The Presiding Officer: The Senator from New Mexico, under the previous order, is to be recognized.
The Chair wants to say that it is his view that the subject matter is of enormous gravity, and the subject matter and statement of the Senator is most compelling. So anyone who does not share that view will leave the Chamber. And that will be pursued by those officers. And the Sergeants at Arms in the galleries are requested to ensure the gallery follows the same.
The Chair recognizes the Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. Domenici: Mr. President, before I proceed, I would like to congratulate the distinguished Senator from Tennessee. When he writes his name uses the title "Senator" followed by "M.D." I think you will always be a doctor even if you are not always a Senator. I am happy to know you in both capacities--as a member of the medical profession--and among our ranks as senators. We in the Senate are very fortunate that a few years ago at the peak of your profession you decided to come here, and your people there in Tennessee sent you. I have been here 30 years--roughly five times, I think, that you have been here. I have gotten to know you very well. I consider you among one of my very best friends--not only here but in the world. I am very proud of what you had to say here tonight.
I am not going to speak about the technical matters. If anybody wants proof about the quantity and the tremendous damage that the weapons which Saddam probably possesses can cause humankind, they can read Senator Bill Frist's statement just ahead of mine.
I have difficulty when speaking on a subject such as this to disengage from being a full-blooded American and try to see the issue from a global perspective. It is very hard for me to see the world and see this issue in any way other than from the eyes of an American who grew up here and has lived here for the years I have been on this Earth. I am prejudiced by my great confidence in America being the right country to see that the Middle East stops being a tinderbox. I think we are the right country, and probably the only country that can keep Saddam Hussein from using those weapons of mass destruction. We are the only country that will see to it that he brings minimal damage to this world.
I have concluded, after much study, that we must give our President this authority--not because he is going to use it, but quite to the contrary: to raise hopes he won't have to use it.
I am voting aye on giving the President this authority because I am convinced that the one and only way to prevent Saddam Hussein from doing tremendous damage to humankind and to the Earth is to say to our President, You have the full strength of the American military to keep him from doing anything of great harm.
That sounds like a terribly simple proposition, but I don't think it is. I think if one wanted to write a 30- or 40-page speech about what I just said, one could devote 5 pages just to the history of the United States. They could about how our country started and what our first wars were all about. They could talk about the First World War and the horror of chemical weapons used in that conflict.
Do you know I had an uncle in the First World War in 1919? I wondered when I was growing up how come an aunt of mine used to get a little check in the mail--$19.80, or something. Finally, I said to my mother: What does my auntie do with that money? She said: She gets it for all of the life of her husband--she then told me in Italian--because your uncle, mio zio, was gassed by the Kaiser in the First World War with mustard gas.
You see, how many years ago was that?--80 or 90?
The Presiding Officer: The Senators on the floor will kindly take their conversations off the floor so the Senator from New Mexico may have the full attention of the Senate.
The Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. Domenici: Thank you very much.
So one could write at length about the parallels in our country's history and how it relates to today. Then follow every war we have been in, and then ask, What country is the most just throughout its history? Would there be any question? It would be the United States. Yet, we have people saying we shouldn't get involved in this, as if we are some big bamboozling country wrought on doing damage. History will tell us and tell the world that that is not why America would get involved in this situation. Isn't that right? Historically, the United States has only used military force when we can do some good. We stand for some principle or concept that we really think is tremendous--in this case, democracy versus dictatorship, democracy and freedom versus the kind of despicable character about whom our President has been speaking to us for a long time. The world is seeing a new kind of war that started with the destruction of our towers and our Pentagon.
This war has its origins right there in that Middle East where, if action is not taken, humankind is going to have some big problems. And I concluded that if we want to make sure our military personnel are safe, we would have to get them out of the Middle East, bring them all home. But guess what? If we did that there would be a war in the Middle East without question. It would not take Saddam Hussein very long before he would attack Israel. And if he wasn't successful, who else might join to help him? Perhaps two or three other nations who would be willing to take up arms against Israel. So I believe there is a real reason for us to work through the United Nations to try to bring peace to that area.
So I do not intend to go into all the details about the threat Iraq poses, rather, I just want to talk about the conclusions I tried to draw about dealing with that threat. One that I just talked to Senator Frist about, is that we are probably as good a nation as any in the world to decide that action needs to be taken. I have also concluded that to be successful, we had better give our President the authority he needs to act. In this way can better negotiate so as to maintain the peace.
I guess I am going to stop for a minute and ask, is something going on I should know about? I have 20 minutes to speak. If people are not waiting, I am going to speak for 20 minutes.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Delaware.
Mr. Biden: Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. President: The Senator from New Mexico has the floor; is that right?
The Presiding Officer: That is correct.
