Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have had no answer. I received no answer, no estimates whatsoever. And the administration, through some of its department heads, has said: That is impossible. It is impossible. And why should we do that? That would be--if I may use my own words--a wasteful exercise. The administration has sent forth no estimate. Of course, we all understand that there can be no hard and fast estimate at this point. Many of us have been Members of this body and/ or the other one through previous wars. We know how difficult it is to come up with solid estimates. But we also know when an administration is leveling with us. After all, we are the elected representatives of the American people. They send us here. They are entitled to know the answers to these questions. The American people are entitled to know what is the best estimate at this particular time and, under the conditions the administration foresees at this point, what are the best estimates of the actual cost of the war in treasure and blood, what is the best estimate with respect to the occupation of Iraq, the morning after, reconstruction in Iraq. But we get nothing. We get nothing from the administration. The administration treats the elected representatives of the American people with seeming contempt. When the representatives of the people ask those questions, the answer, may I say to the Senator, is what it was then: We don't have the estimates. The administration is no nearer now than it was then in giving it to us. I think it is our duty to continue to ask.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator for his kind remarks. He is overly charitable, and I deeply appreciate them. Amendment No. 272

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from California, Mrs. Boxer, for her thoughtfulness and her characteristic courtesy. Amendment No. 264 Mr. President, I speak with reference to the Conrad amendment No. 264, which was voted on earlier today. I had hoped to speak prior to the vote on that amendment, but I was unable to do so. Mr. President, the amendment that was before the Senate at that time was one of simple common sense. The President, last night, spoke to the Nation of imminent military action. The American people know that war is looming. The Senate knows that war is looming. And yet the budget resolution before the Senate ignores that war. It ignores the obvious costs that are staring all of us square in the face. This Senate ought to be up front with the Nation and anticipate the costs of war in this budget. Last night, I went to the White House with a number of my colleagues from this body and from the other body. The message I carried was a simple one. I will support the funds as ranking member of the Appropriations Committee to ensure the safety of the men and women in our Armed Forces. They did not ask for this mission. They did not ask to go overseas. But they are there. They are ready to carry out their orders. They are ready to defend America. I will not flinch when it comes to their safety and support. But I do not support the policy that sent them there or that sends them there even though they will not have the support and endorsement of the United Nations. What I will not support is a blank check for this administration to allow military action in Iraq to slowly creep into other operations, into other lands. We have seen how the goal of disarmament in Iraq has changed to fighting terrorism in Iraq, to ousting the leadership of Iraq, to bringing peace to the Middle East through war in Iraq, to forcing Saddam Hussein and his sons from Iraq. Is it any wonder that I and others worry what goal may be next? Where is this preemptive strategy taking us? Where are we taking the world? I have stood in this Chamber time and again to warn of the dangers of this policy of preemptive strike without imminent threat. I have urged the President to step back and reconsider his decisions. But the administration has its eyes shut, its ears covered, its mind closed. The decision, apparently, has been made. This is a war that does not have to be. This is a war that could be avoided. But the President has placed this Nation on the road to war, and there is little hope, if any, of turning back. In the coming days, we will hear again from the President. I hope that, as he gives the command to commence military action, he and his administration will be looking at several moves ahead. Reconstruction and peacekeeping will be huge tasks. The American people must be prepared for the strains of these missions. We should not feed them rosy scenarios that a war will be painless or that an occupation would be of minimal length. Nor should we keep them in the dark. It is imperative that, in times of crisis, the American people can maintain trust in their Government. We must repair our alliances. Already our move to war has had fallout for our closest ally, Britain, with the resignation of Britain's Foreign Secretary. There is an ever-increasing chance of serious repercussions in the Middle East. We will need the combined political strength of all of our friends and allies, and the process of repairing our ties must begin immediately. Winston Churchill once said about war: The statesman who yields to war fever must realize that once the signal is given, he is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events. It is those unforeseeable and uncontrollable events that may be precipitated by a war with Iraq that keep me awake at night. I wish I could share the President's confidence that the toppling of Saddam Hussein and his regime will set into motion a peaceful revolution in the Middle East. Perhaps it will. We may be lucky. But I have watched too many decades of strife and bloodshed in the Middle East to believe that yet another war can serve as a reliable road map to peace. It is true that no one can predict the final cost of this war. But it certainly is not zero. That is what the President has asked us to budget, zero, and that is what the resolution would budget. Absolutely nothing. It is as if the looming war where simply a figment of one's imagination. If only that were the case.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that I may speak as if in legislative session.

