Ms. Stabenow: Will my friend from West Virginia yield for a moment?
Mr. Byrd: Yes, I would be happy to.
Ms. Stabenow: Before the Senator concludes this evening, I wanted to thank him, as a new Member to this body, for his incredible commitment to our Constitution, our country, and our people. It has been an inspirational time for me to watch the Senator from West Virginia on the floor, listen to his arguments, and see his dedication. I have been proud to stand with him in opposing this resolution.
I ask unanimous consent that a New York Times op-ed written today by the distinguished Senator from West Virginia be printed in the Record. It is an excellent summary of the concerns that many of us have in rushing into this war, and I want to thank the Senator for that. I think it is important this be in the Record of the Senate as a part of this debate today.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:
From the New York Times, Oct. 10, 2002
"Congress Must Resist the Rush to War"
By Robert C. ByrdA sudden appetite for war with Iraq seems to have consumed the Bush administration and Congress. The debate that began in the Senate last week is centered not on the fundamental and monumental questions of whether and why the United States should go to war with Iraq, but rather on the mechanics of how best to wordsmith the president's use-of-force resolution in order to give him virtually unchecked authority to commit the nation's military to an unprovoked attack on a sovereign nation.
How have we gotten to this low point in the history of Congress? Are we too feeble to resist the demands of a president who is determined to bend the collective will of Congress to his will--a president who is changing the conventional understanding of the term "self-defense"? And why are we allowing the executive to rush our decision-making right before an election? Congress, under pressure from the executive branch, should not hand away its Constitutional powers. We should not hamstring future Congresses by casting such a shortsighted vote. We owe our country a due deliberation.
I have listened closely to the president. I have questioned the members of his war cabinet. I have searched for that single piece of evidence that would convince me that the president must have in his hands, before the month is out, open-ended Congressional authorization to deliver an unprovoked attack on Iraq. I remain unconvinced. The president's case for an unprovoked attack is circumstantial at best. Saddam Hussein is a threat, but the threat is not so great that we must be stampeded to provide such authority to this president just weeks before an election.
Why are we being hounded into action on a resolution that turns over to President Bush the Congress's Constitutional power to declare war? This resolution would authorize the president to use the military forces of this nation wherever, whenever and however he determines, and for as long as he determines, if he can somehow make a connection to Iraq. It is a blank check for the president to take whatever action he feels "is necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq." This broad resolution underwrites, promotes and endorses the unprecedented Bush doctrine of preventive war and pre-emptive strikes--detailed in a recent publication, "National Security Strategy of the United States"--against any nation that the president, and the president alone, determines to be a threat.
We are at the graves of moments. Members of Congress must not simply walk away from their Constitutional responsibilities. We are the directly elected representatives of the American people, and the American people expect us to carry out our duty, not simply hand it off to this or any other president. To do so would be to fail the people we represent and to fall woefully short of our sworn oath to support and defend the Constitution.
We may not always be able to avoid war, particularly if it is thrust upon us, but Congress must not attempt to give away the authority to determine when war is to be declared We must not allow any president to unleash the dogs of war at his own discretion and or an unlimited period of time.
Yet that is what we are being asked to do. The judgment of history will not be kind to us if we take this step.
Members of Congress should take time out and go home to listen to their constituents. We must not yield to this absurd pressure to act now, 27 days before an election that we will determine the entire membership of the House of Representatives and that of a third of the Senate. Congress should take the time to hear from the American people, to answer their remaining questions, and to put the frenzy of ballot-box politics behind us before we vote. We should hear them well, because while it is Congress that casts the vote, it is the American people who will pay for a war with the lives of their sons and daughters.
Mr. Sarbanes: Will the Senator yield?
Mr. Byrd: Mr. President, let me first thank the Senator from Michigan, Debbie Stabenow, for her eloquence, for her steadfast determination to stand by the Constitution as she has shown so many days, so many times in recent days. I thank her for being the Senator she is, a Senator who is indebted to her people and stands every day somewhere in this Senate complex working for the people she represents. I have received great inspiration from watching her. I serve on the Budget Committee with her and she is an outstanding voice for the people who believe in the Constitution, who takes a stand and is so eloquent, so articulate on behalf of that Constitution.
I thank the Senator from Michigan from the bottom of my heart.
I am about to yield the floor.
Mr. Sarbanes: Will the Senator yield for a moment?
Mr. Byrd: Yes.
Mr. Sarbanes: Mr. President, I join my colleague from Michigan in expressing my deep thanks to the Senator from West Virginia for his extraordinarily effective and powerful presentations in the course of this debate. I was also planning to put this article in, as my colleague has already done. It is a very powerful statement that appeared in this morning's New York Times entitled "Congress Must Resist the Rush to War." The Senator from West Virginia, as he always does, asks some very piercing questions and calls the Congress to its responsibilities.