Mr. Biden: How much time does the Senator have left?
The Presiding Officer: The Senator has 12 minutes remaining, and he is followed by the Senator from Michigan for 30 minutes.
Mr. Biden: I thank the Chair.
Mr. Domenici: Mr. President, I think we are 32 minutes away from someone on that side being recognized.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from New Mexico has the floor.
Mr. Domenici: Mr. President, I say to the Senator from Tennessee, I am delighted to have found you on the floor just before my remarks. As always, you eloquently in describing what terrible things this man can wrought on this world and how we need to be careful. If we are going to get involved, we ought to be prepared. And what I added tonight, is that if we are going to do anything about it, we have to give our President the authority he needs. And he may well need our Army, our military to do it.
So, Mr. President, I rise today in support of the Lieberman-Warner- Bayh-McCain amendment because I am convinced that without clear authority to act decisively, it is not possible for the President of the United States to effectively confront the growing threat in Iraq.
As I just said in talking with my friend from Tennessee, I do not think it is going to be very effective for us to say: Mr. President, stay involved, go to the U.N., talk to everybody about the despicable character who is now the head of Iraq.
I don't think that is going to do anything if the President is not backed up with real authority to take military action. I don't want our President to engage in an effort that, from the onset, will not allow him to achieve intervention by the U.N. with a resolution of consequence.
What I want for the American people is for our President to be able to effectively work with the U.N. to the maximum extent, as this resolution allows.
This resolution makes certain that if the United States is involved, our President, after trying negotiations--and the words are voluminous on how hard he must try to resolve this matter peacefully and to keep Congress informed, he must give us reports--that he has the strength of the U.S. military if that does not work. And, frankly, I repeat, I think that is more apt to preserve peace than if we do not give the President the power.
I am concerned that the world is already set up for a major war in the Middle East. And the only way to prevent it is to give our President the authority he needs to negotiate effectively, to go to the U.N., to go to our friends, to use diplomacy, but to be ready to say: The people of the United States, through our Congress, gave me authority to do more than that. They gave me authority to intervene and use the full power of the United States.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator will please suspend.
Will Senators kindly take their conversations off the floor.
I thank the Senator from New Mexico.
Mr. Domenici: Maybe while they are gone, and the only one here is Senator Byrd, I could ask unanimous consent that I have an additional hour.
I am just joking, so you don't have to object.
In any event, it is clear to me that in the absence of this authority, Saddam Hussein will continue to assume that America's warnings are not serious. He will continue with all manner of delay and defiance, and he will continue to buy time for further development of weapons of mass destruction. And that is what we are talking about.
Mr. President, while I will associate myself with the technical remarks of my friend, the doctor from Tennessee, I know a little bit about nuclear weapons. It is my subcommittee on appropriations that funds them, and has for the last 6\1/2\ years. So I know a little bit about that.
But I also remember when we went and talked to groups about weapons of mass destruction, and we described gas and biological weapons of mass destruction by holding up a jar. It was not like this glass I hold in my hand, but what we actually used was a mayonnaise jar, the size jar that most people associate with a jar of mayonnaise that you would have in a refrigerator.
And we held that up and said: If you know how to make real poisonous gas, and real biological killers, you can put them in a bottle this small. The chemistry needed to produce these poisons could be accomplished in a little room about the size of a kitchen. And the destruction that could be caused is beyond perception.
So we will find that it is not as easy as to deter these weapons as were nuclear weapons for all the years we were standing head to head and toe to toe with the Soviet Union. We knew everything about their nuclear weapons; they knew everything about ours. But this batch of terrorists, who are bent on mass destruction, have us much more over a barrel than the Soviet Union did with nuclear weapons when we faced mutual assured destruction, sometimes called MAD, as the premise that would prevent war.
So it is clear that weapons of mass destruction are going to continue, under the auspices and direction of the scientists who have been brought into Iraq, and be shipped around the world by Iraqi leaders, to put these terrible kinds of things in the hands of others, who are the "minutemen" of Saddam around the world.
So I say again, by enacting the resolution that is before us, we emphasize our resolve to act in the event that Saddam impedes the work of U.N. weapons inspections. We will emphasize by this our resolve to act. So let's be clear. Saddam Hussein only understands the language of force. This resolution provides unambiguous authority for the President to use force. It is this authority, and Congress's support, that gives us the best hope of avoiding confrontation in pursuit of Iraq's disarmament.
So it is the expectation of New Mexicans and all Americans that wherever their President considers sending U.S. troops to battle, that he does so in full consultation with the Congress and our allies in the war on terrorism. The American people also expect that the President will commit U.S. forces only after diplomatic avenues have been exhausted. And this resolution says that.
This resolution underscores those concerns by imposing unambiguous responsibilities on our President.
