Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Maryland. He is a great Senator. I am proud of the years I have served with him. We have gone through some interesting times here in the Senate. We stood beside one another, shoulder to shoulder, shoulder to shoulder in fighting for this Constitution on several occasions--the line-item veto, constitutional amendment to balance the budget, and on other occasions. I thank the people of Maryland for sending him and for keeping him here. I would say that the Republic will long live, as long as the people of America send Senators here like Paul Sarbanes. I thank the people of Maryland, and I thank God for him. Mr. President, I am about to yield the floor. I have been asked by the distinguished Senator from New York to yield to her. How much time do I have?

Mr. BYRD. The Senator could not be more correct. The Senator is absolutely correct.

Mr. BYRD. The distinguished Senator from Maryland is absolutely correct. It only takes a majority of both Houses to pass this resolution, but it would take two-thirds in the future if the President should attempt to veto a substitute piece of legislation by this Congress to abort what we are doing here today, to appeal it, to amend it. One-third plus one in either body could uphold the President's veto, and that legislation would not become law.

Mr. BYRD. It does. And it is easy enough, I suppose, to pass this resolution. But should we try to negate it, should we try to repeal it, should we try to change the law, a President can veto any change that Congress might bring along later, any change it might enact, in order to overturn this law it is now about to adopt.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. There is no limit. I offered an amendment, and the distinguished Senator from Maryland supported that amendment today, as the distinguished Senator from Minnesota supported it, the distinguished Senator from Michigan, the distinguished Senator from New York, but we only got 31 votes. That amendment was defeated.

Mr. BYRD. Absolutely. We would have handed this over to the President--lock, stock, and barrel. Here it is.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. I do, I do. And I say further to my dear friend that as soon as this resolution is adopted and signed by the President of the United States, Congress is out of it. It is on the sidelines. We may wish we could say something. We may wish we could do something. But as far as the human eye can see, we are out of it until such time as Congress asks to repeal this legislation or to put a limit on it internally.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, let me first thank the Senator from Michigan, Debbie Stabenow, for her eloquence, for her steadfast determination to stand by the Constitution as she has shown so many days, so many times in recent days. I thank her for being the Senator she is, a Senator who is indebted to her people and stands every day somewhere in this Senate complex working for the people she represents. I have received great inspiration from watching her. I serve on the Budget Committee with her and she is an outstanding voice for the people who believe in the Constitution, who takes a stand and is so eloquent, so articulate on behalf of that Constitution. I thank the Senator from Michigan from the bottom of my heart. I am about to yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Yes, I would be happy to.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wish to begin. I read this quote: Naturally, the common people don't want war but, after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along. Whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a parliament or a Communist dictatorship, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for a lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country. Hermann Goering, 1893-1946, field marshal, German Army, founder of the Gestapo, President of the Reichstag, Nazi parliament, and convicted war criminal. Speech, 1934. Mr. President: The moving Finger writes; and, having writ, Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line, Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it. So said the Persian poet, Omar Khayyam, in the 11th century. And so I say today. The Senate has made clear its intentions on the Iraq resolution. There is no doubt, there is no question. The Senate has made its intentions indubitably clear. The outcome is certain. The ending has been scripted. The Senate will vote, and the Iraq resolution will pass. I continue to believe that the Senate, in following this preordained course of action, will be doing a grave disservice to the Nation and to the Constitution on which it was founded. In the newly published ``National Security Strategy of the United States,'' the document which I hold in my hand--``The National Security Strategy of the United States of America,'' date: September 2002, the document in which the President of the United States outlines the unprecedented policy of preemptive deterrence which the Iraq resolution will implement--the President asserts that: ``The constitution has served us well.'' There you have it, 31 pages, and that is the only reference to the Constitution of the United States that is made in this document titled ``The National Security Strategy of the United States of America.'' He asserts that: ``The constitution has served us well.'' That's it. That is the alpha and the omega of the reference to the Constitution, this great Constitution of the United States which creates the Presidency of the United States, which creates a bicameral legislative body, which creates the judicial branch of this great Nation--provides for it. That is all it says about the Constitution. He asserts that ``the Constitution has served us well.'' And note, too, that the word ``constitution'' as mentioned in the President's document is in lower case. It doesn't begin with a capital letter, it begins with a lower-case letter, ``the constitution.'' I have a constitution. The Senator from New Mexico has a constitution. His constitution, which was given to him by his Roman ancestral forebears, that is his constitution. He is strong, he is weak, he has strong mental processes, he has a good heart, or whatever it is--his constitution, lower case. But this Constitution is with a capital C. This administration doesn't believe that it merits a capital C even, and only mentions, as I say, one time in passing that ``the Constitution has served us well.'' That, apparently, is what this administration thinks of the Constitution. And it references the Constitution as though it were some dusty relic of the past that needs to be eulogized before it is retired. And so it says: ``The constitution has served us well.'' He is wrong about that. The Constitution is no more dated than the principles that it established than is this great book that I treasure above all books, this