Joseph Lieberman

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, as one of the four lead sponsors of the amendment in the nature of a substitute resolution, I appreciate very much the thoughtfulness of my colleagues in addressing the resolution we put forward, including those who have expressed reservations or objection to it. I will take a few moments to respond to a few of those, as time allows. One of the concerns expressed was that our resolution essentially provides the President with a blank check and, at its worst, according to the critics, is in derogation of the Constitution of the United States. Respectfully, I object to both of those descriptions. Let me take the first, which is the question of the Constitution. The Constitution says in article I, among the powers enumerated in section 8 that the Congress of the United States is to have, is the power to declare war. That is stated. Incidentally, in the same clause there are other powers: To grant letters of marque and reprisal and make rules concerning captures on land and water. Though the Congress of the United States, for various reasons, has not formally declared war since December of 1941, that is the effect of the resolution before the Senate, to authorize the President to take military action to put American troops into combat, into war. That is the extent of the description in the Constitution. The authority that would be given to the President under our resolution is entirely within that constitutional grant to the Congress, which is to give the President the authority to defend the national security of the United States--and again, no blank check here--against the continuing threat posed by Iraq. It is targeted to that particular point, based on the conclusions about Iraq's danger to the United States stated in the preamble or the whereas clauses. ``And''--not ``or''--and this authority is given not only to protect the security of the United States against the threat imposed by Iraq and to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. So one may disagree with the conclusions that those who are sponsoring this resolution have reached about the clear and present danger Iraq under Saddam Hussein represents to America's national security, but I respectfully do not think anyone can convincingly claim this resolution is in any sense unconstitutional. It is well within the authority granted to the Congress under article I of the Constitution. Nor is it, in any sense, a blank check. It is circumscribed by the terms I have just described, ``and''--not ``or''--two grounds of authority. It is not a blank check. It is a check that can only be spent within the parameters set out in those two clauses. I might add, the Congress also is given by the Constitution the power to appropriate funds. That is the ultimate power that Congress has, to make sure this is not a blank check either in terms of what the money can be spent for or how much money can be spent. Questions have been raised about the urgency of this matter and the timing of the request by the President for this authority. I said earlier today and I will say briefly again that in the case of this Senator, I have believed now for more than a decade that we have been much too patient--in fact, have been in error at the end of the Persian Gulf war for not moving to remove Saddam Hussein from power when his military was in disarray. We knew what his goals were, what his record was. We knew by statements he made that he had the ambition to be the leader of the Arab world, the modern-day Saladin, to have Baghdad become the capital of the Arab world, of the Persian Gulf. That, of course, would be terrible for the Arab world, terrible for the world, and terrible particularly for the United States of America. Over the last decade, for those who believe we are acting precipitously in passing and offering this resolution, we have tried everything else to get Saddam Hussein to keep the promise he made at the end of the gulf war. We have tried sanctions, embargoes, inspections, trade restrictions, the Oil for Food Program, even limited military action. None of them has worked. I repeat briefly some of the history. In February of 1991 after the Iraqi military was vanquished in the Persian Gulf war, Saddam Hussein, effectively to preserve his leadership of that country, signed an agreement accepting all U.N. Security Council resolutions passed after his invasion of Kuwait as a condition for the termination of hostilities. That included Resolution No. 687 which required that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction be ``destroyed, removed or rendered harmless.'' In that Resolution 687, it goes on to require that inspectors be allowed into Iraq. Saddam Hussein systematically withheld information, used every available method of deception. I have an article from Time magazine of September, 1995, 7 years ago, which describes how much we knew about the deception that Saddam Hussein--the cheating and retreating, as the article said, that Saddam Hussein had gone through to frustrate the will of the United Nations and how much we have learned in admissions that were made as the United States mobilized forces to invade Kuwait: That the Iraqis had admitted they had begun filling 191 bombs and Scud missile warheads with deadly biological agents such as anthrax and botulism toxin, which were to be mounted on missiles, planes, and drone aircraft and dropped on enemy troops, fewer than half of whom had received the appropriate germ warfare vaccinations. One Iraq report, reading from the article in Time magazine 7 years ago, stated that shortly before invading Kuwait in August of 1990, Saddam ordered a crash program to have a nuclear weapon built by April of 1991. Interestingly, a month before this article was printed in Time magazine, Baghdad rushed to give some documents to the U.N. to jump ahead of Saddam's son-in-law, Hussein Kamel al-Majid, who