Mr. Durbin: Mr. President, pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement, I call up my amendment.
The Presiding Officer: The clerk will report.
The bill clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Durbin] proposes an amendment numbered 4865 to amendment No. 4586.
(Purpose: To amend the authorization for the use of the Armed Forces to cover an imminent threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction rather than the continuing threat posed by Iraq)
On page 7, line 20, strike "the continuing threat posed by Iraq" and insert "an imminent threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction".
Mr. Durbin: Mr. President, I call up this amendment to the underlying resolution presented by the President and sponsored by Senator Lieberman and others on the floor of the Senate.
In this Capitol Building, there are many historic rooms. There is one that is of great significance to me. It is only a few steps down the hall. It was in room 219 where I gathered with about a dozen of my colleagues among the Senate Democrats for a meeting on the morning of September 11, 2001. I can still recall the meeting vividly as we watched the television screen and its report, as we heard of the evacuation of the White House, as we jumped from our chairs and looked down The Mall to see the black smoke billowing from the Pentagon. And then we were told immediately to leave this great building and rushed down the steps and far away.
That is my image of September 11. Everyone who is following this debate has their own image of September 11. My world changed. America changed. Perhaps things changed all around the world on that day.
I came to work on that morning never believing that just a few days later, on September 14, I would stand on this floor and join every one of my colleagues in the Senate in a unanimous bipartisan vote of support for President Bush's request for war on terrorism. I am not a person who comes to that vote easily. I am one who grew up with the specter of war during our war in Vietnam. I am a person who served in the Congress and considered the momentous decision of the Persian Gulf war. I always took those votes extremely seriously. But there was no doubt in my mind on September 14, this was the right one. The war against terrorism was the right one. We were going to go after those parties responsible for what they had done to us on that day of infamy.
Now we gather in the Senate, a little over a year later, to face another historic vote. The President has asked Congress for the authority to wage another war, a war against Iraq. It is fair first to ask what progress we have made on the war against terrorism. Some things have happened for which we can be very proud.
The Taliban is out of power in Afghanistan. They no longer will be catering to the kind of extremist we saw with al-Qaida. Osama bin Laden is at least on the run, and that is certainly good news. Afghanistan is moving back toward a civilized state. Women are returning to the streets without the burkas. Girls are going to school. Positive things are happening. We saw an intelligence network created around the world to support the U.S. war on terrorism, an amazing display of unity and support for what we were doing.
But still, as I stand here today and make this assessment of the war on terrorism, the manhunt continues for Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants. Afghanistan is still in its national infancy. Hamid Karzai, leader of Afghanistan, is a good man but barely escaped an assassination attempt a few weeks ago, an assassination that, had it resulted, would have thrown that nation into chaos. Al-Qaida is still known to be in 60 nations around the world, and this war is far from over.
Make no mistake, we cannot dedicate the resources, the manpower, the skills, and the weapons of war to a new war in Iraq without sacrifices in our war on terrorism. This will be a war on two fronts; sacrifices will be made.
Let's speak to the President's request for a war against Iraq. If you have followed the comments from the President since August until today, you will note that his approach has changed. In fact, this is the third version of the resolution before us.
In one respect it is a tribute to the President that he has worked with others to try to improve the resolution. We expect that. In another, it suggests a change in attitude and philosophy and perhaps an intent as this resolution develops.
The speech the President gave on Monday night I listened to, every single word of it. I wanted to hear everything he had to say. The speech the President gave to the American people was far different than the language of the resolution before us.
What has happened since August when the President first raised the specter of Iraq as a threat to the United States?
Initially the White House said: We don't need congressional approval. We can move forward. They went on to say: We can do it unilaterally. We don't need any allies. We can attack Iraq if necessary by ourselves. And the President said our goal is regime change. We want Saddam Hussein gone. We have had enough of him. And he went on to say--Vice President Cheney backed him up--inspections by the U.N. are worthless. We tried that.
That was the first cut, the first position of the White House.
Last Monday, when the President gave a speech, it was a much different message. He is seeking congressional approval. That is why we are here today. He said that he is going to help lead a coalition of forces against Saddam Hussein, far different than what this resolution says, far different than what he said at the outset.
He is now working through the United Nations; something that had been dismissed early on in the debate has now become a big part of it. The President went on to say that he is now focusing on weapons of mass destruction and destroying them. There won't be any argument here. I have yet to meet a single Member of Congress who defends Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction.
The President said we need an inspection regime through the United Nations. That is a big departure from where he was. But that speech basically described a process the President suggested and endorsed, which many of us endorse as well.
In 8 weeks the administration has changed its rhetoric but the resolution we have before us has not. This resolution is important for many reasons. First, it is a war resolution. With this expression of authority from Congress, the President will have what he needs under our Constitution to move forward, to dispatch troops, mobilize reserves, move the men and women in uniform into harm's way, and be prepared for battle. That is, of course, the most important part of the resolution.
Another part rivals it in importance. This resolution is historically important because it marks a dramatic departure in the foreign policy of the United States of America. It is not simply a question of our policy toward Iraq or Saddam Hussein; it is a question of our policy toward the world.
This resolution still authorizes a unilateral, go-it-alone invasion of Iraq. This resolution contains no requirement to build a coalition of allies behind us. It has been said over and over again, isn't it better for the United States to have a coalition behind us than to have a coalition against us? This resolution does not specify that we are targeting weapons of mass destruction. This resolution represents a dramatic departure in foreign policy. That is why I have offered this amendment.
