Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, reserving the right to object, I can finish in 10 minutes now.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I see the distinguished Senator from Connecticut wanted to speak. Does he wish to speak at this point?

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I make that request.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Madam President, I thank and commend all those Senators who have been speaking in support of the resolution that will soon come before the Senate for a decision by the Senate. I think they have rendered a service. I commend Mr. Lieberman. I commend Mr. Warner. And I commend those others who are cosponsors of the resolution. I commend them on their high level of argumentation they have put forth. This is what the country needs. The country needs to hear more of this, and I have only the utmost admiration for those who feel as they do in support of this resolution. The Senate is the anchor of the Republic, and it is here on this battlefield many of the country's great Senators have expounded their views and taken sides, one way or the other, on the great issues that have come before the Nation over this period of more than 200 years. I have listened, as best I could, to the various Senators who, for the most part this morning, have spoken in support of the resolution, S.J. Res. 45, which will be at least soon attempted to be amended by S.J. Res. 46. Madam President, I am not against just any and every resolution of this nature. I could very well be for a resolution. If this debate were to go on for a while, or perhaps to go until after the election, giving us time to debate it thoroughly, giving Senators time to amend it, modify it, to change it, it might very well be I, too, could support a resolution. After all, that is what we should strive for. We should strive for a national consensus. If this country is going to engage in a military conflict in the near future, it should not be a slapdash resolution that in its makeup looks, for all intents and purposes, as though it were just thrown together, it was a cut-and-paste operation. I would hope we could come to a conclusion, after ample debate, that we could join hands across the aisle, join hands between the two parties, join hands with the executive branch. I would hope we could do that. And I do not think that is beyond the realm of possibility. I think it would be possible to develop a resolution which might get a unanimous vote in this Senate, but it would take time. It cannot be this resolution which would be unanimous because it will not be unanimous. My concerns about this resolution are, in the main, two--two concerns. Getting into further detail, I can express several concerns. But in the main, I would say my concerns are two in number. One, this resolution authorizes the President to determine and authorizes the President to use military forces as he will, when he will, how he will, and wherever he will, as long as the thread is tied to Iraq, and beyond that--I do not have the resolution in front of me-- as long as it is tied, by the thread, to ``defend[ing] the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforc[ing] all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.'' Madam President, I can talk in considerable detail and at considerable length with respect to the ``whereas'' clauses and with respect to the authorization section, section 3. Suffice it to say this is a blank check, this authorization paragraph is a blank check, given over to the Chief Executive, not just this one but Chief Executives who will succeed him. There is no sunset provision. There is no termination under this authorization. It can go on and on and on until Congress sees fit to terminate it. So it is open-ended. It is a blank check. And it cedes the decisionmaking power of the Congress under the Constitution to declare war. It cedes that to a Chief Executive--for the moment, Mr. George W. Bush. Succeeding him, who knows? But it is open-ended. If Congress is going to waive that part of the Constitution which gives power to the Congress to declare war--and I am not sure Congress can waive that--but if it is going to, why don't we at least have a sunset provision? Why don't we at least have a cutoff at which time the cession of that power is no longer existent? Is that asking too much? No. 1, my opposition to this resolution in the main is because Congress is ceding--lock, stock, and barrel--its power to declare war, handing that over to a Chief Executive and, by its own terms, as much as to say, that President will determine that. He will use the military forces of these United States--that means the Marines, the Air Force, the Army, the Navy, all the military forces of this country--he shall use all of the military forces of this country in whatever ways he determines, wherever he determines, whenever he determines, and for as long as he determines. That is the way it is written--lock, stock, and barrel. Congress might as well just close the doors, put a sign over the doors and say: ``Going fishing.'' Put a sign on the Statue of Liberty up here: ``Out of business.'' That is exactly, that is precisely what