Mr. BYRD. Is there any limitation on time?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator for yielding.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. I will speak perhaps, as I see it, 40 minutes or less, which is something worthy of commenting on in itself. There is an axiom in military planning that countries tend to prepare to fight the last war, not the next one. Some historians blamed the incredible death toll of World War I on military commanders who failed to realize that the days of set-piece battles, as in the days of the American Revolution or the Napoleonic Wars, were over. Some have also pointed out that the countries that were overrun in the opening months of World War II were those that were best prepared to engage in trench warfare. As our own Republic continues to ready for war in Iraq, there has been the alarming tendency to see this next war as a replay of our 1991 campaign to liberate Kuwait. Some have taken to calling the impending conflict ``gulf war II,'' as if we could win this conflict in 2003 by rewinding the tapes of smart bombs dropping on their targets in 1991. I fear that many have succumbed to an intellectual and moral laziness that views the coming war through the lens of our victory in 1991. This next war in Iraq will not be like the last. Twelve years ago, there was a war in one act with an extensive list of players opposing an aggressive antagonist. Now, the curtain is about to rise on a war with the same lead character, Saddam Hussein, but only one great power opposing him, that great power being the one superpower in the world today, the United States. Many countries that played supporting roles in the last war look as though they will, this time, serve more as extras, seen only in the crowd scenes without supporting roles. Most ominously, we do not know how long this costly drama might last. It may last a month. It may last 2 months. It may last a week. It may last 2 days. Who knows? I do not know. But this conflict will be played out in many acts. As in the last war, the coming battles will draw heavily on U.S. air power, followed by the use of our ground troops to destroy the Iraqi army. That is where the similarities between 1991 and 2003 begin and end. The ultimate goal in the coming war is not to roll back an invasion of a small, oil-rich corner of desert that borders the Persian Gulf. This time, the goal is to conquer the despotic government of Saddam Hussein. In the 1991 gulf war, our victory was followed by an orderly withdrawal of our troops, so that they may return to their hometowns to march in ticker-tape parades and be honored with twenty-one gun salutes to acknowledge a resounding American victory on the battlefield. It may not be the same in 2003. Our forces do not have the straightforward task of pushing the Iraqi military out of Kuwait. The aim is to push Saddam and his associates from power. This could involve house-to-house fighting or laying siege to Baghdad and other urban centers, where seven out of ten Iraqis live. The United States will have to manage religious, ethnic, and tribal rifts that may seek to tear the country apart. According to a declassified CIA estimate, we must contend with the increasing chance that Saddam Hussein will use weapons of mass destruction against our troops as they march toward Baghdad. After all of this, more work awaits. A U.S. invasion of Iraq with only token support from other countries will leave us with the burden of occupying and rebuilding Iraq. The United States will find itself thrust into the position of undertaking the most radical and ambitious reconstruction of a country since the occupation of Germany and Japan after World War II. The likely first step in a post-war occupation would be to establish security. No rebuilding mission could possibly occur if the Iraqi army still has fight left in it or if Iraq's cities are in chaos. Establishing security could well prove to be more difficult than defeating Iraq's military. Saddam Hussein could go on the lam, forcing our military into a wild goose chase. Surely Iraq could not be considered secure if its evil dictator were to be on the loose. Creating a secure environment in Iraq also means dealing with difficult situations. How will our military deal with hungry Iraqis taking to the street in mobs? What are we going to do about civilians exacting revenge on those who had oppressed them for so long? How will we prevent violence within and among Iraq's multitude of tribes, ethnic groups, and religions? I am not convinced that, right now, the Administration has any idea of how to deal with these scenarios, or the dozens of other contingencies that might arise while the United States serves as caretaker to a Middle Eastern country. The United States will then be faced with the task of providing for the humanitarian needs of 23 million Iraqis, 60 percent of whom are fully dependent on international food aid. The United State will have to make sure that roads and bridges are rebuilt so that humanitarian assistance can get through to where it will be needed. That would be largely our responsibility. That would not be the case if we were being attacked, if the United States were being attacked by Iraq, if the United States were confronted with an imminent and direct threat from Iraq. If that were the case, then we would not be so morally