Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

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

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

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

Mr. BYRD. And what does the Journal say?

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?

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

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?

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

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

Mr. BYRD. On the Senator's time.

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

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

Mr. BYRD. How many minutes?

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

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.

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. BYRD. Will the Senator yield to me?

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? 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.

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

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.

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.

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 Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator--I urge Senators to go down on The Capital Mall and look at the Vietnam memorial. Nearly every day you will find someone at that wall weeping for a loved one, a father, a son, a brother, a friend, whose name is on that wall. 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.

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