great book right here. The President is wrong. The Constitution is no more dated in the principles it established than is the Holy Bible. The Constitution continues to serve us well, if only we would take the time to heed it. I am deeply disappointed that this Senate, which I have believed in for all these many years--and which God and the people of West Virginia have blessed me to experience, 44 years come next January 3rd--I am deeply disappointed the Senate is not heeding the imperatives of the Constitution and is instead poised to hand off to the President of the United States the exclusive power of Congress to determine matters of war and peace--to declare war. I do not in my heart believe this is what the American people expect of the Senate. I have had many occasions in which to stand and laud the Senate, and to renew my expression of deep belief in the Senate of the United States as an institution. I have done that many times. But I am deeply disappointed the Senate is not heeding the imperatives of the Constitution, and is instead poised, as I say, to hand over to the President the exclusive power of Congress to determine matters of war and peace. I do not in my heart believe this is what the American people expect of the Senate. I have heard from tens of thousands of people--people from all across this country of ours--people from every State in the Union, from New Mexico to Florida to California to the State of Washington, and to the States of Wisconsin, Minnesota, West Virginia, New York, and all in between. I have heard from thousands of Americans who have urged me to keep up the fight--almost 50,000 e-mail letters within the last 5 days, and more than 18,000 telephone calls to my office in the last 5 days-- urging me to keep up the fight. So they are listening, and they want to hear more. If Senators don't think for a moment that people are listening to this Senate debate, the people are listening. They want to be informed. They have questions they want answered. When I came to this body, we didn't have televised coverage. We didn't have a radio. We didn't even have radio coverage of the debates in this Senate. I can remember that when a Senator stood to his feet, other Senators gathered closely. They moved up close in their seats to listen to that Senator. We had no public address system in this Chamber. But they were being informed by the Senate debates. The people were being educated and informed as to the great issues of the day. The Senate was an institution which did inform the people. We spent days upon days on the great issues that came before this Senate-- more than 100 days, for example, on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, more than 100 days. This institution did its duty to the American people by informing them of the issues of the day, and by debating those issues-- Republicans and Democrats. The aisle was not as wide in those days as it is now. Sometimes I think it is a great canyon here, a great chasm that separates the Democratic and the Republican parties in this Senate. But not so then. We disagreed from time to time. But I can remember. If I were to take the time now, I could call the names of the faces who in my dreams come back to me--the faces of those who sat in those seats years ago, decades ago. They were men. There was only one woman at that time, Margaret Chase Smith of Maine. But Senators, Republicans and Democrats, joined in informing the people through the process of debate. I am only one Senator from a very small State. Yet, as I say, within the past week, I have received nearly 20,000 telephone calls and nearly 50,000 e-mails supporting the position I have taken on this floor. This is not counting the calls and the e-mails that have come in to my State office in Charleston, WVA. I want all of those people across America, out there across the plains, the Great Rockies, across the Mississippi, and to the Pacific coast, from the gulf coast to the Canadian border--I want all those people who took the time to contact me to know how their words have strengthened, heartened me and sustained me in my feeble efforts here to turn the tide of opinion in the Senate. ``The iron will of one stout heart shall make a thousand quail.'' These are my heroes--the people out there who have called, who have written, and who have told me in person as I have walked across the street. They are my heroes. And I will never forget the remarkable courage and patriotism that reverberated in the fervor--in the fervor-- of their messages. I gave them hope because they love this country. And they love this Constitution. Senators all know that. The people out there love this Constitution. They love this Constitution. All of the people out there do. So they are my heroes. As the Apostle Paul, that great apostle, said, ``I have fought a good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith.'' There are Americans all across this country in every State of this Union who have joined in spirit with me and with a small band of like- minded Senators in fighting the good fight. We could stay here on this floor and continue to fight. They say, well, we might stay here until 4:30 in the morning. Come on. Come on. I am thinking of the words of Fitzjames in ``The Lady of the Lake,'' when he stood there before Roderick and said: ``Come one, come all! this rock shall fly From its firm base as soon as I.'' So come on. Let's see the clock turn to 4:30 in the morning. Who cares what time it is as long as we are speaking for our country? So I say to the distinguished Senator who presides over this Chamber tonight, whose forebear and ancestral relative signed his name at the Constitutional Convention on September 17, 1787--his name was Dayton, Jonathan Dayton. This is his relative who presides over the Senate at this moment. So we could continue this fight. Let me tell you, ladies and gentlemen, there are several checkpoints--I will call them checkpoints--at which, under the rules, I could cause the Senate to have to go through another cloture and another 72 hours. I could do that. And I would have no hesitancy, not any, in doing it if I did not know the Senate has already spoken. Also, there is a point at which it becomes time to accept reality and to regroup. It is clear we have lost this battle in the Senate. The next front is the White House. I urge all those people who are following the debate out there, and who have encouraged me in my efforts, and have encouraged the other Senators who have stayed with me firmly--without faltering, without fainting, and without wavering--I urge the people to keep on in their behalf, who have encouraged us in our efforts, I urge them to turn their attention to the President of the United States. Call him, write him, e-mail him, urge him to heed the Constitution and not short circuit this Constitution by exercising the broad grant of authority the Iraq resolution provides. The President