had defected. He had been a senior general in charge of the nuclear and biological weapons program. Hussein, according to the article, knew he could not keep him quiet, so he decided to try to make points with the U.N. by producing a flood of information. It was devastating in its content in terms of the deadly toxins of which he was developing an enormous inventory. Of course, we know since the inspectors were ejected in 1998 and Saddam has now had, after his deception of the years that preceded, 4 years to build up his inventory which our intelligence and allied intelligence confirm has grown, remains, and is today more threatening and more powerful in terms of weapons of mass destruction, unconventional, than he had ever been before. I want to go back to one final quote. On February 15 of 1991, as we had won a victory in the gulf war, Saddam said: Every Iraqi child, woman, and old man knows how to take revenge. They will avenge the pure blood that has been shed, no matter how long it takes. That is undoubtedly why Saddam tried to assassinate former President Bush in 1993. That is why our State Department continues to designate Iraq under Saddam as a state sponsor of terrorist groups that have killed Americans. That is why we cannot rest until he is disarmed, which is the purpose of this resolution--disarm or face military action. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Oklahoma for his very strong statement on behalf of the resolution Senators Warner, Bayh, McCain, I, and others have put before the Senate. I also thank my friend and colleague from Florida, Senator Nelson, for his strong statement on behalf of the amendment we have offered. I think together they form bookends that are bipartisan and quite strong in endorsing our resolution, and also in responding to some of the complaints, or questions, or criticisms about it that have been made in this first day of direct debate on it, which I do want to do a little bit more of myself.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Yes.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his kind words. I remember our work together in 1991. We are older and maybe wiser. In any case, I am proud to be working with the Senator and others on both sides of the aisle in a good cause. I want to say, as he talked about reading the resolution--and I think that is important and I hope all our colleagues will read it--not just the ``resolved'' part, but the ``whereas,'' the preamble. There have been suggestions here and there that either this resolution we have adopted was sort of patched together in a hurry, or that the White House just dictated it. The good news is this resolution is the result of a bipartisan, bicameral, House-Senate negotiation with the White House in a spirit of accommodation and compromise as part of a desire to go forward together. Some significant changes were made in the resolution from the original draft sent by the White House that were requested by Members of Congress, including particularly Members on the Democratic side of the aisle. I just want to mention very briefly those changes. They include, first, support for and prioritization of American diplomatic efforts at the U.N. Just so there would be no doubt that what we were authorizing or intending to authorize was a unilateral, go-it-alone, ``don't care what anybody else says in the world'' military strike at Saddam Hussein, it is not that. In fact, at the heart of this resolution is the authority given to the President to enforce United Nations resolutions in great number, which have been consistently ignored, violated, denied, and deceived by Saddam Hussein over the decade. While Congress is only able to authorize the President, as Commander in Chief, to take military action, the clear implication that I read into our resolution--but more than that, the clear statement of intention of the President should we face the moment we hope we do not face, when either Saddam does not respond to the U.N. or the U.N. itself refuses to authorize action to enforce its resolutions, then I think the President has made clear, and those of us who are sponsoring the resolution have made clear, that the United States will not go it alone and we will not have to, as a result of the decision to go to the U.N., as a result of the consultation with allies in Europe and Asia, in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world, as a result of the discussion and debate here and what I hope will be strong bipartisan support of this underlying resolution. If we come to that moment where we have no other choice but war, then it is clear that we will have allies in good number at our side. That was one of the items we added to the resolution. We also limited the scope of the authorization to Iraq and resolutions of the United Nations related to Iraq. The initial language submitted by the White House had a third clause which would justify military action, and that was to give the President authority to take military action to restore international peace and security to the region. That was a good step forward to grant the President authority but to limit the authority. I take it also to be a limitation on duration, although some have spoken today and in previous days about the fact that this is unlimited. This is limited to the duration of authority necessary to address the current and ongoing threats posed by Iraq. When those threats are over, the authority is gone. Because the connection between sections 1 and 2 of the material parts of the resolve clause, which is the conditions that would justify military action, are joined by the word ``and'' and not by the word ``or,'' I think it is meant to clarify that this authority applies only to the relevant United Nations resolutions regarding Iraq. There was another significant change. We also asked the White House and they agreed to put in language that requires the President to submit to Congress