[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 26 (Wednesday, February 12, 2003)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2268-S2271]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          On the Brink of War

  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, to contemplate war is to think about the 
most horrible of human experience. On this February day, as this Nation 
stands at the brink of battle, every American on some level must be 
contemplating the horrors of war.
  My wife says to me at night: Do you think we ought to get some of 
those large bottles, the large jugs, and fill them with water? She 
says: Go up to the attic and see if we don't have two or three there. I 
believe we have two or three there.
  And so I went up to the attic last evening and came back to report to 
her that, no, we didn't have any large jugs of water, but we had some 
small ones, perhaps some gallon jugs filled with water. And she talked 
about buying up a few things, groceries and canned goods to put away.
  I would suspect that kind of conversation is going on in many towns 
across this great, broad land of ours. And yet this Chamber is for the 
most part ominously, dreadfully silent. You can hear a pin drop. 
Listen. You can hear a pin drop. There is no debate. There is no 
discussion. There is no attempt to lay out for the Nation the pros and 
cons of this particular war. There is nothing.
  What would Gunning Bedford of Delaware think about it? What would 
John Dickinson of Delaware think about it? What would George Read think 
about it? What would they say?
  We stand passively mute in the Senate today, paralyzed by our own 
uncertainty, seemingly stunned by the sheer turmoil of events. Only on 
the editorial pages of some of our newspapers is there much substantive 
discussion concerning the prudence or the imprudence of engaging in 
this particular war. I can imagine hearing the walls of this Chamber 
ring just before the great war between the States, a war that tore this 
Nation asunder and out of which the great State of West Virginia was 
born.
  But today we hear nothing, almost nothing, by way of debate. This is 
no small conflagration that we contemplate. It is not going to be a 
video game. It may last a day or 6 days. God created Earth, and man, 
the stars, the planets, and the Moon in 6 days. This war may last 6 
days. It may last 6 weeks. It could last longer. This is no small 
conflagration that we contemplate. This is no simple attempt to defang 
a villain. No, this coming battle, if it materializes, represents a 
turning point in U.S. foreign policy and possibly a turning point in 
the recent history of the world.
  This Nation is about to embark upon the first test of a revolutionary 
doctrine applied in an extraordinary way, at an unfortunate time--the 
doctrine of preemption, no small matter--the idea that the United 
States or any other nation can legitimately attack a nation that is not 
imminently threatening but which may be threatening in the future.
  The idea that the United States may attack a sovereign government 
because of a dislike for a particular regime is a radical, new twist on 
the traditional idea of self-defense. It appears to be in contravention 
of international law and the U.N. Charter. And it is being tested at a 
time of worldwide terrorism, making many countries around the globe 
wonder if they will soon be on our hit list, or some other nation's hit 
list.
  High-level administration figures recently refused to take nuclear 
weapons off the table when discussing a possible attack on Iraq. What 
could be more destabilizing? What could be more world shattering? What 
could be more future shattering? What could be more unwise than this 
kind of uncertainty, particularly in a world where globalism has tied 
the vital economic and security interests of so many nations so closely 
together?
  There are huge cracks emerging in our time-honored alliances. One 
wonders what is going to happen, and about what is happening to the 
United Nations. One should pause to reflect on what is happening there 
at the United Nations, formed 54 years ago. And we say: If you are not 
with us, you are against us. That is a pretty hard rule to lay down to 
the United Nations. If you are not with us, you are against us. If you 
don't see it our way, take the highway. We say to Germany and we say to 
France--both of whom have been around longer than we--if you don't see 
it our way, we will just brush you to the side.
  Do we fail to think about a possible moment down the road, a bit 
further on, when we may wish to have Germany and France working with us 
and thinking with us, standing with us, because there is a larger 
specter, at least in my mind, looming behind the specter of Saddam 
Hussein and Iraq. There looms a larger specter, that of North Korea, 
which has one or two nuclear weapons now, and others within reach 
within a few weeks. So there are huge cracks, I say, emerging in our 
time-honored alliances, and U.S. intentions are suddenly subject to 
damaging worldwide speculation.
  Anti-Americanism based on mistrust, misinformation, suspicion, and 
alarming rhetoric from U.S. leaders is fracturing the once solid 
alliance against global terrorism which existed after September 11, 
2001.
  Here at home, people are warned of imminent terrorist attacks, with 
little guidance as to when or where such attacks might occur. Family 
members are being called to active duty, with no idea of the duration 
of their stay away from their hearthside, away from their homes, away 
from their loved ones, with no idea of the duration of their stay or 
what horrors they may have to face, perhaps in the near future. 
Communities are being left with less than adequate police and fire 
protection, while we are being told that a terrorist attack may be 
imminent. What about those communities like little Sophia, WV?
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, I am happy to yield.
  Mr. DURBIN. I am happy the Senator has taken the floor today. We have 
spent most of our time discussing other matters. But this is a 
critically important matter in West Virginia and Illinois.
  I ask the Senator, as a matter of record, if he would kindly recount, 
since September 11, the efforts he has personally made, as well as 
speaking on behalf of this side of the aisle in the caucus, to try to 
bring together the necessary resources and funds so that we can be 
prepared to deal with acts of terrorism against the United States. We 
were just alerted this weekend that we were on something called the 
orange alert. The Senator noted that his wife asked what does this mean 
in terms of water and protecting our families and our houses.
  Would the Senator be kind enough to tell us for the record, as we 
reflect on whether we are prepared to deal with terrorism, what we have 
tried to do--unsuccessfully--since September 11 to respond to this 
challenge?
  Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank the very able and distinguished 
Senator from Illinois who is a graduate of the other body where I 
believe he served on the Appropriations Committee.
  He serves on the Senate Appropriations Committee. I need only respond