Senator Levin of Michigan was here earlier speaking about the role of the U.N. As much as any nation, the United States has guided and nurtured the U.N. We have gone through painful, frustrating moments when we have disagreed with their actions and could not agree with Security Council decisions, but by and large we have stood by the U.N. since its creation. In the words of Kofi Annan, "The U.N. is the international community at work for the rule of law."
That is as succinct a description of what the U.N. is all about as I have ever read. We have been with the U.N. through NATO, in the cold war, on questions of post-Soviet transatlantic order, and a variety of other issues. Now comes the President, on September 12 of this year, who visits the U.N. and issues a significant challenge. He says to the U.N. on September 12: If this organization has a backbone, it is going to stand up to Saddam Hussein, demand inspections for the weapons of mass destruction, and remove or destroy them. And if it does not, the President basically said that the U.N. is irrelevant; it has become the League of Nations.
Well, since then, progress has been made. A man whom I respect very much, Secretary of State Colin Powell, has been involved in shuttle diplomacy with the Security Council to put together U.N. support for just the very approach the President asked. It is the right approach-- to really put our inspectors on the ground with no holds barred, nothing off limits, with no exemptions for Presidential palaces, so that we can go in and discover, with the help of our intelligence community, which will provide information where we think the weapons can be found and, in finding them, be able to establish once and for all that Iraq is in violation of U.N. resolutions and destroy the weapons.
If Saddam Hussein and Iraq should resist or stop us, consider the position we are in. We can then turn to the U.N. and say: We gave you your opportunity. You know this man will not comply with orders. Now stand together in enforcing the U.N. inspection. What a strong position that is--for us to have a coalition of nations, through the U.N., working with us, rather than the Bush resolution, which says we will do it by ourselves.
I think we have seen progress, but this resolution would brush it all aside. This resolution would say to the U.N. and others around the world: Go ahead and finish your debate and engage yourself as much as you like, but in the final analysis this Nation, the United States of America, will do exactly what it wants to do.
I don't think that has been our approach historically. We have always said: If you attack us, expect an answer. That is what happened on September 14, when we voted on the resolution on the war on terrorism. But why, if the U.N. is making progress toward this goal, do we want to say we are going to ignore the progress you have made, ignore the fact that you have accepted this challenge, we are going to ignore the possibility of meaningful inspections to disarm Iraq, and we will go it alone, we will launch a land invasion?
I think that is a mistake. This U.N. coalition effort is very important. In October of last year, President Bush stated, with some pride, that we had launched our war on terrorism, and he said: "We are supported by the collective will of the world." And we were. The President has a right to be proud of that. The fact that we mobilized nations around the world to come behind us in the war against al-Qaida and the terrorists meant something in the war on terrorism.
Why, then, does it not mean something today? Why, then, when we are considering this war resolution, are we not committing to build a coalition of force to make sure we are successful? We know what the coalition means. It means strength in numbers. It means a sharing of the burden. Why should it only be American soldiers walking through the deserts on the way to Baghdad? Should we not have an international force? Because the threat Saddam Hussein poses is certainly to the Middle East and other countries before it threatens the United States. Why should other nations not defray the cost of this war? The fact that we would spend $100 billion or $200 billion when we are currently in deficit--why should that not be shared? Certainly, when we fought in the Persian Gulf, that was what happened. There is nothing in the Bush resolution for a coalition of force to join us in this effort in Iraq.
Also, the creation of a coalition establishes vital cover for other nations to join us. Do you recall the comments made by Saudi Arabia a few days after the President's visit to the U.N.? They had been not only cold but antagonistic to the idea of the United States going it alone against Iraq. They announced, after his visit to the U.N., that if the U.N. took action, they would cooperate. Why is that significant? It is as significant today as it was in the Persian Gulf. President Bush's father realized that when you bring Arab States into the coalition, it is critically important as we consider action against an Arab nation, Iraq.
Think of this for a moment, too: If our coalition includes Arab States and countries from around the world, it minimizes the impact this will have on the fundamentalists and extremists who are trying to breed and educate and train the next generation of terrorists. A third of the people living in the Arab world today are under the age of 14.
If this is a coalition including Arab States, then we are in a much stronger position to argue that it is U.N. action, collective action, it is not the United States going it alone. This will help to defuse any terrorists who might come out and will help to establish stability after the attack.
Let me go to the particular reason to raise this amendment to this resolution. The House has passed the resolution we are considering. It tells you we are drawing that much closer to the possibility of war. It is a historic decision, one which now is in this Chamber. If this Chamber agrees to the same resolution and presents it on the President's desk, my guess is it will be signed very quickly. It is more than just war against Iraq. Just a few weeks ago, the administration released what they called "The National Security Strategy of the United States of America." It is a document which outlines what they consider to be the new parameters of foreign policy in our Nation. It is well worth the read.
You will find in this document, on page 15, a significant and historic departure from the foreign policy of the United States. The argument is made in this publication by the administration, by President Bush's White House, that the world has changed so significantly since September 11, 2001, that the principles and values and norms of conduct of our foreign policy must be changed dramatically in this respect. We have always said to the world: The United States is not an aggressor nation. We are not seeking to invade your country for territory or treasure. But if you threaten us, you can expect that we will return with all the force and power we have. We are not trying to conquer you, but if you threaten our territory, our people, our allies, our Armed Forces, you can expect the worst. That is the way it should be.
We have said historically we are a defensive nation. Even at the height of the cold war, we did not endorse a first strike against the Soviet Union. No, we are a defensive nation. This new foreign policy reflected in the resolution before us is a dramatic departure from that.