we are about to do, if we vote for this resolution as it is currently written. If there is anybody who disagrees with me, they can try to show me that. But they cannot refute the words written in this resolution. All the ``whereases'' constitute nothing more than figleaves, beautifully dressed, beautifully colored, pretty figleaves, with sugar on them. My second objection in the main is that Congress is being stampeded, pressured, adjured, importuned into acting on this blank check before Congress goes out for the election. Doesn't that make this somewhat suspect? Recall, it was only in late August, around August 23, I believe it was, I read in the newspaper where the President was concerned about the intensified talk that was going on with reference to his plans in respect to an attack on Iraq. Secretary Rumsfeld, in that same newspaper report, referred to it as a ``frenzy.'' So even the President, 6 weeks ago, was seeking to allay the concerns of the people in Washington, people all over the country, with respect to any ``plans'' that he might have to attack Iraq. In other words, he was saying: Cool it. Well, that was just 6 weeks ago. Then all of a sudden, the whole focus of attention in this country seems to be directed several thousand miles away from these shores to a country called Iraq, to which the distinguished Senator from Connecticut correctly alluded as that great land between the two great rivers, the old Biblical country of Mesopotamia. So those are my two concerns. Here we are, with all of this pressure to act, act now. I am somewhat mystified by the rush pell-mell to embrace this resolution which, as I understand it, is pretty much the administration's handicraft, and the House may be about to vote on the same. I wonder what has gotten into our Democratic leaders that they would embrace this kind of thing. They have a right to do that. Every Senator has a right to vote any way he wants, any way his good sense is directing him. But I have been mystified at the rush, at the frenetic activity on the part of leaders of the Congress, of the other body. They embraced this thing down there on the White House lawn. We should take more time. The American people have questions that they want answered. I have had more than 9,000 telephone calls in the last 5 days that my office has been open, more than 9,000 coming from all over the country, virtually all urging the Senate to slow down, to ask questions, and to fully consider what we are about to do. I hope more people will call. They don't need to call me. They know what my position is. But I hope they will call the Members of Congress, Senate and House Members, Republicans and Democrats, call all the Members. Urge them to stop, look, and listen, look at what we are about to do. We are about to put beyond the reach of Congress the decision to declare war. I listened to the President's speech. I didn't hear anything new. I didn't hear anything that I hadn't already heard prior to this time. He demonized Saddam Hussein. That is quite all right with me. I think Saddam Hussein is lower than a snake's belly myself. I wouldn't shed any tear if anything happened to him. That is not the question. We have known these things. I asked the CIA Director myself, within the last 2 or 3 weeks in my office and in room 407: You are not a policymaker, but you are the expert with respect to intelligence. What is there that you can tell me, what is there that you can tell Congress that is new that indicates we wait beyond this election at our peril? What is it that is new that we haven't known? I am talking to the Director of Central Intelligence. I said: What is it that is new that we haven't known 2 months ago, 6 weeks ago, 3 months ago? They don't have anything. I asked Secretary Rumsfeld. And he will say: Oh, I will tell you what is new, September 11 of last year. Well, of course, that is over a year old. What is so new that it requires this Senate and the House of Representatives to vote before we go out for the election? Why so much interest in the election? That is not by my choice that the administration is pushing for a vote before the election. That is not my choice; that is their choice. And I am not sure but that this effort on their part might be turned against them in the election. I think if the American people are fully aware of what this administration is advocating, fully aware of what we are about to do, the people of this country will rise up. They will let their voices be heard. They have questions. ``What is this going to cost me?'' they will say. Mr. John Q. Citizen will say: What is this going to cost me? What about my son? What about my daughter? What about my grandson? How many American lives are going to be lost if we invade Iraq? What is going to be the cost? What is going to happen to Iraq after its defeat? Who is going to run the government of Iraq then? Are we going to have American fighting men and women in Iraq for 2 months, 6 months, a year, 2 years, 5 years, 10 years? Answer these questions, Mr. Administration. Tell me, also, what is going to happen to homeland security. Already the focus is being shifted away from homeland security. I can see it.

Mr. BYRD. Not just yet.