has said on many occasions that he has not yet made up his mind to go to war. And here we are, we have been stampeded into this moment, when we will soon approve this resolution. Let me say again, there are several checkpoints at which we could play this record over and over again. For example, the title of the resolution could be amended. How about that? And then there is going to be a House resolution coming over to this body, and there is going to be a request, I suppose, after the Senate votes on that resolution, a request to insert the words of the Senate, which are likewise the same words, so that it will have a House number. And there would have been a place. I will not go through all these places. But we could fight on. No, we would not finish at 4:30 tomorrow morning, we would not finish it at 4:30 the next morning, if we wanted to. I hope the leadership and the Senators will all understand that. I am not bragging. Dizzy Dean said: It's all right to brag if you have done it. We could do that. We could do that. But what good would it do? What good would it do? The course of destiny has already been set by this Senate. So the President has said on many occasions he has not made up his mind to go to war. When he does make up his mind, if he does, then he should come back to Congress and seek formal authorization. Let those high-powered lawyers of the White House tell him otherwise. They are going to stand by their client, I suppose. But they did not go to the same law school I went to. They probably did not have to work as hard as I had to work. Their wives may not have worked as hard as my wife to put me through law school. Well, so much for that. Let him come back to the Congress for authorization. Mr. President, I continue to have faith in our system of Government. It works. I continue to have faith in the basic values that shape this country, this Nation. Ours was a great country before it became a great nation. Those values do not include striking first at other countries, at other nations. Those values do not include using our position as the strongest and most formidable Nation in the world to bully and intimidate other nations. There are no preemptive strikes in the language of the Constitution, I do not care what other Senators say. Those values do not include putting other nations on an enemies list so we can justify preemptive military strikes. Were I not to believe in the inherent ability of the Constitution to withstand the folly of such actions as the Senate is about to take, I would not stop fighting. Yes, he is 85--85. I will be 85 years old 41 days from now if the good Lord--if the good Lord--lets me live. But don't you think for a moment I can't stand on this floor all the rest of this night. I like to fight when I am fighting for the Constitution and for this institution. I will fight until I drop, yes, fight until they hack my flesh to the bone. I would fight with every fiber in my body, every ounce of my energy, with every parliamentary tool at my disposal--and there are parliamentary tools at my disposal; don't you ever think there are not--but I do believe the Constitution will weather this storm. The Senate will weather the storm as well. I only hope that when the tempest passes, Senators will reflect upon the ramifications of what they have done and understand the damage that has been inflicted on the Constitution of the United States. Now, those people out there believe in the Constitution. And I have been very disappointed to have stood on my feet--an 85-year-old man, standing on his feet, and pleading with his colleagues to stand up for the Constitution--I have been disappointed that some of them seem not to have listened at all. That is a real disappointment. It isn't Robert C. Byrd who counts; it is the Constitution of the United States. And but for that Constitution, they would not be here, I would not be here, and you, Mr. President, would not be here. It is that Constitution. And we all take an oath, a solemn oath, to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. In the greatest oration that was ever delivered in the history of mankind, the oration ``On the Crown,'' delivered in the year 331 B.C. by Demosthenes in his denunciation of Aeschines, he asked this question: Who deceives the state? He answered his own question by saying: The man who does not speak what he thinks. Who deceives the state? The man who does not speak what he thinks. I believe we ought to speak what we think. A political party means nothing, absolutely nothing to me, in comparison with this Constitution which I hold in my hand. It means nothing, political party means nothing to me, in comparison with this great old book which our mothers read, the Holy Bible. It seems to me that in this debate--thinking about the 50,000 e-mails that have come to this country boy from the hills of West Virginia, 50,000 e-mails, almost 20,000 telephone calls; my wonderful staff have been hard-pressed to take all these calls and log them in--the American people seem to have a better understanding of the Constitution than do those who are elected to represent them. Now, that is a shame, isn't it? I feel sorry for some of my colleagues. I love them; bless their hearts. I love them. I forgive them. But you might as well talk to the ocean. I might as well speak to the waves as they come with the tides that rise and fall. I might as well speak to the waves, as did King Canute, as to speak to some of my colleagues. They won't hear me. And it isn't because it is Robert Byrd. They just don't want to hear about that Constitution. That is what these people are writing me about. Perhaps it is that their understanding, the understanding of the people, the great mass of people out there, it may be that their understanding of the Constitution has not yet filtered through the prism of the election year politics. That's it--the election year politics. I believe the American people have a better understanding of what the Senate is about to do, a greater respect for the inherent powers of the Constitution, and a greater comprehension of the far-reaching consequences of this resolution, a greater comprehension than do most of their leaders. I thank my colleagues who have allowed me to express at considerable length my reasons for opposing the resolution. I thank those Senators, such as the Senator who presides over the Senate at this very moment, I thank those Senators who have stood with me in my fight for the Constitution and for this institution and for that provision in the Constitution that says, Congress shall have power to declare war. I thank those Senators who have engaged in thoughtful debate with me. I thank Senator McCain. I thank Senator Warner. I thank these men. They stood up for what they believe. They stood up for this administration. The only difference is, I will stand for no administration--none--when it comes to this Constitution. If the