The argument is made that we have no choice. Because we are now fighting terrorism, we can no longer wait for an imminent threat against the United States. We have to be able to move preemptively for what might be, as is said in this resolution, a continuing threat.
What does it mean? If you list the nations of the world that pose any threat to the United States, unfortunately the list is fairly long. It would not just be Iraq. The President's "axis of evil" includes North Korea and Iran. One would certainly put Syria, Libya, and maybe many other countries on that list.
What the President's foreign policy is calling for is the right of the United States to attack these countries without provocation, without imminent threat. That, I say to my friends in the Senate, is a dramatic departure in foreign policy. We are not just talking about how to deal with Saddam Hussein, how to deal with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, what to do through the United Nations. The supporters of this resolution are calling for a dramatic departure in American foreign policy.
From my point of view, it is a departure which is unwarranted and unwise. This is why I believe it: For over 50 years, with nuclear Armageddon facing us, with nuclear missiles poised in the Soviet Union and in the United States, our position was one of deterrence. We said, as I mentioned before, we would not strike first. We held that position, with some rare exceptions. That was our position as a nation, and it prevailed. It prevailed to overcome the Soviet Union and, frankly, to bring the Russians closer to our position in the world and to bring the world closer to peace.
Look what has happened in the last 10 years in our relationship with Iraq. Since the Persian Gulf war, we have made it clear to Saddam Hussein and his leaders that if they make one bad move with a weapon of mass destruction, either through a terrorist organization or directly against the United States, its neighbors, or any of our allies, frankly, they will pay a heavy price. There has never been a doubt about that. There is no doubt about that today.
The establishment and maintenance of the no-fly zone is our way of keeping an eye on Saddam Hussein from start to finish. There is not a tank or truck that moves in Iraq today we do not monitor. There is not a hole that is dug and filled up we do not monitor. We made that clear under existing foreign policy, but this resolution says it is time for us to change that policy. It is time for us to argue we can preemptively strike Iraq or any other country before they pose a threat to the United States. That is a dramatic change.
My amendment goes to this issue and says the President has the authority to use force. Let me read it specifically because I do not want to misstate it for my colleagues:
The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against an imminent threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
That is what my amendment says. It spells that out in terms of foreign policy that we have created, in many respects, and honored throughout our history. To state it as stated in this resolution is to endorse this new rewrite of American foreign policy and to say in the age of terrorism that preemption is the answer.
I asked Dr. Condoleezza Rice a question when she came before us a few weeks ago, as follows: If we are going to argue that we have the right as a nation to attack any nation we suspect may be a threat to us, how then can the United States play a role in the world supporting diplomacy and peace? How can we argue to countries that are in incendiary relationships, such as India and Pakistan over Kashmir, that they should not do preemptive attacks of their own? How do we make that argument?
Oh, she said, diplomacy is working in Kashmir. It depends on what day of the week that question is asked. I hope it works. I hope peace comes to that region. We really lose our right to argue and demand more diplomacy and more peacekeeping when we say the United States may preempt any perceived threat, but other nations in the world should negotiate. The same can be said of China and Taiwan and many other places in the world.
To my colleagues I say this: This resolution not only addresses Iraq, it marks a significant departure in foreign policy. I hope, even though we have not had hearings, even though we have not debated this at length, that this amendment which I offer, with just a handful of words, will call into question whether this is the wisest policy, whether this is a necessary policy.
Let me say this as well. I know the United States is in a fearful and anxious situation since the attacks of September 11, 2001. Though we have been heartened by the strength of this Nation and its unity, there is still a lingering question as to whether we will be struck again.
It is because of that anxiety, because of that fear, I think many of us are moving now to say, let's do what is necessary, let's make the changes, let's get on with it.
I caution and beg my colleagues to think twice about that. America has faced periods of fear in its past, some not from foreign threats but from domestic situations.
One of the most noteworthy in our history was the Great Depression which faced our country when then-President Franklin Roosevelt, in his Inaugural Address, said:
This great Nation will endure as it has endured, will revive and will prosper. So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert, retreat, and advance. In every dark hour of our national life, a leadership of frankness and vigor is met with that understanding and support of the people themselves, which is essential to victory.
I have listened to speeches on this floor, speeches which have, frankly, touched the anxiety, concerns, and fear of America. I have heard people on this floor lionize Saddam's weapons of mass destruction as a threat. The President's own resolution said Saddam Hussein may launch a surprise attack against the United States, language which is almost, frankly, impossible to understand in the world in which we live.
I heard those same voices minimize the impact of weapons of mass destruction on the battlefields of Iraq if we launch a land invasion to try to force regime change.
As we know--it has been declassified this week--our intelligence community tells us the most likely scenario of weapons of mass destruction to be used against Americans is if we launch an invasion of Iraq. Saddam Hussein knows today if those weapons move or are used in any way against us and our allies, he will pay a terrible price.
Our foreign policy must not be driven by fear. We must be vigilant. We must be careful. But at this moment of national concern over our vulnerability of terrorism, we cannot lose sight of the course which guided our Nation for generations. As we search every corner of our Nation and every corner of the world for danger and threats, we can never lose our sight on true north, and that rock-solid reliable point is a commitment to a rule of law, a commitment to a foreign policy based on established values and established standards of international conduct.
We cannot now ignore the challenge of Saddam Hussein. We need to address it. We should push forward with inspections through the United Nations, and build a coalition of support to make sure he is kept under control. The Presidential resolution, which envisions the United States standing alone, is not the best course. The Presidential resolution, which calls for a dramatic departure in our foreign policy, is not the best course.
Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor. How much time do I have remaining?
The Presiding Officer (Mr. Carper): The Senator from Illinois has 15 minutes remaining.
The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. Warner: Mr. President, my understanding is the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from Arizona have 15 minutes, equally divided.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator is correct.
Mr. Warner: At this time, the Senator from Arizona wishes to allocate his time to Senator Kyl.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. Kyl: Mr. President, I will speak for about 7 minutes. If any other Senator wishes to speak, they may certainly do so.
Mr. President, I want to address directly the Senator's amendment. He talked about everything but his amendment. His amendment is remarkable because instead of allowing the President to deal with the continuing threat posed by Iraq, this amendment would require the President to identify an imminent threat; that is to say, one that is immediate, pressing, upon us, imminent. I suggest, as a member of the Intelligence Committee for almost 8 years, that it is virtually impossible for us to know when a threat is imminent, a threat posed by a regime such as Saddam Hussein's, or a group of terrorists.
These people do not announce their threats in advance. They conceal their intentions, as well as their capabilities, and it is very difficult for us to know the precise moment at which the threat is imminent.
So this amendment is remarkable because it would literally force the President to wait until the last minute in order to take the action that is permitted by the amendment.
There is a saying in the intelligence community that we do not know what we do not know. We find out later what we did not know.
We did not know that Saddam Hussein, for example, had gone to the extent he had in the development of biological and chemical weapons until defectors came out of Iraq and told us what he had done. We did not find out about that through other intelligence. Then we sent inspectors, and before Saddam Hussein got it all hidden, they were able to find some of it, at which point he said: Oh, gosh I forgot about that--or words to that effect.
We did not realize the extent to which he had developed his nuclear capability until after the gulf war was over, when we learned that he was years closer to having a nuclear weapon than we had thought.
If Saddam Hussein had waited to attack Kuwait, had not attacked Kuwait, and gone ahead with his plans, he would have had a nuclear capability before the United States knew about it. By then, it would have been too late.
My point is this: We may have pretty good intelligence, but it is not good enough to calibrate as closely as the Senator's amendment would require, to wait until the moment when the President says now it is imminent. And that is the problem. Action has to be taken when the threat is clear, when it is known to be there, but we do not really know exactly when he is going to make his move.
As September 11 showed, if it showed us anything, our intelligence is not good enough to do that. We can know there is a threat. We can know it is growing, we can know it is continuing, but we cannot know that moment when it becomes imminent.
This amendment asks an impossibility of the President: To prove that the threat is imminent or at least to wait until it is clear to him that the threat is imminent. But we may never know until it is too late that Saddam Hussein has a nuclear weapon.
The Senator also complained about this new doctrine of preemption, but I would suggest that with respect to Iraq, we are not talking about preemption, we are talking about unfinished business called the gulf war.
Every day the United States and the United Kingdom fly airplanes, pursuant to United Nations resolutions, to enforce those resolutions-- frankly, to engage in aerial inspection called reconnaissance--and they get shot at almost every day. When they get shot at, they either try to take out the radar site or SAM missile site that is firing at them after they have been shot at, or what they try to do is knock it out before they get shot at. Now, somebody may call that preemption. I call it self-defense and common sense.
This is not some new doctrine we are about to engage in that is going to threaten world peace. This is the unfinished business of the gulf war that is authorized by United Nations resolutions that we engage in every day and that requires us to act in our own self-defense.
It is also said that for the last 11 years, Saddam Hussein has not used his weapons of mass destruction. So why deal with this now? Why not wait until the threat is imminent? Is that it? We are supposed to put our trust in Saddam Hussein? I am unwilling to place the security of the United States of America in the hands of the likes of Saddam Hussein. I do not believe we can trust him.
Because our intelligence is not good enough to calibrate this threat to the action that would be authorized by the amendment, and because we cannot trust Saddam Hussein, I support the resolution that is before us and oppose the amendment of the Senator from Illinois.
Finally, suggesting, as some have, although I did not hear these words from the Senator, that there has to be a smoking gun--that is the concept behind this notion of imminence--before we can take action, is extraordinarily misguided. Remember, a gun smokes after it has been fired.
When I think of a smoking gun, I think of the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. I believe that the amendment of the Senator from Illinois is dangerous, misguided, and I hope my colleagues will join me in defeating it.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Texas.
Mr. Gramm: Mr. President, how much time do we have remaining?
The Presiding Officer: Who yields time to the Senator from Texas?
Mr. Kyl: Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Warner, unless Senator Lieberman wishes any time, I yield the remainder of the time to Senator Gramm.
The Presiding Officer: Nine minutes.
Mr. Gramm: Mr. President, this has been a great debate. I want to congratulate Senator Warner and Senator Lieberman, and I want to thank my dear friend John McCain for his leadership on this issue.
Even error has been presented on the floor of the Senate in a way that one could be proud of. I think these kinds of debates build the stature of the Senate, and when the American people listen to this debate they will realize that on this issue there is a lot of serious thinking, a lot of good thought, and I believe in the end we are going to make the right decision.
I have waited to speak--did the Senator want me to yield?
Mr. Warner: Yes. I had to speak to the Republican leader. I had 7 minutes. I wish to allocate several of those minutes to our colleague from Connecticut.
Mr. President, how much time remains?
The Presiding Officer: Seven minutes.
Mr. Gramm: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I have 5 minutes.