a determination, prior to using force, that further diplomatic means will not protect the national security of the American people or lead to enforcement of U.N. resolutions--another way, consistent incidentally with the gulf war resolution of 1991, to make it clear in this resolution that the policy of the United States is not to go to war first but to go to war last, after all other means of achieving Saddam's disarmament have failed. We also require the President to submit to Congress a determination, prior to using force, that taking military action against Iraq is consistent with continuing efforts by the United States and other nations to take the necessary actions against international terrorists or terrorist organizations. Justifiable concern was expressed that somehow a potential war against Iraq would interrupt, disrupt, deter the ongoing war on terrorism. As I said, I think the two are connected because Saddam is a terrorist and supports terrorism and has had contacts with al-Qaida, but this makes clear the President has to make a determination publicly to Congress that these two are not in conflict and then requiring the President to comply with the War Powers Act which mandates regular consulting and reporting procedures. I spoke earlier this afternoon and said to my colleagues I did not understand why there were some who said this resolution was somehow in contravention of the Constitution. One might disagree with the evaluation we sponsors of the resolution have made about the danger of Iraq under Saddam or of the imminence of the threat, but clearly the language of this resolution is not only within the power that Congress is given by the Constitution to declare war, to authorize military action, but also, by complying with the War Powers Act, embraces the later section of article I that says Congress is empowered to adopt legislation to implement the powers the Constitution gives. Finally, there is a requirement that the President report every 60 days to Congress on military operations and on the planning for close of conflict activities, such as reconstruction and peacekeeping. It is not too soon to begin to plan for that now. I had occasion to speak on this subject last night at the Wilson Center here in Washington. The bottom line is the ultimate measurement of the success of war is the quality of peace that follows. We have an obligation not just to, if necessary, tear down the dictatorship that Saddam has built in Iraq, but to help the Iraqi people build up a government that will follow in a better life, better economy, and more freedom for themselves, and this reporting requirement will be an incentive for that to happen. Obviously, I hope and trust our colleagues will read the resolution in full. I want my colleagues to understand a significant process of negotiation went on between Democrats and Republicans in the House and the Senate and the White House before this resolution, which the President does support, was introduced into the Senate. I see my friend from Colorado.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I will be happy to yield to the Senator.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I say to my friend and colleague from Colorado, he is very gracious. I appreciate it. It is an honor to have this opportunity to be involved in this very important debate and to do so across party lines. I thank him for his thoughtful advocacy of this resolution and of a strong U.S. presence in this region generally. I appreciate it. Madam President, not seeing anyone else who wishes to speak at this time, I want to begin to respond to some of the thoughtful questions that were raised by the Senator from Oregon, and to some extent by the Senator from Massachusetts, about the imminence of the threat that Iraq represents and the basic question of, why now? what is the rush? For my own part, as I said earlier today, the question for me is, why not earlier? In other words, not, why now? but, why not earlier? We have gone through almost 11 years since the gulf war, since the armistice, the cease-fire agreement by which Saddam committed himself to adhere to the various U.N. resolutions and then proceeded rapidly to violate almost all of them, to play a cat-and-mouse game with the U.N. inspectors, testified to by so many of them, including the most memorable to me, Richard Butler, the Australian who headed the UNSCOM inspectors during the nineties, saying--and he used the word ``lies.'' He said the Iraqis under Saddam kept telling lies about what they had and did not have. The record sadly shows--and there is now an indisputable record in this regard--that they have a growing inventory of very deadly toxins, biological, and chemical weapons. We say with some glibness, because we say it so much, that Saddam is probably the only leader of a country in the world today who has used chemical weapons. He has, and used them not just once but several times against the Kurdish people, citizens of Iraq, and on some occasions actually having medical personnel nearby to follow up, not to help those who were attacked, but to use them as if they were test objects, to see to what extent they were hurt or how they were killed. That is how brutal and inhumane this regime is. All the time this deceit and deception was going on, we tried everything over and over to stop the violations of the U.N. agreements. Nothing worked--inspections, sanctions, Food for Oil, trade restrictions, and even limited military action. That is why we come to this point where we have said enough is enough. There is no question, in terms of is this imminent, that the events of September 11, 2001, have affected our judgment. I say for myself they have affected my judgment. I have said now that I have felt this way about Saddam for a long time. In 1998, former Senator Bob Kerrey, Senator McCain, Senator Lott, and I cosponsored the Iraq Liberation Act based on the constant deception