responsible for cleaning up the mess, for reconstructing, for rebuilding that which we will have destroyed. That is not the case. We will have to make sure that roads and bridges are rebuilt so humanitarian assistance can get through to where it will be needed. Electrical systems will have to be repaired. Who knows, some in this country may have to be repaired when that attack is launched. But we are talking about the morning after now, the postwar Iraq. Electrical systems will have to be repaired so that doctors can operate in their hospitals. Water systems must be maintained to provide drinking water to the country as it enters the scorching summer months and to provide sanitation to prevent the spread of disease. Telephone systems will also be needed to communicate with the distant parts of a country that is the size of France, or a country that is seven times the size of West Virginia. Protecting or rebuilding this critical infrastructure may become a huge task in itself, as Saddam Hussein is apparently planning a scorched earth defense of his regime. Such a scorched earth defense could involve setting oil fields ablaze. It could involve blowing up dams. It could involve the destruction of bridges over rivers, two of the oldest rivers in the world, the Euphrates and the Tigris, in a country that when I was in school many years ago was referred to as Mesopotamia, the land between the two great rivers. Such a strategy on the part of Saddam Hussein could involve sabotaging water supplies or destroying food sources. U.S. military officers are now reporting that Iraqi troops dressed as U.S. soldiers may seek to attack innocent Iraqi civilians in an effort to blame the West as being responsible for war atrocities. If we are successful in deposing Saddam Hussein--and I don't have any doubt we will be successful in doing that; there is any number of scenarios by which Saddam may be deposed. He may be assassinated. Assassinations do occur, as we read today in the newspapers about an assassination. Saddam Hussein may turn tail and run. He may want to live and fight another day. He may decide to fight to the death. He may be willing to die himself while others die around him. Who knows. But there is no doubt in my mind that he will be deposed, one way or another. But in any event if we are successful in deposing Saddam Hussein and limiting the loss of life among our troops and those of Iraqi civilians, the United States will have to reform the government of Iraq. According to an article that appeared in the Washington Post on February 21, the post-Saddam plan crafted by the administration calls for the U.S. military to take complete, unilateral control of Iraq after a war, followed by a transition to an interim administration by an American civilian. This interim administration would purge Iraq of Saddam Hussein's cronies and lay the groundwork for a representative government. General Barry McCaffrey, who commanded ground troops during the 1991 war, estimated in the article that the occupation would take 5 years. Let us remember that Iraq once had a colonial government under the flag of Great Britain from 1920 to 1932. Iraqis revolted against British troops, leading one of the great men of the 20th century, one of the great men of all time, Winston Churchill to refer to the country as ``these thankless deserts.'' Have you ever been in a sandstorm in the deserts of the Middle East? It is quite an experience. If the United States is to administer Iraq for a period of years, we will run the risk of being viewed as a new colonial power, no matter how pure our intentions. Those who may greet us as liberators in 2003 may increasingly view us as interlopers in 2004, 2005, 2006, and beyond. The United States will also face the task of reforming Iraq's military. Fearful that a weak Iraq could fuel the ambitions of other regional powers, the Department of Defense is now considering how to take apart Iraq's million-man army and rebuild it into a smaller, more professional force. While details are still wrapped in secrecy, it appears that the United States will have a major hand in retraining and re-equipping the post-Saddam Iraqi army. We are already trying to build an Afghan national army of perhaps 70,000 troops, but a new military for Iraq would have be several times that size. One thing is for sure, the arms industries must be salivating at the profits that could be made from building a new, modern Iraqi army from scratch. These occupation and reconstruction missions are all difficult risks and difficult tasks. No wonder the ranking general in the British military, Gen. Sir Mike Jackson, said in an interview published in a London newspaper on February 23: In my view, the post-conflict situation will be more demanding and challenging than the conflict itself. We had better hear that. We had better take note of that. Let's hear again what the British military general says. The British general, Sir Mike Jackson--here is what he said in an interview published in a London newspaper on February 23 of this year: In my view, the post-conflict situation will be more demanding and challenging than the conflict itself. In other words, the war we may soon face in the Persian Gulf will be an entirely different campaign than was the war in 1991. Congress and the American people, the people in the galleries that extend from sea