Mr. Reid: Objection.
The Presiding Officer: Objection is heard.
Mr. Warner: I regret to say to my good friend from Texas----
Mr. Gramm: How about 4\1/2\ minutes?
Mr. Warner: Why doesn't the Senator take an additional 2 minutes so we can complete the debate on this amendment?
Mr. Gramm: Mr. President, I will wait until this amendment is completed and then I will speak.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. Warner: I thank my friend from Texas for his cooperation. I now yield the remaining time, with the exception of 1 minute for the Senator from Virginia, to the Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. Lieberman: Mr. President, I ask that the Chair notify me when a minute remains so I may terminate my remarks.
The Presiding Officer: The Chair will do so.
Mr. Lieberman: Mr. President, I rise to oppose, respectfully, the amendment introduced by the Senator from Illinois.
The underlying resolution, building on 11 years in which the world community has tried every way imaginable, except war, to get Saddam Hussein to keep the promises he made at the end the gulf war to disarm, is a strong resolution. This amendment would diminish it, and in that sense it would also diminish its effectiveness to convince the United Nations to act so we do not have to form our own international coalition.
In two regards, it also diminishes the authority of the Commander in Chief, as granted by our resolution, and does so in a way that is far more restrictive than most any authorizing resolution for war or military action that I have seen before.
First, it introduces the word "imminent" in place of the words "continuing threat." We say in our resolution that the President may use the Armed Forces of the United States in order to defend the national security of our country against the continuing threat posed by Iraq. The Durbin amendment would change that to the imminent threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
In changing it to "imminent," which is a temporal term--it suggests time, that something is about to happen soon--it adds a qualification that I think is unwarranted. In the totality of Saddam Hussein's evil administration, weapons of mass destruction, ballistic missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles, there is a threat that is real to us, and I am convinced will be used against the American people unless we act, hopefully through the United Nations, to disarm him.
So while it might not be imminent in the sense that he is about to use it against us, in my opinion it is a ticking time bomb. We do not know exactly how many seconds or minutes or hours are left on that timer. I don't want the President to be limited to an imminent threat to use the power we are giving him here.
Second, it limits that authority for the President to act only in regard to an imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction.
The resolution we have introduced provides two conditions under which the President may use the Armed Forces to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq and to enforce all relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. This harkens back to a colloquy I had with Senator Specter of Pennsylvania yesterday.
It seems to me these two parts have to be read in totality as modifying each other. The resolutions that are relevant in the U.N. Security Council are to be enforced particularly in relationship to the extent to which they threaten the national security of the United States. In doing this, we are expressing our understanding that the President is unlikely to go to war to enforce a resolution of the United Nations that does not significantly affect the national security of the United States.
We want to do what the Constitution invites us to do. Congress is given the authority under article I to declare war. The President under article II is the Commander in Chief. There is a healthy tension there. It is up to Congress to authorize and to the President to act as Commander in Chief with the latitude that authority gives him but also with the accountability and responsibility that authority gives him.
I have spent time looking at authorizing resolutions for war or military action from the past. The one that we put together--although some of our colleagues have described it, I think, erroneously as a blank check--is quite limited compared to the declaration of war authorizing and directing the President to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war--this was in the case of World War I--and to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.
We have only one Commander in Chief; 535 Members of Congress cannot effectively conduct a war. We set the parameters, as this resolution does. We authorize. But it is the President ultimately who carries out and serves as our Commander in Chief. That is what our resolution does. That purpose would be significantly altered and, I say respectfully, weakened by the language of the Senator from Illinois, which is why I respectfully oppose his amendment.
I yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. Warner: My understanding is that the Senator from Delaware has 10 minutes. He is not here. I will ask unanimous consent I take 7 of his 10 minutes.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Warner: Mr. President, I wish to retain 2 of those minutes for myself and give 4 minutes to our colleague from Texas.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Texas.
Mr. Gramm: Mr. President, I thank my dear colleague and floor leader. I will make a couple of comments.
I have listened to these arguments, and I would say they have been made very effectively and with great eloquence. But as I hear them, they boil down to two simple arguments. The first argument is that if we are going to use military power against Saddam Hussein, we ought to do it within the context of the United Nations and it ought to be part of a multinational effort. I reject that.
I reject it because when we are talking about the security of our Nation, I am not willing to delegate the responsibility of protecting it to the U.N. When it comes to the lives and safety of our people, I am not willing to leave that up to the U.N. I am not even willing to leave it up to our allies. It is the responsibility of the U.S. Government. That is why we need this resolution.
The plain truth is, if nobody else in the world is willing or able to do this job, we are able and we are willing. That is what this resolution says. And by being able and being willing, I believe there will be others who will help us.
The second argument can be explained through an analogy. Let's say there is a rattlesnake nesting in your rock garden. Our colleagues are saying, look, if you go in there and try to find that rattlesnake and try to kill him, he is liable to bite you. The probability of being bitten is lower if you leave him alone.
For a short period of time, they are right. There is no doubt about the fact if you put on your snake boots and you get rat shot and your pistol and go out there with a stick and start poking around trying to find him, the probability during that period of time that you are going to get bitten does go up. But most rational people get their pistol and get that stick and go out there because that rattlesnake will be out there for a long time. Your dog might go through there and get bitten. Your grandchild might be playing out there. The good thing about going in to find a rattlesnake is you know he is there and you are alert to the threat.