and violation of the U.N. inspection team, kicking them out of Iraq. That act declared it American policy to no longer just contain Saddam, but because of the danger that he was brewing within his borders with chemical and biological weapons, ballistic missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles which he could deliver on targets near and far, that we had to adopt a new policy to change the regime. That was adopted into law in 1998. So as for myself, I have had this feeling about Saddam and his potential to use these weapons to expand his control of the Arab world. This is what I referred to earlier in the day in the incredibly timely book that has just come out by Kenneth Pollack, an expert on Iraq, called ``A Threatening Storm.'' In that book, Mr. Pollack tells the life story of Saddam through the Baath Party, so-called pan-Arabic views, and the extent to which his dream and his ambition is to be the new Saladin of the Arab world and control the entire Arab world. So that is what these weapons are for, and his Arab neighbors are the nearest and most immediate targets of that, many of whom are very good allies of ours and from whose countries we receive much of the oil that fuels our economy, as well as the economy of the rest of the world. So this has been building. Yet September 11, 2001, has had a profound effect on all of us. Speaking for myself, it has had a profound effect on me. We look back and we say we knew what Osama bin Laden was saying; we knew his hatred for the United States; we knew he had struck at the two American embassies in Africa; we knew he had attacked the USS Cole. We made some attempt to strike back at him, but now having experienced the horror of September 11, 2001, don't we wish we had invaded Afghanistan, overthrown the Taliban, and disrupted al-Qaida before September 11, 2001? Of course, we all do. The will was not there, notwithstanding the warnings. So in terms of imminence, this resolution uses the phrase ``continuing threat,'' that we authorize the President to use the Armed Forces of the United States to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq. When we put together Saddam's hatred for the United States--I quoted earlier today, February 15, 1991, in defeat, after the gulf war, Saddam said: Every Iraqi child, woman, and old man knows how to take revenge. They will avenge the pure blood that has been shed, no matter how long it takes. Surely, that was one of the reasons he attempted to assassinate former President Bush on a visit to Kuwait; why he, according not to this Senator or any other Senator but according to our own State Department, is one of seven nations on the State Department list of state sponsors of terrorism who has supported terrorist groups that have killed Americans. So I read the word ``continuing threat'' as contained in our resolution to hold within it implicitly the words ``grave and imminent'' that some of our colleagues have said they wish were there. The record shows that. The experience of September 11, 2001, shows that. I do not want to look back on some dark day in the near or not so near future, after some terrorist group supported by Saddam, or Iraq itself, has struck at allies of ours in the region or at American forces there or at Americans in the United States itself, which he is capable of doing, and say I wish we had taken action against him before he acted against us. We do not ever want to face a moment like that again. So I believe the record before us, recited in some detail in the preamble, the whereas clauses of our resolution, argues loudly that the continuing threat referred to in the literal wording of the authorization clause is both grave and imminent and calls out for the action and the strength that this resolution requires. The best way to achieve peace is to prepare for war. That is what has been said so many times in the past, particularly when dealing with a dangerous dictator like Saddam Hussein--and through his agents--an aggressor, a brutal killer himself. There is no substitute for strength. We are a strong Nation and we are marshaling that strength before the United Nations, before the world community and directly to Saddam Hussein, hoping the message will get through and he will disarm without requiring the U.N., or an international coalition led by the United States, to disarm him. That is our hope. That is our prayer. But we will not achieve it unless our intentions are clear and strong. There is a wonderful sentiment, an insight that I read a while ago from GEN Douglas MacArthur, obviously a great soldier but also a great student of warfare. MacArthur once said, and I quote: The history of failure in war can be summed up in two words, ``too late''--too late in comprehending the deadly purpose of a potential enemy; too late in realizing the mortal danger; too late in preparedness; too late in uniting all possible forces for resistance; too late in standing with one's friends. It is a brilliantly insightful and moving quote, and remarkably relevant to the challenge that our resolution puts before our colleagues--too late in comprehending the deadly purpose of a potential enemy, that is the case we are making, the continuing threat of Saddam Hussein, grave and imminent; too late in realizing the mortal danger-- that is the point that he continues to build an inventory of chemical and biological weapons that pose literally a mortal danger, the danger of killing Americans in great number if we do not stop him. In the colloquy I had earlier today with the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, I expressed that there has been a lot of debate leading up to this resolution about whether Saddam has nuclear capacity and when he will achieve it. Is it going to be a year, 6 years, 10 years? I do not know, but I do know he possesses biological weapons today, deadly biological weapons, with the capacity to deliver them with ballistic missiles, and