to shining sea, from the Gulf of Mexico to the Canadian border, the people, the American people, those out there who are looking upon this Chamber through that electronic lens, those people, the people need to know how long we can expect to occupy postwar Iraq. Last month, Under Secretary of State Marc Grossman estimated that a military occupation of Iraq would take 2 years. That estimate is hard to believe. Gen. Douglas MacArthur believed that the occupation of Japan after World War II would take no more than 3 years. It lasted 6 years and 8 months. The first U.S. military governor in Germany, Gen. Dwight Eisenhower, anticipated that the United States military would ``provide a garrison, not a government, except for a few weeks.'' Instead, the first phase of the occupation of Germany lasted 4 years. These types of missions have their own momentum. We have had United States troops in Bosnia for 7 years and United States soldiers in Kosovo for 3\1/2\ years. Let us not forget that Gov. George Bush, as a Presidential candidate in 2000, said he would work to find an end to those peacekeeping missions. But the United States is now looking at a peacekeeping mission in Iraq that dwarfs our deployment to the Balkans in every respect. I find it utterly confounding that a President so opposed to nation building would then launch into military scenarios that so clearly culminate in that very outcome. I have to wonder--I have to wonder if this President is simply so driven to act that he cannot see that action itself is not the goal. How far along was this administration in planning military action in Afghanistan before the question of what postwar Afghanistan would look like even came up? There seems to be at least some forethought about postwar Iraq, but how thoroughly has it been forethought? How thoroughly has it been thought about? How thoroughly has it been scrutinized? The information given to Congress--that's that legislative branch up there, the people's representatives. Why, those people down in the White House view the legislative branch with contempt, with disdain. Why should they let those people up there know what they, the people on Mt. Olympus, are thinking? The information given to Congress and to the American people, who pay all of us in public office--we are the hired hands. I am one of the hired hands. So is the President of the United States. He is just one of the hired hands. Then why should we view those people, who pay us, with such contempt that we don't think we ought to let them in on these secrets? Oh, we don't have to tell them. We don't have to tell the people's elected representatives in Congress. We don't have to tell them. We'll let them know what we estimate the cost to be when we send up our bill, when we send up a supplemental appropriations bill. Congress and the American people should also know how much it will cost to occupy Iraq. At least there must be some estimates that have been carefully wrought. The Army Chief of Staff, General Shinseki, is standing by his estimates, given to the Armed Services Committee, that ``several hundred thousand'' troops would be required to occupy Iraq. There is an Army Chief of Staff who doesn't back down. There is an Army Chief of Staff who doesn't break and run. He said this a few days ago. His estimate was disputed by the Defense Department. But General Shinseki didn't cower. He is standing by his estimate, given to the Armed Services Committee, that several hundred thousand troops would be required to occupy Iraq. The Congressional Budget Office has provided estimates, based on an occupation force of 75,000 to 200,000 American troops, it would cost $1 billion to $4 billion--from $1 billion to $4 billion--per month. I said that right. The cost of occupying Iraq has been estimated to be $1 billion to $4 billion per month. How much is that money to us peons? Under $4 billion. That is $1 to $4 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. Perhaps that can give us hillbillies a little better feel of what we are talking about; $1 billion to $4 billion per month. That is $12 billion to $48 billion per year; $33 million to $130 million per day; $23,000 to $93,000 per minute. And these enormous amounts do not include the cost of rebuilding Iraq. One estimate by the United Nations Development Program says that at least $30 billion will be needed for reconstruction in the first 3 years after a war. The actual cost, of course, could be much higher. If the United States initiates war against Iraq in the coming days, maybe a week--I find it a little hard to think it will be 2 weeks, but it could be. If the United States initiates war against Iraq in the coming days, we will be hard pressed to share these staggering costs with our allies. We have foolishly engaged in a war of words with some of our most powerful European allies, countries which could have been valuable partners in rebuilding Iraq if war were proven to be inevitable. Instead, it looks like the American taxpayer--you out there looking in this Chamber--the American taxpayer will be alone, all by himself, in shelling out billions of dollars for new foreign aid spending. Some have suggested that Iraqi oil might take care of the post-war costs. According to the United Nations, if Iraq's oil production reached all-time highs, about $16 billion in revenue could be generated each year. Right now, Iraq's legitimate oil sales are supposed to buy food and medicine for the starving and ill. After a war, however, those funds could be subject to claims by Iraq's creditors, who are owed at least $60 billion in commercial and official debt. There is also the issue of $170 billion in unpaid reparations to Kuwait. Mr. President, the big, black, endless pit we will find in Iraq after a war will not be filled with cheap oil for our gas-guzzling cars. The pit--that bottomless pit--that we will find in Iraq will have to be fed with enormous amounts of American dollars.