administration took a position opposite that Constitution, forget it. I don't care if it is a Democrat. I do not believe the Senate has given enough time or enough consideration to the question of handing the President unchecked authority to usurp the Constitution and declare war on Iraq. I have no brief for Iraq. But I accept the futility of continuing to fight on this front. So I could keep us here all night tonight. I know there would be other Senators who would stand with me. Other Senators believe as I do. I could keep us here tomorrow. I could keep us here through Saturday. I would hope we would not be in on Sunday. That is the Sabbath Day. But come back on next Tuesday, have at it again, until the flesh from my bones be hacked. I say to the people of America, to those who have encouraged other Senators and me to uphold the principles of the Constitution: Keep up the fight. Keep fighting for what is right. Let your voices be heard. Why do you think George Washington crossed the Delaware? I say to my good friend from Delaware, Joe Biden, my esteemed friend, my esteemed colleague. He crossed the Delaware, I say to my friend Fred Thompson-- Senator Fred Thompson, we are going to soon miss him. I like him. I like him. He always speaks with great passion and fervor, and he is always respectful of other Senators. He was here during the days of Sam Ervin, Howard Baker, the days of Watergate, that Senator from Tennessee. Let me say, I will always listen to you, the people out there, and I hope the President will begin to listen to you. If the President really wants to do something for this country, let him help to fight the war at home. This week, we will soon be passing another CR. Time and time again, the President's Attorney General and the Director of Homeland Security have put the Nation on notice that there is an imminent threat of another terrorist attack to our homeland. And from time to time, they have even identified the most likely targets, such as our nuclear powerplants, our transportation infrastructure, our Nation's monuments, our embassies. They have told our citizens to be vigilant about this imminent risk. What has the President done to respond to this imminent risk of terrorist attack on our Nation's shoulders? The President has proposed to create a new bureaucracy. He has proposed to move boxes around on an organization of flowcharts. He has proposed to create the second- largest domestic agency in the history of the Republic. Even the President recognizes that actually creating the new Department of Homeland Security will take at least 1 year. I tell you, my friends, if I ever saw a good lawyer, he sits right here on the back row, right now--that Senator from Tennessee, Fred Thompson. Why do I say that? Because he made the most rousing defense of this sorry resolution that is before the Senate and on which we will soon vote, the most rousing defense of it. And yet he is against it. He is against it. That is what I call a good lawyer; he makes a rousing defense of this thing which he hates. Even the President recognizes that actually creating the new Department of Homeland Security will take at least 1 year. The GAO has said it will take at least 5 to 10 years for a new Department to be effected. So while our citizens are facing this imminent risk, under the President's proposal, the agencies responsible for securing our borders, such as the Customs Service, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, and the Coast Guard, will spend the next year or more figuring out for whom they work, with whom they work. Instead of focusing on their mission, our border agencies and inspectors will be wondering whether their units will be reorganized or transferred to new locations, and they will be wondering where their phones are, where their computers are, and whether their jobs are going to be eliminated. And what would be happening in the meantime? Who will be keeping the store and watching the terrorists? Reorganizing our bureaucracy will not improve our Nation's immediate capacity to deter or respond to the imminent threat of a terrorist attack. Since September 11, the Senate Appropriations Committee has focused on providing immediate resources to Federal, State, and local agencies and first responders in order to improve our capacity to respond to this evolving threat. On September 14, 2001--just 3 days after the horrific attacks on September 11--Congress approved $40 billion. That is $40 for every day since Jesus Christ was born. Congress approved $40 billion, including $9.8 billion for homeland defense. Resources were provided to the FBI to hire more agents and to improve their computers; to State and local governments to improve the capacity of our hospitals and clinics to respond to chemical or biological weapons attacks; to State and local governments to train and equip our law enforcement and fire personnel to respond to attacks; for HHS to purchase smallpox vaccine for USDA; to the FDA to protect our food safety; to the Postal Service to purchase equipment that can protect the mail--where have you been, Mr. President? That is what Congress did--for the FAA to secure cockpits and to improve the security of our airports; to the Department of Transportation for port security; to the Energy Department to help secure our nuclear facilities; to Customs and INS for additional border security inspectors and agencies, and for improved training and equipment. To listen to the President, he is the only person who has been thinking anything about homeland security. Here is the great Congress of the United States that has been providing moneys for the defense of our country. Despite objections from the White House, Congress was able to increase funding for homeland security programs by $3.9 billion. Where have you been, Mr. President? If you want to do something, do something here at home. On November 14, 2001, Senate Democrats supported the inclusion of $15 billion for homeland security in an economic stimulus package, including $4 billion for bioterrorism and food safety; $4.6 billion for law enforcement and responsive initiatives; $3.2 billion for transportation security: and $3 billion for other homeland security programs, including mail screening and protection for our nuclear plants and labs, water projects, and other facilities. Where has he been, Mr. Commander in Chief? Out on the campaign trail raising money for the campaign? This is what Congress has been doing. On November 14, 2001, the White House strongly objected to the amendment, asserting that existing funding was ``more than adequate to meet foreseeable needs.'' Now, who is fighting for homeland security? Under pressure from the White House, Senate Republicans, objecting to the emergency designation for the homeland security funding, raised the Budget Act point of order. Efforts to waive the budget point of order failed. On December 4, 2001, the Appropriations Committee