Mr. BYRD. The President indicated he would lead a coalition, and I hope he will. I hope he will continue to work until he gets a solid coalition together. But if, as the President claims, America will lead a coalition against Iraq, it certainly appears that we have much work to do. The first article I read from the Philadelphia Inquirer bears out a clear message: We have asked the United Nations to act and we should give the United Nations that opportunity. Last night, the President of the United States asked Congress to fully consider the facts in this debate, but I believe that many of the facts are still unclear. We have many questions that demand answers, and we need the time to find those answers. So I suggest we try to get the facts, and the representatives of the American people in Congress need the facts, the clear, unadulterated facts, before Congress votes on the resolution. The questions I have are the same questions the American people have. A poll published last Sunday in the New York Times reports that a majority of Americans think that Congress is not asking enough questions about Iraq policy. By a 2-to-1 margin, those polled would prefer to see U.N. inspectors have more time to do their job. Sixty- five percent of those polled think it is better to wait for allies before any attack on Iraq--in other words, not go it alone. Obviously, the American people are far from convinced that we must attack Iraq. I think as time goes on, if this matter is fully debated, we will find a reverse in the polls from what we have been seeing lately. We are going to find that the American people are not all that ready to invade Iraq all by themselves; not all that ready to put the U.N. aside and say we will go it alone--if you do not do it, we will-- and not all that ready to send their boys and girls, their men and women, their loved ones, to war in a foreign land without leaving it up to Congress as to when war should be declared. I yield the floor. Exhibit 1 [From the Philadelphia Inquirer, Oct. 6, 2002] Allied Support on Iraq Exaggerated, Officials Say (By Warren P. Strobel) Washington.--President Bush and some of his top aides, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, have exaggerated the degree of allied support for a war in Iraq, according to senior officials in the military and the Bush administration. These officials, rankled by what they charge is a tendency by Rumsfeld and others to gloss over unpleasant realities, say few nations in Europe or the Middle East are ready to support an attack against Iraq unless the United National Security Council explicitly authorizes the use of force. In the latest sign that international support for the administration's plans is soft, key ally Turkey said Friday that it would participate in a campaign against Iraq only if the world body blessed it. ``An operation not based on international law cannot be accepted,'' a Turkish presidential spokesman said after a meeting of top Turkish civilian, military and intelligence officials in Ankara. The backing of Turkey, which borders Iraq's north, is vital because it hosts air based at Incirlik and elsewhere that would be necessary to conduct a major air campaign against Iraq and protect the ethnic Kurdish population in northern Iraq from Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's retaliation. ``Turkey is the key,'' a senior administration official said. Turkey, which also has a large Kurdish population, is concerned that Iraq's Kurds would try to form their own mini- state and that a war with another Muslim country could aggravate tensions between Islamists and secularists in Turkey and damage the Turkish economy. Turkey is not alone: No country near Iraq has agreed to serve as a launching pad for a U.S. strike without U.N. authorization, the senior official said. He and others spoke on condition of anonymity. As they have tried to persuade Congress to give Bush broad war-making authority, Rumsfeld and other officials have sought to create the impression that there is widespread international support for the Iraq endeavor. That, one top official said, ``is at best premature and at worst deceptive.'' The defense secretary told a House of Representatives committee Sept. 18 that Bush aides ``know for a fact'' that the United States would not be fighting Iraq along if it failed to obtain a U.N. resolution. ``There are any number of countries that have already announced their support,'' he said. Bush said Thursday that if the United Nations and Iraq didn't eliminate Hussein's weapons of mass destruction, ``the United States in deliberate fashion will lead a coalition to take away the world's worst weapons from one of the world's worst leaders.'' Several officials said that while those statements were technically true, there was a coalition yet. Diplomats said privately that only staunch ally Britain and Bulgaria--a member of the U.N. Security Council that wants to join the U.S.-led NATO alliance--had said they were willing to act without United Nations cover. Secretary of State Colin L. Powell has been working intensively to persuade other U.S. Security Council members to back a tough resolution that would force Iraq to accept strict new rules for inspections or face a U.S.-led invasion. He has run into stiff resistance, particularly from France and Russia, both of which hold veto power on the council. Along with those countries, the United States presumably would need an OK to use military bases in Persian Gulf countries such as Kuwait, Oman, Bahrain and Qatar. In Qatar the United States has been extending a runway to accommodate more combat planes, and some war planners hope to persuade Jordan to let U.S. and British special forces attack suspected missile bases and weapons facilities in western Iraq from its territory. None of those countries has told Washington it will be forthcoming without U.N. support, the officials said. One senior military officer called Rumsfeld's comments ``misleading.'' '' `Fine,' `locked in,' `positive,' `concrete'; those words aren't being used over here,'' another Pentagon officer said. Some analysts said that if the confrontation with Iraq came to war, most countries would choose to join in rather than risk displeasing the United States or missing out on the spoils. ``You will have regimes which, if we force the issue, will support us,'' said Anthony Cordesman, a military expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a conservative center for national-security studies. But those countries want diplomatic cover, he said. Some allies also want assurances on other issues, Cordesman said. Turkey, for example, wants debt relief for its teetering economy along with promises that there will be no independent Kurdish state in Iraq. Russia wants a free hand to pursue alleged terrorists in neighboring Georgia, Iraq to pay roughly $8 billion in debt, and Washington to lift Cold War- era trade restrictions. Exhibit 2 [From the Philadelphia Inquirer, Oct. 8, 2002] Officials' Private Doubts On Iraq War (By Warren P. Strobel, Jonathan S. Landay and John Walcott) Washington.