[[Page S2269]]

in a brief way at this point to the incisive question which the 
distinguished Senator has asked. I refer him to the Congressional 
Record upon several occasions last year when I said to the Senate that 
I was bringing to the floor, or said to the Appropriations Committee, 
that I was bringing an amendment up dealing with homeland security, and 
I shall do that again, hopefully before this week is over.
  Let me say briefly in response to the able Senator, time and time 
again the Senator has worked with me and with every other Senator on 
the Senate Appropriations Committee, Republicans and Democrats alike, 
to report measures from the Senate Appropriations Committee unanimously 
that provided moneys for homeland security.
  I remember our providing $2.5 billion--$2.5 billion--for homeland 
security. We designated it in the committee as an emergency item, and 
all that remained to be done--all that remained to be done--in order to 
have that $2.5 billion immediately flow to the policemen, the law 
enforcement officers, the firefighters, the health emergency personnel 
all over this country, all that needed to be done was for the President 
of the United States to attach his signature and likewise designate 
that $2.5 billion as an emergency.
  How little to ask. But how much it would have meant to the first 
responders in the many towns and cities and rural communities in 
Illinois, in North Carolina, in West Virginia, and cities and hamlets 
all over this country if the President had but condescended in that 
moment to sign his name on that item, making it an emergency item.
  The law requires that for an item to be declared an emergency item, 
both the Congress and the President have to designate the item as an 
emergency. Congress did its part, and, in that case, that involved $2.5 
billion. The President literally gave the back of his hand to that 
effort on the part of the elected representatives of the American 
people in this Chamber and on that committee. He gave the back of his 
hand to that effort on the part of Congress to provide $2.5 billion for 
the local responders and people in the health laboratories all over 
this country, for border security, airport security, port security, and 
all of the many facets that are involved in homeland security. He 
turned his back on that effort.
  Then last year, I believe in November of this past year when we had 
the omnibus appropriations bill before the Senate, I offered an 
amendment, a $5 billion amendment, an amendment making $5 billion 
available for homeland security. Did the administration support that 
amendment? No, the administration fought it, and the amendment went 
down in flames, as it were, on the floor of the Senate on virtually a 
party-line vote.
  That $5 billion would have gone a long way, would have been out there 
today when we have this orange alert scaring the American people--I am 
not saying it is not appropriate to have an orange alert, but we have 
seen alert after alert after alert, and in spite of the alerts that 
have been so often set forth in this country by the administration's 
own people, the administration, the President, have turned their backs 
on these efforts of the Senate Appropriations Committee by unanimous 
votes, including the Republicans on the committee, to provide ample 
moneys for homeland defense.

