As Congress prepared to adjourn, the Senate was still arguing over the details of the Homeland Security Department, having failed many times to invoke cloture on the measure. Both the House (October 10) and the Senate (October 11), however, passed a resolution giving President Bush the authority to take military action against Saddam Hussein.
Senate Approves Using Force Against Iraq
On October 11, by a vote of 77 to 23, the Senate passed a resolution (HJ Res 114) giving President Bush authority to use military force against Iraq. The legislation requires the President to report to Congress within 48 hours of an attack that peaceful measures have been exhausted and to report to Congress every 60 days on his progress.
Democratic senators proposed several amendments that would have limited the Presidents authority to use force against Iraq. In particular, Sen. Robert Byrd (D. -W.Va.), who had in essence been filibustering to prevent the Iraq resolution from coming to a vote, proposed a substitute amendment (S J Res 45)-defeated 31 to 66-that would have terminated the congressional authorization 12 months after the resolutions enactment.
Byrd said that Congress is voting "in a hyped up, politically charged atmosphere in an election year" and should not rush to judgment. He also said that Congress should be more certain that Iraq poses a great enough threat to justify the potential death of U.S. soldiers. Byrd called for more "hard evidence on the need for this resolution" before military authority is given to the President.
Sen. Richard Durbin (D.-Ill.) also proposed a substitute amendment that would have permitted the use of force only in the face of an "imminent threat" from Iraq. Durbin said that there is only one standard by which Congress should decide to declare war; that is a "clear threat of imminent, sudden, direct attack upon the United States, its possessions or territories, or the Armed Forces." He also said that America should not go to war without more allies so there is "a coalition of force to make sure we are successful."
Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D.-Conn.), who has supported Bushs Iraq policy, opposed Durbins amendment, saying that it would put too many limits on the Presidents ability to defend the country. He particularly objected to Durbins use of the word "imminent" in his amendment because he said that, while the threat from Hussein "might not be imminent in the sense that he is about to use it against us, in my opinion it is a ticking time bomb." Durbins amendment was defeated 30 to 70.
A "yes" vote was a vote in support of the resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq. A "no" vote was a vote against the resolution.
REPUBLICANS FOR (48): Allard, Allen, Bennett, Bond, Brownback, Bunning, Burns, Campbell, Cochran, Collins, Craig, Crapo, DeWine, Domenici, Ensign, Enzi, Fitzgerald, Frist, Gramm (Tex.), Grassley, Gregg, Hagel, Hatch, Helms, Hutchinson (Ariz.), Hutchison (Tex.), Inhofe, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, McCain, McConnell, Murkowski, Nickles, Roberts, Santorum, Sessions, Shelby, Smith (N.H.), Smith (Ore.), Snowe, Specter, Stevens, Thomas, Thompson, Thurmond, Voinovich and Warner.
DEMOCRATS FOR (29): Baucus, Bayh, Biden, Breaux, Cantwell, Carnahan, Carper, Cleland, Clinton, Daschle, Dodd, Dorgan, Edwards, Feinstein, Harkin, Hollings, Johnson, Kerry, Kohl, Landrieu, Lieberman, Lincoln, Miller, Nelson (Fla.), Nelson (Neb.), Reid, Rockefeller, Schumer and Torricelli.
REPUBLICANS AGAINST (1): Chafee.
DEMOCRATS AGAINST (21): Akaka, Bingaman, Boxer, Byrd, Conrad, Corzine, Dayton, Durbin, Feingold, Graham (Fla.), Inouye, Kennedy, Leahy, Levin, Mikulski, Murray, Reed, Sarbanes, Stabenow, Wellstone and Wyden.
INDEPENDENTS AGAINST (1): Jeffords.
Senate Again Rejects Cloture on Homeland Security Department
On October 1, by a vote of 45 to 52, the Senate again rejected a motion to invoke cloture and force a vote on a Democratic version of the bill (HR 5005) to create a Homeland Security Department that would have created a unionized department, which President Bush has said he will veto. A three-fifths vote of the Senate (60 votes) is required to impose cloture. The Senate has now tried unsuccessfully to impose cloture five times on different Homeland Security bills, but no proposal yet has the support of 60 senators, which is necessary the way Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D.-S.D.) has structured the debate.