--While President Bush marshals congressional and international support for invading Iraq, a growing number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats in his own government privately have deep misgivings about the administration's double-time march toward war. These officials say administration hawks have exaggerated evidence of the threat that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein poses--including distorting his links to the as-Qaeda terrorist network; have overstated the amount of international support for attacking Iraq; and have downplayed the potential repercussions of a new war in the Middle East. They say that the administration squelches dissenting views and that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House's argument that Hussein poses such an immediate threat to the United States that preemptive military action is necessary. ``Analysts at the working level in the intelligence community are feeling very strong pressure from the Pentagon to cook the intelligence books,'' said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity. A dozen other officials echoed his views in interviews with the Inquirer Washington Bureau. No one who was interviewed disagreed. They cited recent suggestions by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and National Security Advisory Condoleezza Rich that Hussein and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network were working together. Rumsfeld said Sept. 26 that the U.S. government had bulletproof'' confirmation of links between Iraq and al-Qaeda members, including ``solid evidence'' that members of the terrorist network maintained a presence in Iraq. The facts are much less conclusive. Officials said Rumsfeld's statement was based in part on intercepted telephone calls in which an al-Qeada member who apparently was passing through Baghdad was overhead calling friends or relatives, intelligence officials said. The intercepts provide no evidence that the suspected terrorist was working with the Iraqi regime or that he was working on a terrorist operation while he was in Iraq, they said. Rumsfeld also suggested that the Iraqi regime had offered safe haven to bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar. While technically true, that, too, is misleading. Intelligence reports said the Iraqi ambassador to Turkey, a longtime Iraqi intelligence officer, made the offer during a visit to Afghanistan in late 1998, after the United States attacked al-Qeada training camps with cruise missiles to retaliate for the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. But officials said the same intelligence reports said that bin Laden rejected the offer because he did not want Hussein to control his group. In fact, officials said, there is no ironclad evidence that the Iraqi regime and the terrorist network are working together, or that Hussein has ever contemplated giving chemical or biological weapons to al-Qeada, with whom he has deep ideological differences. Non of the dissenting officials, who work in a number of different agencies, would agree to speak publicly, out of fear of retribution. Many of them have long experience in the Middle East and South Asia, and all spoke in similar terms about the unease with the way the U.S. political leaders were dealing with Iraq. All agreed that Hussein was a threat who eventually must be dealt with, and none flatly opposed military action. But, they say, the U.S. government has no dramatic new knowledge about the Iraqi leader that justifies Bush's urgent call to arms. Some lawmakers have voiced similar concerns after receiving CIA briefings. Sen. Richard J. Durbin (D., Ill.) said some information he had seen did not support Bush's portrayal of the Iraqi threat. ``It's troubling to have classified information that contradicts statements by the administration,'' Durbin said. ``There's more they should share with the public.'' Several administration and intelligence officials defended CIA Director George Tenet, saying Tenet was not pressuring his analysis but was quietly working to include dissenting opinions in intelligence estimates and congressional briefings. In one case, a senior administration official said, Tenet made sure that a State Department official told Congress that the Energy and State Departments disagreed with an intelligence assessment that said hundreds of aluminum tubes Iraq tried to purchase were intended for Baghdad's secret nuclear-weapons program. Analysts in both departments concluded that the Iraqis probably wanted the tubes to make conventional artillery pieces. Other examples of questionable statements include: Vice President Cheney said in late August that Iraq might have nuclear weapons ``fairly soon.'' A CIA report released Friday said it could take Iraq until the last half of the decade to produce a nuclear weapon., unless it could acquire bomb-grade uranium or plutonium on the black market. Also in August, Rumsfeld suggested that al-Qeada operatives fleeing Afghanistan were taking refuge in Iraq with Hussein's assistance. ``In a vicious, repressive dictatorship that exercises near-total control over its population, it's very hard to imagine that the government is not aware of what's taking place in the country,'' he said. Rumsfeld apparently was referring to about 150 members of the militant Islamic group Ansae al Islam (``Supporters of Islam'') who have taken refuge in Kurdish areas of northern Iraq. However, one of America's would-be Kurdish allies controls that part of the country, not Hussein.

Mr. BYRD. I believe I have these 15 minutes now under a previous order.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, for how long am I recognized now?

Mr. BYRD. And I thank my colleague.

Mr. BYRD. After 2 o'clock, I might be constrained to talk longer.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for 10 minutes.

