You can find the amendments via
thomas.
Here's the page (S10228) with the text of the ammendments.
SA 4868. Mr. BYRD submitted an amendment intended to be proposed to amendment SA 4856 proposed by Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. WARNER, Mr. BAYH, Mr. MCCAIN, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. MILLER, Mr. DOMENICI, Mr. EDWARDS, Mr. HUTCHINSON, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. ALLARD, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. HELMS, Mr. BUNNING, Mr. LOTT, Mr. SHELBY, Mr. THOMPSON, and Mr. NICKLES) to the joint resolution S.J. Res. 45, to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq ; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. 5. STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this joint resolution --
(1) 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 Section 8, Article 1 of the Constitution; or
(2) shall be construed as granting any authority to the President to use the United States Armed Forces for any purpose not directly related to a clear threat of imminent, sudden, and direct attack upon the United States, its possessions or territories, or the Armed Forces of the United States, unless the Congress of the United States otherwise authorizes.
SA 4869. Mr. BYRD submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the joint resolution S.J. Res. 45, to authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq ; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
SEC. 5. TERMINATION OF THE AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF THE UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.
(a) IN GENERAL.--The authorization in section 3(a) shall terminate 12 months after the date of enactment of this joint resolution , except that the President may extend, for a period or periods of 12 months each, such authorization if--
(1) the President determines and certifies to Congress for each such period, not later that 60 days before the date of termination of the authorization, that the extension is necessary for ongoing or impending military operations against Iraq under section 3(a); and
(2) the Congress does not enact into law, before the extension of the authorization, a joint resolution disapproving the extension of the authorization for the additional 12-month period.
(b) CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW PROCEDURES.--
(1) IN GENERAL.--For purposes of subsection (a)(2), a joint resolution described in paragraph (2) shall be considered in the Senate and the House of Representatives in accordance with the procedures applicable to joint resolutions under paragraphs (3) through (8) of section 8066(c) of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1985 (as contained in Public Law 98-473; 98 Stat. 1936-1937), except that--
(A) references in those provisions to the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives shall be deemed to be references to the Committee on International Relations of the House of Representatives; and
(B) references in those provisions to the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate shall be deemed to be references to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate.
(2) JOINT RESOLUTION DEFINED.--For purposes of paragraph (1), the term ``joint resolution'' means only a joint resolution introduced after the date on which the certification of the President under subsection (a)(1) is received by Congress, the matter after the resolving clause of which is as follows: ``That, pursuant to section 5 of the Authorization for the Use of Military Force Against Iraq , the Congress disapproves the extension of the authorization under section 3(a) of that joint resolution for the additional 12-month period specified in the certification of the President to the Congress dated __.'', with the blank filled in with the appropriate date.
The debate in which Kerry et al. sat on 4868 starts on page S10167. You can read Kerry's views there. Byrd's come the following day(pp. S10235-36):
Mr. President, 38 years ago I, ROBERT C. BYRD, voted on the Tonkin Gulf Resolution--the resolution that authorized the President to use military force to ``repel armed attacks'' and ``to prevent further Communist aggression'' in Southeast Asia.
It was this resolution that provided the basis for American involvement in the war in Vietnam.
It was the resolution that lead to the longest war in American history.
It led to the deaths of 58,000 Americans, and 150,000 Americans being wounded in action.
It led to massive protests, a deeply divided country, and the deaths of more Americans at Kent State.
It was a war that destroyed the Presidency of Lyndon Johnson and wrecked the administration of Richard Nixon.
After all that carnage, we began to learn that, in voting for the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, we were basing our votes on bad information. We learned that the claims the administration made on the need for the Tonkin Gulf Resolution were simply not true, and history is repeating itself.
We tragically and belatedly learned that we had not taken enough time to consider the resolution. We had not asked the right questions, nor enough questions. We learned that we should have been demanding more hard evidence from the administration rather than accepting the administration at its word.
But it was too late.
For all those spouting jingoes about going to war with Iraq, about the urgent need for regime change no matter what the cost, about the need to take out the evil dictator--and make no mistakes, I know and understand that Saddam Hussein is an evil dictator--I urge Senators to go down on The Capital Mall and look at the Vietnam memorial. Nearly every day you will find someone at that wall weeping for a loved one, a father, a son, a brother, a friend, whose name is on that wall.