The department proposed by Bush would combine the security efforts in different agencies so that the U.S. can more effectively fight terrorism. Sen. Tom Daschle (D.-S.D.) put forth a substitute amendment to ensure that all employees of the new department will have collective bargaining power.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.) worried that if federal employees dont have collective bargaining rights, the government could lose some valuable workers. "The last thing we want to do in the middle of our war on terrorism is lose experienced employees on the front lines of this war." She also said that she does not see a contradiction between national security and union membership. "I do not see any inherent clash between collective bargaining rights for federal employees and homeland security. And I support civil service protections at the new Department of Homeland Security."
Republicans also want to establish the new department, but dont want to handcuff the President with tight union rules when it comes to Homeland Security. In an earlier debate over Homeland Security Sen. Phil Gramm (R.-Tex.) said, "Incredibly, after thousands of our people have died, after all of the suffering and all the trauma, we now have in a bill-a bill that is shameless enough to call itself related to homeland security-an effort to take power away from the President that he had on 9-11."
A "yes" vote was a vote in support of forcing a vote on legislation to permit a unionized Homeland Security Department and was, in effect, a vote for such a measure. A "no" vote was a vote to allow debate about the amendment to continue in the Senate in hopes that the Bush-backed bill eventually will be brought up for a vote.
REPUBLICANS FOR (2): Chafee and Specter.
DEMOCRATS FOR (42): Akaka, Baucus, Bayh, Biden, Bingaman, Breaux, Cantwell, Carnahan, Carper, Cleland, Clinton, Conrad, Daschle, Dayton, Dodd, Dorgan, Durbin, Edwards, Feinstein, Graham (Fla.), Harkin, Hollings, Inouye, Johnson, Kerry, Kohl, Landrieu, Leahy, Levin, Lieberman, Lincoln, Mikulski, Murray, Nelson (Fla.), Nelson (Neb.), Reed, Reid, Rockefeller, Schumer, Stabenow, Wellstone and Wyden.
INDEPENDENT FOR (1): Jeffords.
REPUBLICANS AGAINST (46): Allen, Bennett, Bond, Brownback, Bunning, Burns, Campbell, Cochran, Collins, Craig, Crapo, DeWine, Domenici, Ensign, Enzi, Fitzgerald, Frist, Gramm (Tex.), Grassley, Gregg, Hagel, Hatch, Helms, Hutchinson (Ark.), Hutchison (Tex.), Inhofe, Kyl, Lott, Lugar, McCain, McConnell, Murkowski, Nickles, Roberts, Santorum, Sessions, Shelby, Smith (N.H.), Smith (Ore.), Snowe, Stevens, Thomas, Thompson, Thurmond, Voinovich and Warner.
DEMOCRATS AGAINST (6): Miller, Boxer, Byrd, Feingold, Kennedy and Sarbanes.
NOT VOTING (3): Allard, Corzine and Torricelli.
House Approves Resolution For Use of Force in Iraq
On October 10, by a vote of 296 to 133, the House passed a joint resolution (HJ Res. 114) authorizing President Bush to use force against Iraq. The resolution also requires the President to report to Congress on his progress every 60 days and requires the administration to show Congress, within 48 hours of the start of military action, that diplomatic measures had been exhausted.
While no one in Congress was willing to argue that Iraq is not a serious threat to America, some opposed the resolution because they believe that war would hurt the United States more than it would help. Rep. Donald Payne (D.-N.J.) said, "The question before us is whether this is a time for peace or a time for war. The question is whether we can continue to use diplomacy, whether we have exhausted all means to try to have peace, whether we have maximized the use of the United Nations and other international agencies."
Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R.-N.Y.) said that Iraq poses such a serious threat to American security that military action is entirely appropriate. "The President is prudent, measured and firm in dealing with a decade of defiance, deception and bad faith on the part of Saddam Hussein, who has repeatedly ignored UN resolutions and turned his back on agreements that he himself embraced," he said. "There is widespread agreement with the President. The time for denying, deceiving and delay is over."
Rep. Roger Wicker (R.-Miss.) said that passage of the resolution would not mean that the President will stop looking for peaceful solutions to international problems. He said that it simply gives him more avenues for solving problems, including the option to attack Iraq if he sees fit. "Enacting this resolution does not mean that the President will stop pursuing diplomatic and peaceful means to a solution. It does mean that there can be consequences to continued inaction by the Iraqi regime," Wicker said. "Enacting this resolution will show the world, our traditional allies, our potential allies, the Iraqi people, and most importantly Saddam Hussein, that the United States speaks with one voice in our determination to bring peace and stability to the world."
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D.-Conn.) said that she was reluctantly against the resolution. She said that if America goes against Iraq without UN support, she was "concerned that our efforts will lack the legitimacy that an operation of this magnitude requires." Also, she said that military action without UN support "could increase instability in the region and indeed throughout the world. It could very well undermine the war on terrorism, alienating countries the United States will need to achieve the broader objective of uncovering and dismantling al Qaeda cells across the world."
Instead, DeLauro supported a Democratic amendment that, as Rep. Ruben Hinojosa (D.-Tex.) explained, "would require the President to come to Congress and ask for the support through an expedited process after it is determined that the United Nations will not act." The amendment was rejected, 155 to 270.
A "yes" vote was a vote to give the President the authority to take military action against Iraq. A "no" vote was a vote against the resolution.
REPUBLICANS FOR (215): Aderholt, Akin, Armey, Bachus, Baker, Ballenger, Barr, Bartlett, Barton, Bass, Bereuter, Biggert, Bilirakis, Blunt, Boehlert, Boehner, Bonilla, Bono, Boozman, Brady (TX), Brown (SC), Bryant, Burr, Burton, Buyer, Callahan, Calvert, Camp, Cannon, Cantor, Capito, Castle, Chabot, Chambliss, Coble, Collins, Combest, Cooksey, Cox, Crane, Crenshaw, Cubin, Culberson, Cunningham, Davis, Jo Ann, Davis, Tom, Deal, DeLay, DeMint, Diaz-Balart, Doolittle, Dreier, Dunn, Ehlers, Ehrlich, Emerson, English, Everett, Ferguson, Flake, Fletcher, Foley, Forbes, Fossella, Frelinghuysen, Gallegly, Ganske, Gekas, Gibbons, Gilchrest, Gillmor, Gilman, Goode, Goodlatte, Goss, Graham, Granger, Graves, Green (WI), Greenwood, Grucci, Gutknecht, Hansen, Hart, Hastert, Hastings (WA), Hayes, Hayworth, Hefley, Herger, Hilleary, Hobson, Hoekstra, Horn, Hulshof ,Hunter, Hyde, Isakson, Issa, Istook, Jenkins, Johnson, Sam, Johnson (CT), Johnson (IL), Jones (NC), Keller, Kelly, Kennedy (MN), Kerns, King (NY), Kingston, Kirk, Knollenberg, Kolbe, LaHood, Latham, LaTourette, Lewis (CA), Lewis (KY), Linder, LoBiondo, Lucas (OK), Manzullo, McCrery, McHugh, McInnis, McKeon, Mica, Miller, Dan, Miller, Gary, Miller, Jeff, Moran (KS), Myrick, Nethercutt, Ney, Northup, Norwood, Nussle, Osborne, Ose, Otter, Oxley, Pence, Peterson (PA), Petri, Pickering, Pitts, Platts, Pombo, Portman, Pryce (OH), Putnam, Quinn, Radanovich, Ramstad, Regula, Rehberg, Reynolds, Riley, Rogers (KY), Rogers (MI), Rohrabacher, Ros-Lehtinen, Royce, Ryan (WI), Ryun (KS), Saxton, Schaffer, Schrock, Sensenbrenner, Sessions, Shadegg, Shaw, Shays, Sherwood, Shimkus, Shuster, Simmons, Simpson, Skeen, Smith (MI), Smith (NJ), Smith (TX), Souder, Stearns, Sullivan, Sununu, Sweeney, Tancredo, Tauzin, Taylor (NC), Terry, Thomas, Thornberry, Thune, Tiahrt, Tiberi, Toomey, Upton, Vitter, Walden, Walsh, Wamp, Watkins (OK), Watts (OK), Weldon (FL), Weldon (PA), Weller, Whitfield, Wicker, Wilson (NM), Wilson (SC), Wolf, Young (AK), Young (FL)
DEMOCRATS FOR (81): Ackerman, Andrews, Barcia, Bentsen, Berkley, Berman, Berry, Bishop, Blagojevich, Borski, Boswell, Boucher, Boyd, Carson (OK), Clement, Cramer, Crowley, Davis (FL), Deutsch, Dicks, Dooley, Edwards, Engel, Etheridge, Ford, Frost, Gephardt, Gordon, Green (TX), Hall (TX), Harman, Hill, Hoeffel, Holden, Hoyer, Israel, Jefferson, John, Kanjorski, Kennedy (RI), Kind (WI), Lampson, Lantos, Lowey, Lucas (KY), Luther, Lynch, Maloney (NY), Markey, Mascara, Matheson, McCarthy (NY), McIntyre, McNulty, Meehan, Moore, Murtha, Pascrell, Peterson (MN), Phelps, Pomeroy, Roemer, Ross, Rothman, Sandlin, Schiff, Sherman, Shows, Skelton, Smith (WA), Spratt, Stenholm, Tanner, Tauscher, Taylor (MS), Thurman, Turner, Waxman, Weiner, Wexler, Wynn
REPUBLICANS AGAINST (6): Duncan, Hostettler, Houghton, Leach, Morella, Paul
DEMOCRATS AGAINST (126): Abercrombie, Allen, Baca, Baird, Baldacci, Baldwin, Barrett, Becerra, Blumenauer, Bonior, Brady (PA), Brown (FL), Brown (OH), Capps, Capuano, Cardin, Carson (IN), Clay ,Clayton, Clyburn ,Condit, Conyers ,Costello, Coyne, Cummings, Davis (CA), Davis (IL), DeFazio, DeGette ,Delahunt, DeLauro, Dingell, Doggett, Doyle, Eshoo, Evans, Farr, Fattah, Filner, Frank, Gonzalez, Gutierrez, Hastings (FL), Hilliard, Hinchey, Hinojosa, Holt, Honda, Hooley, Inslee, Jackson (IL), Jackson-Lee (TX), Johnson, E. B., Jones (OH), Kaptur, Kildee, Kilpatrick, Kleczka, Kucinich, LaFalce, Langevin, Larsen (WA), Larson (CT), Lee, Levin, Lewis (GA), Lipinski, Lofgren, Maloney (CT), Matsui, McCarthy (MO), McCollum, McDermott, McGovern, McKinney, Meek (FL), Meeks (NY), Menendez, Millender-McDonald, Miller, George, Mollohan, Moran (VA), Nadler, Napolitano, Neal, Oberstar, Obey, Olver, Owens, Pallone, Pastor, Payne, Pelosi, Price (NC), Rahall, Rangel, Reyes, Rivers, Rodriguez, Roybal-Allard, Rush, Sabo, Sanchez, Sawyer, Schakowsky, Scott ,Serrano, Slaughter, Snyder, Solis, Stark, Strickland, Stupak, Thompson (CA), Thompson (MS), Tierney, Towns, Udall (CO), Udall (NM), Velazquez, Visclosky, Waters, Watson (CA), Watt (NC), Woolsey, Wu
INDEPENDENTS AGAINST (1): Sanders (VT)
REPUBLICANS (2): Roukema, Stump
DEMOCRATS (1): Ortiz
Sign up to the Human Events newsletter