Mr. BYRD. Then what is the focus? What about homeland security? What might happen on the southern border, on the northern border of this country, in the ports of this country, at the airports of this country? What might happen? The American people today are concerned about the safety right here in this area, the safety of their own schoolchildren. They are concerned about these things that are going on all around us. What is going to happen to homeland security? I don't hear much about it over this last couple weeks or more. This attack on Iraq we have been talking about--the President says: If you do not do it, I will. If you don't do it, we will. Well, this concerns me. What kind of a face are we going to present to the world with this kind of cowboy, macho attitude? What kind of face are we presenting to the world? Does the world still see us as a law-abiding Nation that lives by the rule of law? Is that what we recommend to other countries? Are we a country that loves liberty, freedom, justice, the rule of law, or is this going to make us look like a bully? I used to play a tune on my fiddle called ``The Bully of the Town''--``I am looking for the bully of the town.'' Is that the kind of face Uncle Sam is going to present to the world? It sounds like it when the President says to the U.N.: If you don't do something, we will. Madam President, I am simply saying we ought not have this vote before this election. This election is going to distract members from concentrating, from focusing on the question of war or peace. It is already doing it. It is already doing it. So there are lots of questions the American people want answered. What about the economy? Is this going to affect the American economy? What about my job? What about my health insurance? What about us older folks? What about prescription drugs? You do not hear much about that now. Everything is tuned to Iraq. The American people are being led to believe something may happen tomorrow--and something may happen right here within our own shores. But they are being led to believe Saddam is such a threat we don't dare wait until after the election. Saddam doesn't present that kind of imminent threat to this country. He doesn't have these kinds of weapons that he would level at this country before the election. Now, something could happen in our midst before the election. It can happen tonight. It can happen today. It has been happening in this area over the past several days, with a sniper taking six lives, and he shot eight persons. People are concerned about issues here at home. We should not try to divert their attention to a threat. I don't say Saddam is not a threat. I say he is not the immediate threat the administration is trying to make him out to be at this point. We have some time. We ought to utilize it. We cannot let Saddam Hussein continue to have weapons, such as biological and chemical weapons. We cannot let him acquire weapons of mass destruction. But there is some time, and I think it is very important we get the United Nations involved here, and the President has made a good start in that direction. He made a fine statement when he spoke to the U.N. He put the burden on them. He laid it at their door. They have been recreant in their duty. We should utilize the time we have to let the U.N. marshal its forces and try to get other countries to assist this country in carrying the burden. Eleven years ago, the cost of that war was $61.1 billion, and other countries helped shoulder the expenses, with the exception of about $7.5 billion. We ought to be seeking to get others' help. We ought to let the inspectors go back in and have restrictions such that they will have a full and free opportunity to inspect wherever they want, wherever they think they should. So I am for all that. I am not one who says Saddam is not a threat; he is a threat, but he has been a threat for many years. I think it is a disservice to the American people to insist their elected representatives in the House and Senate showdown on this fateful decision before the election. Now, that is highly suspect. To those who are pushing it, I have to say it is suspect. Why do they want this vote before the election? I am not the one who determines when the election will fall. We know it is going to take place on November 5. Where is the threat that is so imminent to this country we have to declare war here and now, before the election? It is a distraction. Our Senators and House Members need to be concentrating on the matter, debating it, debating other matters. There are many more matters that cry out for the attention of this country. Why should we not be giving attention to them and not be distracted in this vote by what may happen to me on November 5, if I vote this way or that way? That is not right. It is wrong. It is not doing right by the people of this country. They are entitled to better than that. So I have two main concerns. One, we are ceding the constitutional authority to declare war, and it is open-ended, a blank check. Mr. President, here it is, you can have it. We will just go fishing. You take it and we are out of it. We are out of business. We are out of business for the next year or 2 years or as long as this piece of paper--this blank check--is in effect. You have it. We are cheating the people back home when we vote for that kind of resolution. Madam President, I have much more to say, but I told the Senator from Virginia I would be glad to yield. I do that now, without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. BYRD. I do not yield at the moment. I will be happy to yield in a moment. The Senator has been on the floor all morning--he and his compatriots over here who are boosting this unfortunate resolution. So I want a few minutes now, and then I will be happy to yield.

Mr. BYRD. I simply want to finish----

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I quote another article from the Philadelphia Inquirer, this one October 8, 2002, entitled: ``Officials' Private Doubts On Iraq War'': While President Bush marshals congressional and international support for invading Iraq, a growing number of military officers, intelligence professionals and diplomats in his own government privately have deep misgivings about the administration's double-time march toward war. These officials say administration hawks have exaggerated evidence of the threat that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein poses--including distorting his links to the al-Qaeda terrorist network; have overstated the amount of international support for attacking Iraq; and have downplayed the potential repercussions of a new war in the Middle East. They say that the administration squelches--squelches-- dissenting views that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House's argument that Hussein poses such an immediate threat to the United States that preemptive military action is necessary. ``Analysts at the working level in the intelligence community are feeling very strong pressure from the Pentagon to cook the intelligence books,'' said one official, speaking on condition of anonymity. A dozen other officials echoes his views in interviews with the Inquirer Washington Bureau. No one who was interviewed disagreed. How much time do I have left, Madam President?