If we are fortunate, a war with Iraq will be a short one with few American deaths, as in the Persian Gulf war, and we can go around again waving flags and singing patriotic songs.
Or, maybe we will find ourselves building another wall on the mall.
I will always remember the words of Senator Wayne Morse, one of the two Senators who opposed the Tonkin Gulf Resolution. During the debate on the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, he stated: ``The resolution will pass, and Senators who vote for it will live to regret it.''
Many Senators did live to regret it.
The Tonkin Gulf Resolution contained a sunset provision to end military action. S.J. Res. 46 will allow the President to continue war for as long as he wants, against anyone he wants as long he feels it will help eliminate the threat posed by Iraq.
With the Tonkin Gulf Resolution, Congress could ``terminate'' military action. With S.J. Res. 46 , only the President can terminate military action.
I should point out that the Tonkin Gulf Resolution and S.J. Res. 46 do have several things in common. Congress is again being asked to vote on the use of force without hard evidence that the country poses an immediate threat to the national security of the United States. We are being asked to vote on a resolution authorizing the use of force in a hyped up, politically charged atmosphere in an election year. Congress is again being rushed into a judgment.
This is why I stand here today, before this Chamber, and before this Nation, urging, pleading for some sanity, for more time to consider this resolution, for more hard evidence on the need for this resolution.
Before we put this great Nation on the track to war, I want to see more evidence, hard evidence, not more Presidential rhetoric. In support of this resolution, several people have pointed out that President Kennedy acted unilaterally in the Cuban missile crisis. That is true. I remember that. I was here. I also remember President Kennedy going on national television and showing proof of the threat we faced. I remember him sending our UN ambassador, Adlai Stevenson, to the United Nations, to provide proof to the world that there was a threat to the national security of the United States.
All we get from this administration is rhetoric. In fact, in an address to our NATO colleagues, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, according to the Chicago Tribune, urged our allies to resist the idea for the need of absolute proof about terrorists intent before they took action.
Before we unleash what Thomas Jefferson called the ``dogs of war,'' I want to know, have we exhausted every avenue of peace? My favorite book does not say, blessed are the war makers. It says: ``Blessed are the peacemakers.'' Have we truly pursued peace?
If the need for taking military action against Iraq is so obvious and so needed and so urgent, then why are nearly every one of our allies opposed to it? Why is the President on the phone nearly every day trying to convince our allies to join us?
So many people, so many nations in the Arab world already hate and fear us. Why do we want them to hate and fear us even more?
People are correct to point out that September 11 changed everything. We need to be more careful. We need to build up our intelligence efforts and our homeland security. But do we go around pounding everybody, anybody, who might pose a threat to our security? If we clobber Iraq today, do we clobber Iran tomorrow?
When do we attack China? When do we attack North Korea? When do we attack Syria?
Unless I can be shown proof that these distant nations do pose an immediate, serious threat to the national interests and security of the United States, I think we should finish our war on terrorism. I think we should destroy those who destroyed the Trade Towers and attacked the Pentagon. I think we should get thug No. 1 before we worry about thug No. 2.
Yes, September 11 changed many aspects of our lives, but people still bleed. America's mothers will still weep for their sons and their daughters who will not come home.
September 11 should have made us more aware of the pain that comes from being attacked. We, more than ever, are aware of the damage, the deaths, and the suffering that comes from violent attacks.
....
This is what we are about to do to other countries. We are about to inflict this horrible suffering upon other people.
Of course, we do not talk about this. We talk about taking out Saddam Hussein. We are talking about taking out Iraq, about ``regime change.''
I do not want history to remember my country as being on the side of evil.
During the Civil War, a minister expressed his hope to President Lincoln that the Lord was on the side of the North. The Great Emancipator reportedly rebuked the minister stating:
It is my constant anxiety and prayer that I and this nation are on the Lord's side.
Before I vote for this resolution for war, a war in which thousands, perhaps tens of thousands or hundred of thousands of people may die, I want to make sure that I and this Nation are on God's side.
I want more time. I want more evidence. I want to know that I am right, that our Nation is right, and not just powerful.
And I want the language that is in this amendment so that Congress can oversee this power grab and act to terminate it at some point in time--giving the President the opportunity to extend the time but let's keep Congress in the act.
Senators, vote for this amendment. I plead with you.