  Again, having lost the $5 billion, I came back with an amendment 
providing for $3 billion. We slimmed down--you can go to the store and 
get the Slim Fast at the Giant. I go to the store and do the shopping 
for my wife. She does not need Slim Fast, but I sometimes get Slim 
Fast. Well, we slimmed fast that $5 billion and brought it down to $3 
billion, thinking we would pick up some votes with the administration's 
support.
  Did we get any more votes? No, the administration was against the $3 
billion, and today they are telling us all, we better be on watch day 
and night.
  Mr. DURBIN. Will the Senator yield for another question?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, the Senator is probably preeminent in 
this Chamber in his knowledge of history, and he certainly knows the 
history leading up to World War II when a Member of the House of 
Commons by the name of Winston Churchill took to the floor week after 
week, month after month, year after year, warning the people of England 
that the looming crisis, the rise of Nazism and fascism and their 
failure to prepare. William Manchester's famous biography of that 
period of Winston Churchill's life is entitled ``Alone'' because he 
stood alone warning the people of England of the crisis that was to 
come.
  I say to my colleague from the State of West Virginia, his role in 
this crisis facing America has been Churchillian in that he has taken 
the leadership in the Senate time and again to warn us of a looming 
crisis. I ask him if he agrees with most people that to have an orange 
alert and to tell mothers and fathers across America to put aside some 
bottles of water, buy some duct tape and plastic sheeting, and prepare 
for the crisis of terrorism is not enough; that we as a nation should 
have taken this looming crisis seriously long ago?
  I believe I know the answer to this question, but, Madam President, I 
thank my colleague from West Virginia for his leadership. I thank him 
for standing on this floor and reminding us that there is still an 
unfulfilled agenda, and that if we face terrorism, we have to be honest 
with the American people. We have tried in the Senate, but we have 
failed. We are not as prepared as we should be to face this threat.
  I ask the Senator from West Virginia--I am not going to take any more 
time from his great comments--if he would comment on the Churchill 
analogy.
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator is preeminently correct. His mention of William 
Manchester reminds me of that great book, ``The Glory and the Dream'' 
by William Manchester who wrote about the Great Depression. In fact, 
Herbert Hoover was the first President to have a telephone on his desk 
in the White House. ``The Glory and the Dream.''
  Yes, we have had time to prepare. In many respects, we have failed. 
Our committee on which the distinguished Senator from Illinois sits 
conducted hearings and requested that the Homeland Security Director, 
former Gov. Tom Ridge, appear before the Appropriations Committee to 
testify concerning the needs of homeland security in this country. Did 
he come? He probably would have come but his boss, the President, said, 
no, he shall not come. So we conducted 5 days of hearings on homeland 
security in those early months of 2002. As a result, we brought to the 
floor legislation based on the testimony that had been adduced from 
witnesses from all over this country--mayors, Governors, and first 
responders.

  This legislation, to a large extent, was pretty much sneered at--it 
is hard to respond in any other way--by the administration. Based on 
the testimony of those witnesses, we tried time and again to bring to 
the Senate and pass legislation that would provide for the needs of 
those local responders, the people at the local level, in the effort to 
prevent terrorist attacks and in the effort to deal with terrorist 
attacks once they occurred. We got no help from this administration.
  Did the people out there know it? Some of us attempted to tell the 
American people about these efforts, but the press has not picked up on 
it very well. Communities are being left with less than adequate police 
and fire protection. Other essential services are also shortstaffed. 
The mood of the Nation is grim, is the only way I know how to put it. 
The economy is stumbling. Economic growth is worse than it has been in 
50 years. Fuel prices are rising and may soon spike higher.
  This administration, now in power for a little over 2 years, must be 
judged on its record. I believe that record is dismal. In that scant 2 
years, this administration has squandered a large projected surplus of 
some $5.6 trillion. How much is that? That is $5,600 for every minute 
since Jesus Christ was born.
  Let me say that again. In that scant 2 years--I am talking about the 
last 2 years--of this administration's record, this administration has 
squandered a large projected surplus of some $5.6 trillion over the 
next decade and taken us to projected deficits as far as the human eye 
can see. This administration's domestic policy has put many of our 
States, including my own, in a dire

