Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that the Senator have an additional 5 minutes, and that the previous order be extended for an additional 5 minutes.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, before the Nation is committed to war, before we send our sons and daughters to battle in faraway lands, there are critical questions that must be asked, and it is not unpatriotic to ask questions. To date, the answers from the administration have been less than satisfying. After weeks of criticism from Congress and, indeed, from the countries of the world, President Bush went to the United Nations to press his case that Iraq posed a serious threat to the peace and security of the globe. But instead of offering compelling evidence that the Iraqi regime had taken steps to advance its weapons program to the point that it is necessary for the United States to deliver an unprovoked attack on a sovereign state--namely, Iraq--the President offered the U.N. more of a warning than an appeal for support. Instead of using the forum of the U.N. General Assembly to offer evidence and proof of his claims, the President basically told the nations of the world that ``you are either with me or against me.'' ``Do not question this stand,'' the President said. If the U.N. is unwilling to act, then ``by heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand.'' While Mr. Bush tried to play the role of an international prosecutor, his case was at best circumstantial. He did a fine job in laying out the facts with regard to the failure of the United Nations to uphold and take more compelling action in upholding its previous resolutions. He made a fine statement in that regard. He made it clear that the United Nations had not enforced its resolutions. Sixteen resolutions had been adopted by that agency. But in the days that followed that address, the administration officials have attempted to provide some answers to the looming question. However, this week, when asked by the House Armed Services Committee members what was new, what was compelling to force the hand of this Nation against Saddam Hussein, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld offered nothing new. He pointed to the terrorist acts of September 11 as compelling reason, and he said: The last thing we want is a smoking gun. A gun smokes after it has been fired. The goal must be to stop Saddam Hussein before he fires a weapon of mass destruction against our people. Well, he said the same thing before the Senate Armed Services Committee on yesterday. He said: We are being asked what is new. He said: What is new? September 11. Well, September 11 is not all that new, Mr. President, September 11 was 365 plus 9 days, in other words, 374 days ago. That is not so new. With reference to Mr. Rumsfeld's statement concerning a smoking gun, when he said, ``The last thing we want is a smoking gun. A gun smokes after it has been fired''--my concern, Mr. President, is that the United States, in forcing war in Iraq, will end up shooting itself in the foot. Unless proper care and deliberation precede any action, we must not be hell-bent on an invasion until we have exhausted every other possible option to assess and eliminate Iraq's supposed weapons of destruction program. The United States must not act alone. The United States must have the support of the world. Yesterday, the administration sent to Congress a draft resolution to authorize the use of American military might against Iraq. In that resolution, President Bush requests approval to ``use all means'' he determines to be appropriate. In other words, the President is saying: Authorize me, the President, authorize the President to ``use all means'' he, the President, determines to be appropriate. Congress must not hand this administration or any other administration a blank check for military action, period. What Congress needs is solid evidence. What we need are answers. Does Saddam Hussein pose an imminent threat to the United States? Should the United States act alone as this administration has been threatening to do? Should Congress grant the President authority to launch a preemptive attack on Iraq? What would be the repercussions in the Middle East? What would be the repercussions around the globe? How many civilians would die in Iraq? How many American men and women would be involved? Will even greater numbers of National Guardsmen and Reserves be called up to prepare for an invasion? And if they are, what will happen to the war on terrorism here at home? Will troops be shifted from other missions to support a war against Iraq? We have 8,500 men and women in Afghanistan. We have forces in the Philippines, in Bosnia, in Kosovo and in many other places throughout the world. What are we going to do, pull all of them out of those faraway places and use them in an unprovoked attack on the sovereign state of Iraq? How do we afford this war? The gulf war cost $61 billion. The gulf war of a decade ago cost $61 billion. Of that, other countries coughed up, in cash and in contributions in kind, $54 billion, leaving, I believe, roughly $7 billion, the cost to American taxpayers. Now, what would it cost this time if other nations are not helping the United States to bear the financial burden? Bruce Lindsey, the President's economic adviser, says it might cost $100 billion or $200 billion. And then he said: $100 billion why, that is nothing. He is quoted in the press as saying: $100 billion? That is nothing. Yet, this administration won't get its feet out of the concrete and head out of the sand when it comes to raising the top line for Congress to be able to utilize in passing 13 appropriations bills and sending them to the President--not willing to agree to $9 billion more than the President's foot-in- concrete figure of $759 billion. Congress needs $768 billion. The House chairman, Mr. Young, and this chairman in the Senate, and Senator Ted Stevens, ranking member on the Senate Appropriations Committee, have agreed, and others agreed--and this Senate has agreed--it should be $768 billion. There is a $9 billion gap between what the President says and what the Congress needs to meet the needs of the people. I am talking about veterans' care, education, homeland security, and so on, these are the needs. Congress would require--and has already reported bills out of the Senate Appropriations Committee