* * ** *** ** * *
More from pp.10246-48
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, a point I want to make about this discussion that ensued after the statement was made by the distinguished Senator from Minnesota: There were references made to Public Law 105-235, August 14, 1998. Here is the resolving clause which has been quoted by the distinguished Republican whip:
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, . .....
That the government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations, and therefore the President is urged to take appropriate action in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations. Approved August 14, 1998.
Well, so what? What does that prove? What does that prove? Somebody tell me. Let's read it again. The resolving clause says that the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations. That is okay. But get this: And therefore the President is urged to take appropriate action.
What does that mean? There is nothing definitive about that. That is ambiguous. It is not contemporaneous with today's question. It is ambiguous. It is vague. What would that prove in a court if the Supreme Court of the United States were to take this up? What would those who read this piece of junk maintain that this says? It is plain. The President is urged--well, what does that mean, ``urged''?--to take appropriate action. What is that? That is not a declaration of war. What is that? What does that mean, ``to take appropriate action''? Well, you can guess, I can guess, he can guess, he can guess. Anybody can guess.
``Urges the President to take appropriate action in accordance with the Constitution . .....'' Now, that is fine. It is in accordance with the Constitution. Then that would say that Congress has the power to declare war.
``In accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.'' What is he supposed to do? What is the President being urged to do to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations? Anybody's guess. Why, surely this great country of ours is not going to be able to launch a war on the basis of that ambiguous and vague language.
I wish those who are continuing to refer to this Public Law 105-235 and the so-called relevant U.N. resolutions would explain what they mean. I hear that over and over again. In connection with the resolution that is before this Senate today, it refers to all relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions. ``All relevant . .....'' What does that mean? And they keep referring to 660 and 678 and 687. I would like to discuss those resolutions with those who will do so. I hope they come on the floor. Where are they? Where are these men of great strength? Let them come to the floor. I want to debate with them these so-called resolutions.
In this resolution that is before the Senate, S.J. Res. 46, it refers to relevant resolutions. They keep talking about the relevant resolutions. What resolutions are they talking about enforcing? Are they talking about 660? Are they talking about 678? No. 678 was adopted on November 29, 1990. Is that what they are talking about? U.N. Resolution 687 was the enforcement resolution. That was the resolution that authorized the member states to act to uphold Resolution No. 660. But that conferring of authorization was wiped out. No. 678 was wiped out by 687 when Iraq contacted the Security Council and accepted 687. It was wiped out. So I am prepared to argue that. I do not want to do it on my flimsy 1 hour, but I am prepared.
I have heard the Senator from Connecticut--he is not in the Chamber right now, but he will be back. I have heard him and others refer to the so-called relevant resolutions. They have been wiped out. They are gone, and no single member state can revive them. They were extinguished on April 6, 1991, when Iraq signified to the Security Council that it accepted the terms of 687.
Now we can talk about that at a later time. I would love to get into it. I would like to get into a discussion on that, but for now, suffice it to say, what I am saying is this resolution we are talking about would accept as fact certain things that are not facts--this blank check we have been talking about that we are going to turn over to this President of the United States, the power to determine when, where, how, and for how long he will use the military forces of the United States.
It is flimsy. That resolution is full of holes. The whereas clauses are full of holes. Now they have been wiped out by unanimous consent so they are no longer ``whereas'' but ``since.'' It is flimsy. Full of holes. Ambiguities. Statements of facts that are not facts. I am ready to debate that at any time.
....
Mr. BYRD. I hope Senators will show an abundance of mercy before the day is over and perhaps give me some more time.
Mr. President, this week the Senate is considering a very important resolution. The language of this resolution has been touted as a bipartisan compromise that addresses the concerns of both the White House and the Democratic leadership in Congress. But the only thing that I see being compromised in this resolution is this Constitution of the United States, which I hold in my hand, and the power that Constitution gives to Congress to declare war. This resolution we are considering is a dangerous step toward a government in which one man at the other end of this avenue holds in his hand the power to use the world's most powerful military force in whatever manner he chooses, whenever he chooses, wherever he chooses, and wherever he perceives a threat against national security.
The Bush administration has announced a new security doctrine that advocates acting preemptively to head off threats to U.S. national security. Much has been said about the diplomatic problem with this doctrine. But we should also recognize that the administration's new approach to war may also pose serious problems for our own constitutional system.
In the proposed use-of-force resolution, the White House lawyers claim ``the President has authority under the Constitution to use force in order to defend the national security interests of the United States.''