now increasingly sophisticated and small unmanned aerial vehicles, which when taken together could, in the worst nightmare scenario, create as much or more devastation and death than the kind of primitive nuclear weapon he will sooner or later possess. So that is the mortal danger in MacArthur's warning. Too late in preparedness, well, that is what we are authorizing the President, as Commander in Chief, and our military to do. Too late in uniting all possible forces for resistance. We are working now with our allies, with the Iraqi opposition, finally, 4 years after the Iraq Liberation Act authorized our government to begin working with the broad-based Iraqi opposition to Saddam Hussein. Finally, too late in standing with one's friends. Here we are talking about our friends in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf. Good friends. Arabs, mostly, but also obviously Israelis. I say ``Arabs mostly'' because if you follow the line of Saddam's ambitions, they are to control the Arab world. That is what the invasion of Iran was about, that is what the invasion of Kuwait was about. If we give him the opportunity, that is what future invasions, using chemical, biological, and potentially nuclear weapons, will be about. It is time to stand with our friends in that region. I repeat, the history of failure in war can be summed up in two words: Too late. Too late in comprehending the deadly purpose of a potential enemy. Too late in realizing the mortal danger. Too late in preparedness. Too late in uniting all possible forces for resistance. Too late in standing with one's friends. This resolution is our way of saying to the American people, to the United Nations, to our allies in the Middle East and to Saddam Hussein, this time we cannot, we must not, and we will not wait until it is too late. I yield the floor.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I have a technical modification of the amendment that we offered earlier, and it is at the desk.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair and suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee on banking, housing, and urban affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 8, 2002, at 10 a.m. to conduct an oversight hearing on ``Perspectives on America's Transit Needs.''

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 8, 2002, immediately following the party luncheons, to conduct a mark-up on the nominations of Mr. Alberto Faustino Trevino, of California, to be Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Policy Development and Research; Mr. Armando J. Bucelo, Jr., of Florida, to be a director of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation; Ms. Carolyn Y. Peoples, of Maryland, to be Assistant Secretary of Housing and Urban Development for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity; Ms. Deborah Doyle McWhinney, of California, to be a director of the Securities Investor Protection Corporation; Mr. John M. Reich, of Virginia, to be Vice Chairperson of the Board of directors of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; Mr. Rafael Cueller, of New Jersey, to be a member of the board of directors of the National Consumer Cooperative Bank; Mr. Michael Scott, of North Carolina, to be a member of the board of directors of the National Consumer Cooperative Bank; and Mr. Philip Merrill, of Maryland, to be President of the Export-Import Bank of the United States.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on Tuesday, October 8, 2002, at 9:30 a.m. to conduct an oversight hearing entitled, ``The Clean Water Act--Then and Now'' to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the Clean Water Act. The hearing will be held in SD-406.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 8, 2002 at 2:15 p.m. to hold a Business Meeting. agenda Treaties 1. Treaty Doc. 107-13; Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Belize on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters. 2. Treaty Doc. 107-9; Treaty between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Ireland on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters. 3. Treaty Doc. 107-3; Treaty Between the Government of the Republic of India on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters. 4. Treaty Doc. 107-16; Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and the Principality of Liechtenstein on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters. 5. Treaty Doc. 107-6; Extradition Treaty Between the United States of America and the Republic of Peru. 6. Treaty Doc. 107-4; Extradition Treaty Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Lithuania. 7. Treaty Doc. 107-11; Second Protocol Amending Treaty on Extradition Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of Canada, as amended. 8. Treaty Doc. 107-15; Treaty between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Honduras for the Return of Stolen, Robbed, or Embezzled Vehicles and Aircraft, with Annexes and a related exchange of notes. Legislation 9. S. 3032; A bill to amend the Microenterprise for Self- Reliance Act of 2000 and the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to increase assistance for the poorest people in developing countries under microenterprise assistance programs under those Acts, and for other purposes. 10. S. 2667; A bill to amend the Peace Corps Act to promote global acceptance of the principles of international peace and non-violent coexistence among peoples of diverse cultures and systems of government, and for other purposes, with an amendment in the nature of a substitute. 11. H.R. 3656; An act to amend the International Organizations Immunities Act to provide for the applicability of that Act to the European Central Bank. Nominations 12. Mr. Joaquin F. Blaya, of Florida, to be a Member of the Broadcasting Board of Governors for a term expiring August 13, 2002. 