My view is we do have the rattlesnake in the rock garden. We have the ability to go in and get him out. And because of the threat that it poses to us, I don't think we ought to wait around to do what we know we need to do. In looking at the future, I say the threat is greater if we do not act than if we do.
Those are the two arguments I hear. They are in fancier garb and they are better put. But it really boils down to, let's turn over our security to the U.N. or to our allies. I am not willing to do that. Let's avoid the risk of this conflict because it will be dangerous while the conflict is going on. It will be a lot safer once the conflict is over.
That is where we are. I think we are doing the right thing. I think we are going to have an overwhelming vote. We have had great bipartisan success on this force resolution because Saddam Hussein has no organized political support in America. I wish we did not face organized political support for opposition to homeland security.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. Warner: Mr. President, I say to our distinguished colleague from Texas, I listened intently to his remarks. Two things occurred to me. First, how much we value the Senator's contribution these many years we have served together. We shall miss him. Also, the Senator cut right to the heart of the argument, leaving no doubt where he stands.
Mr. President, I am happy to yield the floor. I think I have 3 minutes left under my control.
Mr. Durbin: It is my understanding the Senator from Delaware still has time remaining under the unanimous consent request.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Delaware has 3 minutes remaining, and the Senator from Illinois has 15 minutes remaining.
Mr. Durbin: I thank the Senator for his courtesy. When we disagree, he is always courteous in his treatment and fair on the floor of the Senate.
I might say to my friend from Connecticut, it is rare we disagree. I am sorry this is one of those cases. But I would pose a question, if he wants to answer it--without yielding the floor.
Do you believe that the threat of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is an imminent threat to the United States today?
Mr. Lieberman: I thank my friend. I agree it is rare we disagree, so I do so with respect.
That is my point. I believe the threat is real. The weapons of mass destruction threat is real. Whether it is imminent or not, I do not know.
As I said, the analogy that comes to mind is of a bomb on a timer. I don't know whether the timer is set to go off in a day or a year. But because the danger is so real, I don't want to establish the standard of imminence before the United Nations or the President of the United States can act to eliminate the danger.
Mr. Durbin: I thank my colleague from Connecticut, and I think it is an honest answer. But let me tell you, I serve on the Intelligence Committee and I would not disclose anything I learned there because it is classified and top secret, but some things I can say because they are public knowledge.
If you want to talk about threats to the United States, let me quickly add to that list North Korea. Currently, North Korea has nuclear weapons. North Korea has missiles that can deliver that nuclear weapon to many countries that we consider our friends and allies in their region.
Iran may not have a nuclear weapon today but could be further along than Iraq is at this moment. There is scant if little evidence that Iraq has a nuclear weapon.
We do not trust Syria because it is a harbor for some 12 or 15 different terrorist organizations in Damascus, and we certainly do not trust Libya because of our fear of weapons of mass destruction.
So now of all the countries I have listed, Iraq is one of them for sure. But I have given you five or six countries which, under this resolution's logic and under this President's new foreign policy, we should be considering invading. Which one and when?
Historically, we have said it is not enough to say you have a weapon that can hurt us. Think of 50 years of cold war when the Soviet Union had weapons poised and pointed at us. It is not enough that you just have weapons. We will watch to see if you make any effort toward hurting anyone in the United States, any of our citizens or our territory.
It was a bright-line difference in our foreign policy which we drew and an important difference in our foreign policy. It distinguished us from aggressor nations. It said that we are a defensive nation. We do not strike out at you simply because you have a weapon if you are not menacing or threatening to us. Has September 11, 2001, changed that so dramatically?
The words "imminent threat" have been used throughout the history of the United States. One of the first people to articulate that was a man who served on the floor of this Chamber, Daniel Webster, who talked about anticipatory self-defense, recognized way back in time, in the 19th century. What we are saying today is those rules don't work anymore; we are going to change them.
I might also add, even though the Senator from Connecticut didn't address it directly, as to whether Iraq is an imminent threat, the minority leader, Republican minority leader, Senator Lott, today on the floor came forward and said, and I quote:
He [meaning the President] is prepared to try to find a peaceful solution here. But unless we make it clear he is committed, we are committed, the U.N. is committed, this problem will not go way. It is serious and it is imminent.
The words of Senator Lott on the floor today, recognizing the point I am trying to make here. If the President believes it is an imminent threat from weapons of mass destruction, he should have the authority to go forward.
But this is not just a matter of striking a strong position and showing that we have resolve. It is a matter of the people of the United States, through the Senate and the House, giving authority to the President of the United States to commit the lives of our men and women in the U.S. Armed Forces.
I, for one, have thought long and hard about voting for war. As I said on September 14, 2001, I did. I would do it again on the war on terrorism. I believe every Senator--every Senator--Republican and Democrat alike, takes this responsibility particularly seriously.
I had a personal experience in my district as a Congressman in the Persian Gulf war. One of my friends had a son who was in the Marines. She called me and said: He has just been sent over there, and I am worried to death about him.
I said: Let's wait and see how this goes.
We engaged in a debate on the floor of the House and Senate, and we gave President Bush's father, the President, authority to go forward. If you remember, we built up our troops and forces for 6 months, the day came, and the war began, and we were prepared, and we were decisive; in a matter of 48 hours the war ended and I breathed a sigh of relief. It was over quickly, and there were just a handful--I think about 200 American--of casualties out of the thousands and thousands of troops who were in harm's way.