It says no such thing. I dare them to go to the Constitution and point out where that Constitution says what they say it said. They cannot do it. I know the job of any good lawyer--I have never been a practicing lawyer, but I know the job of a good lawyer is to craft legal interpretations that are most beneficial to the client. But for the life of me, I cannot find any basis for such a broad, expansive interpretation in the interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. Find it. Show it to me. You can't do it.
Where in the Constitution is it written that the title of Commander in Chief carries with it the power to decide unilaterally whether to commit the resources of the United States to war? Show it to me, lawyers, lawyers of the White House, or lawyers in this body. Show it.
There is a dangerous agenda, believe me, underlying these broad claims by this White House. The President is hoping to secure power under the Constitution that no President has ever claimed before. Never. He wants the power--the Bush administration wants that President to have power to launch this Nation into war without provocation and without clear evidence of an imminent attack on the United States. And we are going to be foolish enough to give it to him. I never thought I would see the day in these 44 years I have been in this body, never did I think I would see the day when we would cede this kind of power to any President. The White House lawyers have redefined the President's power under the Constitution to repel sudden acts against the United States. And he has that power, to repel sudden, unforeseen attacks against the United States, against its possessions, its territories, and its Armed Forces.
But they suggest he could also justify military action whenever there is a high risk of a surprise attack. That Constitution, how they would love to stretch it to give this President that power which he does not have. Those White House lawyers would have us believe that the President has independent authority not only to repel attacks but to prevent them. How silly. You cannot find it in that Constitution.
The White House wants to redefine the President's implied power under the Constitution to repel sudden attacks, suggesting that the realities of the modern world justify preemptive military action whenever there is a high risk of a surprise attack. What in the world are they teaching in law school these days? What are they teaching? I never heard of such as that when I was in law school. Of course I had to go at night. I had to go 10 years to get my law degree. In the national security strategy released last week, a few days ago, the President argued--let me tell you what the President argued--we must adapt the concept of imminent threat to the capabilities of today's adversary. Get that.
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld echoed this sentiment when he told the Senate Armed Services Committee: I suggest that any who insist on perfect evidence are back in the 20th century and still thinking in pre-9/11 years.
What a profound statement that was. How profound. Perhaps the Secretary of Defense ought to go back to law school, too. I don't believe he was taught that in law school.
The President does not want to shackle his new doctrine of 20th century ideas of war and security, much less any outdated notion from the 18th century about how this Republic should go to war. The Bush administration thinks the Constitution, with its inefficient separation of powers and its cumbersome checks and balances--they are cumbersome--has become an anachronism in a world of international terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.
They say it is too old. This Constitution, which I hold in my hand, is an anachronism. It is too old. It was all right back in the 19th century. It was all right in the 20th century. But we are living in a new time, a new age. There it is, right up there, inscribed, ``Novus ordo seclorum.'' A new order of the ages. New order of the ages.
This modern President does not have time for old-fashioned political ideas that complicate his job of going after the bad guys single-handedly.
And make no mistake, the resolution we are considering will allow the President to go it alone at every stage of the process. It will be President Bush, by himself, who defines the national security interests of the United States. It will be President Bush, by himself, who identifies threats to our national security. It will be President Bush, by himself, who decides when those threats justify a bloody and costly war. And it will be President Bush, by himself, who determines what the objectives of such a war should be, and when it should begin and when it should end.
The most dangerous part of this modernized approach to war is the wide latitude the President will have to identify which threats present a ``high risk'' to national security. The administration's National Security Strategy briefly outlines a few common attributes shared by dangerous ``rogue states,'' but the administration is careful not to confine its doctrine to any fixed set of objective criteria for determining when the threat posed by any one of these states is sufficient to warrant preemptive action.
The President's doctrine--and we are about to put our stamp on it, the stamp of this Senate. The President's doctrine, get this, gives him--Him? Who is he? He puts his britches on just the same way I do. He is a man. I respect his office. But look what we are turning over to this man, one man.
The President's doctrine gives him a free hand to justify almost any military action with unsubstantiated allegations and arbitrary risk assessments.
Even if Senators accept the argument that the United States does not have to wait until it has been attacked before acting to protect its citizens, the President does not have the power to decide when and where such action is justified, especially when his decision is supported only by fear and speculation. The power to make that decision belongs here in Congress. That is where it belongs. That is where this Constitution vests it. The power to make this decision belongs to Congress and Congress alone.