which assume the figure $768 billion. The President and his OMB Director say, no, $759 billion; that is all. So, here we are--stuck; 13 appropriations bills are stuck because of the administration's immovability in dealing with the needs of the American people here at home. The Administration, says: No, we won't accept that. Hence, we have 13 appropriations bills stuck. Lawrence Lindsey has reportedly said, with reference to a war against Iraq: ``Oh, that might cost $100 billion or $200 billion. $100 billion? Well, that is nothing.'' That is the attitude of this administration. That is the attitude of this administration. Has the United States ruled out responding with nuclear weapons should Saddam Hussein use chemical or biological weapons against our soldiers? Does Saddam Hussein have the capability to unleash weapons of mass destruction within the United States? Does the United States have adequate military and intelligence resources to fight a war in Afghanistan and a war in Iraq while, at the same time, mobilizing resources to prevent or defend against attack within our own shores? What will happen to this war here at home? What will happen to homeland security if the President unleashes an unprovoked attack on Iraq? Does anyone believe there would not be any repercussions here at home? We have terrorists within our midst in this country. They are all about us. The FBI arrested six in New York just recently. So the FBI is on the job. The FBI is working to defend this country. But what else might happen? Are we focused too greatly on fighting suspected terrorism overseas, while focusing too little on the threat of terrorism here at home? What is going to happen to the needs of this country--the monetary needs and the needs with respect to security of our nuclear plants? What is going to happen at our ports of entry and on our borders? What is going to happen within our midst if the President launches an unprovoked attack on Iraq? These are questions--and there are many more questions--that will be asked. If it is unpatriotic to ask questions, then I am unpatriotic. Is it unpatriotic to ask questions, when this President is seeking powers that have never been given to any other President? On September 19, yesterday, the President sent to Congress his suggested text for a resolution to authorize war with Iraq. The problems with this proposed resolution are numerous. When taken as a whole, this resolution would constitute the broadest possible grant of war powers to any President in the history of our Republic. The President has inherent powers under the Constitution to repel a sudden, unforeseen attack on this Nation--nobody argues with that--but he doesn't have inherent power under that Constitution to launch an unprovoked offensive military attack on another nation or state. The resolution is an affront to the powers given by the Constitution to Congress on matters of war. The first 2 pages of the draft resolution have 16 ``whereas'' clauses that would serve to explain the intent of Congress--if the resolution were adopted as it is written--in passing the resolution for the use of force. These clauses, as conceived by the White House, include numerous distortions of fact. For example, in the ninth ``whereas'' clause, it is asserted that the United States has the inherent right, as acknowledged in the U.N. Charter, to use force in order to defend itself, as if that is a justification for preemptive war. Let me read the relevant section of the U.N. Charter: Nothing in the present charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self defense if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. That does not seem to justify a preemptive attack. In the 16th clause, it is asserted that: The President has the authority under the Constitution to use force in order to defend the national security interests of the United States. At last, the administration has awakened to the fact that there is still a Constitution. That is the first time that I have ever read anything or heard anything from the administration that would invoke the Constitution in this matter. Let's see what they are saying. In the 16th ``whereas'' clause it is asserted that: The President has the authority under the Constitution to use force in order to defend the national security interests of the United States. Well, that is the broadest reading of the Commander in Chief clause I think I have ever seen. What about the power of the Congress under article I, section 8 of the Constitution to declare war? That is not mentioned at all in the resolution proposed by the White House. Mr. President, the White House resolution would authorize the President to use all means that he determines--that he determines. What a colossus this President is going to become if the Senate gives him this kind of authority. The White House resolution would authorize the President to use all means that he determines appropriate. What does that mean? What does ``appropriate'' mean here? It would authorize the President to use all means that he--I repeat, that he-- determines appropriate, including forces, to restore international peace and security in the region. Mr. President, that is not an authorization for war with Iraq only. That language would allow the President to march our troops into Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, the West Bank, and anywhere else that is part of the Middle East or where the United States has any security interest in the Middle East. I cannot believe the gall and the arrogance of the White House in requesting such a broad grant of war powers. Mr. President, this is the worst kind of election year politics! Exhibit 1 [From The Washington Post, Sept. 15, 2002] In Iraqi War Scenario, Oil Is Key Issue; U.S. Drillers Eye Huge Petroleum Pool (By Dan Morgan and Davis B. Ottaway) A U.S.