No sooner had I had this feeling of relief than I got a call. One of the 200 killed in that 48-hour period was Christian Porter, a lance corporal in the U.S. Marine Corps, killed by friendly fire--the son of my close friend. I went to that funeral, faced his mother and his father. There was little I could say. I went to the veterans cemetery, the National Cemetery, afterwards, as I am sure all of the Members of the Senate would do to pay their respects to his family and respect to this man who served his country.
The image of that funeral at that service in that day is still in my mind today as I think about the decision we are making, about whether or not we are just striking a position to show our resolve or whether we are in fact, as this resolution says, giving to this President the authority to call into combat men and women who will put their lives on the line for the decision we make today.
Is it unfair for us to say, on this side of the debate, that we should exhaust every reasonable and realistic option before we engage in war? That we should work through the United Nations if we can find an inspection regime that is honest, to try to lessen the threat on the United States at any time in the future? That we should gather a coalition of forces?
I couldn't disagree more with my colleague from Texas. Yes, it is a threat to the United States. All of the countries I listed are threats. But why should we bear this burden alone? Should this burden not be shared by our allies and those who agree with us that we need a peaceful and civilized world? Shouldn't their troops be in the field with American troops fighting side by side for this cause? Only American soldiers? Only American tax dollars? Only America is assuming the responsibility for stability when the war on Iraq is over?
I don't think it is a fair approach. It is far better for us to have a coalition working on it. But what triggers it, goes to the heart of this amendment, is that moment in time when this President--and he is the one who has the authority as Commander in Chief--says we now face an imminent threat from weapons of mass destruction.
What could that be? It could be the identification of fissile material that is now going into Iraq which could lead to their development of a nuclear weapon. That, in my mind, shows imminent threat. It could be his using weapons of mass destruction and sharing them with terrorist organizations. That is clearly an imminent threat. All of these things would trigger the United States to step forward and say now we have to defend ourselves. But at this point in time, none of that is here.
We are being asked, by voting on this resolution, not to wait for the United Nations, not to wait for a coalition, but to move forward on a continuing threat. Member after Member comes to the floor and tells us: The threat against the United States of weapons of mass destruction is an imminent threat. We have to take it seriously. We have to vote on this before the election. That is what the White House says: We have to do it now, we have to do it before we leave town.
Yet when you ask them to put the words "imminent threat" in the resolution, watch them scatter and run when the vote comes to the desk here. There will be a handful of us voting for that, a handful of us who believe the foreign policy which has guided the United States for so many generations, so successfully, which has brought us peace and stability, should be honored and respected even on this resolution of great historic moment.
I yield the floor and reserve the remainder of my time. I don't know if there are others who wish to speak.
The Presiding Officer: Who yields time?
The Senator from Virginia.
Mr. Warner: Mr. President, we are making excellent progress on this bill. Did the leader wish to speak?
Mr. Reid: Not quite yet. We need a few more minutes.
Mr. Warner: I am sorry. I did not hear the leader.
Mr. President, we have some matters moving along very well. I thank my colleague from Illinois for his remarks. I shall proceed to use my 3 minutes, and the 3 minutes from the Senator from Delaware, which as I understand it is still there, without objection.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection.
Mr. Warner: I have listened carefully to our colleague. His amendment is very simple on its face. But behind the simplicity lies a great deal of history.
This Nation of ours has been protected by the two oceans, and by wonderful neighbors to the north and to the south. We have had a sense of security. But with the advent of high technology, and with the advent of worldwide syndicates of terrorists, America will never be the same again.
That is a tough thing for me to tell my children and my grandchildren because I have labored in my life--as everyone in this Chamber has--to provide not only for my family, friends and neighbors such that they can enjoy the life we have enjoyed these many years. However, high technology, while it benefits mankind in so many ways, has brought about dramatic change.
If you wish to have the standard of imminent threat placed in the bill that Senator Lieberman, Senator McCain, Senator Bayh and I have crafted, I say to you most respectfully, with the advent of this extraordinary evolution of technology, the time involved in warning that is implicit in imminent threat left us with the end of the 20th century. The 21st century high technology has erased that. Imminent danger struck us on September 11th. We didn't know it was coming. The doctrine of imminent danger, as I say, has changed in this 21st century. It no longer gives us the warning that we must have.
I urge my colleagues to let this resolution remain unchanged by this amendment as they have with the other amendments that have been brought before us.
I expect Senator Reid in the Chamber momentarily. I know he has a concluding matter by way of a unanimous consent request.
Before I, ask for regular order, I want to make certain that----
The Presiding Officer: The Chair advises the Senator from Virginia that all time has not expired.
Mr. Byrd: What is the Chair saying, may I ask?
The Presiding Officer: The Chair advises the Senator from Virginia that all time has not expired. Forty-five seconds remain to the Senator from Virginia, and 6 minutes remain to the Senator from Illinois.
Mr. Durbin: Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia for his courtesy. I am not going to use all 6 minutes. The Senator is correct.
The Presiding Officer: Has the Senator from Virginia yielded?
Mr. Warner: Yes.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. Durbin: I thank the Chair.
The Senator is correct. The tools of war, the incidence of war, the timing of war has changed. But it has changed throughout our history. The principles, the rules of value, the norms and conduct which we apply today were applied starting in a much different era, and applied again and again as we saw ourselves move into an era of airplanes, into an era of intercontinental missiles. The same standards, principles, norms, conduct, and value remain.
I do not believe the war on terrorism is easy. But I also believe the United States has established an international reputation behind the rule of law--a reputation which I am afraid is going to be changed dramatically by this resolution. No longer will we wait for that imminent threat if this amendment is defeated. It is enough for us to assert that a country is a threat to the United States and begin a land invasion. And that, to me, is a dramatic change from where the United States has always been throughout its history.
