John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am opposed to the Byrd amendment, for this is a resolution to deter war. The amendment proposed by Senator Byrd would insert into the joint resolution, language which would state that nothing in that joint resolution: is intended to alter the constitutional authorities of the Congress to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, or other authorities invested in Congress by Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution; or shall be construed as granting any authority to the President to use the U.S. Armed Forces for any purpose not directly related to a clear threat of imminent, sudden, and direct attack upon the U.S. or its armed forces unless the Congress otherwise authorizes. The amendment of the Senator from West Virginia attempts to do something that the Framers of the Constitution did not attempt--to define, with particularity, the extent of the President's powers as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Specifically, it would limit the authority of the President to use Armed Forces to a narrowly defined set of circumstance--``a clear threat of imminent, sudden and direct attack upon the United States or its Armed Forces.'' Even when the United States enjoyed genuine geographic and political isolation from the Old World, such a limitation could not be maintained. Within a decade of the ratification of the Constitution, the United States engaged in an undeclared naval war with France. Shortly thereafter, we engaged in undeclared war with the Barbary States of North Africa, who had engaged in piratical depredations against American shipping. In 1861, President Lincoln, faced with an unprecedented situation, imposed a blockade--an act of war normally employed against a foreign enemy--upon the Southern Confederacy. He did this without congressional authorization. The Supreme Court later upheld this action in the famous Prize Cases, stating that the President had a constitutional duty to meet the insurrection as he found it; the determination that a state of war existed was for him to make. This is not a Republican or Democratic issue. Since 1945, Presidents of both parties have repeatedly committed American troops abroad without formal congressional approval. Whether in Korea, Grenada, Panama, Kosovo, or numerous other areas of the world, our Presidents have used their powers as Commander in Chief to protect the Nation and American interests whenever they, in their considered judgment, thought it best to do so. The Clinton administration, which committed American troops to military operations abroad on an unprecedented scale in situations not involving imminent danger of attack to the United States, did not request formal congressional approval for any of those oeprations-- believing that the President possessed the constitutional authority to do so. Indeed, the Secretary of State in 1998 publicly stated that the 1991 congressional resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq, together with existing Security Council resolutions, constituted sufficient authority for the use of force against Iraq. On September 11th of last year the American people awoke to the realization that they were in imminent danger, had been for some time, and this danger gives no warning. It is a different type of danger, but no less real and no less threatening to the Nation than more traditional ones. As the President reminded us in his speech to the Nation on Monday evening: Iraq could decide on any given day to provide a biological or chemical weapon to a terrorist group or individual terrorists. Alliance with terrorists could allow the Iraqi regime to attack America without leaving any fingerprints . . . confronting the threat posed by Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. On the Today Show this week, Richard Butler, former head of UNSCOM, was asked how easy it would be for the Iraqis to arm a terrorist group or an individual terrorist with weapons of mass destruction. His response was ``Extremely easy. If they decided to do it, piece of cake!'' They may already have done it. The danger is clear, present, and imminent. We must grant the President the authority to use armed force to protect the Nation, and the flexibility to employ that force as seems best to him. Our enemies are cunning and flexible; we cannot defeat them with anything less. The Byrd amendment regarding preservation of Congress's constitutional authorities is unnecessary. The portion of the amendment that would limit the authority of the President to wage war is, arguably unconstitutional. The Congress can declare war, but it cannot dictate to the President how to wage war. No law passed by Congress could alter the constitutional separation of powers. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.

Mr. WARNER. I thank the leader. I appreciate very much the calm tone with which he addresses this issue of a rush to judgment. Regrettably, our colleague from Pennsylvania used those terms. I was reminded of being here last Friday afternoon for 5 \1/2\ hours. What a memorable opportunity it was with my distinguished colleague from West Virginia. Senator Kennedy and Senator Dodd joined in. I think we went about a very constructive debate and exchanged our views. Senator Byrd and I debated again on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday. Here we are on the fifth day. Mr. President, this is not a rush to judgment. This is the Senate working diligently. Most of us were here close to 11 o'clock last night. In parallel, as the distinguished leader said--I remember it so well--the period of January 10 through 12, when a resolution, again drawn up by my colleague from Connecticut, the principal sponsor this time, at that time I was the principal sponsor. It was carefully debated. The Senate is doing its job and doing it well. We have had a very good debate and we will complete that debate here today, tomorrow, or whatever the case may be. I wish to draw the attention of the Senate to the last vote--a very strong vote, not against our colleague from West Virginia. But I thought, as he mentioned the Gulf of Tonkin, how appropriate it was that in the leader's chair, Senator McCain, my partner who is working diligently with me on this side, spoke very softly of his experience. I don't know of anyone in this Chamber more qualified than he to speak to that period, and the relevance of that resolution. I was Secretary of the Navy for 5 years, and Under Secretary during that period of time, and we remember well that period. I wish to talk about the President of the United States. As I look upon this situation and listen to the debate, I think we are of a mind, all 100 of us, of the seriousness of these weapons of mass destruction. We may have a difference of conscience as to the level of threat posed perhaps today, tomorrow, in the future, but it is there. This is no question. I stop to think that the United Nations has done nothing for 4 years. They have not sought to enforce the resolutions, 16 in number. It has been this President, President George Bush, who has taken the initiative to go not only to the American people, but to the whole world, and very carefully and methodically tell the world we should be on alert; we cannot do nothing. We should join as a community of nations to address it. He said that at the United Nations very brilliantly. I think everyone in this body respects him. As we are debating today, another debate is taking place in the U.N. To the extent this resolution remains strong as it is now is the extent to which we can expect an equal and perhaps even stronger statement of resolve by the United Nations to fulfill its mandate, to fulfill its charter. The League of Nations failed to act at a critical time in the history of this Nation, and it went into the dustbin of history. The United Nations will not go into the dustbin of history. I am confident that this time they will stand up, that they will devise a 17th resolution. I look upon the action by the Senate today in voting a strong bipartisan vote for this resolution as not an act of war. It is an act to deter war, to put in place the tools for our President and our Secretary of State to get the strongest possible resolution in the United Nations. It is an act seen to force, I repeat, the last option as our President has said ever so clearly time and again. It is an act to deter war to make the last option the use of force. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I congratulate the distinguished majority leader for a very powerful and very clear statement. I, too, join you in saying that it is our responsibility to ask questions. Questions have been asked throughout this debate. As best we can, we answered them. But I think the distinguished leader has provided very helpful guidance in the uncertain days, months, and perhaps years to come. I commend you. As one of the cosponsors, I welcome your strong support.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, regular order. Mr. LEAHY addressed the Chair. cloture motion