reported out, by a vote of 29 to 0, the Defense appropriations bill for fiscal year 2002. In addition to the $20 billion appropriated on September 14, the bill would have provided $7.5 billion in additional homeland security funds, including $3.9 billion for bioterrorism and food safety; $1.3 billion for antiterrorism law enforcement; $1.43 billion for security of mail and nuclear facilities; $879 million for transportation and border security. The bill would also have provided an additional $7.5 billion to FEMA's disaster relief account for activities and assistance related to 9/11. On December 5, 2001, in a meeting with congressional leaders, President Bush threatened to veto the Defense appropriations bill because of funding ``that is not needed at this time.'' On December 6, 2001, Senate Republicans objected to the emergency designation for the homeland security funding in the Defense appropriations bill and raised the Budget Act point of order. Efforts to waive the budget point of order failed. On December 7, 2001, after negotiations with Senate Republicans, homeland security programs were reduced by over $3.6 billion. The Senate then passed the Defense appropriations bill. In April and May of 2002, the Senate Appropriations Committee held five bipartisan hearings, led and conducted by Senator Ted Stevens and me, concerning the defense of our homeland. Senator Stevens and I, and others on that committee, Republicans and Democrats, heard from Governors and from mayors. We heard from firemen, law enforcement, and emergency medical personnel. We heard from specialists in the field of counterterrorism. Based on those hearings, the Committee on Appropriations in the Senate produced a bipartisan supplemental appropriations bill to continue our effort to provide immediate resources to improve our Nation's capacity to deter and respond to terrorist attack. On May 22, 2002, the Senate Appropriations Committee, by a vote of 29 to 0, reported out a supplemental appropriations bill that included $8.3 billion for homeland defense programs. Once again, on June 4, 2002, the President threatened to veto the bill because he believed it contained unnecessary homeland security spending. On June 7, 2002, the Senate passed the Supplemental Appropriations Act for further recovery from and response to terrorist attacks on the United States. The bill provided $8.3 billion for homeland security programs, including the following amounts above the President's request: $265 million for airport security funds; $646 million for first responder programs; $716 million for port security. However, under pressure from the White House, conferees on that bill were forced to reduce homeland security funding from $8.3 billion to $6.7 billion-- under pressure from the White House. In negotiations with House Republicans, homeland security funding was dropped for cybersecurity, for improved capacity for the Centers for Disease Control to investigate potential biological attacks, for airport security, for the Coast Guard, and for the Customs Service. On July 24 of this year, the Senate passed the conference report to the Supplemental Appropriations Act for further recovery from and response to terrorist attacks on the United States. Get this now; we are talking about war here, the war on terrorism. Where? Here in this country. This act reduced the $8.3 billion for homeland security appropriated by the Senate to $6.7 billion. Did the White House agree to fund the full $6.7 billion for homeland defense programs? Did it? No. The White House talks a good game on homeland defense, but the White House support is more about rhetoric than it is about resources. In order for the President to spend $2.5 billion for homeland defense spending, it was necessary for him to do what? Just sign his name on a document designating the funding as an emergency requirement. What did the President choose to do? Did he choose to sign his name and start that $2.5 billion to flowing into the States and counties and municipalities of this country? No. The President chose not to make that designation. In making that decision, he terminated $2.5 billion of funding for the FBI, funding to train and equip our Nation's firefighters, funding for the Corps of Engineers to help ensure our water supply, funding for security at nuclear facilities, funding for the Coast Guard. Now tell that, Mr. President, at your next campaign stop, your next fundraiser when you are talking about making war on Iraq. Tell the people there what I have been reading. It is fact. These are for the record. One of the lessons we learned at the World Trade Center on September 11 was that our fire personnel could not communicate by radio with police personnel; that local officials could not communicate with State and regional personnel. When the President decided to block the $2.5 billion, he blocked the $100 million that we approved to help State and local governments across the land to solve the problem, and $90 million to provide medical assistance to the first responders at the World Trade Center was lost. What is the President's solution for the imminent threat to our Nation's homeland security? Rhetoric? Yes. More bureaucracy? Yes. Resources to respond to the immediate threat? No. Mr. President, with reference to this Commander in Chief business that we hear about--oh, the Commander in Chief, they say. I listen to my friends across the aisle talking about the Commander in Chief. We must do this for the Commander in Chief; we must stand shoulder to shoulder with the Commander in Chief. The Commander in Chief. Of what is he Commander in Chief? The army, the navy, and the militia of the several States. But who provides the army and the navy? Who provides for the calling out of the militia of the several States? Congress. So much for the the term ``Commander in Chief.'' Charles I used that term in 1639--Commander in Chief. You know what happened to Charles I of England? The swordsman cut off the head of Charles I on January 30, 1649. So much for Commander in Chief. Parliament and the King of England fought a war. Can you imagine that? Can you imagine Congress fighting a war with the President of the United States? They did that in England. Yes, Parliament and the King fought a war. Who lost? The King. Who was it? King Charles I. A high court convened on January 1, I believe it was, 1649, and in 30 days they cut Charles I's head off--severed it from his body. So much for Charles I. That was the Commander in Chief. Yes. Hail to the chief. I respect the President as much as anybody else. But the Barons at Runnemede on the banks of the Thames on June 15, 1215, took it upon themselves to let the King know that there was a law, and that Kings had to live by the law, just as did barons and others. I do not know who is talking to this President down here. I do not know who among his crowd down there is trying to pump him up, but my friends, this