--Courtesy of whom? Courtesy of Uncle Sam. The irony of investing huge amounts of money to rebuild Iraq when we have urgent needs here at home has not been lost on late-night comedians. One talk-show host commented that if President Bush's plan to provide Iraqis with food, medicine, supplies, housing, and education proves to be a success, it could eventually be tried in the United States, too. The comedians are on their toes. They are not overlooking any bets. If the United States leads the charge to war in the Persian Gulf, we may be lucky and achieve a rapid victory. I hope we will be lucky. Perhaps the odds for being lucky are, I guess, 90 to 1. But we may not be lucky. But even if we are lucky, we will then have to face a second war--a war to win the peace in Iraq. That war will not be over in a day, or a week, or a month, or a year. That war will last several years, perhaps many years, and will surely cost hundreds of billions of dollars. In the light of this enormous task, it would be a great mistake to expect that this will be a replay of the 1991 war. The stakes are much higher in this conflict. Despite all of these risks and costs, it seems the administration continues to move our country closer and closer and closer to war. It seems we have already lost patience. We have already lost patience. We have stopped listening. This administration, this President, has stopped listening. The superhawks that surround him have stopped listening, if they ever were listening. It seems we have already lost patience for a regime of arms inspections that might take months to play out. But going to war will require our commitment to Iraq to last years--years. The problems with Iraq are not going to be solved when 700 cruise missiles and 3,000 bombs land on that country in the opening days and the opening nights of war. Assuming victory--and I assume victory--we will be on the hook. You know what that means. We will be on the hook to rehabilitate Iraq. And I fear that the rebuilding of that ancient country with its ancient artifacts--a country that goes back to the mists of biblical years, of Abraham, and Issac, and Jacob, and Joseph-- a country, a land of Ur, and a land between the two great rivers--after the rebuilding of that ancient country, there will have to be another act of U.S. unilateralism. There you are--another act of U.S. unilateralism for which the American people are ill prepared. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Senator from Minnesota is making a great speech. It is great because of the quotations the Senator from Minnesota has given to us today about that Constitution. The Senator was one of the lonely 23 who voted not to give to this President, or any other President--not to attempt to hand over to this President or to any other President--the power to declare war, which is found in the eighth section of article I of the Constitution of the United States. A nominee for a Federal judgeship came to me the other day. I said: Where in the Constitution is the power to declare war lodged? He didn't remember. I said: Where in the Constitution is the vestment of the power to appropriate moneys? He knew it was there, but he didn't know in what section that was to be found. Of course, I didn't have any problem in reminding him where both were to be found. But the Senator from Minnesota today is referring to the Constitution of the United States, written in 1787, signed by 39 individuals, among whom was one kinsman of the distinguished Senator from Minnesota, Mark Dayton, and his name is found in that illustrious roll of signers from the State of New Jersey, William Livingston, David Brearley, William Paterson, Jonathan Dayton. The Senator from Minnesota, Mr. Mark Dayton, voted to uphold the Constitution, concerning which he has stood before that desk of the Presiding Officer with his hand on the Bible and swore to support and defend that Constitution. This Senator who sits in front of me, I now put my hand on his shoulder, Senator Kent Conrad, he was among the 23, yes. He was on that illustrious roll to which someone in ages hence will point. The Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, sits here on the floor today. He, too, was one of the 23 who stood for the Constitution on that day, when a majority of the Senate voted to shift the power to declare war to the President of the United States. But 23 Senators voted to leave that authority where the Constitution puts it: namely, in Congress. What would Jonathan Dayton have said could he have spoken on the day that those 23 Members stood up for the Constitution--21 Democrats, one Independent and one Republican--what would Jonathan Dayton of New Jersey have said if he could have spoken to the Senate that day? What would his advice to us have been?