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it is the intention of the Senate now to proceed to the Levin amendment No. 4862, with 50 minutes for the Senator from Michigan, 15 minutes for the Senator from Delaware, 15 minutes for the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, and 15 minutes for the Senator from Virginia. It is the intention of the Senator from Virginia to see that time is given to the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman. We are now awaiting the opening statement of our distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee. I advise Senators that at the completion of that time, it is the intention of the Senator from Virginia to move to table the amendment.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, if I might conclude, time doesn't permit me to get into the doctrine of anticipatory self-defense, but I think at another opportunity we will have that debate, perhaps before we conclude this matter. I think we are about to proceed as soon as the distinguished majority whip addresses the Senate.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, yes. I received this information. But I would be happy to allow our distinguished chairman time.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I had not intended to, but I just received a request from Senator McCain that he be allowed to follow Senator Byrd's speech for not to exceed 30 minutes.

Mr. WARNER. No objection.

Mr. WARNER. Madam President, I thank my colleague for his kind remarks.

Mr. WARNER. I understand the Senator's concerns, and I believe that the Department of Defense is already very sensitive to this situation, as reflected in the assignment policies of the military services. I trust the Department will continue to make every reasonable effort, through existing practices and policies, to avoid situations in which both parents would be deployed to a combat zone. I thank the Senator from California for once again focusing attention on this issue.

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

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, in consultation with my colleagues, I withdraw the comment at this time of the desire of the Senator from Virginia to table.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will my colleague yield for a question on my time and a response on his time? In other words, I will ask the question on the time allocated to me and the Senator can respond on the time allocated to him.

Mr. WARNER. Then I am going to have to narrow our ability to enter into a colloquy, which you and I have done so many times. I will ask one question: As I read this amendment, I find it could be interpreted as precluding the ability to enforce the existing resolutions, namely 688, the no-fly zone. If the Senator wants a few minutes to study and reflect on that, I would like to have the Senator think this through. That is one very serious shortcoming. In other words, for 11 years we have been enforcing the no-fly zone, but as I read this, it could be construed as stopping that. I make that point.

Mr. WARNER. I draw my colleague's attention to the fact it would require the United States to wait for the U.N. Security Council to act on a resolution before the President could take action to protect our national security interests.

Mr. WARNER. I will have to reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. WARNER. I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Connecticut.

Mr. WARNER. I will take a few minutes under my time and give to this Chamber two quotations that frame the entire debate. The first quotation is from 40 years ago. It was the President of the United States, John F. Kennedy, in 1962: This Nation is prepared to present its case against the Soviet threat to peace and our own proposals for a peaceful world at any time and in any form, in the Organization of American States, in the United Nations, or in any other meeting that could be useful, without limiting our freedom of action. This is precisely what this amendment does. It is a total substitute for the work that has been done by the Senator from Connecticut, working with others, the leadership on both sides of the aisle, and the President's staff. That would all come down, and in its place would be this resolution which has provisions that could be interpreted as a veto, questions the authority of the President, and puts too much reliance that the United Nations is going to devise a resolution which would meet the criteria that our President and other nations deem essential for a new inspection regime. That was a quote by President Kennedy. Now, 40 years forward, a second quote: This resolution gives the President the authority he needs to confront the threat posed by Iraq. It is fundamentally different and a better resolution than the one the President sent to us. It is neither a Democratic resolution nor a Republican resolution. It is now a statement of American resolve and values. Continuing: For me, the deciding factor is my belief that a united Congress will help the President unite the world, and by uniting the world we can increase the world's chances of succeeding in this effort and reduce both the risks and the cost. That quote was made just over 40 minutes ago by the distinguished majority leader of the Senate. The House of Representatives debated language identical in both Chambers. To achieve that united Congress, we must maintain the integrity of the amendment that is presently pending. That is the amendment by Senator Lieberman and myself, Senator McCain, and Senator Bayh. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Yes. Madam President, may I inquire as to the remaining time of the Senator from Arizona?

Mr. WARNER. Three minutes. And for the Senator from Virginia?

Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield for a brief question?

Mr. WARNER. The Senator raises a key point on which I was going to conclude, and that is, as we are debating, the Secretary of State is working before the U.N. Security Council.

Mr. WARNER. He has made it clear to the Senator from Delaware, I am certain, as he has made it clear to me, that the two-step process will not achieve the goals a coalition of nations now working--Great Britain and the United States--desire to achieve; am I not correct?