President of the United States is the President by virtue of this Constitution. He is created by this Constitution that I hold in my hand, which says in article II that the President shall be Commander in Chief. And yet this refers to the Constitution in this national security strategy of the United States of America printed on September 2002. It refers to the Constitution not even with a capital letter. The Constitution of America--what is the matter with those people? Haven't they studied the Constitution down at the other end of the avenue? They better become aware of it. This is the Constitution, and that Constitution refutes this resolution on which Congress is about to vote to give to the President of the United States power to determine the use of the military forces, when he will use them, where he will use them, how long he will use them. It is this Constitution. You better believe it, may I say to those who advise the President. I think the President is probably a much better individual by himself, but somebody is giving him bad advice. Here is what Hamilton says. Let's read what Hamilton says. He is one of the three authors of the ``Federalist Papers.'' Hamilton, who was shot to death in Weehawken, NJ, on the 11th of July, 1804. He died on the 12th of July, 1804; shot by the Vice President of the United States; murdered by the Vice President of the United States. Let's hear what Alexander Hamilton has to say in the Federalist Paper No. 69. Read it. These are the ``Federalist Papers.'' There are 85 of them written by Jay, Hamilton, and Madison. Let's hear what he says about the Commander in Chief. I want the Commander in Chief to hear me. I want the Commander in Chief to hear not what Robert Byrd said--who is he?-- but read what Alexander Hamilton said: The President is to be the ``commander-in-chief'' of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States. . . .In most of these particulars, the power of the President will resemble equally that of the king of Great Britain and of the governor of New York. The most material points of difference are these:--First. The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union. The king of Great Britain and the governor of New York have at all times the entire command of all the militia within their several jurisdictions. In this article, therefore-- Talking about this article of the Constitution-- In this article, therefore, the power of the President would be inferior to that of either the monarch or the governor. Second. The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. Get that down there at the other end of the avenue. Read it. Second. The President is to be commander-in-chief. . . .It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first general and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies--all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature. That is Hamilton. I am reading from the Federalist Papers. Perhaps I ought to send a copy down to the White House. I will see if I can't do that. I will send them a copy. It will not cost them anything, just a gift from Robert C. Byrd. Now, I have a little more to say. Suffice it to say there are other of my colleagues, and I, who have stood on this floor and we have pointed to the Constitution of the United States. We have said time and time again, as we have offered amendments, to try to uphold this Constitution of the United States, read those amendments. They went down, I am sorry to say, but I am not discouraged. Let me read some verses from the Book of Luke in the Holy Bible, beginning with chapter 16, verse 19 and continuing through verse 31: There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day. And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, and desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table. Moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. And it came to pass that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. The rich man also died, and was buried. And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and thou art tormented. And beside all of this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed; so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot. Neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house; For I have five brethren: that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. And Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham; but if one went unto them from the dead they will repent. And he said unto him, if they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. There you have it. We can speak until we are blue in the face, we can speak until our tongues fall out, and they will not hear us. So if there were those who were brought from the dead, would some listen? Some would; some would not. We have spoken. We have spoken out of our hearts, and we can speak until our hearts fall from our bodies, but some would not hear. Let those who will not hear understand that this Constitution will endure. It will endure because it was written, as John Marshall said, to endure for the ages. In closing, I want to thank my dear friends in this Senate who have stood in this Chamber day after day in the effort to educate our people. The Senate is a great institution, but somehow I think we are failing. We are failing to educate the people. Why? Because we do not want to spend enough time. How much time have we spent on this resolution as of yesterday at 4 p.m.? A little over 25 hours on this bill--25 hours. Why, many of the larger municipalities in this country would spend a week on an application for a sewer permit. And here we spend 2 days?--that is what it amounts to, 25 hours--and we are ready to quit. We know we might as well quit because this cloture rule is being used against us. Why at this critical time, when we are discussing the most critical legislation we have had before the Senate this year, the most critical legislation we may have in a long time? We have been stampeded, we have been rushed, and it is unfair to the people of this country. Yet it has to be that way. I have letters from constitutional scholars in response to my inquiry of them as to the war powers of the United States Congress. I received several letters from constitutional scholars from around the country, and I ask unanimous consent that they be printed in the Record: A letter by Jane E. Stromseth, professor of law, Georgetown University Law Center; a letter from Tufts University, the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, a letter signed by Michael J. Glennon, professor of international law.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may I say to the distinguished Senator from Delaware that at the request of the distinguished majority whip, which was agreed to, I will have two hours. This Senator will be glad to yield to the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee the first one- half hour of my time.