[[Page S2270]]

financial condition, underfunding scores of essential programs for the 
people, the people out there who are watching through those electronic 
lenses.
  This administration has fostered policies that have slowed economic 
growth. This administration has ignored urgent matters such as the 
crisis in health care for our elderly. This administration has been 
slow to provide adequate funding for homeland security. The 
distinguished Senator from Illinois, Mr. Durbin, and I have been 
talking about that.
  This administration has been reluctant to better protect our long and 
porous borders to the north and to the south, and to the east and to 
the west, where the great oceans form the borders.
  In foreign policy, this administration has failed to find Osama bin 
Laden. In fact, yesterday we heard from him again marshaling his forces 
and urging them to kill, kill, kill.
  This administration has split traditional alliances, possibly 
crippling for all time international order, crippling entities such as 
the United Nations and NATO. This administration has called into 
question the traditional worldwide perception of the United States as 
being a well-intentioned peacemaking, peace loving, peacekeeping 
nation.
  This administration has turned the patient art of diplomacy on its 
head. It has turned the patient art of diplomacy into threats, 
labeling, and name calling of the sort that reflects quite poorly on 
the intelligence and sensitivity of our leaders and which will have 
consequences for years to come, calling heads of state pygmies, 
labeling whole countries as evil--as though we are not evil, as though 
there is no country that is not evil--denigrating powerful European 
allies as irrelevant. These types of crude insensitivities can do our 
great Nation no good.

  We may have massive military might, and we have, but remember we have 
had massive military might before. How many millions of men marched to 
the drums of war only 60 years ago? Thirteen million American men under 
arms, was it? Millions.
  While we may have massive military might today, we cannot fight a 
global war on terrorism alone. We need the cooperation and the 
friendship of our time-honored allies, as well as the newer found 
friends whom we can attract with our wealth. Our awesome military 
machine will do us little good if we suffer another devastating attack 
on our homeland which severely damages this economy.
  Our military manpower is already stretched thin, and they are taking 
them from our States every day. Yesterday, I talked to the Senate about 
the vacancies, about the empty seats at the dinner tables in the homes 
of many West Virginians, because of the National Guard and Reserve 
departures every day from the State of West Virginia. Yes, there they 
come. They are law enforcement officers. They are State troopers. They 
are road builders. They are doctors. They are teachers. They are Sunday 
school teachers. These are the men and women who keep the lights 
burning when the snows fall and darkness comes. But on whom will we 
depend when these men and women are gone to foreign lands to fight a 
war if a war faces us here at home, a different kind of war.

