Congressional Record Weekly Update

Return to the Congressional Report Weekly.

Authorization of the United States Armed Forces Against Iraq

[Page: S10233]
---

   The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the Senate will now resume consideration of S.J. Res. 45, which the clerk will report.

   The legislative clerk read as follows:

   A joint resolution (S.J. Res. 45) to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq.

   Pending:

   Lieberman/Warner modified amendment No. 4856, in the nature of a substitute;

   Byrd amendment No. 4868 (to amendment No. 4856, as modified), to provide statutory construction that constitutional authorities remain unaffected and that no additional grant of authority is made to the President not directly related to the existing threat posed by Iraq;

   Levin amendment No. 4862 (to amendment No. 4856), in the nature of a substitute.

   Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, what is the parliamentary situation?

   AMENDMENT NO. 4869, AS MODIFIED

   The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the clerk will report the amendment of the Senator from West Virginia.

   The legislative clerk read as follows:

   The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. BYRD] proposes an amendment numbered 4869, as modified.

   The amendment, as modified, is as follows:

    At the appropriate place, insert the following:

   SEC. 5. TERMINATION OF THE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

    (a) IN GENERAL.--The authorization in section 4(a) shall terminate 12 months after the date of enactment of this joint resolution, except that the President may extend, for a period or periods of 12 months each, such authorization if--

    (1) the President determines and certifies to Congress for each such period, not later that 60 days before the date of termination of the authorization, that the extension is necessary for ongoing or impending military operations against Iraq under section 4(a); and

    (2) the Congress does not enact into law, before the extension of the authorization, a joint resolution disapproving the extension of the authorization for the additional 12-month period.

    (b) CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW PROCEDURES.--

    (1) IN GENERAL.--For purposes of subsection (a)(2), a joint resolution described in paragraph (2) shall be considered in the Senate and the House of Representatives in accordance with the procedures applicable to joint resolutions under paragraphs (3) through (8) of section 8066(c) of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1985 (as contained in Public Law 98-473; 98 Stat. 1936-1937), except that--

    (A) references in those provisions to the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives shall be deemed to be references to the Committee on International Relations of the House of Representatives; and

    (B) references in those provisions to the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate shall be deemed to be references to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate.

    (2) JOINT RESOLUTION DEFINED.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the term ``joint resolution'' means only a joint resolution introduced after the date on which the certification of the President under subsection (a)(1) is received by Congress, the matter after the resolving clause of which is as follows: ``That, pursuant to section 5 of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq, the Congress disapproves the extension of the authorization under section 4(a) of that joint resolution for the additional 12-month period specified in the certification of the President to the Congress dated __.'', with the blank filled in with the appropriate date.

   Mr. McCAIN. And the time is running; is that correct?

   The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. There are 20 minutes overall--15 minutes to the sponsor of the amendment and 5 minutes in opposition. If nobody yields time, time will be deducted proportionately.

   The Senator from West Virginia.

   Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, does the distinguished Senator from Arizona wish to use any time at this point?

   Mr. McCAIN. No.

   Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

   The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Fifteen minutes.

   Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time does the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts wish?

   Mr. KENNEDY. Four and a half minutes.

   Mr. BYRD. I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Massachusetts.

   The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Massachusetts.

   Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, for the past few days we have debated the details of a resolution but not the implication of war with Iraq. We were into the debate on the resolutions for 2 days, and then a cloture motion was filed. I am reminded of the excellent statements made by my friend from West Virginia that this subject about war and peace deserves a longer period of time for discussion.

   Earlier in the session, we debated for 21 days the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; 23 days on the energy bill; 19 days on trade promotion; 18 days on the farm bill--all extremely important, but this issue is far more so.

   In facing the global challenges of these times, we defend American values and interests best when war is our last resort, not our first impulse. I commend President Bush for deciding in the end to take America's case to the United Nations. Make no mistake about it, this resolution lets the President go it alone. Iraq should have no doubt of the unity of the American purpose and the seriousness of our intent. Having suffered the tragedy of September 11, we will leave no stone unturned in the defense of innocent Americans.

   The question is not whether we will disarm Saddam Hussein of his weapons of mass destruction but how. And it is wrong for Congress to declare war against Iraq now before we have exhausted the alternatives. It is wrong for the President to demand a declaration of war from Congress when he says he has not decided whether to go to war. It is wrong to avert our attention now from the greater and far more immediate threat of Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida terrorism.

   Pick up the paper and see the different headlines: ``Attacks Put Troops on Alert''; ``They fear contact with al-Qaida''; ``Tape, Assaults Stir Worry About Resurgent

   Al Qaeda''; and the list goes on about the al-Qaida activities all over the world.

   We cannot go it alone on Iraq and expect our allies to support us.

   We cannot go it alone and expect the world to stand with us in the urgent and ongoing war against terrorism and al-Qaida.

   We cannot go it alone in attacking Iraq and expect Saddam to keep his weapons of mass destruction at bay against us or our ally Israel.

   We cannot go it alone while urging unprincipled regimes to resist invasions of their adversaries.

   The better course for our Nation and for our goal of disarming Saddam Hussein is a two-step policy. We should approve a strong resolution today calling on the United Nations to require Iraq to submit to unfettered U.N. weapons inspections or face U.N.-backed international force. If such option fails, and Saddam refuses to cooperate, the President could then come to the Congress and request Congress to provide him with authorization to wage war against Iraq.

   By pursuing this course, we maximize the chance that the world can disarm Saddam without our going to war or, if war was necessary, we would be joined by allied troops in the cause. In the end, having tried these options and failed, our allies are far more likely to support our intervention should we elect to attack alone.

   The world looks to America not just because of our superior might or economic weight; they admire us and emulate us because we are a friend and ally that defends freedom and promotes our values around the globe. Those same traits that are the envy of the world should guide us today as we conclude this important debate.

   I thank the Senator from West Virginia, and I yield back to him the remainder of my time.

   Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. How much time do I have?

   The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 11 minutes.

   Mr. BYRD. I reserve the remainder of my time.

   The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.

   Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I understand we have 5 minutes. I yield that 5 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut however he chooses to use it.

   The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut.

   Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Arizona.

   The amendment of the Senator from West Virginia which is before us would terminate, 12 months after the date of enactment of the underlying joint resolution, the authorization given in that resolution. In other words, it would put a time limit of a year subject to extension, but, nonetheless, a time limit for a year on the authorization provided in the underlying resolution.

   I say to my colleagues respectfully, this amendment is unprecedented and unwise. It is unprecedented in the sense that in brief research overnight, I have not been able to find an occasion in which Congress has exercised authority with regard to military action under article I of the Constitution when Congress has attached a time limit to it.

   There was one occasion when time limits were discussed with regard to the deployment of American forces in Bosnia, the Balkans, during the nineties, but I think we saw there why congressional imposition of time limits on authorization of military action is unwise.

   Why is it unwise? It is unwise because it gives notice to our enemies that there is a limit to the authority we are giving the President as Commander in Chief of our military forces.

[Page: S10235]

   In Bosnia, when that deadline was articulated by the administration, it created expectations which were quite naturally frustrated and therein created a credibility gap.

   There is a deadline in the underlying resolution, and the deadline is what it ought to be and always has been for military actions in which the Armed Forces of the United States have been involved. The authorization ends when the mission is accomplished, and in this case the authorization would end when the two missions stated were accomplished: When the President as Commander in Chief concluded that America was adequately protected, our national security was adequately protected from threats from Iraq, and that the relevant United Nations resolutions were adequately being enforced. That is the deadline.

   If the mood of Congress should change, if the attitude of the public should change, Congress always reserves, as it has shown in the past, the power of the purse and the power to change its opinion. But this amendment at this time, as we try to gather our strength and unity of purpose to convince the international community to join with us, as they surely will, is to finally get Saddam Hussein to keep his promise to disarm at the end of the gulf war.

   We need no limitations on authority. We need to speak with a clear voice. As it says in the Bible, if the sound of the trumpet be uncertain, who shall follow? And if we put a 12-month time limit on the authority of the underlying resolution, I fear that fewer will follow and the result will be much less than we want it to be.

   I reserve the remainder of my time.

   Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I oppose the amendment offered by the Senator from West Virginia, which would sunset the authority Congress would grant to the President in this resolution to defend American security against the threat posed by Iraq.

   As the Senator has pointed out, the 12-month limit on congressional authorization for the use of force his amendment would set could be extended by presidential or congressional action. However, these requirements are onerous and infringe upon the authority of the Commander in Chief to meet his obligations to protect American security.

   The concept of imposing a deadline after which the President loses his authority to achieve the goals set out in the Iraq resolution strikes me as losing sight of the objective of a congressional authorization of the use of force: ending the threat to the United States and the world posed by Saddam Hussein's regime, so long as it possesses weapons of mass destruction and defies its obligations to the world.

   So long as that threat persists, and with Congress and the President having agreed that Saddam Hussein's regime endangers America, congressional authority for the President to use force must remain in force until he has met our common objective of disarming Saddam Hussein.

   To place a limit on the amount of time the President possesses this authority, once Congress has granted it to him, would only encourage Saddam Hussein to stall and temporize on his commitments, knowing that the clock is working in his favor. Such an incentive would make us less secure, not more secure.

   If the vast majority of Members of Congress and the American people agree upon the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq, and if we accept that the President will confront this danger within the parameters we have laid out in this congressional resolution, what about that threat would change in 12 months, assuming we have not acted against it by that time, that would somehow negate the President's need for the authority to meet it?

   If anything, the threat posed by Saddam Hussein's regime will only grow with time. Private and public estimates are that Saddam Hussein could possess nuclear weapons within six months to a year were he to acquire weapons-grade plutonium on the international market.

   That's why the President has requested the authority to act now. Saddam Hussein represents a grave and gathering danger. I hope he is no longer in power 1 year from now. But there is certainly a chance he could be.

   Congress cannot foresee the entire course of this conflict. Acting now to deprive the President 12 months from now of the authority we would grant him in this resolution would be an infringement on the authority of the Commander in Chief and a strange way to respond to the grave threat to American national security posed by Saddam Hussein's regime.

   The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?

   Mr. BYRD. I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Delaware.

   Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the Senator from Connecticut is right that article 1 of the Constitution does not provide for this, but article 1 of the Constitution also does not provide for a declaration of war before the President is asked to go to war. So this is a very different circumstance. The President has not asked us to go to war. He has said he wants the power to be able to go to war. It seems completely consistent with that request that we say: Yes, Mr. President, you have that power to go to war; you can do that within 1 year. If, in fact, you go to war in 1 year, you can extend that 1 year.

   Let me put it this way. If we are 2 years down the road still fooling around with Iraq, then my friends from Connecticut and other places have been so dead wrong about what we are supposed to do that it would be amazing.

   I point out that this is nothing like Bosnia and nothing like the Balkans. In that case, we were in the Balkans. There were forces there, and there were people on the floor who were attempting to put a time on how long they could stay after we had gone in, after we had already prevailed, after we were in place.

   The third point I make in the 2 minutes I have is, we learned from Vietnam the power of the purse is useless. The power of the purse is useless because it presents us with a Hobson's choice. We have our fighting men and women in place and we are told, by the way, the President will not take them home so let's cut off the support for them so they have no guns, no bullets, no ability to fight a war. And no one is willing to do that. This is a prudent way to do this, totally consistent with what the President is asking. I think it makes absolute eminent sense. I congratulate the Senator. Even though I disagree with him on his underlying notion, I do think he is right on this point and I support him.

   Mr. BYRD. How much time do I have remaining?

   The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 9 minutes 20 seconds.

   Mr. BYRD. I ask to be notified when I have 2 minutes left.

   Mr. President, 38 years ago I, ROBERT C. BYRD, voted on the Tonkin Gulf Resolution--the resolution that authorized the President to use military force to ``repel armed attacks'' and ``to prevent further Communist aggression'' in Southeast Asia.

   It was this resolution that provided the basis for American involvement in the war in Vietnam.

   It was the resolution that lead to the longest war in American history.

   It led to the deaths of 58,000 Americans, and 150,000 Americans being wounded in action.

   It led to massive protests, a deeply divided country, and the deaths of more Americans at Kent State.

   It was a war that destroyed the Presidency of Lyndon Johnson and wrecked the administration of Richard Nixon.

   After all that carnage, we began to learn that, in voting for the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, we were basing our votes on bad information. We learned that the claims the administration made on the need for the Tonkin Gulf Resolution were simply not true, and history is repeating itself.

   We tragically and belatedly learned that we had not taken enough time to consider the resolution. We had not asked the right questions, nor enough questions. We learned that we should have been demanding more hard evidence from the administration rather than accepting the administration at its word.

   But it was too late.

   For all those spouting jingoes about going to war with Iraq, about the urgent need for regime change no matter what the cost, about the need to take out the evil dictator--and make no mistakes, I know and understand that

[Page: S10236]

   If we are fortunate, a war with Iraq will be a short one with few American deaths, as in the Persian Gulf war, and we can go around again waving flags and singing patriotic songs.

   Or, maybe we will find ourselves building another wall on the mall.

   I will always remember the words of Senator Wayne Morse, one of the two Senators who opposed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. During the debate on the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, he stated: ``The resolution will pass, and Senators who vote for it will live to regret it.''

   Many Senators did live to regret it.

   The Tonkin Gulf Resolution contained a sunset provision to end military action. S.J. Res. 46 will allow the President to continue war for as long as he wants, against anyone he wants as long he feels it will help eliminate the threat posed by Iraq.

   With the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, Congress could ``terminate'' military action. With S.J. Res. 46 , only the President can terminate military action.

   I should point out that the Tonkin Gulf Resolution and S.J. Res. 46 do have several things in common. Congress is again being asked to vote on the use of force without hard evidence that the country poses an immediate threat to the national security of the United States. We are being asked to vote on a resolution authorizing the use of force in a hyped up, politically charged atmosphere in an election year. Congress is again being rushed into a judgment.

   This is why I stand here today, before this Chamber, and before this Nation, urging, pleading for some sanity, for more time to consider this resolution, for more hard evidence on the need for this resolution.

   Before we put this great Nation on the track to war, I want to see more evidence, hard evidence, not more Presidential rhetoric. In support of this resolution, several people have pointed out that President Kennedy acted unilaterally in the Cuban missile crisis. That is true. I remember that. I was here. I also remember President Kennedy going on national television and showing proof of the threat we faced. I remember him sending our UN ambassador, Adlai Stevenson, to the United Nations,

   to provide proof to the world that there was a threat to the national security of the United States.

   All we get from this administration is rhetoric. In fact, in an address to our NATO colleagues, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, according to the Chicago Tribune, urged our allies to resist the idea for the need of absolute proof about terrorists intent before they took action.

   Before we unleash what Thomas Jefferson called the ``dogs of war,'' I want to know, have we exhausted every avenue of peace? My favorite book does not say, blessed are the war makers. It says: ``Blessed are the peacemakers.'' Have we truly pursued peace?

   If the need for taking military action against Iraq is so obvious and so needed and so urgent, then why are nearly every one of our allies opposed to it? Why is the President on the phone nearly every day trying to convince our allies to join us?

   So many people, so many nations in the Arab world already hate and fear us. Why do we want them to hate and fear us even more?

   People are correct to point out that September 11 changed everything. We need to be more careful. We need to build up our intelligence efforts and our homeland security. But do we go around pounding everybody, anybody, who might pose a threat to our security? If we clobber Iraq today, do we clobber Iran tomorrow?

   When do we attack China? When do we attack North Korea? When do we attack Syria?

   Unless I can be shown proof that these distant nations do pose an immediate, serious threat to the national interests and security of the United States, I think we should finish our war on terrorism. I think we should destroy those who destroyed the Trade Towers and attacked the Pentagon. I think we should get thug No. 1 before we worry about thug No. 2.

   Yes, September 11 changed many aspects of our lives, but people still bleed. America's mothers will still weep for their sons and their daughters who will not come home.

   September 11 should have made us more aware of the pain that comes from being attacked. We, more than ever, are aware of the damage, the deaths, and the suffering that comes from violent attacks.

   The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator has 2 minutes remaining.

   Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.

   This is what we are about to do to other countries. We are about to inflict this horrible suffering upon other people.

   Of course, we do not talk about this. We talk about taking out Saddam Hussein. We are talking about taking out Iraq, about ``regime change.''

   I do not want history to remember my country as being on the side of evil.

   During the Civil War, a minister expressed his hope to President Lincoln that the Lord was on the side of the North. The Great Emancipator reportedly rebuked the minister stating:

   It is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation are on the Lord's side.

   Before I vote for this resolution for war, a war in which thousands, perhaps tens of thousands or hundred of thousands of people may die, I want to make sure that I and this Nation are on God's side.

   I want more time. I want more evidence. I want to know that I am right, that our Nation is right, and not just powerful.

   And I want the language that is in this amendment so that Congress can oversee this power grab and act to terminate it at some point in time--giving the President the opportunity to extend the time but let's keep Congress in the act.

   Senators, vote for this amendment. I plead with you.

   The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Who yields time?

   The Senator from Virginia.

   Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am opposed to the Byrd amendment, for this is a resolution to deter war.

   The amendment proposed by Senator Byrd would insert into the joint resolution, language which would state that nothing in that joint resolution: is intended to alter the constitutional authorities of the Congress to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, or other authorities invested in Congress by Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution; or shall be construed as granting any authority to the President to use the U.S. Armed Forces for any purpose not directly related to a clear threat of imminent, sudden, and direct attack upon the U.S. or its armed forces unless the Congress otherwise authorizes.

   The amendment of the Senator from West Virginia attempts to do something that the Framers of the Constitution did not attempt--to define, with particularity, the extent of the President's powers as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Specifically, it would limit the authority of the President to use Armed Forces to a narrowly defined set of circumstance--``a clear threat of imminent, sudden and direct attack upon the United States or its Armed Forces.'' Even when the United States enjoyed genuine geographic and political isolation from the Old World, such a limitation could not be maintained. Within a decade of the ratification of the Constitution, the United States engaged in an undeclared naval war with France. Shortly thereafter, we engaged in undeclared war with the Barbary States of North Africa, who had engaged in piratical depredations against American shipping.

   In 1861, President Lincoln, faced with an unprecedented situation, imposed a blockade--an act of war normally employed against a foreign enemy--upon the Southern Confederacy. He did this without congressional authorization. The Supreme Court later upheld this action in the famous Prize Cases, stating that the President had a constitutional duty to meet the insurrection as he found it; the determination that a state of war existed was for him to make.

   This is not a Republican or Democratic issue. Since 1945, Presidents of both parties have repeatedly committed American troops abroad without formal congressional approval. Whether in Korea, Grenada, Panama,

[Page: S10237]

   On September 11th of last year the American people

   awoke to the realization that they were in imminent danger, had been for some time, and this danger gives no warning. It is a different type of danger, but no less real and no less threatening to the Nation than more traditional ones. As the President reminded us in his speech to the Nation on Monday evening:

   Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints ..... confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror.

   On the Today Show this week, Richard Butler, former head of UNSCOM, was asked how easy it would be for the Iraqis to arm a terrorist group or an individual terrorist with weapons of mass destruction. His response was ``Extremely easy. If they decided to do it, piece of cake!''

   They may already have done it. The danger is clear, present, and imminent. We must grant the President the authority to use armed force to protect the Nation, and the flexibility to employ that force as seems best to him. Our enemies are cunning and flexible; we cannot defeat them with anything less.

   The Byrd amendment regarding preservation of Congress's constitutional authorities is unnecessary. The portion of the amendment that would limit the authority of the President to wage war is, arguably unconstitutional. The Congress can declare war, but it cannot dictate to the President how to wage war. No law passed by Congress could alter the constitutional separation of powers.

   I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.

   The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut.

   Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I yield the remaining time on our side to my friend from Arizona.

   The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Arizona.

   Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Connecticut for his thoughtful statement. I want to say in the few remaining seconds that to view the cause of the tragedy of the Vietnam war as being the Tonkin Gulf resolution is a somewhat, in my view, simplistic view.