Mr. BYRD. What is the Chair saying, may I ask?

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BYRD. What is the request?

Mr. BYRD. I hope Senators will show an abundance of mercy before the day is over and perhaps give me some more time. Mr. President, this week the Senate is considering a very important resolution. The language of this resolution has been touted as a bipartisan compromise that addresses the concerns of both the White House and the Democratic leadership in Congress. But the only thing that I see being compromised in this resolution is this Constitution of the United States, which I hold in my hand, and the power that Constitution gives to Congress to declare war. This resolution we are considering is a dangerous step toward a government in which one man at the other end of this avenue holds in his hand the power to use the world's most powerful military force in whatever manner he chooses, whenever he chooses, wherever he chooses, and wherever he perceives a threat against national security. The Bush administration has announced a new security doctrine that advocates acting preemptively to head off threats to U.S. national security. Much has been said about the diplomatic problem with this doctrine. But we should also recognize that the administration's new approach to war may also pose serious problems for our own constitutional system. In the proposed use-of-force resolution, the White House lawyers claim ``the President has authority under the Constitution to use force in order to defend the national security interests of the United States.'' It says no such thing. I dare them to go to the Constitution and point out where that Constitution says what they say it said. They cannot do it. I know the job of any good lawyer--I have never been a practicing lawyer, but I know the job of a good lawyer is to craft legal interpretations that are most beneficial to the client. But for the life of me, I cannot find any basis for such a broad, expansive interpretation in the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. Find it. Show it to me. You can't do it. Where in the Constitution is it written that the title of Commander in Chief carries with it the power to decide unilaterally whether to commit the resources of the United States to war? Show it to me, lawyers, lawyers of the White House, or lawyers in this body. Show it. There is a dangerous agenda, believe me, underlying these broad claims by this White House. The President is hoping to secure power under the Constitution that no President has ever claimed before. Never. He wants the power--the Bush administration wants that President to have power to launch this Nation into war without provocation and without clear evidence of an imminent attack on the United States. And we are going to be foolish enough to give it to him. I never thought I would see the day in these 44 years I have been in this body, never did I think I would see the day when we would cede this kind of power to any President. The White House lawyers have redefined the President's power under the Constitution to repel sudden acts against the United States. And he has that power, to repel sudden, unforeseen attacks against the United States, against its possessions, its territories, and its Armed Forces. But they suggest he could also justify military action whenever there is a high risk of a surprise attack. That Constitution, how they would love to stretch it to give this President that power which he does not have. Those White House lawyers would have us believe that the President has independent authority not only to repel attacks but to prevent them. How silly. You cannot find it in that Constitution. The White House wants to redefine the President's implied power under the Constitution to repel sudden attacks, suggesting that the realities of the modern world justify preemptive military action whenever there is a high risk of a surprise attack. What in the world are they teaching in law school these days? What are they teaching? I never heard of such as that when I was in law school. Of course I had to go at night. I had to go 10 years to get my law degree. In the national security strategy released last week, a few days ago, the President argued--let me tell you what the President argued--we must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities of today's adversary. Get that. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld echoed this sentiment when he told the Senate Armed Services Committee: I suggest that any who insist on perfect evidence are back in the 20th century and still thinking in pre-9/11 years. What a profound statement that was. How profound. Perhaps the Secretary of Defense ought to go back to law school, too. I don't believe he was taught that in law school. The President does not want to shackle his new doctrine of 20th century ideas of war and security, much less any outdated notion from the 18th century about how this Republic should go to war. The Bush administration thinks the Constitution, with its inefficient separation of powers and its cumbersome checks and balances--they are cumbersome-- has become an anachronism in a world of international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. They say it is too old. This Constitution, which I hold in my hand, is an anachronism. It is too old. It was all right back in the 19th century. It was all right in the 20th century. But we are living in a new time, a new age. There it is, right up there, inscribed, ``Novus ordo seclorum.'' A new order of the ages. New order of the ages. This modern President does not have time for old-fashioned political ideas that complicate his job of going after the bad guys single- handedly. And make no mistake, the resolution we are considering will allow the President to go it alone at every stage of the process. It will be President Bush, by himself, who defines the national security interests of the United States. It will be President Bush, by himself, who identifies threats to our national security. It will be President Bush, by himself, who decides when those threats justify a bloody and costly war. And it will be President Bush, by himself, who determines what the objectives of such a war should be, and when it should begin and when it should end. The most dangerous part of this modernized approach to war is the wide latitude the President will have to identify which threats present a ``high risk'' to national security. The administration's National Security Strategy briefly outlines a few common attributes shared by dangerous ``rogue states,'' but the administration is careful not to confine its doctrine to any fixed set of objective criteria for determining when the threat posed by any one of these states is sufficient to warrant preemptive action. The President's doctrine--and we are about to put our stamp on it, the stamp of this Senate. The President's doctrine, get this, gives him--Him? Who is he? He puts his britches on just the same way I do. He is a man. I respect his office. But look what we are turning over to this man, one man. The President's doctrine gives him a free hand to