  Our awesome military machine will do us little good if we suffer 
another devastating attack on our homeland which severely damages our 
economy.
  As I say, our military forces are already being stretched thin and we 
will need the augmenting support of those nations that can supply troop 
strength, not just sign letters cheering us on.
  The war in Afghanistan has cost us $37 billion so far. Yes, we bombed 
those caves. We ran them into the holes, but they could not hide. We 
ran them out of the holes, and we ran behind them to get them. But 
there is evidence that terrorism may already be starting to regain its 
hold in that region. We have not found Bin Laden, and unless we secure 
the peace in Afghanistan, the dark dens of terrorism may yet again 
flourish in that remote and devastated land.
  Pakistan, as well, is at risk of destabilizing forces. This 
administration has not finished the first war against terrorism, and 
yet it is eager to embark on another conflict with perils much greater 
than those in Afghanistan. Is our attention span that short? Have we 
not learned that after winning the war, one must also secure the peace?
  Yet we hear little, precious little, about the aftermath of war in 
Iraq. In the absence of plans, speculation abroad is rife. Will we 
seize Iraq's oil fields, becoming an occupying power which controls the 
price and supply of that nation's oil for the foreseeable future? There 
are some who think so.
  To whom do we propose to hand the reins of power in Iraq after Saddam 
Hussein? Will our war inflame the Muslim world, resulting in 
devastating attacks on Israel? Will Israel retaliate with its own very 
potent nuclear arsenal? What are we about to unleash here? The genie is 
getting out of the bottle. Can it ever be put back? Will the Jordanian 
and Saudi Arabian Governments be toppled by radicals, bolstered by 
Iran, which has much closer ties to terrorism than Iraq? Could a 
disruption of the world's oil supply lead to a worldwide recession? Has 
our senselessly bellicose language and our callous disregard for the 
interests and opinions of other nations increased the global race to 
join the nuclear club and make proliferation an even more lucrative 
practice for nations which need the income?
  In only the space of 2 short years, this reckless and arrogant 
administration has initiated policies which may reap disastrous 
consequences for years.
  We have heard it asked, Are you better off today than you were 4 
years ago? The question can be shortened: Are we better off than we 
were 2 years ago?
  One can understand the anger and the shock of any President after the 
savage attacks of September 11. One can appreciate the frustration of 
having only a shadow to chase and an amorphous, fleeting enemy on which 
it is nearly impossible to exact retribution. But to turn one's 
frustration and anger into the kind of extremely destabilizing and 
dangerous foreign policy debacle that the world is currently witnessing 
is inexcusable from any administration charged with the awesome power 
and responsibility of guiding the destiny of the greatest superpower on 
the planet.
  Frankly, many of the pronouncements made by this administration are 
outrageous. There is no other word. Yet this Chamber is hauntingly 
silent--silent. What would John Langdon of New Hampshire say about 
that? What would Nicholas Gilman of New Hampshire say about that? What 
would Rufus King and Nathaniel Gorham of Massachusetts say? What would 
Alexander Hamilton, who signed the Constitution, from the State of New 
York, say about the silence in this Chamber? What would Dr. Samuel 
Johnson of Connecticut say about the silence in this Chamber? What 
would William Paterson or William Livingston or David Brearley or 
Jonathan Dayton of New Jersey, the signers of the Constitution, have to 
say about the silence in this Senate which they created? What would 
Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Mifflin, James Wilson, Robert Morris, of 
Pennsylvania, have to say? What would Thomas FitzSimons or Gouverneur 
Morris, who signed the Constitution on behalf of the State of 
Pennsylvania, have to say about the silence that rings and reverberates 
from these walls today, the silence with respect to the war on which we 
are about to enter? What would they have to say? What would their 
comments be? Gunning Bedford, George Read of Delaware, Daniel Carroll, 
Dan of St. Thomas Jenifer of Maryland. These and more.
  What would these signers of the Constitution have to say about this 
Senate which they created when they note the silence, that is 
deafening, that emanates from that Chamber on the great subject, the 
great issue of war and peace? Nothing. Nothing is being said except by 
a few souls. Yet this Chamber is hauntingly silent--hauntingly silent 
on what is possibly the eve of horrific infliction of death and 
destruction on the population of the nation of Iraq. Think about that.

  Oh, I know Saddam Hussein is the person who is primarily responsible. 
But how about us? How about ourselves?
  Yes, there are going to be old men dying. There will be women dying. 
There will be children, little boys and girls dying if this war goes 
forward in Iraq. And American men and women will die, too.
  Iraq has a population, I might add, of which over 50 percent is under 
age 15.

[[Page S2271]]

