[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.