   There were a lot of factors that entered into the beginning and the continuation of the Vietnam war. The Tonkin Gulf resolution was simply window dressing. At any time the Congress of the United States could have reversed that resolution and chose not to.

   The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The time in opposition has expired.

   The sponsor has 37 seconds.

   Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this is a Tonkin Gulf resolution all over again. Let us stop, look, and listen. Let us not give this President, or any President, unchecked power. Remember the Constitution. Remember the Constitution.

   Mr. President, I yield back my time.

   The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Connecticut.

   Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

   The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. They have not.

   Mr. LIEBERMAN. I ask for the yeas and nays.

   The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there a sufficient second?

   There appears to be a sufficient second.

   The question is on agreeing to Byrd amendment No. 4869, as modified.

   The clerk will call the roll.

   The legislative clerk called the roll.

   Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Arkansas (Mrs. LINCOLN) and the Senator from Maryland (Ms. MIKULSKI), are necessarily absent.

   Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from North Carolina (Mr. HELMS) is necessarily absent.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. MILLER). Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

   The result was announced--yeas 31, nays 66, as follows:

   Akaka

   Biden

   Bingaman

   Boxer

   Byrd

   Cantwell

   Chafee

   Clinton

   Conrad

   Corzine

   Dayton

   Dodd

   Dorgan

   Durbin

   Feingold

   Harkin

   Hollings

   Inouye

   Jeffords

   Kennedy

   Kerry

   Kohl

   Leahy

   Levin

   Rockefeller

   Sarbanes

   Schumer

   Stabenow

   Torricelli

   Wellstone

   Wyden

   Allard

   Allen

   Baucus

   Bayh

   Bennett

   Bond

   Breaux

   Brownback

   Bunning

   Burns

   Campbell

   Carnahan

   Carper

   Cleland

   Cochran

   Collins

   Craig

   Crapo

   Daschle

   DeWine

   Domenici

   Edwards

   Ensign

   Enzi

   Feinstein

   Fitzgerald

   Frist

   Graham

   Gramm

   Grassley

   Gregg

   Hagel

   Hatch

   Hutchinson

   Hutchison

   Inhofe

   Johnson

   Kyl

   Landrieu

   Lieberman

   Lott

   Lugar

   McCain

   McConnell

   Miller

   Murkowski

   Murray

   Nelson (FL)

   Nelson (NE)

   Nickles

   Reed

   Reid

   Roberts

   Santorum

   Sessions

   Shelby

   Smith (NH)

   Smith (OR)

   Snowe

   Specter

   Stevens

   Thomas

   Thompson

   Thurmond

   Voinovich

   Warner

   Helms

   Lincoln

   Mikulski

   The amendment (No. 4869), as modified, was rejected.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 45 minutes prior to the cloture vote on amendment No. 4856, as modified. Under the previous order, the first 15 minutes shall be under the control of the Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Byrd, the second 15 minutes shall be under the control of the Republican leader, and the third 15 minutes shall be under the control of the majority leader.

   Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes of my 15 minutes to the distinguish Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.

   Mr. SPECTER. I thank the distinguished President pro tempore and the Chair.

   Mr. President, I have sought this time to register my very strong objection to cloture on this resolution authorizing the use of force, which is the equivalent of a declaration of war. In my 22 years in the Senate, the only issue which has been of equal importance was the authorization for the use of force in 1991. The motion to invoke cloture, which is to cut off debate, is supposed to be done when there is a filibuster. However, there is no filibuster present on this issue.

   I came to the floor yesterday in an effort to participate in a colloquy with Senator Lieberman, the lead proponent of the bill, and found that all the time was allotted and all the time was taken. When no one appeared, we had about 3 minutes to discuss an issue which really required 30 minutes or an hour. I then sought time later in the afternoon, and all the time was taken. I then sought time this morning and find that the only time which is available is some time after 5 p.m. this afternoon.

   It is customary in the Senate to see two lights on for a quorum call, but there have been very few quorum calls on this resolution--really none--except when Senators are on their way to the floor or when there are discussions. So there has certainly not been any effort to filibuster. Those who sought time to come over and discuss important issues have found that there is no time to do so.

   We now have a series of amendments lined up with time allocations which are very brief. To discuss the cloture resolution itself in 45 minutes is very limited. To discuss the amendments which are pending is very difficult.

[Page: S10238]

   test for the President to use force to carry out U.N. resolutions, whereas in the current resolution, it is subjective as the President sees fit. That is a matter of great moment which has not been debated in the Senate.

   The resolution has numerous whereas clauses so that one can read the resolution to justify the use of force if the Iraqi Government continues to abuse its citizens. I would not want to say the Iraqi Government has not abused its citizens, but I do not believe anyone is seriously contending that is the basis for the President to take the United States to war. To stop Saddam Hussein from having weapons of mass destruction which pose a threat to the United States, is a reason.

   Then there is the issue of regime change, which is in the whereas clause. The resolution contains a provision for U.S. national security interests. I posed questions to the Senator from Connecticut yesterday as to whether regime change was comprehended in our national security interest. That has yet to be answered.

   The point I am making is that this is a matter which requires discussion and analysis. I do not believe it helps the President of the United States to have the Senate rush to judgment. It is not quite a blank check. It is not quite a knee-jerk reaction, but it is not the kind of deliberation that ought to characterize the work of this body. It would be unfortunate if the Senate votes for a resolution authorizing the use of force notwithstanding the questions which I have raised, although I said on the floor before that I may well support the President. However, if we do so in a context of deliberation and thoughtfulness when people like Senator Lieberman, Senator McCain, Senator Warner, Senator Biden, Senator Jeffords, and other Members, put our imprimatur on it, it has some significance in the international arena, providing it is debated, and providing there is some lucid discussion on all of the issues we are confronting.

   I noted in the ``Philadelphia Inquirer'' this week the comment of a House member: The President has handcuffed us. I am voting yes on this resolution because I think ultimately the box the President has put us in has forced us to vote in the interests of national security.

   I do not think we ought to vote for this resolution because we are being handcuffed. I do not think anyone anywhere ought to vote for a resolution for being handcuffed or for being put in a box.

   These are matters which require a lot of analysis and a lot of debate. The cloture motion will cut off nongermane amendments. That is a very tight restriction. Other amendments ought to be offered which are very important to the discussion on this critical matter. I thank the Senator from West Virginia, and I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.

   Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for a very courageous statement.

   The Polycraticus of John of Salisbury, completed in 1159, says that Nero, the sixth in line from Julius, having heard the Senate had condemned him to death, begged that someone would give him courage to die by dying with him as an example. When he perceived the horseman drawing near, he upbraided his own cowardice by saying: ``I die shamefully.'' So saying, he drove the steel into his own throat and thus, says John of Salisbury, came to an end the whole House of the Caesars.

   Mr. President, here in this pernicious resolution on which the Senate will vote soon, we find the dagger that is being held at the throat of the Senate of the United States. I say to my friends, we ought to pause and wonder if Captain John Parker and his minutemen fought on the green of Lexington for this piece of rag, this so-called resolution. When Parker lost 8 or 10 of his men with that first shot, is this what they died for, this resolution? Is that what they died for?

   How about John Paul Jones, when he was fighting the Serapis. He was the captain of the Bon Homme Richard when he said, I have not yet begun to fight. What he was fighting for? Was he fighting for this piece of cowardice here in this resolution that gives to the President--lock, stock and barrel--the authority to use the military forces of this country however he will, whenever he will, and wherever he will, and for as long as he will?

   We are handing this over to the President of the United States. When we do that, we can put a sign on the top of this Capitol, and we can say: ``Gone home.'' ``Gone fishing.'' ``Out of business.''

   I don't believe our forebears died for that kind of a piece of paper. How about Nathan Hale? He, too, was from Connecticut, may I say to the chief sponsor of this resolution. Nathan Hale volunteered to go into the British lines when he was called upon to do so by George Washington. He volunteered. He went behind the British lines to draw the gun emplacements, the breastwork of the British. And on the night of September 21, 1776, he was prepared to return to his own lines. He had on his person the pictures that he had drawn, the notes he had made, and he was discovered as a spy on the night of September 21, 1776. Nathan Hale.

   The next morning he was hauled up before a wooden coffin in which he knew that his body would soon lie and grow cold. And the captain of the British, Captain Cunningham, said to Nathan Hale: Do you have anything that you would like to say? He had already been refused a Bible. He was asked, did he have anything further.

   He said: I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.

   Nathan Hale gave his own life, one life. It was all he had. Can we give one vote for our country today? Each of us took an oath under this Constitution. You took it in the chair, Mr. President. Mr. Senator from Virginia, you took it. This is the Constitution that James Madison from the State of Virginia helped to write; that George Washington helped to write. We take an oath to support and defend that Constitution. Are we defending it here today? Are we defending the role of the Senate as set forth in this Constitution which says Congress shall declare war?

   Here we are about to hand off that role, that responsibility, to a President of the United States without limitation. He can go on and on. We are out of it. Once we

   pass this resolution and it is signed by the President, Senators are out of it. You can complain, but it won't help.

   I say that we are denying the American people their right to be heard. Here we are being shut off on a cloture vote. I know the rules of the Senate. I have used the cloture vote myself. But in a situation such as this, I have pleaded for time, more time. I have been turned down.

   The American people out there are going to render a judgment. They are going to render a judgment on every Senator in this body before it is over. I pray to God that if we go to war with Iraq, we will be lucky. I pray to God we will be lucky.

   Nobody will support this country in war any more strongly than will I. But here today we are being tested. I didn't swear to support and defend the President of the United States when I came here. I pledged on the Bible up there on the desk to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, so help me God. That was no light prayer. That was no light oath.

   I think we ought to look inside of ourselves. Look at our children and grandchildren. Look in the mirror and see if you can say: Old buddy, I voted for what I thought was right. I voted with the Constitution.

   They say: Well, support our Commander in Chief. He is Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy and the militia when called into service. He is not Commander in Chief of industry. He is not Commander in Chief of the Senate of the United States. So where are the Nathan Hales today who would give their life, their own life for their country? Give one vote for this Constitution. After all, if it were not for this Constitution, I wouldn't be here. You would not be here. You would not be here. You would not be here. None of us would be here. But because of this Constitution, we are here today.