Mr. BYRD. Did the Senator wish to make a remark?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. I call the Senate's attention to an article in the Philadelphia Inquirer of October 6 entitled ``Allied Support On Iraq Exaggerated, Officials Say'': President Bush and some of his top aides, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, have exaggerated the degree of allied support for a war in Iraq, according to senior officials in the military and the Bush administration. These officials, rankled by what they charge is a tendency by Rumsfeld and others to gloss over unpleasant realities, say few nations in Europe or the Middle East are ready to support an attack against Iraq unless the United Nations Security Council explicitly authorizes the use of force. In the latest sign that international support for the administration's plans is soft, key ally Turkey said Friday that it would participate in a campaign against Iraq only if the world body blessed it. ``An operation not based on international law cannot be accepted,'' a Turkish presidential spokesman said after a meeting of top Turkish civilian, military and intelligence officials in Ankara. The backing of Turkey, which borders Iraq's north, is vital because it hosts air bases at Incirlik and elsewhere that would be necessary to conduct a major air campaign against Iraq and protect the ethnic Kurdish population in northern Iraq from Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein's retaliation. ``Turkey is the key,'' a senior administration official said. Turkey, which also has a large Kurdish population, is concerned that Iraq's Kurds would try to form their own mini- state and that a war with another Muslim country could aggravate tensions between Islamists and secularists in Turkey and damage the Turkish economy. Turkey is not alone: No country near Iraq has agreed to serve as a launching pad for a U.S. strike without U.N. authorization, the senior official said. He and others spoke on condition of anonymity. As they have tried to persuade Congress to give Bush broad war-making authority, Rumsfeld and other officials have sought to create the impression that there is widespread international support for the Iraq endeavor. That, one top official said, ``is at best premature and at worst deceptive.'' Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the total article from the Philadelphia Inquirer of October 6 be printed in the Record at the close of my remarks.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Continuing the article: They cited recent suggestions by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice that Hussein and Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network were working together. Rumsfeld said Sept. 26 that the U.S. government had ``bulletproof'' confirmation of links between Iraq and al- Qaeda members, including ``solid evidence'' that members of the terrorist network maintained a presence in Iraq. The facts are much less conclusive. Officials said Rumsfeld's statement was based in part on intercepted telephone calls in which an al-Qaeda member who apparently was passing through Baghdad was overheard calling friends or relatives, intelligence officials said. The intercepts provide no evidence that the suspected terrorist was working with the Iraqi regime or that he was working on a terrorist operation while he was in Iraq, they said. Rumsfeld also suggested that the Iraqi regime had offered safe haven to bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar. While technically true, that, too, is misleading. Intelligence reports said the Iraqi ambassador to Turkey, a longtime Iraqi intelligence officer, made the offer during a visit to Afghanistan in late 1998, after the United States attacked al-Qaeda training camps with cruise missiles to retaliate for the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. But officials said the same intelligence reports that bin Laden rejected the offer because he did not want Hussein to control his group. In fact, the officials said, there is no ironclad evidence that the Iraqi regime and the terrorist network are working together, or that Hussein has ever contemplated giving chemical or biological weapons to al-Qaeda, with whom he has deep ideological differences. I ask unanimous consent that the remainder of this article from the Philadelphia Inquirer, dated October 8, 2002, be printed in the Record at the end of my remarks.

Mr. BYRD. I yield, without losing my right to the floor, to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. BYRD. I would love to do that.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. The distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania does me great honor in making his inquiry. I am not prepared to respond at the moment. I would be interested in reading the treatise by the persons named. I might suggest that the Supreme Court, in its recent decision with reference to the line-item veto, strongly indicated that Congress cannot cede its powers under the Constitution. I believe the court in that instance was alluding to certain powers over the purse. This is a good question the distinguished Senator has posed. Based on his wide and rich experience as a prosecuting attorney, I think such questions as he raised are worthy of our attention. I would certainly want to be better prepared than I am at this moment to attempt to deal with the particular question he has asked. I thank him for his statement. I have been listening to his statement from my office. He raises serious questions which ought to be answered, ought to be debated. I think we are hurrying too fast into this situation. I, as the Senator from Pennsylvania, have heard all of these predictions as to how fast the Senate and House will act. It may be that the train has gathered such momentum it will not be possible to slow it down, but I hope and pray this decision can be put off until after the election. I think it is too grave a decision. I think our fighting men and women need to be shown much greater regard than this, that we would not rush into having a vote on this resolution before it is adequately debated and amended. I view with great concern the judgment that history will make of us for rushing into this decision, as we seem to be doing. I am concerned that Members of both Houses will have their decision tainted by the fact that it is going to be rendered in an atmosphere that is supercharged with politics. I have always had a great deal of confidence in the Senator from Pennsylvania, Mr. Specter. He is not one to be rushed or stampeded into making a decision. He always asks questions. He has the courage, the conviction, to stand up and state his principles and ask questions. That is what I hear him doing now. I am sorry I cannot respond to the questions the Senator posed, but I am glad to have this opportunity to make the comment aboout the Senator from Pennsylvania and what he is doing today, the questions he is asking.

