Cord Byrd: “There were references made to Public Law 105-235, August 14, 1998. Here is the resolving clause which has been quoted by…”

“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.”