I hope we will think twice about that. I have no illusions about the result of this vote. But to think we are going to make this wholesale change in foreign policy without the deliberations and hearings and without a direct debate, to me, is just wrong.
I think the Foreign Affairs Committee and others should have taken the President's new foreign policy suggestions directly and seriously and gone forward with them. Instead, through Saddam Hussein and the debate on Iraq, we are about to make a historic change in foreign policy which I hope we do not do.
In the interest of moving this to a vote, I not only yield the floor, but I yield the remainder of my time.
Mr. Warner: Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?
The Presiding Officer: They have not.
Mr. Warner: Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The Presiding Officer: Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. Warner: Mr. President, if I might conclude, time doesn't permit me to get into the doctrine of anticipatory self-defense, but I think at another opportunity we will have that debate, perhaps before we conclude this matter.
I think we are about to proceed as soon as the distinguished majority whip addresses the Senate.
Mr. Reid: Mr. President, I haven't had a chance to speak to my friend from Virginia, but the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee--if we could just get a unanimous consent request agreed to, which I am hopeful and confident we will--the Senator from Delaware wants to be recognized to speak.
Mr. Warner: Mr. President, yes. I received this information. But I would be happy to allow our distinguished chairman time.
Mr. Reid: We know others want to speak, but he is chairman of the committee, and he has been very quiet, which is unusual.
Mr. Warner: I wouldn't suggest that he has been quiet, but I certainly want to recognize him and give him such time----
Mr. Biden: Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, let the Record show I have spoken about one-tenth the amount of time my friend from Virginia has, but not nearly with the persuasiveness he has. I want the opportunity to speak before the final vote.
Mr. Reid: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that upon disposition of the Durbin amendment, Senator Byrd be recognized to speak for up to 2 hours; that upon the disposition of the Lieberman amendment, the joint resolution be read a third time; the cloture vote on the joint resolution be vitiated; the Senate proceed to the consideration of the House companion, H.J. Res. 114; the joint resolution be read a third time, and the Senate vote on final passage of that joint resolution; that the preamble be agreed to and that no amendments to the title be in order; and that S.J. Res. 45 be indefinitely postponed, with the preceding all occurring without any intervening action or debate.
The Presiding Officer: Is there objection?
Mr. Warner: Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I had not intended to, but I just received a request from Senator McCain that he be allowed to follow Senator Byrd's speech for not to exceed 30 minutes.
Mr. Biden: Mr. President, reserving the right to object, as chairman of this committee, I have yet to make a full speech on this subject. I have withheld for 3 days on the request of everyone else. I understand that.
Two things: No. 1, I just want to make sure I get to speak before the final vote; and, No. 2, that I speak at some point after Senator McCain speaks and very close to Senator Byrd's speech.
Mr. Reid: The Senator will speak after Senator McCain.
I ask unanimous consent that be part of the request.
Mr. Biden: This is highly unusual. I can't think of another time when the chairman of the Foreign Relations has been denied an opportunity to speak when he wishes to. But I will be happy to yield, because I just want to be a nice fellow. But this is preposterous.
The Presiding Officer: Is there objection?
Mr. Byrd: Mr. President, may I say to the distinguished Senator from Delaware that at the request of the distinguished majority whip, which was agreed to, I will have two hours. This Senator will be glad to yield to the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee the first one- half hour of my time.
Mr. Biden: Mr. President, there is no need for that. I just want an opportunity to make my speech. It will take about 35 or 40 minutes to lay out in the Record why this is an important position which we are all about to take.
The Presiding Officer: Is there objection?
Mr. Warner: No objection.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. Reid: Regular order, Mr. President.
The Presiding Officer (Ms. Cantwell): The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 4865. The yeas and nays have been ordered, and the clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The result was announced--yeas 30, nays 70, as follows:
| Rollcall Vote No. 236 Leg. | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| YEAS--30 | ||||
| Akaka | Bingaman | Boxer | Byrd | Cantwell |
| Carper | Conrad | Corzine | Dayton | Dodd |
| Dorgan | Durbin | Feingold | Harkin | Inouye |
| Jeffords | Kennedy | Kerry | Leahy | Levin |
| Mikulski | Murray | Nelson (NE) | Reed | Sarbanes |
| Schumer | Stabenow | Torricelli | Wellstone | Wyden |
| Nays--70 | ||||
| Allard | Allen | Baucus | Bayh | Bennett |
| Biden | Bond | Breaux | Brownback | Bunning |
| Burns | Campbell | Carnahan | Chafee | Cleland |
| Clinton | Cochran | Collins | Craig | Crapo |
| Daschle | DeWine | Domenici | Edwards | Ensign |
| Enzi | Feinstein | Fitzgerald | Frist | Graham |
| Gramm | Grassley | Gregg | Hagel | Hatch |
| Helms | Hollings | Hutchinson | Hutchison | Inhofe |
| Johnson | Kohl | Kyl | Landrieu | Lieberman |
| Lincoln | Lott | Lugar | McCain | McConnell |
| Miller | Murkowski | Nelson (FL) | Nickles | Reid |
| Roberts | Rockefeller | Santorum | Sessions | Shelby |
| Smith (NH) | Smith (OR) | Snowe | Specter | Stevens |
| Thomas | Thompson | Thurmond | Voinovich | Warner |
The amendment (No. 4865) was rejected.
Mr. Reid: Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The Presiding Officer: The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. Reid: Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.
The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.