-led ouster of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein could open a bonanza for American oil companies long banished from Iraq, scuttling oil deals between Baghdad and Russia, France and other countries, and reshuffling world petroleum markets, according to industry officials and leaders of the Iraqi opposition. Although senior Bush administration officials say they have not begun to focus on the issues involving oil and Iraq, American and foreign oil companies have already begun maneuvering for a stake in the country's huge proven reserves of 112 billion barrels of crude oil, the largest in the world outside Saudi Arabia. The importance of Iraq's oil had made it potentially one of the administration's biggest bargaining chips in negotiations to win backing from the U.N. Security Council and Western allies for President Bush's call for tough international action against Hussein. All five permanent members of the Security Council--the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China--have international oil companies with major stakes in a change of leadership in Baghdad. ``It's pretty straightforward,'' said former CIA director R. James Woolsey, who has been one of the leading advocates of forcing Hussein from power. ``France and Russia have oil companies and interests in Iraq. They should be told that if they are of assistance in moving Iraq toward decent government, we'll do the best we can to ensure that the new government and American companies work closely with them.'' But he added: ``If they throw in their lot with Saddam, it will be difficult to the point of impossible to persuade the new Iraqi government to work with them.'' Indeed, the mere prospect of a new Iraqi government has fanned concerns by non-American oil companies that they will be excluded by the United States, which almost certainly would be the dominant foreign power in Iraq in the aftermath of Hussein's fall. Representatives of many foreign oil concerns have been meeting with leaders of the Iraqi opposition to make their case for a future stake and to sound them out about their intentions Since the Persian Gulf War in 1991, companies form more than a dozen nations, including France, Russia, China, India, Italy, Vietnam and Algeria, have either reached or sought to reach agreements in principle to develop Iraqi oil fields, refurbish existing facilities or explore undeveloped tracts. Most of the deals are on hold until the lifting of U.N. sanctions. But Iraqi opposition officials made clear in interviews last week that they will not be bound by any of the deals. ``We will review all these agreements, definitely,'' said Faisal Qaragholi, a petroleum engineer who directs the London office of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), an umbrella organization of opposition groups that is backed by the United States. ``Our oil policies should be decided by a government in Iraq elected by the people.'' Ahmed Chalabi, the INC leader, went even further, saying he favored the creation of a U.S.-led consortium to develop Iraq's oil fields, which have deteriorated under more than a decade of sanctions. ``American companies will have a big shot at Iraqi oil,'' Chalabi said. The INC, however, said it has not taken a formal position on the structure of Iraq's oil industry in event of a change of leadership. While the Bush adminsitration's campaign against Hussein is presenting vast possibilities for multinational oil giants, it poses major risks and uncertainties for the global oil market, according to industry analysts. Access to Iraqi oil and profits will depend on the nature and intentions of a new government. Whether Iraq remains a member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, for example, or seeks an independent role, free of the OPEC cartel's quotas, will have an impact on oil prices and the flow of investments to competitors such as Russia, Venezuela and Angola. While Russian oil companies such as Lukoil have a major financial interest in developing Iraqi fields, the low prices that could result from a flood of Iraqi oil into world markets could set back Russian government efforts to attract foreign investment in its untapped domestic fields. That is because low world oil prices could make costly ventures to unlock Siberia's oil treasures far less appealing. Bush and Vice President Cheney have worked in the oil business and have long-standing ties to the industry. But despite the buzz about the future of Iraqi oil among oil companies, the administration, preoccupied with military planning and making the case about Hussein's potential threat, has yet to take up the issue in a substantive way, according to U.S. officials. The Future of Iraq Group, a task force set up at the State Department, does not have oil on its list of issues, a department spokesman said last week. An official with the National Security Council declined to say whether oil had been discussed during consultations on Iraq that Bush has had over the past several weeks with Russian President Vladimir Putin and Western leaders. On Friday, a State Department delegation concluded a three- day visit to Moscow in connection with Iraq. In early October, U.S. and Russian officials are to hold an energy summit in Houston, at which more than 100 Russian and American energy companies are expected. Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) said Bush is keenly aware of Russia's economic interests in Iraq, stemming from a $7 billion to $8 billion debt that Iraq ran up with Moscow before the Gulf War. Weldon, who has cultivated close ties to Putin and Russian parliamentarians, said he believed the Russian leader will support U.S. action in Iraq if he can get private assurances from Bush that Russia ``will be made whole'' financially. Officials of the Iraqi National Congress said last week that the INC's Washington director, Entifadh K. Qanbar, met with Russian Embassy officials here last month and urged Moscow to begin a dialogue with opponents of Hussein's government. But even with such groundwork, the chances of a tidy transition in the oil sector appear highly problematic. Rival ethnic groups in Iraq's north are already squabbling over the the giant Kirkuk oil field, which Arabs, Kurds and minority Turkmen tribesmen are eyeing in the event of Hussein's fall. Although the volumes have dwindled in recent months, the United States was importing nearly 1 million barrels of Iraqi oil a day at the start of the year. Even so, American oil companies have been banished from direct involvement in Iraq since the late 1980s, when relations soured between Washington and Baghdad. Hussein in the 1990s turned to non-American companies to repair fields damaged in the Gulf War and Iraq's earlier war against Iran, and to tap undeveloped reserves, but U.S. government studies say the results have been disappointing. While Russia's Lukoil negotiated a $4 billion deal in 1997 