Mr. BYRD. What is the parliamentary situation?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent I may have an additional 5 minutes over the 15.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, tonight at 8:00 p.m., President Bush will make a televised address to speak to the Nation about the threat of Iraq. According to press reports from this weekend, the President is expected to lay out, in detail, his case against Saddam Hussein, including the repressive dictator's long history of violence and aggression. There is no disagreement about the character of Saddam Hussein, neither on Capitol Hill nor in the minds of every American. But while the President continues to make his case against Saddam Hussein, the issue on the minds of Senators and our constituents is, what exactly is the United States planning to do? Rather than hearing more about Saddam Hussein--we know enough about him--what we need to hear from the President are answers to our questions about what he plans to do in Iraq. We need to know why the President is demanding that we act now. We need to have some idea of what we are getting ourselves into, what the costs and consequences may be, and what the President is planning to do after the fighting has stopped. After Iraq. After Saddam Hussein. It is not unpatriotic to ask these questions, especially when they are already on the minds of all Americans. Why now? Those two little words: Why now? Why now? What has changed in the last year, 6 months, or 2 weeks that would compel us to attack now? Is Iraq on the verge of attacking the United States? If so, should our homeland security alert be elevated? Shouldn't the President be spending more time with his military advisors in Washington, instead of making campaign speeches all over the country? The media reports suggest that the administration does not plan to act until February. Why is the President telling Congress it has to act before the elections? Why are our own leaders telling us we have to act before the elections. What are we signing up for? We are about to give the President a blank check to deal with Iraq however he sees fit. What exactly is he planning to do with this power? Does the President have clear objectives for this war? Does he want to disarm Saddam Hussein, or remove him from power? When might the fighting end? What conditions must be met before the President would determine that the war is over? The President has said several times that he wants to use force in order to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations. Why is he then demanding that Congress go even further and give him a blank check that would give him the power to commit our country to years or even decades of bloody war without the support of our allies? We have already given the President a blank check to deal with al- Qaida, which he used to invade and occupy Afghanistan. Does the President plan to fight these two wars separately, or will the President combine them into a broader regional campaign? What will be the costs of this war? How many troops will be involved? Will we exercise the heavy ground option or will we exercise the heavy air option? Or might we exercise both options? How many reservists will have to leave their jobs to serve in uniform? Will they be fighting door-to-door combat in downtown Bagdad? Do our troops have adequate protection against the chemical and biological weapons that Saddam Hussein might employ? How many American casualties is the Department of Defense anticipating in case the heavy ground option is utilized? How many American casualties is the Department of Defense anticipating. ? In addition to the cost in blood, war is also a drain on the national treasury. How much will it cost to fight this war and to maintain an occupation force? Larry Lindsey said it would cost $100 billion to $200 billion, talking about this war and what it would cost. One hundred to two hundred billion dollars, and he said: That's nothing. During the Gulf War, our allies contributed $54 billion of the $61 billion cost of the war. Leaving the United States holding the bag for roughly $7 billion, a little over $7 billion out of the $61.1 billion total. Will our allies give us financial assistance in this war? Has anyone been asking them to divvy it up, to help pay the financial cost, or do we plan to shoulder it all? Do we have the resources to care for our injured and sick veterans when they return from Iraq? Are our hospitals in this country prepared for that event? Will there be other consequences to a war with Iraq? How will the war against Iraq affect the fight against terrorism? How many of us will feel safer here in this country at night, when the shades of evening fall? How many of us will feel safer, once an attack against Iraq is launched? Will National Guard troops be removed from important homeland security missions in the United States? If we act without the approval of the international community, what happens to the international cooperation in the war on terror we worked so hard to foster after 9/11? How will a war between the United States and Iraq affect regional stability in the Middle East? What will we do if Iraq attacks Israel? Can we persuade Israel to stay out of the war, or will we just stand by and watch them join in the fighting? Are we putting more moderate regimes in the Middle East at risk, like Jordan, or Pakistan, which already has nuclear weapons. If a more radical government takes over in Pakistan, are we prepared to act there as well? What happens after the war? Who will govern a defeated Iraq? How long will our troops be expected to occupy Iraq? Do we expect Iraqis to rise up against Saddam Hussein, or take arms against us? What plans do we have to prevent Iraq from breaking up and descending into civil war? How can we contain the instability that will likely result in the north of Iraq