   The people want us to ask questions. They want us to take a stand. They want us to take a stand against this stampede. Where are Senators today? Where are the backbones that stand up for the people? How many mothers, how many fathers will see their sons and their daughters die possibly in a war in a foreign land?

[Page: S10239]

   I say, my friends, I am sorry to see this day. This is my 50th year in Congress. I never would have thought I would find a Senate which would lack the backbone to stand up against the stampede, this rush to war, this rush to give to the President of the United States, whatever President he is, whatever party, this rush to give a President, to put it in his hands alone, to let him determine alone when he will send the sons and daughters of the American people into war, let him have control of the military forces. He will not only make war, but he will declare war.

   That flies in the face of this Constitution. This Constitution does not give to a President of the United States the right to determine when, where, how, and for how long he will use the military forces of the United States.

   I plead to Senators in the name of this Constitution: We need people who will stand up for the American people. We need Senators who will take a stand. I hope Senators will take what I am saying in the best of spirit. I think we are making one horrible mistake.

   Remember: I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country. Nathan Hale.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the next 15 minutes will be controlled by the Republican Party.

   The Republican leader is recognized.

   Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe under the agreement, I have 15 minutes of this time.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.

   Mr. LOTT. I will use approximately 5 minutes of the time and yield the remainder of my time to Senator Warner.

   I would like to begin by saying how much I appreciate the work that has been done here in handling this legislation, having a full debate. Senator Warner has been here joining in the discussion, Senator Reid, Senator McCain. There has been a serious effort to make sure we had an orderly process where Senators could make their feelings known. There has been thoughtful discussion on both sides of the issue, and there might have been one or two quorum calls the whole time because Senators have known, when you come to the floor, this will be your opportunity to speak on this issue.

   And there will be more time today. As I look at the schedule that was lined up through the diligent efforts of Senator Warner, Senator McCain, and Senator Reid, we are going to have votes on amendments--even amendments that would not be germaine postcloture. There has been a real effort to make sure Senator Byrd and Senators LEVIN, DURBIN, BOXER, and others have an opportunity to offer amendments and make their case. We will have five votes between now and approximately 4 o'clock this afternoon.

   Mr. President, I remember the discussion back in 1991 on the Persian Gulf resolution. I think we had about 2 days of debate previously, and 2 1/2 days when we actually took up the debate--when it passed. It was a very important debate. I thought it was an occasion when the Senate proved it is the world's greatest deliberative body. It was very serious. Every Senator spoke, we had the vote, and it passed. I thought it was one of the high-water marks since I have served in the Senate. It was only 2 1/2 days and every Senator got a chance to speak.

   In 1998, at the request of President Clinton, I moved aggressively, in a bipartisan way, to pass the Iraqi Liberation Act. As I recall, at that time, Senator Kyl worked with me on that issue, Senator Warner was involved, as were Senators KERRY and LIEBERMAN, and we passed that resolution, which also called for a regime change unanimously, with very short debate--as I recall, maybe even a half day, or a day at the most. But it was important debate and an important vote.

   So when we have been called on by Presidents of both parties to address this very serious issue in this very serious area of the world, we have handled it in the right way. I think that is the case here. Senators were told in my conference, and I know Senator Daschle told his side's conference, you will be able to speak on Friday and, again, on Monday. We will stay as long as you need. We had all day yesterday. A great effort was made to make sure Senators had a chance to speak. Now Senators have a chance to offer amendments and speak on them. After the vote between 3 and 4 o'clock, there will be more time because Senators do feel strongly about this and want an opportunity to be heard. They are going to have that opportunity.

   I believe this issue has been aired fully. It is not new. We have been worrying about this, talking about this, and debating the seriousness of the threat from Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction for years--really, for 11 years. There is new information that is available. We have had our classified briefings. I have made sure Senators on our side--and I know the administration has made sure Senators on both sides of the aisle--have had a chance to get briefings at multiple opportunities. So Senators know what the issue is. We have seen, yesterday, Senators from both parties moving toward giving the President the authority to do this job.

   I hope we can get inspectors in there, that they can find the weapons of mass destruction, and they are destroyed. But I don't trust Saddam Hussein. His record is clear. I think, once again, he will resist, he will agree, he will dissemble. In the end, he will try to block this. You can always hope and pray we will find a solution here.

   The President of the United States has listened to the American people, to the Congress, to the U.N, and our allies. The President came to the Congress and said, yes, I want your input. He sent up some suggested language on this resolution, and it was changed once and then twice; significant changes were made at the recommendation of Senators on both sides of the

   aisle. So he has worked with us in this effort. He encouraged our involvement and our debate. He has gone to the U.N. and called on them to stand up to their commitment and do their job, and quit passing resolutions that are not backed or demanded to be complied with, with force if necessary. He did the job. He and his administration, including the Secretary of State, Colin Powell, have worked with allies at the U.N. and with our allies around the world. This President has made it clear he is not going to act precipitously, but he is prepared to act.

   This President has led with commitment and has shown leadership. He is prepared to try to find a peaceful solution here. But unless we make it clear he is committed, we are committed, and the U.N. is committed, this problem will not go away. It is serious and it is imminent. It takes but one person with a small container to bring very dangerous weapons of mass destruction into this country.

   Some people say, why now? Well, because the threat is not going to lessen. It has been 4 years since we passed the Iraqi Liberation Act in 1998. I suspect matters have gotten much worse. Besides that, the U.N. is going to be leaving soon for the year and won't be back until next August. We want to see action from the U.N. We need to act to show our commitment, and we need to show our determination to get them to act in a way that has real force.

   I think we have had a full debate and we will have more debate. To try to delay it another day, another week, is not going to be helpful. We need to stand up now, show we mean what we say, and we are going to get the results and, by doing that, perhaps something can be worked out without the use of force. But this President has asked for this. This Senate is committed to this. I believe the vote will be overwhelming.

   I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture. There will be times for postcloture debate. We have bent over backward to make sure everybody had an opportunity and will still have an opportunity to speak and even offer amendments.

   With that, I yield the remainder of my time to the Senator from Virginia, who has done a magnificent job in fairly managing this legislation.

   Mr. WARNER. I thank the leader. I appreciate very much the calm tone with which he addresses this issue of a rush to judgment. Regrettably, our colleague from Pennsylvania used those terms. I was reminded of being here last Friday afternoon for 5 1/2 hours. What a memorable opportunity it was with my distinguished colleague from West Virginia. Senator Kennedy and Senator Dodd joined in. I think we went about a very constructive debate

[Page: S10240]

   Mr. President, this is not a rush to judgment. This is the Senate working diligently. Most of us were here close to 11 o'clock last night. In parallel, as the distinguished leader said--I remember it so well--the period of January 10 through 12, when a resolution, again drawn up by my colleague from Connecticut, the principal sponsor this time, at that time I was the principal sponsor. It was carefully debated. The Senate is doing its job and doing it well. We have had a very good debate and we will complete that debate here today, tomorrow, or whatever the case may be.

   I wish to draw the attention of the Senate to the last vote--a very strong vote, not against our colleague from West Virginia. But I thought, as he mentioned the Gulf of Tonkin, how appropriate it was that in the leader's chair, Senator McCain, my partner who is working diligently with me on this side, spoke very softly of his experience. I don't know of anyone in this Chamber more qualified than he to speak to that period, and the relevance of that resolution. I was Secretary of the Navy for 5 years, and Under Secretary during that period of time, and we remember well that period.

   I wish to talk about the President of the United States. As I look upon this situation and listen to the debate, I think we are of a mind, all 100 of us, of the seriousness of these weapons of mass destruction. We may have a difference of conscience as to the level of threat posed perhaps today, tomorrow, in the future, but it is there. This is no question.

   I stop to think that the United Nations has done nothing for 4 years. They have not sought to enforce the resolutions, 16 in number. It has been this President, President George Bush, who has taken the initiative to go not only to the American people, but to the whole world, and very carefully and methodically tell the world we should be on alert; we cannot do nothing. We should join as a community of nations to address it. He said that at the United Nations very brilliantly. I think everyone in this body respects him.

   As we are debating today, another debate is taking place in the U.N. To the extent this resolution remains strong as it is now is the extent to which we can expect an equal and perhaps even stronger statement of resolve by the United Nations to fulfill its mandate, to fulfill its charter.

   The League of Nations failed to act at a critical time in the history of this Nation, and it went into the dustbin of history. The United Nations will not go into the dustbin of history. I am confident that this time they will stand up, that they will devise a 17th resolution.

   I look upon the action by the Senate today in voting a strong bipartisan vote for this resolution as not an act of war. It is an act to deter war, to put in place the tools for our President and our Secretary of State to get the strongest possible resolution in the United Nations. It is an act seen to force, I repeat, the last option as our President has said ever so clearly time and again. It is an act to deter war to make the last option the use of force.

   I yield the floor.

   Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes of my time to the Senator from Connecticut.

   Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the majority leader for his gracious yielding of time. I thank him for more than that. I thank him for his leadership in this matter of how the Senate should proceed with regard to Iraq, and I thank him specifically for the work that he and his staff did in negotiations with the White House and with Members of the House to get this resolution to where it is where I am confident it can and will enjoy broad bipartisan support.

   There will be time for debate later in the day about the relevance of this resolution, about the extent to which I am confident it is clearly within our constitutional authority under article I. I have comparisons to other declarations of war and authorizations of military action, that is, if anything, more specific than most.

   I am inspired by Senator Byrd's reference to Nathan Hale. Nathan Hale was not only a son of Connecticut, but a Yale man. For my entire freshman year, I walked by an inspiring statue of Nathan Hale. I read about him. I studied him. I cannot say I knew him personally, but I feel as if I knew Nathan Hale, who was remembered for saying: ``I regret I have only one life to give for my country.''

   Nathan Hale was a patriot, and he was prepared to give his life for the security and freedom of his country. I am absolutely confident that if Nathan Hale were in the Senate of the United States today, he would not only be cosponsoring this resolution, he would be impatient to have the talking stop and the action begin.

   Is it time? Are we ready? Time is what it is about.