Let me quote a paragraph or two from the article:
This broad resolution underwrites, promotes and endorses the unprecedented Bush doctrine of preventive war and pre- emptive strikes--detailed in a recent publication, "National Security Strategy of the United States"--against any nation that the president, and the president alone, determines to be a threat.
Of course, the particular resolution that is before the Senate, as is pointed out in this article, and I quote the Senator from West Virginia:
This resolution would authorize the president to use the military forces of this nation wherever, whenever, and however he determines, and for as long as he determines if he can somehow make a connection to Iraq.
And there actually were other proposals to narrow that authority, but of course none of them carried.
Further quoting:
It is a blank check for the president to take whatever action he feels "is necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq."
I say to my colleague from West Virginia, it seems to me clear that upon approval of this resolution, as far as the Congress is concerned, war has been declared against Iraq. Would the Senator agree with that observation?
Mr. Byrd: I do, I do. And I say further to my dear friend that as soon as this resolution is adopted and signed by the President of the United States, Congress is out of it. It is on the sidelines. We may wish we could say something. We may wish we could do something. But as far as the human eye can see, we are out of it until such time as Congress asks to repeal this legislation or to put a limit on it internally.
Mr. Sarbanes: Let me ask my colleague this question: Suppose some unforeseen, extraordinary development should take place after this resolution is passed and sent down and signed by the President which transforms perhaps the weapons of mass destruction situation. The President, though, could still move ahead and go to war, could he not?
Mr. Byrd: Yes.
Mr. Sarbanes: They would have been given the authority to do that; would that be correct?
Mr. Byrd: Absolutely. We would have handed this over to the President--lock, stock, and barrel. Here it is.
Mr. Sarbanes: When would the President have to decide whether he was going to use this authority? Let's assume with respect to passing it later in the evening--although I will oppose it--assuming it is passed and the Congress authorizes the President to go to war, in effect, with Iraq, is there a limit on the time period in which the President could then use that power to launch war against Iraq?
Mr. Byrd: There is no limit.
I offered an amendment, and the distinguished Senator from Maryland supported that amendment today, as the distinguished Senator from Minnesota supported it, the distinguished Senator from Michigan, the distinguished Senator from New York, but we only got 31 votes. That amendment was defeated.
Mr. Sarbanes: That underscores what the distinguished Senator says in this op-ed piece that appeared in this morning's New York Times. I quote:
We may not always be able to avoid war, particularly if it is thrust upon us, but Congress must not attempt to give away the authority to determine when war is to be declared. We must not allow any president to unleash the dogs of war at his own discretion and for an unlimited period of time. Yet that is what we are being asked to do [in the resolution before the Senate].
Mr. Byrd: Yes.
Mr. Sarbanes: This, of course, is a decision with far-sweeping consequences, certainly as it deals with Iraq and all of its implication. But the precedent is being established in terms of the future, it seems to me, and that constitutes a major erosion of the role of the Congress with respect to the Nation going to war.
Mr. Byrd: It does. And it is easy enough, I suppose, to pass this resolution. But should we try to negate it, should we try to repeal it, should we try to change the law, a President can veto any change that Congress might bring along later, any change it might enact, in order to overturn this law it is now about to adopt.
Mr. Sarbanes: I am glad the distinguished Senator made that point because that is the next item I wanted to go to. People could say: If the circumstances changed and the Congress wants to pull it back, why not come in, pass a law, and pull it back? But the fact is that a President who wanted to keep that authority and may well want to use it, as long as he could keep the support of one-third--not of each House of the Congress but only one-third of one House, either a third of the Senators, plus one, or a third of the Members of the House of Representatives--he could negate congressional action that tried to pull back this war-making authority, could he not?
Mr. Byrd: The distinguished Senator from Maryland is absolutely correct. It only takes a majority of both Houses to pass this resolution, but it would take two-thirds in the future if the President should attempt to veto a substitute piece of legislation by this Congress to abort what we are doing here today, to appeal it, to amend it. One-third plus one in either body could uphold the President's veto, and that legislation would not become law.
Mr. Sarbanes: I think that is a point we have not really touched on much in this debate, but I think it is an extremely important point.
What has happened--you pass this resolution, you make a major grant of war-making authority to the President, but then if subsequently you decide it ought to be pulled back or ought not be exercised by the President, it is extraordinarily difficult to do that, so not only have you given the President this broad power to begin with, but the way the system is constructed, he can hold on to that power, even if a majority of both Houses of the Congress which gave the power want to take it back. Is that not correct?
Mr. Byrd: The Senator could not be more correct. The Senator is absolutely correct.
Mr. Sarbanes: It is worth engaging in this discussion just to underscore the sweep of authority that is being provided.
Again, I thank my colleague for his leadership on this issue and especially commend him for what I thought was a very thoughtful and powerful article. I encourage people across the country to read this article. It is a very succinct, analytical, and perceptive statement of the issues that are at stake.
