[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 133 (Thursday, October 10, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Page S10347]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




           SENATOR BYRD: ELOQUENTLY RESISTING THE RUSH TO WAR

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I welcome this opportunity to commend our 
outstanding colleague, Senator Robert Byrd, for his thoughtful and 
eloquent op-ed article in The New York Times this morning. In his 
article, Senator Byrd rightfully condemns the failure of Congress to 
take adequate time to exercise our all-important constitutional 
responsibility in deciding whether or not America should go to war with 
Iraq.
  Instead of fairly assessing the full consequences of the 
administration's proposal, Congress is allowing itself to be rushed 
into a premature decision to go to war. Many of us agree with Senator 
Byrd, and so do large numbers of Americans across the country.
  We owe the Senate and the Nation a more thoughtful deliberation about 
war. Senator Byrd's article is a powerful statement urging Congress not 
delegate our constitutional power to the President, and I ask unanimous 
consent that it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the New York Times, Oct. 10, 2002]

                  Congress Must Resist the Rush to War

                          (By Robert C. Byrd)

       Washington.--A sudden appetite for war with Iraq seems to 
     have consumed the Bush administration and Congress. The 
     debate that began in the Senate last week is centered not on 
     the fundamental and monumental questions of whether and why 
     the United States should go to war with Iraq, but rather on 
     the mechanics of how best to wordsmith the president's use-
     of-force resolution in order give him virtually unchecked 
     authority to commit the nation's military to an unprovoked 
     attack on a sovereign nation.
       How have we gotten to this low point in the history of 
     Congress? Are we too feeble to resist the demands of a 
     president who is determined to bend the collective will of 
     Congress to his will--a president who is changing the 
     conventional understanding of the term ``self-defense''? And 
     why are we allowing the executive to rush our decision-making 
     right before an election? Congress, under pressure from the 
     executive branch, should not hand away its Constitutional 
     powers. We should not hamstring future Congresses by casting 
     such a shortsighted vote. We owe our country a due 
     deliberation.
       I have listened closely to the president, I have questioned 
     the members of his war cabinet. I have searched for that 
     single piece of evidence that would convince me that the 
     president must have in his hands, before the month is out, 
     open-ended Congressional authorization to deliver an 
     unprovoked attack on Iraq. I remain unconvinced. The 
     president's case for an unprovoked attack is circumstantial 
     at best. Saddam Hussein is a threat, but the threat is not so 
     great that we must be stampeded to provide such authority to 
     this president just weeks before an election.
       Why are we being hounded into action on a resolution that 
     turns over to President Bush the Congress's Constitutional 
     power to declare war? This resolution would authorize the 
     president to use the military forces of this nation wherever, 
     whenever and however he determines, and for as long as he 
     determines, if he can somehow make a connection to Iraq. It 
     is a blank check for the president to take whatever action he 
     feels ``is necessary and appropriate in order to defend the 
     national security of the United States against the continuing 
     threat posted by Iraq.'' This broad resolution underwrites, 
     promotes and endorses the unprecedented Bush doctrine of 
     preventive war and pre-emptive strikes--detailed in a recent 
     publication, ``National Security Strategy of the United 
     Staets''--against any nation that the president, and the 
     president alone, determines to be a threat.
       We are at the gravest of moments. Members of Congress must 
     not simply walk away from their Constitutional 
     responsibilities. We are the directly elected representatives 
     of the American people, and the American people expect us to 
     carry out our duty, not simply hand it off to this or any 
     other president. To do so would be to fail the people we 
     represent and to fall woefully short of our sworn oath to 
     support and defend the Constitution.
       We may not always be able to avoid war, particularly if it 
     is thrust upon us, but Congress must not attempt to give away 
     the authority to determine when war is to be declared. We 
     must not allow any president to unleash the dogs of war at 
     his own discretion and for an unlimited period of time.
       Yet that is what we are being asked to do. The judgment of 
     history will not be kind to us if we take this step.
       Members of Congress should take time out and go home to 
     listen to their constituents. We must not yield to this 
     absurd pressure to act now, 27 days before an election that 
     will determine the entire membership of the House of 
     Representatives and that of a third of the Senate. Congress 
     should take the time to hear form the American people, to 
     answer their remaining questions and to put the frenzy of 
     ballot-box politics behind us before we vote. We should hear 
     them well, because while it is Congress that casts the vote, 
     it is the American people who will pay for a war with the 
     lives of their sons and daughters.

     

                          ____________________