13. The Honorable Wendy Chamberlin, of Virginia, to be Assistant Administrator of the Agency for International Development for Asia and the Near East. 14. Mr. Gene B. Christy, of Texas, to be Ambassador to Brunei Darussalam. 15. Mr. Seth Cropsey, of the District of Columbia, to be Director of the International Broadcasting Bureau, Broadcasting Board of Governors. 16. Mr. John R. Dawson, of the District of Columbia, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Peru. 17. Mr. Samuel Ebbesen, of the Virgin Islands, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. 18. Mr. Antonio O. Garza, Jr., of Texas, to be Ambassador to Mexico. 19. Mr. D. Jeffrey Hirschberg, of Wisconsin, to be a Member of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. 20. Ms. Nancy Jacklin, of New York, to be United States Executive Director of the International Monetary Fund. 21. Mr. David L. Lyon, of California, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Fiji, and to serve concurrently and without additional compensation as Ambassador to the Republic of Nauru, Ambassador to the Kingdom of Tonga, and Ambassador to Tuvalu. 22. Mrs. Diane Ruebling, of Utah, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the overseas Private Investment Corporation. 23. Mr. Ned Siegel, of Florida, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. 24. Mr. Steven J. Simmons, of Connecticut, to be Member of the Broadcasting Board of Governors. 25. Mr. C. William Swank, of Ohio, to be a Member of the Board of Directors of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation. 26. Mrs. Linda E. Watt, of Florida, to be Ambassador to the Republic of Panama. ESO Promotion list 27. Mr. Dean B. Wooden, et al., dated June 21, 2002. The PRESIDING OFFICER Without objection, it is so ordered. committee on governmental affairs

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Government Affairs be authorized to meet on Tuesday, October 8, 2002 at 9 a.m. to consider the nominations of Ruth Goldway and Tony Hammond to be Commissioners at the Postal Rate Commission.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing on ``The Feres Doctrine; an Examination of this Military Exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act'' on Tuesday, October 8, 2002 in Dirksen Room 226 at 2 p.m. Witness List Panel I: Paul Harris, Deputy Associate Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, and Christopher Weaver, Rear Admiral and Commandant, United States Navy, Washington, DC. Panel II: John Altenberg, Major General, Retired and Assistant Judge Advocate General, United States Army, Washington, DC; Eugene Fidell, Counsel, Feldesman, Tucker, Leifer, & Bank, LLP, Washington, DC; Daniel Joseph, Counsel, Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP, Washington, DC; Bonnie O'Neill, Kingston, PA; Nolan Sklute, Major General, Retired and Judge Advocate General, United States Air Force, North Bethesda, MD; and Richard A. Sprague, Counsel, Sprague & Sprague, Philadelphia, PA.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, October 8, 2002 at 10 a.m. to hold an open hearing with the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence concerning the Joint Inquiry into the events of September 11, 2001.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleagues Senators Russ Feingold, Dick Durbin, Edward Kennedy, Jim Jeffords, and Charles Schumer in introducing legislation that would end a terrible injustice suffered by 600,000 American citizens--that is, the denial of full Congressional representation to the citizens of the District of Columbia. This injustice is nothing less than a stain on the fabric of our democracy. To right this wrong, we are introducing the No Taxation Without Representation Act of 2002 today in order to extend full Congressional representation to the citizens of our Capital City. This is the second bill I have introduced to this Congress in order to achieve this important goal. It is embarrassing that ours is the only democracy in the world in which citizens of the Capital are not represented in the national legislature. I can only wonder what visitors from around the world must think when they come to see our beautiful landmarks, our monuments, and our Capitol dome, proud symbols of the world's greatest democracy, and then learn that the people who live in this great city have no voice in Congress. What would we do if, for some reason, the residents of Boston, Nashville, Denver, Seattle, or El Paso had no voting rights? All those cities are roughly the same size as Washington, D.C., and I know we as a Nation wouldn't let their citizens go voiceless in Congress. Citizens of Washington, D.C. pay income taxes, and yet they have no say in how high those taxes will be or how their tax dollars will be spent. Citizens of Washington, D.C. serve their fellow Americans both here at home and in wars abroad, and yet inhabitants of the District of Columbia cannot choose representatives to the legislature that governs them. This city's people and institutions have been the direct target of terrorists, and yet citizens of the District have no one who can cast a vote in Congress on policies to protect their homeland security. The vote is a civic entitlement of every tax-paying citizen of the United States. It is democracy's most elemental and essential right, its most useful tool. The citizens who live in our Nation's capital deserve more than a non-voting delegate in the House. Notwithstanding the strong service of the Honorable Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton and her ability to vote in committee, a representative without the power to vote on the floor of the House simply isn't good enough. The name of this bill is intended as a reminder of the inextricable link in this Nation's history between the power to tax and the right to vote. Our forebearers went to war rather than pay taxes without representation. The principles for which our Nation's revolutionary heroes fought so hard more than 200 years