Mr. Byrd: Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Maryland. He is a great Senator. I am proud of the years I have served with him. We have gone through some interesting times here in the Senate. We stood beside one another, shoulder to shoulder, shoulder to shoulder in fighting for this Constitution on several occasions--the line-item veto, constitutional amendment to balance the budget, and on other occasions. I thank the people of Maryland for sending him and for keeping him here.
I would say that the Republic will long live, as long as the people of America send Senators here like Paul Sarbanes.
I thank the people of Maryland, and I thank God for him.
Mr. President, I am about to yield the floor. I have been asked by the distinguished Senator from New York to yield to her. How much time do I have?
The Presiding Officer: (Mr. Jeffords). The Senator has 42 minutes.
Mr. Byrd: Mr. President, I do not intend to hold the floor much longer. How much time will the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, wish me to yield to her?
Mrs. Clinton: Twenty minutes.
Mr. Byrd: Mr. President, I yield 20 minutes to the Senator, and I reserve the remainder of my time.
The Presiding Officer: The Senator from New York is recognized.
Mr. McCain: Will the Senator from New York just yield for a second to me?
Mr. Byrd: And I yield to the distinguished Senator whatever time he needs.
Mr. McCain: I point out the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee has not had an opportunity to speak. In all due respect, I would like to give the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee the respect he deserves.
Mr. Biden: I thank the Senator. I am delighted to wait in line, and I will wait until after the Senator has finished.
Mr. Byrd: Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
The Presiding Officer: Forty-one minutes.
Mr. Byrd: I yield 20 minutes to the Senator from New York, Mrs. Clinton, and I yield 20 minutes, leaving myself 1 minute, to the Senator from Delaware, Mr. Biden:
I thank the distinguished Senator from Arizona for reminding me the Senator from Delaware had been waiting very patiently.
I thank all Senators.
Mr. Biden: No problem.
Mrs. Clinton: Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his courtesy. By far beyond that, I thank him for his leadership and his eloquence and his passion and commitment to this body and to our Constitution. I join with the remarks by both the Senators from Michigan and Maryland, expressing our appreciation for the way in which he has waged this battle on behalf of his convictions. It is a lesson to us all.
Today, Mr. President, we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program.
I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great issues of our day, especially this one. Many have contacted my office about this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it. I am grateful to all who have expressed an opinion.
I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion history has proven our great dissenters to be right.
I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20,000 people.
Unfortunately, during the 1980s, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American Government because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.
In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab States, and threw Saddam out after 43 days of bombing and hundreds of hours of ground operations. The United States led the coalition, then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam's revenge.
As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. Though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspectors' work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the gulf war, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bioweapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities.
In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the U.N., unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated sovereign sites, including the so-called Presidential palaces--which in reality were huge compounds, well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by U.N. resolution to turn over.
When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive 4-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.
In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad. In the 4 years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East which, as we know all too well, affects American security.
This much is undisputed. The open questions are: What should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?
Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular, democratic state in the Middle East, one which could, perhaps, move the entire region toward democratic reform.
This view has appeal to some because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991 and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980s when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it could give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom.
However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock and being tried for war crimes as we speak.
If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a preemptive strike on Pakistan. What if China should perceive a threat from Taiwan?
So, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, is not a good option.
Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The United Nations deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The United Nations can lead the world into a new era of global cooperation. And the United States should support that goal.
But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto on occasion for reasons of narrow national interest, it cannot act. In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve the NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs.
The United States, therefore, could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million Kosovar Albanians. However, most of the world was with us because there was a genuine emergency with thousands dead and a million more driven from their homes. As soon as the American-led conflict was over, Russia joined the peacekeeping effort that is still underway.
In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve forces against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons.
So, the question is how do we do our best to both diffuse the threat Saddam Hussein poses to his people, the region, including Israel, and the United States, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations.
While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposing conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the United Nations for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections, with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq.
I know the administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. If we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 United Nations resolutions, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.
If we get the resolution the President seeks, and Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition.
If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise.
If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply calls for Saddam's compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving other nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose Security Council action. They will say, we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the U.N. when it does exactly want we want.
I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and give what he can't use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. According to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq.
President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth from the administration since they first began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier.
Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible.
Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our Nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any United Nations resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.
This is a difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make. Any vote that may lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction. Perhaps my decision is influenced by my 8 years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our Nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to ensure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. Thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq our country will stand resolutely behind them.
My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose, all of which carry grave dangers for our Nation, the rule of international law, and the peace and security of people throughout the world.
Over 11 years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community.
Time and time again, he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot.
I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections.
Finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our Nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers, who have gone through the fires of hell, may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know I am.
So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our Nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President. And we say to him: Use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein: This is your last chance; disarm or be disarmed.
