose not directly related to a clear threat of imminent, sudden, and direct attack upon the United States, its possessions or territories, or the Armed Forces of the United States, unless the Congress of the United States otherwise authorizes.
Mr. Byrd: Mr. President, I yield the floor.