ago apply just as forcefully to the citizens of the District of Columbia today as they did for the men and women who founded this great Nation. Despite its title, ``No Taxation Without Representation,'' this bill does not relieve the District residents of their tax obligations, given their non-voting status. The people of D.C. are not looking to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Instead, the bill grants the citizens of the District of the Columbia their much-belated birthright: the right to vote for and be represented by two Senators and a full Member of the House of Representatives. Further the bill increases the permanent membership of the House of Representatives by one, a symbolic acknowledgment that all along a member was missing: the Representative casting her vote for the people of Washington, D.C. This legislation is no less than our broadly-held American values demand for our fellow citizens. In fact, a recent national poll shows that a majority of Americans believe D.C. residents already have Congressional voting rights. When informed that they do not, 80 percent say that D.C. residents should have full representation. In righting this wrong, we won't just be following the will of the American people. We will be following the will of history. When the framers of the Constitution placed our Capital, which had not yet been established, under the jurisdiction of the Congress, they placed with Congress the responsibility of ensuring that D.C. citizens' rights would be protected in the future, just as Congress protects the rights of all citizens throughout the land. For more than 200 years, Congress has failed to meet this obligation. And I, for one, am not prepared to make D.C. citizens wait another 200 years. In the words of this city's namesake, our first President, George Washington, ``Precedents are dangerous things; let the reins of government then be braced and held with a steady hand, and every violation of the Constitution be reprehended: If defective, let it amended, but not suffered to be trampled upon whilst it has an existence.'' The people of the District of Columbia have suffered this Constitutional defect far too long. Let's reprehend it and amend it together. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the No Taxation Without Representation Act of 2002 be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today to join with my colleagues Senators Russ Feingold, Dick Durbin, Edward Kennedy, Jim Jeffords, and Charles Schumer in introducing legislation that would end a terrible injustice suffered by 600,000 American citizens--that is, the denial of full Congressional representation to the citizens of the District of Columbia. This injustice is nothing less than a stain on the fabric of our democracy. To right this wrong, we are introducing the No Taxation Without Representation Act of 2002 today in order to extend full Congressional representation to the citizens of our Capital City. This is the second bill I have introduced to this Congress in order to achieve this important goal. It is embarrassing that ours is the only democracy in the world in which citizens of the Capital are not represented in the national legislature. I can only wonder what visitors from around the world must think when they come to see our beautiful landmarks, our monuments, and our Capitol dome, proud symbols of the world's greatest democracy, and then learn that the people who live in this great city have no voice in Congress. What would we do if, for some reason, the residents of Boston, Nashville, Denver, Seattle, or El Paso had no voting rights? All those cities are roughly the same size as Washington, D.C., and I know we as a Nation wouldn't let their citizens go voiceless in Congress. Citizens of Washington, D.C. pay income taxes, and yet they have no say in how high those taxes will be or how their tax dollars will be spent. Citizens of Washington, D.C. serve their fellow Americans both here at home and in wars abroad, and yet inhabitants of the District of Columbia cannot choose representatives to the legislature that governs them. This city's people and institutions have been the direct target of terrorists, and yet citizens of the District have no one who can cast a vote in Congress on policies to protect their homeland security. The vote is a civic entitlement of every tax-paying citizen of the United States. It is democracy's most elemental and essential right, its most useful tool. The citizens who live in our Nation's capital deserve more than a non-voting delegate in the House. Notwithstanding the strong service of the Honorable Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton and her ability to vote in committee, a representative without the power to vote on the floor of the House simply isn't good enough. The name of this bill is intended as a reminder of the inextricable link in this Nation's history between the power to tax and the right to vote. Our forebearers went to war rather than pay taxes without representation. The principles for which our Nation's revolutionary heroes fought so hard more than 200 years ago apply just as forcefully to the citizens of the District of Columbia today as they did for the men and women who founded this great Nation. Despite its title, ``No Taxation Without Representation,'' this bill does not relieve the District residents of their tax obligations, given their non-voting status. The people of D.C. are not looking to avoid paying their fair share of taxes. Instead, the bill grants the citizens of the District of the Columbia their much-belated birthright: the right to vote for and be represented by two Senators and a full Member of the House of Representatives. Further the bill increases the permanent membership of the House of Representatives by one, a symbolic acknowledgment that all along a member was missing: the Representative casting her vote for the people of Washington, D.C. This