Ultimately, Congress must decide whether the threat posed by Iraq is compelling enough to mobilize this Nation to war. Deciding questions of war is a heavy burden for every Member of Congress. It is the most serious responsibility imposed on us by the Constitution. We should not shrink from our duty to provide authority to the President where action is needed. But just as importantly, we should not shrink from our constitutional duty to decide for ourselves whether launching this Nation into war is an appropriate response to the threats facing our people--those people looking, watching this debate through that electronic lens there. They are the ones who will have to suffer. It is their sons and daughters whose blood will be spilled. Our ultimate duty is not to the President. They say: Give the President the benefit of the doubt. Why, how sickening that idea is. Our ultimate duty is not to the President of the United States. I don't give a darn whether he is a Democrat or Republican or an Independent--whatever. It makes no difference. I don't believe that our ultimate duty is to him. Our ultimate duty is to the people out there who elected us.
Our duty is not to rubber-stamp the language of the President's resolution, but to honor the text of the Constitution. Our duty is not to give the President a blank check to enforce his foreign policy doctrine, but to exercise our legislative power to protect the national security interests of this Republic.
Our constitutional system was designed to prevent the executive from plunging the Nation into war in the name of contrived ideals and political ambitions. The nature of the threats posed by a sudden attack on the United States may have changed dramatically since the time when Constitution was drafted, but the reasons for limiting the war powers of the President have not changed at all. In fact, the concerns of the Framers are even more relevant. Talk about this being old fashioned. The concerns of the Framers are even more relevant to the dangerous global environment in which our military must now operate, because the consequences of unchecked military action may be more severe for our citizens than ever before.
Congress has the sole power under the Constitution to decide whether the threat posed by Iraq is compelling enough to mobilize this nation to war, and no Presidential doctrine can change that. If President Bush wants our foreign policy to include any military action, whether for preemption, containment, or any other objective, he must first convince Congress that such a policy is in the best interest of the American people.
The amendment I am offering reaffirms the obligation of the Congress to decide whether this country should go to war. It makes clear that Congress retains this power, even in the event that we pass this broad language, which I believe gives the President a blank check to initiate war whenever he wants, wherever he wants, and against any perceived enemy he can link to Iraq. My amendment makes clear that the President has the power to respond to the threat of an imminent, sudden, and direct attack by Iraq against the United States, and that any military action that does not serve this purpose must be specifically authorized by the Congress.
Other Senators have said on the floor that the language of this resolution does not give the President a blank check, and they have said that this resolution is narrowly tailored to Iraq. I do not read the resolution that way, but I hope that the President does. I hope the President reads this resolution as a narrowly crafted authorization to deal with Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, and not as an open-ended endorsement of his doctrine of preemptive military action.
We should all hope that the President does not fully exercise his authority under this resolution, and that he does not abuse the imprecise language Congress may ultimately adopt. But I believe that Congress must do more than give the President a blank check and then stand aside and hope for the best. Congress must make clear that this resolution does not affect its constitutional power to declare war under Article I, section 8 of the Constitution; otherwise, this resolution may appear to delegate this important legislative function to the executive
My amendment also clarifies the intent of this resolution is limited to authorizing a military response to the threat of an Iraqi attack upon the United States. Congress must ensure that the broad language of this resolution does not allow the President to use this authority to act outside the boundaries of his constitutional powers. This amendment affirms the constitutional requirement that the President must have congressional authorization before initiating military action for any purpose other than defending the United States against an imminent, sudden, and direct attack. We must not provide the temptation to this President, or any president, to unleash the dogs of war for reasons beyond those anticipated by the Congress.
The power of Congress to declare war is a political check on the President's ability to arbitrarily commit the United States to changing military doctrines, and the evolving nature of war and security threats does not change the language of the Constitution. The President cannot use the uncertainty of terrorist threats to confuse the clearly defined political processes required by the Constitution, and Congress should not rush to endorse a doctrine that will commit untold American resources to unknown military objectives.
The President admits in his National Security Strategy that "America's constitution has served us well.'' But his actions suggest that he feels this service is no longer needed. Congress should ensure that the Constitution continues to serve our national security interests by preventing the United States from plunging headlong into an ever-growing war in the Middle East. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment in order to preserve the constitutional system of checks and balances that the founders of this republic valued so highly.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
>