that may threaten Turkey, our friend and NATO ally? Are we giving any thought to this? Is anybody in the administration giving thoughts to this question? In his weekend radio address, the president told us that: should force be required to bring Saddam to account, the United States will work with other nations to help the Iraqi people rebuild and form a just government. What does he mean by that? Is the President advocating a new Marshall Plan for the Middle East? Are the American people ready to make that kind of long-term regional commitment? How much will the American taxpayer pay to rebuild Iraq? How much will our allies pay? If the United States should act alone in attacking Iraq, can we really expect the rest of the world to help rebuild Iraq after the war? Have any other countries committed to assisting in these peacekeeping duties? If so, how many? Can we afford to rebuild Iraq and Afghanistan at the same time? We may have to rebuild Israel as well. I have a lot of questions. The American people have a lot of questions. But apparently the American people are not going to be asked. They are not going to be given the opportunity to ask their questions. We are going to be stampeded and rushed pellmell into a showdown right here in the Senate and in the House, and in the next few days. Why all the hurry? Why are we in such a hurry? Election day is 4 weeks away from tomorrow. Wouldn't it be better to go home and listen to the people, hear what they have to say, and answer their questions before voting on this far-reaching, grave, and troubling question? Every one of the questions the American people have is important. Without better answers from the President, we will only be getting part of the story, which is a dangerous position for Congress to be in as we prepare to vote on a war resolution this week or next week. It is a sad thing that the elected representatives of the American people are being asked to vote on this troubling question before the election. But the administration is not giving us meaningful answers to these questions. All we are getting are vague threats and political pressure from the White House. The President has not backed up his case against Iraq with a consistent justification based on clear reason and evidence. When the President and his advisers are pressed for clarity, they have responded with evasive and confusing references to the dangers of terrorism which they now seem to think has more to do with Saddam Hussein than Osama bin Laden. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld revealed that recently 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 terms. In other words, it is just too hard for them to answer all of these questions, so Congress should just hand everything over to the President, and he will determine by himself what is ``necessary and appropriate'' when the time comes. Until then, the administration will provide Congress and the American people with very little information. We need to know this information, and we need to know it now, before we are pressured into making a hasty decision about whether to send the sons and daughters of Americans to war in a foreign land; namely, Iraq. The President's military doctrine will give him a free hand to justify almost any military action with unsubstantiated allegations and arbitrary risk assessments, and Congress is about to rubberstamp that doctrine and simply step out of the way. I cannot understand why much of the leadership of this Congress has bought into the administration's political pressure. Congress will be out of the business of making any decisions about war, and the voice of the people will quickly be drowned out by the White House beating the drums of war. There is no need for Congress to underwrite the President's new military doctrine. If the United States uses force against Iraq, then Congress can provide the President with enough authority to act decisively in Iraq. Any further actions the President wants to take should be decided on a case-by-case basis. We should not get carried away by all of the war rhetoric and turn this Iraq resolution into a blank check for the President to enforce some vague new doctrine in every corner of the Middle East or the world beyond. Granting him such broad power would not only set a dangerous international precedent but would severely undermine our own constitutional system of checks and balances. Some say that the process laid out in the Constitution will be satisfied once Congress votes on whether to authorize war. But Congress must not grant the use of force authorization without a full understanding of the consequences. We will be voting to decide whether we will allow the President to declare war at his convenience for an unlimited period of time. That does not satisfy the Constitution. After all, the President has repeatedly said he has not decided whether we must go to war. Do we want to just give the President and all future Presidents an authorization for war that they can put in their hip pockets, to be pulled out whenever it is convenient? That is not the course of action worthy of the greatness the Founding Fathers expected when they created the legislative branch. We should not have this vote on the issue for war or for peace before the Congress has answers to these questions. The President, when he speaks to the Nation tonight, must provide real answers to these questions that the American people are asking. Madam President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator join his friend from across the mountains, across the Alleghenies, in putting language into this resolution which he advocates here, would he join me in putting language in here which indubitably states, unquestionably states the authority of the Constitution, which requires that Congress declare war, not be impinged upon by this resolution in any way?