   It is 12 years since Iraq invaded Kuwait and threatened to invade Saudi Arabia and thereby showed that all that Saddam Hussein had been saying about wanting to make Baghdad the capital of the Arab world and dominate the Arab world was not just talk; he was prepared to act on it.

   It is 12 years since U.N. Resolution 678 authorizing the use of force against Iraq.

   It is 11 years since the congressional authorization for Desert Storm and the triumphant brilliant effort of our military in Desert Storm.

   It is 11 years since Saddam asked for a cease-fire and accepted the inspection regime as part of that cease-fire on which he has never followed through and complied.

   It is 11 years since the no-fly zones were first adopted and began to be enforced by American military personnel.

   It is 9 years since the U.N. found Saddam in ``material breach of his international obligations.''

   It is 9 years since Iraq under Saddam Hussein attempted to assassinate former President Bush.

   It is 6 years since Saddam crushed Kurdish and Shi'a resistance to his regime.

   It is 4 years since Saddam ejected inspectors and President Clinton ordered Operation Desert Fox, an air campaign against Iraq in response to this act.

   It is 4 years since this Senate called for the indictment of Saddam as a war criminal.

   It is 4 years since the Senate found Iraq in breach of international obligations and authorized the President to take ``appropriate action in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligation.''

   It is 4 years since Congress passed and President Clinton

   signed the Iraq Liberation Act.

   It is more than 1 year since we were attacked by terrorists on September 11, 2001, showing us the risks of inaction against those who would arm and threaten us.

   It is 1 month since the President of the United States challenged the United Nations to act against this international lawbreaker.

   It is 8 days since we started the debate on this resolution in the Senate; excluding the Sabbath, 6 days. The Lord made Heaven and Earth in 6 days. It is time now for us to come to a conclusion.

   Is it time? Are we ready to act? I think the record shows we are ready to act.

   I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is recognized.

   Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if I need additional time, I will take it from my Senate leader allocation for the day.

   The Senate is now engaged in one of the most consequential debates addressed in this Chamber for many years. We are confronting the grave issues of war and peace. We are considering how the United States should respond to a murderous dictator who has shown he will be bound neither by conscience nor by the laws or principles of civilized nations. And we are contemplating whether and under what conditions the Congress should authorize the preemptive use of American military power to remove the threat that he poses.

   These questions go directly to who we are as a nation. How we answer them will have a profound consequence for our Nation, for our allies, for the war on terror, and perhaps most importantly, for the men and women in our Armed Forces who could be called to

[Page: S10241]

   There is no question that Saddam Hussein is a dangerous man who has done barbaric things. He has invaded neighbors, supported terrorists, repressed and murdered his own people.

   Over the last several months, as the world has sought to calm the violence between Israelis and Palestinians, Iraq has tried to inflame the situation by speaking against the very existence of Israel and encouraging suicide bombers in Gaza and the West Bank.

   Saddam Hussein has stockpiled, weaponized and used chemical and biological weapons, and he has made no secret of his desire to acquire nuclear weapons. He has ignored international agreements and frustrated the efforts of international inspectors, and his ambitions today are as unrelenting as they have ever been.

   As a condition of the truce that ended the gulf war, Saddam Hussein agreed to eliminate Iraq's nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons and to abandon all efforts to develop or deliver such weapons. That agreement is spelled out in U.N. Security Council Resolution 687. Iraq has never complied with the resolution.

   For the first 7 years after the gulf war, it tried to deceive U.N. weapons inspectors, block their access to key sites, and make it impossible for them to do their jobs.

   Finally, in October of 1998, the U.N. was left with no choice but to withdraw its inspectors from Iraq. As a result, we do not know exactly what is now in Iraq's arsenal. We do know Iraq has weaponized thousands of gallons of anthrax and other deadly biological agents. We know Iraq maintains stockpiles of some of the world's deadliest chemical weapons, including VX, sarin, and mustard gas. We know Iraq is developing deadlier ways to deliver these horrible weapons, including unmanned drones and long-range ballistic missiles. And we know Saddam Hussein is committed to one day possessing nuclear weapons.

   If that should happen, instead of simply bullying the gulf region, he could dominate it. Instead of threatening only his neighbors, he could become a grave threat to U.S. security and to global security.

   The threat posed by Saddam Hussein may not be imminent, but it is real, it is growing, and it cannot be ignored. Despite that, like many Americans, I was concerned by the way the administration first proposed to deal with that threat. The President's desire to wage war alone, without the support of our allies and without authorization from Congress, was wrong. Many of us, Democrats and Republicans, made it clear that such unilateralism was not in our Nation's best interest. I now commend the administration for changing its approach and acknowledging the importance of working with our allies. I also commend it for recognizing that under our Constitution, it is Congress that authorizes the use of force, and for requesting a resolution providing such authority.

   I applaud my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans in the House and in the Senate, for the improvements they have made to the administration's original resolution. Four changes were especially critical.

   First, instead of giving the President broad and unfocused authorization to take action in the region, as the administration originally sought, this resolution focuses specifically on the threat posed by Iraq. It no longer authorizes, nor should it be used to justify, the use of force against other nations, organizations, or individuals that the President may believe threaten peace and stability in the Persian Gulf region. It is a strong and focused response to a specific threat. It is not a template or model for any other situation.

   Second, the resolution expresses the deep conviction of this Congress and of the American people that President Bush should continue to work through the United Nations Security Council in order to secure Iraqi compliance with U.N. resolutions. Unfettered inspections may or may not lead to

   Iraqi disarmament, but whether they succeed or fail, the effort we expend in seeking inspections will make it easier for the President to assemble a global coalition against Saddam should military action eventually be needed.

   Third, this resolution makes it clear that before the President can use force in Iraq, he must certify to the Congress that diplomacy has failed, that further diplomatic efforts alone cannot protect America's national security interests, nor can they lead to enforcement of the U.N. Security Council resolutions.

   Fourth, this resolution protects the balance of power by requiring the President to comply with the War Powers Act and to report to Congress at least every 60 days on matters relevant to this resolution.

   This resolution gives the President the authority he needs to confront the threat posed by Iraq. It is fundamentally different and a better resolution than the one the President sent to us. It is neither a Democratic resolution nor a Republican resolution. It is now a statement of American resolve and values. It is more respectful of our Constitution, more reflective of our understanding that we need to work with our allies in this effort, and more in keeping with our strong belief that force must be a last resort, not a first response.

   Because this resolution is improved, because I believe Saddam Hussein represents a real threat, and because I believe it is important for America to speak with one voice at this critical moment, I will vote to give the President the authority he needs, but I respect those who reach different conclusions. For me, the deciding factor is my belief that a united Congress will help the President unite the world, and by uniting the world we can increase the world's chances of succeeding in this effort and reduce both the risks and the costs America may have to bear. With this resolution, we are giving the President extraordinary authority. How he exercises that authority will determine how successful any action in Iraq might be.

   In 1991, by the time the President's father sought congressional support to use force against Iraq, he had secured pledges of military cooperation from nearly 40 nations and statements of support from scores of others. He had already secured the backing of the United Nations, and he had already developed a clear plan of action. In assembling that coalition, the legitimacy of our cause was affirmed, regional stability was maintained, the risks to our soldiers were lessened, America's burden was reduced, and perhaps most importantly, Iraq was isolated.

   At this point, we have done none of those things. That is why, unlike in 1991, our vote on this resolution should be seen as the beginning of a process, not the end. For our efforts in Iraq to succeed, the President must continue to consult with Congress and work hard to build a global coalition. That is not capitulation, it is leadership. And it is essential.

   In my view, there are five other crucial steps the administration must take before any final decision on the use of force in Iraq is made. First and foremost, the President needs to be honest with the American people, not only about the benefits of action against Iraq but also about the risks and the costs of such action. We are no longer talking about driving Saddam Hussein back to within his borders, we are talking about driving him from power. That is a much more difficult and complicated goal.

   There was a story in this past Sunday's Philadelphia Inquirer that top officials in the administration ``have exaggerated the degree of allied support for a war in Iraq.'' The story goes on to say that others in the administration ``are rankled by what they charge is a tendency'' by some in the administration ``to gloss over the unpleasant realities'' of a potential war with Iraq.

   A report in yesterday's Washington Post suggests ``an increasing number of intelligence officials, including former and current intelligence agency employees, are concerned the agency is tailoring its public stance to fit the administration's views.''

   I do not know whether these reports are accurate. We do know from our own national experience, however, that public support for military action can evaporate quickly if the American people come to believe they have not been given all of the facts. If that should happen, no resolution Congress might pass will be able to unify our Nation. The American people expect, and success demands, that they be told both the benefits and the risks involved in any action against Iraq.

[Page: S10242]

   Second, we need to make clear to the world that the reason we would use force in Iraq is to remove Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. I would have preferred if this goal had been made explicit in this resolution. However, it is clear from this debate that Saddam's weapons of mass destruction are the principal threat to the United States and the only threat that would justify the use of the United States military force against Iraq. It is the threat that the President cited repeatedly in his speech to the American people on Monday night. It may also be the only threat that can rally the world to support our efforts. Therefore, we expect, and success demands, that the administration not lose sight of this essential mission.

   Third, we need to prepare for what might happen in Iraq after Saddam Hussein. Regime change is an easy expression for a difficult job. One thing we have learned from our action in Afghanistan is that it is easier to topple illegitimate regimes than it is to build legitimate democracies. We will need to do much better in post-Saddam Iraq than the administration has done so far in post-Taliban Afghanistan. Iraq is driven by religious and ethnic differences and demoralized by a repressive government and crushing poverty. It has no experience with democracy. History tells us it is not enough merely to hope that well-intentioned leaders will rise to fill the void that the departure of Saddam Hussein would leave. We must help create the conditions under which such a leader can arise and govern. Unless we want to risk seeing Iraq go from bad to worse, we must help the Iraqi people build their political and economic institutions after Saddam. That could take many years and many billions of dollars, which is another reason we must build a global coalition. The American people expect, and success demands, that we plan for stability and for economic and political progress in Iraq after Saddam.