justify almost any military action with unsubstantiated allegations and arbitrary risk assessments. Even if Senators accept the argument that the United States does not have to wait until it has been attacked before acting to protect its citizens, the President does not have the power to decide when and where such action is justified, especially when his decision is supported only by fear and speculation. The power to make that decision belongs here in Congress. That is where it belongs. That is where this Constitution vests it. The power to make this decision belongs to Congress and Congress alone. Ultimately, Congress must decide whether the threat posed by Iraq is compelling enough to mobilize this Nation to war. Deciding questions of war is a heavy burden for every Member of Congress. It is the most serious responsibility imposed on us by the Constitution. We should not shrink from our duty to provide authority to the President where action is needed. But just as importantly, we should not shrink from our constitutional duty to decide for ourselves whether launching this Nation into war is an appropriate response to the threats facing our people--those people looking, watching this debate through that electronic lens there. They are the ones who will have to suffer. It is their sons and daughters whose blood will be spilled. Our ultimate duty is not to the President. They say: Give the President the benefit of the doubt. Why, how sickening that idea is. Our ultimate duty is not to the President of the United States. I don't give a darn whether he is a Democrat or Republican or an Independent--whatever. It makes no difference. I don't believe that our ultimate duty is to him. Our ultimate duty is to the people out there who elected us. Our duty is not to rubber-stamp the language of the President's resolution, but to honor the text of the Constitution. Our duty is not to give the President a blank check to enforce his foreign policy doctrine, but to exercise our legislative power to protect the national security interests of this Republic. Our constitutional system was designed to prevent the executive from plunging the Nation into war in the name of contrived ideals and political ambitions. The nature of the threats posed by a sudden attack on the United States may have changed dramatically since the time when Constitution was drafted, but the reasons for limiting the war powers of the President have not changed at all. In fact, the concerns of the Framers are even more relevant. Talk about this being old fashioned. The concerns of the Framers are even more relevant to the dangerous global environment in which our military must now operate, because the consequences of unchecked military action may be more severe for our citizens than ever before. Congress has the sole power under the Constitution to decide whether the threat posed by Iraq is compelling enough to mobilize this nation to war, and no Presidential doctrine can change that. If President Bush wants our foreign policy to include any military action, whether for preemption, containment, or any other objective, he must first convince Congress that such a policy is in the best interest of the American people. The amendment I am offering reaffirms the obligation of the Congress to decide whether this country should go to war. It makes clear that Congress retains this power, even in the event that we pass this broad language, which I believe gives the President a blank check to initiate war whenever he wants, wherever he wants, and against any perceived enemy he can link to Iraq. My amendment makes clear that the President has the power to respond to the threat of an imminent, sudden, and direct attack by Iraq against the United States, and that any military action that does not serve this purpose must be specifically authorized by the Congress. Other Senators have said on the floor that the language of this resolution does not give the President a blank check, and they have said that this resolution is narrowly tailored to Iraq. I do not read the resolution that way, but I hope that the President does. I hope the President reads this resolution as a narrowly crafted authorization to deal with Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and not as an open-ended endorsement of his doctrine of preemptive military action. We should all hope that the President does not fully exercise his authority under this resolution, and that he does not abuse the imprecise language Congress may ultimately adopt. But I believe that Congress must do more than give the President a blank check and then stand aside and hope for the best. Congress must make clear that this resolution does not affect its constitutional power to declare war under Article I, section 8 of the Constitution; otherwise, this resolution may appear to delegate this important legislative function to the executive My amendment also clarifies the intent of this resolution is limited to authorizing a military response to the threat of an Iraqi attack upon the United States. Congress must ensure that the broad language of this resolution does not allow the President to use this authority to act outside the boundaries of his constitutional powers. This amendment affirms the constitutional requirement that the President must have congressional authorization before initiating military action for any purpose other than defending the United States against an imminent, sudden, and direct attack. We must not provide the temptation to this President, or any president, to unleash the dogs of war for reasons beyond those anticipated by the Congress. The power of Congress to declare war is a political check on the President's ability to arbitrarily commit the United States to changing military doctrines, and the evolving nature of war and security threats does not change the language of the Constitution. The President cannot use the uncertainty of terrorist threats to confuse the clearly defined political processes required by the Constitution, and Congress should not rush to endorse a doctrine that will commit untold American resources to unknown military objectives. The President admits in his National Security Strategy that ``America's constitution has served us well.'' But his actions suggest that he feels this service is no longer needed. Congress should ensure that the Constitution continues to serve our national security interests by preventing the United States from plunging headlong into an ever-growing war in the Middle East. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment in order to preserve the constitutional system of checks and balances that the founders of this republic valued so highly.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator. How much time remains?

Mr. BYRD. Here it is, my Constitution.

Mr. BYRD. I am happy to yield.

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, 1991, when Iraq signified to the Security Council that it accepted the terms of 687. 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. BYRD. On this amendment?

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.

Robert Byrd

Speeches

Manage analytics