legislation is no less than our broadly-held American values demand for our fellow citizens. In fact, a recent national poll shows that a majority of Americans believe D.C. residents already have Congressional voting rights. When informed that they do not, 80 percent say that D.C. residents should have full representation. In righting this wrong, we won't just be following the will of the American people. We will be following the will of history. When the framers of the Constitution placed our Capital, which had not yet been established, under the jurisdiction of the Congress, they placed with Congress the responsibility of ensuring that D.C. citizens' rights would be protected in the future, just as Congress protects the rights of all citizens throughout the land. For more than 200 years, Congress has failed to meet this obligation. And I, for one, am not prepared to make D.C. citizens wait another 200 years. In the words of this city's namesake, our first President, George Washington, ``Precedents are dangerous things; let the reins of government then be braced and held with a steady hand, and every violation of the Constitution be reprehended: If defective, let it amended, but not suffered to be trampled upon whilst it has an existence.'' The people of the District of Columbia have suffered this Constitutional defect far too long. Let's reprehend it and amend it together. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the No Taxation Without Representation Act of 2002 be printed in the Record.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to meet on Wednesday, October 2, 2002, at 9:30 a.m. on Airlines Viability in the Current Economic Climate.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Environment and Public Works be authorized to meet on Wednesday, October 2, 2002, at 2:00 p.m. to conduct a hearing to review the status and studies of the health impacts of PM-2.5, particularly those effects associated with power plant emissions. The hearing will be held in SD-406.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday. October 2, 2002 at 10:00 a.m. to hold a closed hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I ask for its second reading and object to my own request.

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, along with Senators Warner, Bayh, and McCain, I have a joint resolution at the desk and I ask for its first reading.

Mr. LIEBERMAN

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, along with my dear friends and colleagues, Senators Warner, Bayh, and McCain, I am proud to introduce this bipartisan resolution which would authorize the President of the United States to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and to enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. There is no more fateful or difficult decision that we as Senators are ever called upon to make than a decision as to whether and when and how to authorize the President as Commander in Chief to put the men and women of the U.S. military into battle. Each Member of the Senate must make this decision at this hour according to their personal conscience and their sense of what is best for the security of the people of the United States of America. For my part, and that of my colleagues, I have made that decision. For more than a decade now, Saddam Hussein has threatened the peace and security of his region and the wider world. We went to war in 1991 to roll back his aggression--an invasion of Kuwait--because we determined across party lines that Saddam Hussein had ambitions that were hostile to America's security and the peace of the world to become the dominant power in the Arab world which, if ever realized, would be bad for the Arab world, bad for the peace and security of the broader region, and very bad for the people of the United States. We won that war in Kuwait--Operation Desert Storm--but Saddam Hussein has continued for the decade since then, notwithstanding documents that Iraq signed to conclude the gulf war, to thwart the rule of law internationally, to deceive and deny all that he had promised to do at the end of the gulf war, and all that the United Nations called on him to do in the years since then. He has continued, without question, to develop weapons of mass destruction and the means to deliver them on distant targets. He has continued to earn a dubious place on that small list of countries that the State Department considers state sponsors of terrorism. Even today, Iraq has provided shelter for significant figures within al-Qaida who struck us on September 11, as they have fled from American military forces in Afghanistan. President Bush has said that the hour of truth has arrived. We can no longer tolerate the intransigence and danger posed by Saddam Hussein. He has gone to the U.N. and sought support from the international community. This resolution is our attempt to express our support of the President as Commander in Chief in seeking international backing for action against Saddam Hussein. It is also a way to strengthen the President's hand as Commander in Chief. If Saddam Hussein does not comply, or if the United Nations is not willing to take action to enforce its orders, in my opinion, this is the last chance for Saddam Hussein but also the best chance for the international community to come together to prove that resolutions of the United Nations mean more and have more weight than the paper on which they are written. It is also the hour for Members of Congress to draw together across party lines to support the national security of the United States. A debate will follow in the days ahead. It is an important debate that should not be rushed. It should be reflective. Ultimately, I am confident the resolution that Senators Warner, Bayh, McCain, and I are introducing will enjoy the broad, bipartisan support that our national security demands at this time. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.