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator from Minnesota yield without losing his right to the floor?

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator for his statement. I, too, will support Professor Bybee. I have no problem with doing that at all. May I say that Professor Bybee can be proud that Senator Larry Craig has spoken on his behalf. Senator Craig is one of the most articulate Senators not only at this time in this body, but having been in this body for more than 44 years now, I can say that I have seen a lot of articulate speakers but Senator Craig is one among the foremost of those. I would treasure his support of my nomination if I were indeed a nominee for any position. Madam President, has the Pastore rule run its course for today?

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, if the distinguished Senator will yield briefly--

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I believe the Senate is in executive session.

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

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, may I thank the distinguished Senator for his overly charitable comments concerning this Senator. And I am indeed grateful. I am grateful for the fact that he on several occasions here during his short career thus far in the Senate--I predict that it will be a long career, if he wishes to make it a long one--has stood with me with regard to several important subjects--subjects that deal with the Constitution, deal with this institution, and that deal with war and peace. I thank him for standing shoulder to shoulder and toe to toe. I thank him likewise for what he brings to the Senate--vigor and fresh insights, vision that is beyond today's 24 hours, a man whose kinsman served in the Constitutional Convention from the State of New Jersey, and whose signature on that Constitution will be there until kingdom come. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Yes, I am happy to yield, without losing my right to the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry: Has the Pastore rule run its course today?

Mr. BYRD. It has. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I shall speak out of order, not long. My guess is that I will speak for 20 minutes or less.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. I thank all Senators.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the United Nations is in diplomatic disarray today as the foreign ministers from the world's most powerful nations scramble to find some scrap of common ground on the question of war with Iraq. What a difference a few months makes. Last November, under the leadership of the United States, the 15-member U.N. Security Council unanimously approved Resolution 1441, strengthening the weapons inspection regime and giving Iraq a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations. The rapidity with which that unity has unraveled is astounding. What began as a constructive process to gain international support for war against Iraq has disintegrated into insults, accusations, and finger- pointing among the key members of the Security Council. Instead of forging an international coalition to deal with Iraq, as it set out to do, the Administration has managed to turn much world opinion against United States. With his insistence that the United Nations declare the inspection regime a failure and immediately authorize war against Iraq, the President has opened a chasm between the U.S. and Great Britain on one side and the remaining permanent members of the Security Council on the other. Today, the White House is declaring the United Nations irrelevant-- one of the most over used words in the English language as of today, I would say, and as of the last several days. Today, the White House is declaring the United Nations irrelevant if it does not authorize immediate war against Iraq, and U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan is countering that a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq without the sanction of the United Nations will violate the U.N. charter. The knock-down, drag-out in the Security Council has tarnished the images of both the United Nations and the United States, and it has imperiled the political career of at least one world leader, one foremost leader, President Bush's staunchest ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair. What a high price to pay for the President's insistence on blindly following a war-first, war-now policy on Iraq. What a high price to pay. Despite feverish activity this week on the part of the U.S. and Great Britain to persuade a majority of members of the Security Council to support a second resolution authorizing war with Iraq, the President and his chief advisers have made it clear that the activity is merely window dressing and that the United States is prepared to act with or without U.N. support. For the Bush Administration, war with Iraq seems to be no longer a question of if, but when and the window on ``when'' is rapidly closing. Dr. Condoleezza Rice, the President's National Security Advisor, declared over the weekend, ``There is plenty of authority to act. We are trying very hard to have the Security Council one more time affirm that authority. But it's important to know that we believe the authority is there.'' In other words, the die has been cast. As Caesar said when he crossed the Rubicon, ``the die is cast.'' The rhetoric has hardened. U.S. forces are in place and poised to attack. The U.N. Security Council has been relegated to a classic Greek chorus of tragic protest while the United States takes center stage. The President has stopped listening. The