I am sure that resolution has been read to the American people and those watching us more than once.
But let me just state a couple of them. Prior to using force or within 48 hours after exercising the authority, the President is required to certify to Congress that diplomatic and other peaceful means cannot protect our national security against the threat posed by Iraq. Also, he must certify that such means are not likely to bring Iraq into compliance with all relevant U.N. resolutions.
Second, only in the event that diplomatic efforts fail and Iraq continues to breach its international obligations and the inspectors are given every opportunity for unimpeded access, then our President can use the military. He doesn't have to come back to us under those circumstances.
Believe me, Saddam Hussein and his military and his scientists will immediately understand what it means if we give our President the authority to use force. There is no longer the delay in communications. Iraq will know we are serious, and we can be more effective in our diplomacy. If it doesn't work, we leave it in the hands of our President.
Some observers think this resolution gives the President too much authority. In fact, the resolution gives the President no more authority than he already has as Commander in Chief to provide for the national security for the United States. What the resolution does is to recognize the clear and present danger of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction. It says he is a weapon of mass destruction. It calls the President to exercise this authority as a last resort, and only in the event that all negotiations are fruitless, and with the added condition that he explain his actions to the Congress.
I believe the best way to prevent the Middle East, in this moment of history, from exploding into a war is for us to recognize how important we are to achieving peace, how important it is that we ask our President to be our instrument of peace in this very troubled part of the world.
Even a person as culpable and as lacking in human decency as Saddam Hussein will understand that our President, once given the proper authority, will take all necessary action to ensure the security of America and humankind against the destruction of weapons of mass destruction. I believe he is far less likely to unleash weapons of mass destruction when he knows that the American military, with the full support of Congress, is poised to stand in his way.
We have just today approved the biggest Defense bill ever in the history of America. We have given the President most of what he asked for in that bill. I believe it could not be worse news for Saddam Hussein than to learn that the U.S. Congress has approved the money needed to bolster our military and then, to learn shortly thereafter, that it has approved a resolution giving our President the real authority he needs to use military force to disarm Iraq. I believe this is the best way to secure peace.
I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Nevada.
Mr. Reid: Mr. 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. Reid: I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Reid: Mr. President, let me just say we have spent a lot of time, and we have a plan. It is not one that is going to finish quickly. We have a lot of work to do tonight. But this is a tremendous step forward. I ask everybody to listen.
We have worked with a number of Senators for some time. I will just say I also have permission from the minority to allow Senator Sarbanes to speak for up to 30 minutes following the statement of the Senator from Michigan, Senator Levin. I ask unanimous consent that that be the case.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
Order of Procedure
Mr. Reid: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that immediately after the pledge tomorrow morning, following the 9:15 a.m. convening of the Senate, Senator Byrd be recognized to offer an amendment No. 4869; that there be a time limitation of 20 minutes, with the opposition controlling 5 minutes and Senator Byrd controlling 15 minutes; that following the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote on the amendment; that following the disposition of that amendment, there be 30 minutes of debate equally divided between the leaders, with Senator Lott controlling the first 15 minutes and Senator Daschle controlling the final 15 minutes, and upon completion of that time, the Senate vote on Senator Lieberman's amendment, and that will be cloture on the Lieberman amendment; that following that vote, there be a time limitation of 45 minutes on Senator Byrd's amendment No. 4868, with Senator Byrd controlling 30 minutes, Senator Lieberman, or his designee--the only change would be Senator Biden would control the 15 minutes in opposition. Upon the use or yielding back of that time, the Senate vote on Senator Byrd's amendment; further, that no second-degree amendments be in order to either of the above-listed amendments.
The Presiding Officer: Is there objection?
Mr. Byrd: Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I am perfectly agreeable to everything that has been said with reference to my amendments. I wonder if we can get a little more time for debate on the motion to invoke cloture. We have nothing but 15 minutes for Mr. Lott and 15 minutes for Mr. Daschle. I would like to have a few minutes to express opposition to cloture. I know it will be futile, but can we work out an additional 30 minutes? The two leaders can close, but this agreement only gives the two leaders a chance to talk on cloture. That is a key vote. I would like to have a few minutes on that, and perhaps other Senators would like time on either side.
Mr. Reid: The question is, prior to the cloture vote, would the minority have objection--or would anybody object to Senator Byrd having more time? How about 10 minutes, because the leaders only get 15?
Mr. Byrd: Is the time so short?
Mr. Reid: Senator Byrd, I say respectfully the two leaders have indicated they are going to finish this tomorrow. Each minute we stall means that much later we have to go.
Mr. Byrd: I am not stalling.
Mr. Reid: No one said the Senator is stalling. Each minute that we do not move forward means it will be that much later. Will the Senator agree to 10 minutes?