   Fourth, we need to minimize the chances that any action we may take in Iraq will destabilize the region. Throughout the Persian Gulf, there are extremists who would like nothing more than to transform a confrontation with Iraq into a wider war between the Arab world and Israel or the Arab world and the West. What happens if, by acting in Iraq, we undermine the government in Jordan, a critical ally and a strategic buffer between Iraq and Israel? What happens if we destabilize Pakistan and empower Islamic fundamentalists? Unlike Iraq, Pakistan already has nuclear weapons and the means to deliver. What happens if that arsenal falls into the hands of al-Qaida or other extremists?

   We can tell the Arab world this is not a fight between their nations and ours. But a far better way to maintain stability in the gulf is to demonstrate that by building a global coalition to confront Saddam Hussein. That is why the

   administration must make every reasonable effort to secure a U.N. resolution just as we did in 1991. With U.N. support, we can count a number of Arab countries as full allies. Without U.N. support, we cannot even count on their airspace. We expect, and success demands, that any action we take in Iraq will make the region more stable, not less.

   Fifth, and finally, we cannot allow a war in Iraq to jeopardize the war on terrorism. We are fighting terrorist organizations with global networks, and we need partners around the globe. Some, including the chairman of the President's own Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, doubt we can count on this continued cooperation in the war on terror if we go to war against Iraq. I do not know if that is true. I do know, however, that the military intelligence and political cooperation we receive from nations throughout the world are critical to the war on terrorism.

   Saddam Hussein may yet target America. Al-Qaida already has. The American people expect, and our national security demands, that the administration make plans to ensure that any action we take in Iraq does not distract or detract from the war on terror. If they fail to do so, any victory we win in Iraq will come at a terrible cost.

   On Monday night in his speech to the Nation, the President said: The situation could hardly get worse for world security and the people of Iraq.

   Yes, it can. If the administration attempts to use the authority in this resolution without doing the work that is required before and after military action in Iraq, the situation there and elsewhere can indeed get worse. We could see more turmoil in the Persian Gulf, not less. We could see more bloodshed in the Middle East, not less. Americans could find themselves more vulnerable to terrorist attacks, not less.

   So I stress again, this resolution represents a beginning, not an end. If we are going to make America and the world safer, much more work needs to be done before the force authorized in this document is used.

   Some people think it is wrong to ask questions or raise concerns when the President says our national security is at risk. They believe it is an act of disloyalty. I disagree. In America, asking questions is an act of patriotism. For those of us who have been entrusted by our fellow citizens to serve in this Senate, asking questions is more than a privilege, it is a constitutional responsibility.

   The American people have serious questions about the course of action on which this resolution could set us. Given the gravity of the issues involved and the far-reaching consequences of this course, it is essential that their questions are answered. I support this resolution. And for the sake of the American people, especially those who will be called to defend our Nation, we must continue to ask questions.

   On one point, however, I have no question. I believe deeply and absolutely in the courage, the skill, and the devotion of our men and women in uniform. I know that if it becomes necessary for them to stand in harm's way to protect America, they will do so with pride and without hesitation and they will succeed. They are the finest fighting force the world has ever known. For their sake, for the sake of all Americans, for the world's sake, we must confront Saddam Hussein. But we must do so in a way that avoids making a dangerous situation even worse.

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. JOHNSON). The Senator from Virginia.

   Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I congratulate the distinguished majority leader for a very powerful and very clear statement. I, too, join you in saying that it is our responsibility to ask questions. Questions have been asked throughout this debate. As best we can, we answered them.

   But I think the distinguished leader has provided very helpful guidance in the uncertain days, months, and perhaps years to come. I commend you. As one of the cosponsors, I welcome your strong support.

   Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the Senator from Virginia for his kind words.

   Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield to me?

   Mr. DASCHLE. I am happy to yield.

   Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I congratulate our leader. I congratulate him not only for his statement today, but I congratulate him on refusing to stand with other leaders of my party on the White House lawn. He has shown leadership. He has kept himself apart, kept himself in a position to make decisions. He hasn't rushed, pell-mell, to shake this piece of rag. He has done what leaders should do. He has stood aside and waited, helped to advise us and counsel with us. He is the one leader on this Hill in my party who didn't rush to judgment on this blank check that we are giving the President of the United States. I thank him. I congratulate him. I shall always praise him for that.

   Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for his kind words and for his understanding and appreciation for the difficulties we face in this body as we make these momentous decisions.

   Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, regular order.

   Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair.

   CLOTURE MOTION

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order has been called for.

   Under the previous order, pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will report.

   The legislative clerk read as follows:

   Cloture Motion

   We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move

[Page: S10243]

   Thomas Daschle, Bill Nelson, Joseph Lieberman, Evan Bayh, Harry Reid, Pete Domenici, Joseph Biden, Patty Murray, Jay Rockefeller, Larry E. Craig, Trent Lott, John Warner, John McCain, Jesse Helms, Craig Thomas, Don Nickles, Frank H. Murkowski.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call under the rule is waived.

   The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on amendment No. 4856, as modified, to S.J. Res. 45, a joint resolution to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq, shall be brought to a close?

   The yeas and nays are required under the rule.

   The clerk will call the roll.

   The senior assistant bill clerk called the roll.

   The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 75, nays, 25, as follows:

   Allard

   Allen

   Baucus

   Bayh

   Bennett

   Biden

   Bond

   Breaux

   Brownback

   Bunning

   Burns

   Campbell

   Cantwell

   Carnahan

   Cleland

   Clinton

   Cochran

   Collins

   Craig

   Crapo

   Daschle

   DeWine

   Domenici

   Dorgan

   Edwards

   Ensign

   Enzi

   Feinstein

   Fitzgerald

   Frist

   Graham

   Gramm

   Grassley

   Gregg

   Hagel

   Harkin

   Hatch

   Helms

   Hutchinson

   Hutchison

   Inhofe

   Johnson

   Kerry

   Kyl

   Landrieu

   Lieberman

   Lincoln

   Lott

   Lugar

   McCain

   McConnell

   Mikulski

   Miller

   Murkowski

   Nelson (FL)

   Nelson (NE)

   Nickles

   Reed

   Reid

   Roberts

   Rockefeller

   Santorum

   Schumer

   Sessions

   Shelby

   Smith (NH)

   Smith (OR)

   Snowe

   Stevens

   Thomas

   Thompson

   Thurmond

   Torricelli

   Voinovich

   Warner

   Akaka

   Bingaman

   Boxer

   Byrd

   Carper

   Chafee

   Conrad

   Corzine

   Dayton

   Dodd

   Durbin

   Feingold

   Hollings

   Inouye

   Jeffords

   Kennedy

   Kohl

   Leahy

   Levin

   Murray

   Sarbanes

   Specter

   Stabenow

   Wellstone

   Wyden

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 75, the nays are 25. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.

   AMENDMENT NO. 4868

   Under the previous order, there will now be 60 minutes of debate on the Byrd amendment No. 4868.

   Who yields time?

   Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum and ask unanimous consent that the time run equally during the quorum call.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   The clerk will call the roll.

   The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

   Mr. REID. Mr. President, 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, I did not see the Senator from Minnesota in the Chamber. It is my understanding he now wants to proceed with his 15 minutes.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.

   Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as an original cosponsor of Senator Byrd's amendment.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   Mr. DAYTON. Mr. President, I rise to support this amendment by the great senior Senator from West Virginia. It closely parallels an amendment which I filed and which, unfortunately, now that the Senate has made its determination to limit the amount of time and debate on this historic decision, I will not be bringing to the Senate for a vote.

   A decision to rush to judgment on this matter has now been made by the Senate. I won't belabor the point except to say that in January of 1998, after Saddam Hussein had bounced U.N. inspectors out of Iraq, the Senate took 5 months to consider and finally approve a resolution which did not even authorize President Clinton to use force. In October, 1998, the Senate passes another resolution which again did not authorize the President of the United States to use force.

   In 1990, the Senate took 5 months after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, and that resolution was passed just days before President Bush committed this Nation to its first military engagement in the Persian Gulf war.

   We have had a number of very valuable hearings in the Senate Armed Services Committee in the last weeks. I asked one panel of recently retired generals, three of whom were directly involved in the Persian Gulf war, whether the absence of a Congressional resolution or declaration of war had in any way prevented or impeded that military buildup preparatory to the engagement in January of 1991. They said, no, it did not. So I don't understand why, from any consideration--military, diplomatic, or constitutional--we should be voting and rushing to this judgment this weekend, but we will.

   We will be voting on what? What is it, S.J. Res. 46, that we are actually voting upon? It is a preapproval of whatever the President of the United States decides to do whenever. It

   is a vote for euphemisms such as ``to use force'' or ``as he determines to be necessary.'' Why? Why are we rushing to this judgment at this time? So we can adjourn in the next few days and go home until next January, or until we decide whether the outcome of the November election will aid or impair our own political agendas?

   Some of those concerns might seem justified, particularly as they relate to our own domestic concerns. But for decisions of war or peace, decisions about what is right for our national security, decisions about the life or death of Americans fighting on our behalf, decisions about the survival of the existing world order and even possibly the survival of our world as we know it, there are no justifications for political calculation or personal convenience. There should be only one consideration, and that is to do what is right for the country, as God gives each of us to see that right.

   Yet S.J. Res. 46 preapproves any decision by the President of the United States to commit this Nation to war at some time in the future, with U.N. support or without it--unilaterally, bilaterally, multilaterally, preventatively, preemptively. Even other amendments that I will support, which have the best of intentions, fall into this trap: What do you do when you are preapproving a war? Put a limit on this but not for that; if this; if that. However, it is very hard to forecast events of this magnitude.

   There is no need for us to try to do so. There are no good reasons for us to do so, except the need to preapprove something and then go home.

   If we don't vote for the final resolution, we will be accused of not supporting the President, of not speaking with one voice to Saddam Hussein, to the United Nations, and to the world. Those are very serious accusations, that you don't support the President of the United States. I do support the President. He is my President. He is our President. I pray he will make the right decisions and get the credit. I pray he won't make the wrong decisions and get the blame.

   But when I am asked to support this President, or any President, I need to understand what it is exactly that he wants us to do, what he intends for us to support. This President, as I understood his speech last Monday, is certainly not asking the Congress to declare war on Iraq today. He is wisely reserving that judgment. Why wouldn't we exercise the same wisdom?