Over 50 percent of the population in Iraq is under age 15. What is said 
about that? This Chamber is silent--silent. When it is possibly only 
days before we send thousands of our own citizens to face unimagined 
horrors of chemical and biological warfare, this Chamber is silent. The 
rafters should ring. The press galleries should be filled. Senators 
should be at their seats listening to questions being asked about this 
war, questions to which the American people out there have a right to 
expect answers. The American people are longing for information and 
they are not getting it. This Chamber is silent. On the eve of what 
could possibly be a vicious terrorist attack in retaliation for our 
attack on Iraq, it is business as usual here in the Senate, and 
business as usual means it is pretty quiet. There is not much going on 
in the Senate. Business as usual.
  Oh, I know it may be scare talk to talk about what may happen in the 
event of a terrorist attack. But when the Twin Towers fell, it wasn't 
scare talk. When hundreds of local firefighters and police officers, 
law enforcement officers died as the walls of the Twin Towers came 
tumbling down, it wasn't scare talk. It wasn't scare talk.
  We are truly sleepwalking through history. In my heart of hearts I 
pray that this great Nation and its good and trusting citizens are not 
in for a rudest of awakenings. To engage in war is always to pick a 
wild card. And war must always be a last resort, not a first choice.
  But I truly must question the judgment of any President who can say 
that a massive unprovoked military attack on a nation which is over 50 
percent children is in the highest moral traditions of our country. 
This war is not necessary at this time. Pressure appears to be having a 
good result in Iraq. Our mistake was to put ourselves in a corner so 
quickly. Our challenge is now to find a graceful way out of a box of 
our own making. Perhaps--just perhaps--there is still a way, if we 
allow more time.
  Madam President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a 
quorum--I withdraw that suggestion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. SMITH. Madam President, I believe Senator Schumer is scheduled to 
speak. I understand he is not now going to claim his time. If I may, I 
would like to speak about Miguel Estrada. I appreciate the Senator from 
West Virginia and his effort to present his perspective. I find myself 
wanting not to be silent, though, in response. He has a perspective 
that is not one I share with respect to President Bush and the job he 
is doing as our Commander in Chief and as the leader of the free world. 
So before I speak about Miguel Estrada, I would like to remain not 
silent.
  When I was elected to this body in 1996 I was given membership on the 
Senate Budget Committee. Being given membership on that committee, I 
remember President Clinton presented his first budget. We were coming 
through a period of great deficits and President Clinton projected 
deficits for as far as the eye could see. But something happened to our 
economy, something entirely unrelated to Government, something entirely 
unrelated to the Clinton administration. We saw what has happened 
periodically in the great civilizations, and that is a speculative 
bubble, irrational exuberance, and we saw the stock market surge with 
stock values wholly unrelated to their book values.

  We began to witness a great bubble. That is when Alan Greenspan and 
others said there is irrational exuberance. We have a problem. They 
began pulling back on the money supply, and by the time George W. Bush 
took his oath of office, this country was in a full blown recession. He 
inherited this. For a colleague to suggest that this President has run 
this economy into the ground is belied by the facts and it is belied by 
the common sense of the American people who do not blame this President 
for the condition of this economy that he inherited and they, in fact, 
appreciate the fact that he is doing something about it and trying to 
do what the Federal Government can, with the levers available to it, to 
help put people back to work, to grow the economy, to say to the 
country, to say to the Congress: You know, the economy is tough. When 
the economy is tough, families have to tighten their belts, and 
Congress should do the same with the Government budget so we can leave 
more money at home so people can spend it to pursue their dreams, to 
balance their economies because when they do that, we are more likely 
to see employers reemploying people.
  I must tell you, like my friend from Wisconsin, before I came to this 
body I was in the business of meeting a payroll. It was always a source 
of frustration to me to hear politicians from mighty places say that 
they were responsible for creating jobs, that they were somehow 
responsible for the condition of the private sector economy. We are 
citizens of a nation that has a free market economy, not centrally 
planned. I have always been upset, whether from Republican or 
Democratic politicians, when there is the claim that somehow we in the 
public sector create jobs.
  It is false. It is a lie. So when I hear speeches saying that 
President Clinton is to blame for it, or President Bush is to blame for 
it, I say baloney because, as long as I have been in public life, I 
have seen us do various things with the levers available to us to try 
to help the economy, to take credit for it. But you know what. We 
can't. And may we never be able to because if we do, we will have 
adopted the ways of western socialist societies, of Western Europe, and 
these are failing models. These are not models designed to reemploy 
people and to give them opportunity and hope.
  I sit on this side of the aisle for, frankly, one major reason. I 
believe in free enterprise. I do not believe in creeping socialism. I 
believe if you are interested in social justice you will pursue those 
policies that leave more money at home and give people a chance to 
reemploy folks and to produce products, to provide services that other 
people want to buy.
  So when I hear a statement like I have just heard, with all due 
respect to a great man in this Chamber, I think it simply disregards 
the nature of the economic system we are in. I say that as a 
businessman before I was a Senator. So I thank President Clinton for 
doing the best job he could. I thank President Bush for doing the best 
job he could. But in the middle of the administration there was a stock 
market bubble that neither of them created for which we are now trying 
to deal with the consequences of the bursting of that bubble.