administration's strategy for war with Iraq is so far advanced that not only does the President have war plans on his desk, he also has a blueprint for the post-war reconstruction of Iraq. On Monday, The Wall Street Journal reported that the U.S. Agency for International Development is soliciting bids from a handful of U.S. firms for a contract worth as much as $900 million to begin the reconstruction of Iraq. According to the Journal, the contract would be the largest reconstruction effort undertaken by the United States since the reconstruction of Germany and Japan after World War II. With post-war contracts already in hand, can the onset of war be far behind? My views, by now, are well known. I believe this coming war is not a necessity. I believe it is a grave mistake, not because Saddam Hussein does not deserve to be disarmed or driven from power, not because some of our allies object to war, but because Iraq does not pose an imminent direct threat to the security of the United States. There is no question that the United States has the military might to defeat Saddam Hussein. There is no question about that. But we are on much shakier ground when it comes to the question of why this Nation, the United States, under the current circumstances, is rushing to unleash the horrors of war on the people of Iraq. In many corners of the world, the United States is seen as manufacturing a crisis in Iraq, not responding to one. Key members of the U.N. Security Council, including France and Russia, have vowed to veto any move to secure the imprimatur of the U.N. on war with Iraq. The U.N. weapons inspectors have pleaded for more time to do their work. Citizens by the thousands--nay, by the hundreds of thousands-- have taken to the streets in countries around the globe, including the United States, Europe, and the Middle East, to protest the war. The day after the September 11 terrorist attacks on America, the French newspaper Le Monde proclaimed, ``We are all Americans!'' Eighteen months later, the United States and France are hurling insults at each other, and the French are leading the opposition to the war against Iraq. In country after country, the United States has seen the outpouring of compassion and support that followed September 11 dissolve into anger and resentment at this Administration's heavy- handed attempts to railroad the world into supporting a questionable war with Iraq. The latest report of the U.N. weapons inspectors only heightened the tensions in the Security Council and helped to precipitate the current scramble for a new resolution. On Friday--March 7--chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix reported progress in the disarmament of Iraq and predicted that the inspection process could be completed in months-- ``not years, nor weeks, but months.'' At the same meeting, Mohamed ElBaradei, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, threw cold water on a key assertion of the Bush administration, that Iraq is actively pursuing a nuclear capability on two fronts--by importing high-strength aluminum tubes which could be used as part of a centrifuge to produce enriched uranium and by attempting to buy uranium from Niger. Dr. ElBaradei said the inspectors have found no evidence--none--that Iraq is attempting to revive its nuclear weapons program, concluding that the aluminum tubes were for a rocket engine program, as Iraq claimed, and that the documents used to establish the Niger connection were faked. Not even reports of a chilling discovery by U.N. weapons inspectors of a new type of rocket in Iraq that appears to be designed to carry chemical or biological agents has swayed the hardening opposition in the United Nations to authorizing an immediate war against Iraq. The world is awash in anti-Americanism. The doctrine of preemption enshrined in the Bush administration's national security strategy the policy on which the war with Iraq is predicated has turned the global image of the United States from that of a world class peacemaker into what many believe is dangerous warmonger. The President is on the wrong track in insisting on rushing into war without the support of the international community, and specifically the United Nations. Not only is America's reputation on the line, but so is our war on terror. The recent arrest of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and two of his cohorts in Pakistan is evidence that the United States is making slow but steady progress in dismantling the al-Qaida organization, and that we are reaping huge dividends from the anti-terrorism efforts we have undertaken in cooperation with other nations in the Middle East. Pakistan's cooperation is particularly important in the war on terror, and yet the majority of the Pakistani people are opposed to war with Iraq. How or whether Pakistani opposition to the war against Iraq will affect the war against terror is one of many unknowns. The United States cannot bring down al-Qaida alone. We need support and cooperation from friendly nations in the region. We risk losing their friendship, and possibly causing major upheavals in the Middle East, if the President defies world opinion and launches a U.S. led invasion of Iraq.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished leader.

Mr. BYRD. How did I vote on this question the last time we voted?

Mr. BYRD. Ten minutes, without losing my right to the floor, and then I may yield to the distinguished Senator from Ohio, my next-door neighbor, for 15 minutes, without losing my right to the floor, and that I will then be recognized as I am now recognized.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the distinguished leader yield?