   The situation, as we have seen in the last weeks, is inherently fluid. New facts become known; old facts even change. I support the President's reserving judgment until after the United Nations decision, until it attempts to force Saddam Hussein's compliance, until we can determine the outcome of those efforts. During those critical days or weeks ahead, I will be around. I will be available at any time, day or night, whenever, to participate back here on the Senate floor in this momentous decision. All of us in this Chamber and in the House could be here within hours, should be, and would be if we were called upon to do so, whenever the President or this Congress believed that a decision to commit this Nation to war must be made.

   As the President said Monday night, the time before that decision is limited. But the time for that decision is not now.

   Another reason to follow this protocol, the reason for my amendment,

[Page: S10244]

   what the Constitution of the United States requires Congress to do--either declare war or not. It says right in that book--I don't carry it with me quite as faithfully as the great Senator from West Virginia, but I do happen to have my copy today--Congress shall declare war. That is about as clear and unambiguous a statement as could be made.

   There are important reasons that Congress was given, and only Congress was given, that authority and that responsibility. Because it was considered by our Founders to be essential to the system of checks and balances upon which this Republic depends.

   James Madison wrote a letter to Thomas Jefferson in 1798, less than a decade after the Constitution's ratification, in which he said:

   The Constitution supposes, what the History of all Governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power most interested in war, & most prone to it. It has, accordingly, with studied care, vested the question of war in the Legislature. But the Doctrines lately advanced strike at the root of all these provisions, and will deposit the peace of the Country in that Department which the Constitution distrusts as most ready without cause to renounce it. For if the opinion of the President, not the facts & proofs themselves, are to sway the judgment of Congress in declaring war, and if the President in the recess of Congress create a foreign mission, appoint the minister, & negociate [sic] a War Treaty, without the possibility of a check even from the Senate, ..... it is evident that the people are cheated out of the best ingredients of their Government, the safeguards of peace which is the greatest of their blessings.

   The subsequent 204 years have demonstrated many times the wisdom and foresight of our Constitution. Its principles should give special pause to this body when being admonished by the President, by any President, not to ``tie my hands.'' Those words indicate a regrettable lack of regard for Congress and for our constitutional standing as a coequal branch of Government. Our Nation's Founders darn well wanted to tie a President's hands.

   Thomas Jefferson wrote:

   In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.

   Those words are meant to apply to this President, to any President. Except in matters of war and peace? Especially in matters of war and peace. I would say this, the Constitution's wisdom has a very valuable perspective on the pressures and perils we face in this body today. Not only the perils in confronting a dangerous dictator, as we must, but also the perils in how we decide to do so.

   Some might prefer to avoid the momentous decision the Constitution assigns us whether or not to declare war. Whether or not to send Americans into battle halfway around the world, where they would likely encounter the chemical or biological weapons we rightfully seek to spare this country. Some of those Americans will die too young, and others will suffer horrible wounds lasting for lifetimes.

   Iraqi children and their families will be destroyed in their own homes, schools, and mosques. The rest of the world will judge that decision and its consequences, which they could not escape.

   We will read about it in the newspapers. We will watch its manifestations on television. We will probably attempt to share the credit if it turns out well, and avoid the blame if, God forbid, it doesn't. We will talk about that decision. We might even hold hearings on it, but we won't assemble in this Chamber where previous Senates once voted declarations of war, but not since World War II.

   Mr. President, these decisions are ones we will live with for our lifetimes. They should not be made in these circumstances. We should follow the guidance we have seen evident from the changes in the administration's views over the last weeks. I support and applaud those changing perspectives. I respect a leader who can listen and learn, then adjust his views and decisions accordingly. I believe the wise counsel from Members of this body--Republicans, Democrats, and Independents--has been an important part of that process. I believe the American people, the collective wisdom of our fellow citizens, who overwhelmingly support the President, who overwhelmingly believe the President should consult with this body, who overwhelmingly believe the U.S. should act in concert with the U.N. and other nations of the world, and not alone, unilaterally, preemptively. I believe those public judgments, as we all manage to view them, probably daily in polling documents, have had enormous influence on the decisions that are going to be made.

   We owe it to our responsibilities to what is best for this country; we owe it to the brave men and women who will have to carry out those decisions, to make them when they must be made, on the basis of the best, most current, and most complete information possible--knowing, even then, that we will still not have the certainty, clarity, foresight we would wish to have.

   That is the wisdom of the Constitution. That is the wisdom of Senator Byrd's amendment. That is, I believe, the wisdom of the amendment I would have brought forth, which says simply the Congress shall go back to following the Constitution of the United States. The reasons for that document's decisions are as valid today as they were 213 years ago, and maybe some day--it will not be this week but soon, this body will review the decision not to follow its dictates and return to it. I look forward to that and, hopefully, Senator Byrd will be on the floor that day, as he deserves to be when that decision is made.

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

   Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. President, I wish to respond to a couple of the statements made by the junior Senator from Minnesota. I don't think they are actually correct in categorizing what happened in 1998. I believe I heard him say then we were very deliberative and the resolution we passed did not authorize the use of force. Well, I will show you what we did in 1998.

   In 1998, Saddam Hussein had continued his defiance of the U.N. He had not complied with any of the 16 resolutions. So the U.S. passed a resolution saying he should comply, Public Law 105-235, on August 14th. But the deliberative portion was introduced before the Senate on July 31, 1998--placed on the calendar July 27, measure laid before the Senate on July 31--and it passed the Senate with an amendment by unanimous consent. So it passed in one day. I don't remember the number of hours spent in debate, but it wasn't a lot. To say we spent months

   deliberating it is not accurate. The fact is we passed it in one day. And then to say it had no authorization for force, I don't believe is actually correct either. If you look at the resolved section--I put the 1998 resolution in the calendar because I think it is important. It goes through several items of noncompliance by Iraq. Basically, we are saying we should force or compel Iraq to comply. The resolved section says:

   ..... the United States of America and Congress assembled, find the government of Iraq in a material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations, and therefore the President is urged to take appropriate action in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States to bring Iraq into compliance with international obligations.

   I believe in the appropriate action Congress was saying with a united voice: Take military action, if necessary, to get Saddam Hussein to comply with the U.N. resolution. That is what this resolution stated. We passed it unanimously. We also passed, in 1998, the Iraqi Liberation Act. This act did not authorize any additional military force. That is correct with this act, but not with Public Law 105-235.

   When someone says we didn't authorize force in 1998--yes, we did. The Iraqi Liberation Act didn't have an authorization of force, but it did include a change of regime. It said Saddam Hussein should go. Again, we spoke with a united voice. We passed that by a voice vote. I might mention this to my colleagues. In the House, it passed by 360-38. In the Senate, we received it from the House on October 6 and passed it in the Senate on October 7. We passed it by unanimous consent. We passed it without objection.

   This resolution says it should be the policy of the U.S. to have a regime change. That became the law of the land. It passed unanimously in the Senate with an overwhelming vote in the House. Then, the earlier resolution that passed on August 14 said the President is urged to take appropriate action to compel compliance with existing U.N. resolutions. That was a

[Page: S10245]

   So for people who are saying we haven't been deliberative enough, and what is the consequence of this--what has changed? This Congress, Democrats and Republicans, this Senate unanimously told President Clinton to compel compliance. Also, we stated it was the public policy of Congress to have a regime change in Iraq. I want to clarify the RECORD and make sure we are factually accurate.

   Congress spoke in a united fashion in 1998. It was proud to be part of that then, and I am proud to be part of the sponsorship of this resolution, which I believe will also pass with a very strong voice--after much more extensive debate than we had in 1998. I thank my friend for yielding me the time.

   Mr. DAYTON. Will the Senator yield for a question?

   Mr. McCAIN. Not on our time. If the Senator from West Virginia would like to yield the Senator time, I would be more than happy.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair advises the Senator from Minnesota that he has 1 1/2 minutes remaining.

   Mr. DAYTON. I will use that 1 1/2 minutes to respond. I was not here when those events occurred. I rely on the authorities and information available to me. I will note Senator Lott was quoted in several publications. On February 12, the then-majority leader said:

   I had hoped that we could get to the point where we can pass a resolution this week on Iraq. But we really developed some physical problems, if nothing else. ..... So we have decided that the most important thing is not to move so quickly, but to make sure that we have had all the right questions asked and answered and that we have available to us the latest information about what is ..... happening with our allies in the world.

   He went on to say:

   The Senate is known for its deliberative actions. And the longer I stay in the Senate, the more I have learned to appreciate it. It does help to give us time to think about the potential problems and the risks and ramifications and to, frankly, press the administration.

   The majority leader made that statement on the Senate floor on February 12. The resolution was passed and signed by President Clinton August 14, 1998, 6 months later.

   Also, I am not a legal scholar, but in making my comments I cited the opinion of counsel at the Library of Congress and its Congressional Research Services. They opined--I realize lawyers and others can disagree----

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.

   Mr. DAYTON. I ask for unanimous consent that I have 30 seconds more to finish my remarks.

   Mr. McCAIN. I object.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

   Mr. BYRD. I yield the Senator 2 minutes or whatever he needs.

   Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Dayton's name be added as a cosponsor of my amendment.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   Mr. DAYTON. I thank the Senator from West Virginia.

   Mr. President, the opinion stated its judgment that since the document in 1998 urged the President to follow the actions which the Senator from Oklahoma has accurately described, it did not constitute an authorization under the War Powers Act. Furthermore, in the absence of any reference to authorization under the War Powers Act, which the resolution before us today contains, it did not provide that authority. I thank the Chair. I yield back time.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

   Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 29 minutes 20 seconds.

   Mr. BYRD. How many minutes?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-nine.

   Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my time on this amendment not count against my hour under cloture.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?

   Mr. McCAIN. I object.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.

   Mr. BYRD. This shows the patience of a Senator. This clearly demonstrates that the train is coming down on us like a Mack truck, and we are not even going to consider a few extra minutes for this Senator.

   Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to my friend from Pennsylvania.

   Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, in deference----

   Mr. BYRD. On the Senator's time.

   Mr. McCAIN. On my time. In deference to the Senator from West Virginia, on this one occasion, given all the circumstances, I will not object to it not counting against the Senator's hour.

   Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my friend.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.

   Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter.

   Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished President pro tempore for yielding me 5 minutes.

   I do support his amendment which has two provisions. First:

   Nothing ..... is intended to alter the constitutional authorities of the Congress to declare war, grant letters of Marque and Reprisal, or other authorities invested in Congress by Section 8, Article I of the Constitution.

   I think this provision is necessary, although customarily you would not think that you would need a statute to say the Constitution governs. However, I have expressed on the floor of the Senate my concern of the constitutionality of the delegation of authority to the President here.

   Congress has the authority to declare war. The authorization for the use of force is a practical equivalent. What we are doing is saying the President may decide when to use that force and, in effect, decide when the war will start, or really to make a determination as to when war is declared. So I think that it is important to have this sort of provision, although its importance is hard to evaluate historically.

   The second part of the pending amendment of the Senator from West Virginia is:

   ..... shall be construed as granting any authority to the President to use the United States Armed Forces for any purpose not directly related to a clear threat of imminent, sudden, and direct attack upon the United States, its possessions, or territories, or the Armed Forces of the United States, unless the Congress of the United States otherwise authorizes.

   The language of ``clear threat of imminent, sudden, and direct attack'' has been inserted in place of the language ``the existing threat posed by Iraq.'' This does call for a more precise determination of the need for preemptive action, and I think is sound. Ultimately, it is not going to detract from the authority of the President because the resolution allows the President to ``use all means that he deems to be appropriate,'' which is very broad authority.

   The language of the pending Byrd amendment is consistent with one of the earliest articulations of the concept of self-defense. Secretary of State Daniel Webster in 1842, referring to self-defense in an anticipatory sense, stated that its use be ``confined to cases in which the necessity of that self-defense is instant, overwhelming, and leaving no choice of means and no moment of deliberation.''

   Hugo Grotius, considered the father of international law, said in his 1925 treatise that a nation may use self-defense in anticipation of attack when there is ``present danger,'' which is a broader definition. Grotius further said:

   It is lawful to kill him who is preparing to kill.

   Elihu Root, a distinguished scholar on international law, said in 1914 that international law did not require a nation to wait to use force in self-defense ``until it is too late to

   protect itself.''

   I think the language of the pending amendment offered by the Senator from West Virginia is helpful in providing assurance that preemptive force is really necessary. We know President Bush said he does not intend to use this military force unless absolutely necessary and has already made a determination that he thinks there is an imminent threat from Iraq. Some of the information which has been presented,

[Page: S10246]

   I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. CLINTON). The Senator from Arizona.

   Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I wish to say very briefly that I understand people have a desire to speak. We have a number of Senators who have not spoken on this issue. It is already looking as if we may be here well into this evening. From now on, I will be adhering strictly to the rules according to postcloture. I hope my colleagues will be understanding because we have to resolve this issue.

   I yield the floor.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?

   The Senator from West Virginia.

   Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I believe the distinguished Democratic whip was able to get unanimous consent last night for my amendment No. 4868 to be modified to remove paragraph 2. It so states in the Congressional Record on page S10217; am I correct?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair believes the RECORD is in error and that only amendment No. 4869 was modified.

   Mr. BYRD. On what basis--Madam President, I hope this time is not being charged. We are trying to clarify something.

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   Mr. BYRD. On what basis does the Chair maintain that the RECORD is in error in that portion of the RECORD from which I read on page S10217? What is the basis for the Chair stating that RECORD portion is in error?

   I do not question the integrity of the Chair. I am only asking why does the Chair state--I know the Chair is being advised to that effect--why are we to say that this RECORD, as it is clearly written, is in error?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is relying on the Journal of proceedings.

   Mr. BYRD. And what does the Journal say?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Journal indicates that only amendment No. 4869 was modified.

   Mr. BYRD. May I ask the distinguished majority whip, is that statement by the Chair in accordance with his understanding?

   Mr. REID. I say to my friend from West Virginia, I read directly from the paper that the Senator gave me. There were two unanimous consent requests on it. The one was not acceptable. The other was, and I read that into the RECORD. As I recall, it was changing section 4 to 3, or 3 to 4. That is what I submitted.

   Mr. BYRD. There were two requests, one changing the section numbers, and I am sure that one was agreed to.

   Mr. REID. Yes.

   Mr. BYRD. The other one, according to this RECORD, was also agreed to.

   Mr. REID. No. That is the only one that--in fact, I said on the RECORD the other was not agreed to.

   Mr. BYRD. May I read the RECORD. It is very short.

   Mr. REID. Mr. President, this has been cleared with the minority. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Byrd, I ask unanimous consent to modify his amendment No. 4868 to remove paragraph 2, and further I ask consent to modify amendment No. 4869 to change references to section 3(a) to 4(a).

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

   Mr. REID. I say to my friend from West Virginia, I had the paper here and the clerk took that paper. Maybe they made a mistake. But there is no question in my mind whatsoever--as I told the Senator this morning when he came in--that the one had been approved, the other had not.

   Mr. BYRD. Yes. The whip did tell me that, but when I looked at the RECORD, I saw, by the RECORD at least, it said that both requests were agreed to. I am not going to argue this point. I am going to take the distinguished whip's word, which is good for me at all times.

   Mr. REID. I say to my friend from West Virginia, I appreciate that very much. In fact, there are a lot of things going on I may not be quite certain on, but I am absolutely, unqualifiedly certain of what I did last night.

   Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I have absolute and complete faith in the integrity of the distinguished Senator from Nevada, and I thank the Chair, with the greatest of respect. I thank the Assistant Parliamentarian as well, for whom I have the greatest respect.

   Madam President, how much time do I have remaining?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. Twenty-three minutes.

   Mr. BYRD. On this amendment?

   The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this amendment, that is correct.

   Mr. BYRD. Madam President, a point I want to make about this discussion that ensued after the statement was made by the distinguished Senator from Minnesota: There were references made to Public Law 105-235, August 14, 1998. Here is the resolving clause which has been quoted by the distinguished Republican whip:

   Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, . .....

   That the government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations, and therefore the President is urged to take appropriate action in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations. Approved August 14, 1998.

   Well, so what? What does that prove? What does that prove? Somebody tell me. Let's read it again. The resolving clause says that the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations. That is

   okay. But get this: And therefore the President is urged to take appropriate action.

   What does that mean? There is nothing definitive about that. That is ambiguous. It is not contemporaneous with today's question. It is ambiguous. It is vague. What would that prove in a court if the Supreme Court of the United States were to take this up? What would those who read this piece of junk maintain that this says? It is plain. The President is urged--well, what does that mean, ``urged''?--to take appropriate action. What is that? That is not a declaration of war. What is that? What does that mean, ``to take appropriate action''? Well, you can guess, I can guess, he can guess, he can guess. Anybody can guess.

   ``Urges the President to take appropriate action in accordance with the Constitution . .....'' Now, that is fine. It is in accordance with the Constitution. Then that would say that Congress has the power to declare war.

   ``In accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.'' What is he supposed to do? What is the President being urged to do to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations? Anybody's guess. Why, surely this great country of ours is not going to be able to launch a war on the basis of that ambiguous and vague language.

   I wish those who are continuing to refer to this Public Law 105-235 and the so-called relevant U.N. resolutions would explain what they mean. I hear that over and over again. In connection with the resolution that is before this Senate today, it refers to all relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions. ``All relevant . .....'' What does that mean? And they keep referring to 660 and 678 and 687. I would like to discuss those resolutions with those who will do so. I hope they come on the floor. Where are they? Where are these men of great strength? Let them come to the floor. I want to debate with them these so-called resolutions.

   In this resolution that is before the Senate, S.J. Res. 46, it refers to relevant resolutions. They keep talking about the relevant resolutions. What resolutions are they talking about enforcing? Are they talking about 660? Are they talking about 678? No. 678 was adopted on November 29, 1990. Is that what they are talking about? U.N. Resolution 687 was the enforcement resolution. That was the resolution that authorized the member states to act to uphold Resolution No. 660. But that conferring of authorization was wiped out. No. 678 was wiped out by 687 when Iraq contacted the Security Council and accepted 687. It was wiped out. So I am prepared to argue that. I do not want to do it on my flimsy 1 hour, but I am prepared.

   I have heard the Senator from Connecticut--he is not in the Chamber right now, but he will be back. I have heard him and others refer to the so-called relevant resolutions. They have been wiped out. They are gone, and no single member state can revive them. They were extinguished on April 6,

[Page: S10247]

   Now we can talk about that at a later time. I would love to get into it. I would like to get into a discussion on that, but for now, suffice it to say, what I am saying is this resolution we are talking about would accept as fact certain things that are not facts--this blank check we have been talking about that we are going to turn over to this President of the United States, the power to determine when, where, how, and for how long he will use the military forces of the United States.

   It is flimsy. That resolution is full of holes. The whereas clauses are full of holes. Now they have been wiped out by unanimous consent so they are no longer ``whereas'' but ``since.'' It is flimsy. Full of holes. Ambiguities. Statements of facts that are not facts. I am ready to debate that at any time.

   Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield?

   Mr. BYRD. I am happy to yield.

   Mr. DURBIN. I hope Members will carefully read this amendment by Senator Byrd. This amendment says two things. One of these things should not even be controversial. It asserts the constitutional authority of this Chamber and the U.S. Congress to declare war. The Senator and I have stood together on this floor.

   Mr. BYRD. Here it is, my Constitution.

   Mr. DURBIN. I thought you might have your Constitution with you.

   The Senator and I have stood on the floor and argued this point. Sometimes we did not fare so well. Keep in mind there was a question at the beginning of this debate about Iraq as to whether or not Congress would be engaged. Some argued that the President had the authority of his father's resolutions.

   The second point made by Senator Byrd in this resolution is one I hope you will read carefully because I address part of this in an amendment I will offer later. He establishes a standard by which we would declare war. A standard is stated clearly: A clear threat of imminent, sudden, direct attack upon the United States, its possessions or territories, or the Armed Forces.

   I hope Members of the Senate will read that. If that is not a standard by which we will measure whether this Nation will ded