Mr. Byrd: This is a question of life or death. Can I not get more than 10 minutes?
Mr. Sarbanes: If the Senator will yield, does each leader get 15 minutes?
Mr. Reid: That's right.
Mr. Sarbanes: Why don't we give Senator Byrd 15 minutes?
Mr. Warner: Senator McCain is going to handle the Byrd amendment--
Mr. Reid: This is on cloture. Prior to cloture. Why don't we do that.
Mr. Warner: Our leader will speak prior to cloture.
Mr. Reid: I modify the request to that effect.
Mr. Warner: Mr. President, I ask the distinguished Senator to recast what he is now seeking to achieve.
Mr. Reid: Yes. In the morning, at 9:15, we are going to come in. Senator Byrd would be recognized to offer amendment No. 4869, and there will be 20 minutes. He has 15 minutes and the opposition has 5 minutes.
Mr. Warner: Could Mr. McCain's name be put next to that?
Mr. Reid: Yes, 5 minutes to Senator McCain. And then following that, there would be a vote on that amendment. Then there will be a vote on cloture. Prior to vote on cloture, Senator Daschle would have the last 15 minutes, Senator Lott would be the middle speaker, and Senator Byrd would be recognized for the first 15 minutes prior to the cloture vote. After that, Senator Byrd's other amendment would be brought up, with the time as indicated.
Mr. Warner: Will the Senator repeat the time.
Mr. Reid: There will be 45 minutes for Senator Byrd and 15 minutes for Senator McCain.
Mr. Warner: Make that McCain-Warner.
Mr. Reid: Senator Dayton wants to speak for 15 minutes on the Byrd amendment after cloture.
Mr. Warner: How about the Senator from Michigan?
Mr. Reid: We are going to work that out further. Please don't go any further.
Mr. Warner: I say to the leader that the Senator from Michigan is a vital part of the UC.
Mr. Reid: We are going to work on him, Senator Durbin and Senator Boxer.
Mr. Warner: That would be along the lines we agreed to in our conference.
Mr. Reid: Yes.
Mr. Warner: I have no objection to the Senator's request.
Mr. Levin: Reserving the right to object, and I will not object. Pursuant, then, to this unanimous consent agreement, I understand it would then be in order for me to proceed and to lay down my amendment tonight.
Mr. Reid: The amendment we have spoken about, that's right. The Senator is next in order, anyway.
Mr. Levin: The Byrd amendment has not been disposed of.
Mr. Reid: There is a gentlemen's agreement that will be set aside for you to offer your amendment because there is a time--I guess you would say a gentlemen's and ladies' agreement.
Mr. Byrd: Reserving the right to object. I have no intention of objecting. Following the cloture vote, if cloture is invoked, what--
Mr. Reid: We go immediately to your amendment. You have 45 minutes on that, and there are 15 minutes in opposition.
Mr. Byrd: On that amendment. And then--
Mr. Reid: Then we are going to work things out after that. We have talked to Senator Levin and we will talk to Senators Boxer and Durbin. I think we can work something out per the conversation we all had in the cloakroom.
Mr. Byrd: Assuming cloture is invoked on this serious question--which it will be--there will be 30 hours for debate.
Mr. Reid: Yes. As I indicated, we will work with the Senator tomorrow on the time the Senator can have.
Mr. Byrd: I beg the Senator's pardon.
Mr. Reid: We will work with the Senator on time so he can have some time yielded to him.
Mr. Byrd: I hope so.
Mr. Reid: I indicated I will work on that.
Mr. Byrd: The Senator is an honorable man and I thank him for all of his good work. I hope I am not limited tomorrow to 3 hours and 4 hours. I hope whatever Senators want to yield time to me may be allowed to do so.
Mr. Reid: I respectfully say to my friend, I would love to get over this hurdle, and we will worry about that tomorrow. I will do my best.
Mr. Byrd: I know about getting over the hurdles. I was always afraid something would crawl out of the woodwork before I would get the Chair to put the question. I have nothing further.
Mr. Sarbanes: Will the Senator yield for a question.
Mr. Reid: Yes.
Mr. Sarbanes: Upon the disposition of the second Byrd amendment, which would be after cloture--
Mr. Reid: We are working on that now, what will happen on that.
Mr. Sarbanes: How about the Levin amendment?
Mr. Reid: We tentatively have that worked out. I need to get off the floor and we can work that out. I am certain we have an agreement.
Mr. Sarbanes: I understand that now the Byrd amendment will be laid aside so that the Levin amendment can be called up.
Mr. Reid: Following his statement, the Senator from Maryland would be recognized.
Mr. Warner: Did the Chair enter the order? I don't know if the Chair entered the order.
The Presiding Officer: Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.