to develop the 15-billion-barrel West Qurna field in southern Iraq, Lukoil had not commenced work because of U.N sanctions. Iraq has threatened to void the agreement unless work began immediately. Last October, the Russian oil services company Slavneft reportedly signed a $52 million service contract to drill at the Tuba field, also in southern Iraq. A proposed $40 billion Iraqi-Russian economic agreement also reportedly includes opportunities for Russian companies to explore for oil in Iraq's western desert. The French company Total Fina Elf has negotiated for rights to develop the huge Majnoon field, near the Iranian border, which may contain up to 30 billion barrels of oil. But in July 2001, Iraq announced it would no longer give French firms priority in the award of such contracts because of its decision to abide by the sanctions. Officials of several major firms said they were taking care to avoiding playing any role in the debate in Washington over how to proceed on Iraq. ``There's no real upside for American oil companies to take a very aggressive stance at this stage. There'll be plenty of time in the future,'' said James Lucier, an oil analyst with Prudential Securities. But with the end of sanctions that likely would come with Hussein's ouster, companies such as ExxonMobil and ChevronTexaco would almost assuredly play a role, industry officials said. ``There's not an oil company out there that wouldn't be interested in Iraq,'' one analyst said. Staff writer Ken Bredemeier contributed to this report.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may have an additional 10 minutes, if needed.

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. When you said, ``We have them all blocked,'' that kind of caught my ear. And I am wondering about these appropriations bills. Somebody has them all blocked. Here is my friend from Montana who is the ranking member. We have been here at our posts on duty. When are we going to unblock the barriers to getting our appropriations bills passed? I have a question of the distinguished Senator.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, will the Senator yield without losing his right to the floor?

Mr. BYRD. But my friends on that side did not vote for cloture. Whatever the vote was at that time, they did not vote for cloture. So they have not helped me to get on with the appropriations bills. Consequently, I made a generous offer at that point, but I am concerned about that offer. The Senator did not take me up on it. Senators on that side did not take me up on that. They did not help remove that block. I want to look at the Senator's amendment again when it comes time to vote on it. I am concerned about judicial review, about that aspect of it and some other things.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there be 15 minutes, a total of 15 minutes.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, how much time remains on the pending bill?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I hope the Senator will have a minute at least to respond. Will the Senator from Connecticut yield?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Shakespeare said the Senator ``is a man of my own kidney.'' Some would say ``a man after my own heart.'' The Senator said he is willing to stay here all night and get these appropriations bill done. Let us do that. I believe the objections from the other side of the aisle on moving those bills is the word out of the White House. I am just thinking--I am presuming, some things which I have seen and heard are to that effect--that the word has come out of the White House. Has it come out of the White House to the Speaker of the other body? That is where appropriations bills generally originate. Appropriations bills generally and customarily originate in the House. Can the Senator inform me as to whether the word has come down from on high to the House to hold up those appropriations bills? The House has not moved those appropriations bills, and it is not because of the House chairman, Mr. Young. He would eagerly move those bills. Can the Senator elucidate on this question?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I wish we would get on with Interior and the other appropriations bills. The Senate Appropriations Committee, as I have said many times, has reported all 13 appropriations bills. We did that long ago. Senator Stevens and I, and every Republican and every Democrat on that committee voted. We have 13 appropriations bills on the calendar. If we cannot finish the Interior appropriations bill, will the Senator help us to get unanimous consent to proceed to other appropriations bills? We could take up Senate appropriations bills. We don't have all of the House appropriations bills. The House Appropriations Committee has not reported all 13 appropriations bills. But we have reported all of the 13 Senate appropriations. Will the Senator and his side of the aisle help us to get unanimous consent to go to the other appropriations bills?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I know what the Senator is saying. We all know the Parliamentarian gives guidance, but I hope when the Senator talks about the Parliamentarian and the aid which the Parliamentarian gives, we are talking about the ruling of the Chair. It is not the ruling by the Parliamentarian, with all due respect to the Parliamentarian. The Chair gets the guidance of the Parliamentarian. But it is still the ruling by the Chair.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senator may have the floor if he wishes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, neither side seems to be interested in saying anything at the moment. I have a statement I would like to make if both sides would allow me to have the time, 10 minutes--I might be able to make it in 10 minutes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BYRD. Yes. Mr. President, John Stuart Mill said: On all great issues, much remains to be said. This is a great issue. Much remains to be said. I understand that some said that I have been filibustering and holding the floor. I would like to hear that again. I am not holding the floor. On all great issues, much remains to be said. I hope other Senators will say much on the pending amendment, the Reid-Byrd amendment. The floor is open.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield briefly?