Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Absolutely. Absolutely. This whole piece, this great expenditure of paper, is nothing more than a blank check given to the President of the United States to use the forces of this country, the military forces, in whatever way he determines, whenever he determines, and where he determines to use those forces to ``defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security in the region.'' Now, Madam President, you don't need all this paper. You have a vast waste of verbiage here. Just make it one sentence. Make it one sentence, may I say to my friend from Virginia, one sentence. If we are going to make it a blank check, let's make it a blank check right upfront, without all of these flowery figleaves of ``whereas'' clauses, and simply say that the President has this power. Give it to him and we will put up a sign on the top of this Capitol: ``Out of business.'' Gone home. ``Gone fishing.'' Put up a sign: ``We are out of it. We are out of business. We, here in the Congress, are out of business,'' may I say to my friend. Now, I know his intentions are the best. I believe that. I respect him. I have served with him. He is a reasonable man. I consider it an honor to be a Member of the same body. He is always a man with whom one can debate, disagree, agree, and he does not carry it out of this Chamber. He is a good man at heart. He loves his country. He has served his country. He is loyal to his country, sometimes too loyal to his party, may I say, which cannot be said of this Senator from West Virginia. Party is important, but not all that important. But I say, instead of just passing this resolution, why don't we say upfront: Let's give this man downtown a blank check. Leave it all to him. Give it to him lock, stock, and barrel. We'll go home. Put a sign on the Capitol: ``Out of business until we are called back by the President under the Constitution.'' We will go home. We will go fishing, play golf, study, read, write our memoirs--``out of business.'' Why don't we just do that, instead of going through this kind of blank check, and covering it over with figleaves and ``whereases'' that are flowery--flowery--beautiful? Oh, they are pretty figleaves, they are pretty ``whereases.'' But that is what this all amounts to: Nothing; a poison pill covered with sugar. That is all we are doing.

Mr. BYRD. No. That Constitution does not say that. No, no, no.

Mr. BYRD. Oh, no, no.

Mr. BYRD. No. Wait a minute. The Senator is saying two different things now. I say that under this Constitution, this President--any President--as Commander in Chief of our country, and as the chief executive officer of this country, has the inherent power to repel any sudden, unforeseen attack upon this Nation, its territories, its people. He has that because Congress may not even be in session. Congress may be out for the August recess.

Mr. BYRD. The Framers foresaw there might be that situation where Congress might not be here and the President would have to take action. But this resolution is saying something far different. That is not what this resolution says. Read it. It does not say that the President has the inherent power to repel an instant, an unforeseen attack on this Nation. It does not say that. Now, I go along with that. But I do not go along with this. This says: The President is authorized-- We are handing it right over, right now, if we pass this. We are not saying come back tomorrow or next week or next month or next year. The President is authorized-- That means here and now, as soon as he signs his name on this piece of paper. The President is authorized to use all means that he determines-- He determines-- to be appropriate. What ``he determines to be appropriate.'' The Senator from Virginia may not determine that to be appropriate. What ``he determines to be appropriate, including force. . . .'' That means the Army, the Navy, the airplanes, everything--``including force. . . .'' In order to do what? in order to enforce the United Nations Security Council Resolutions referenced above-- Well, what is that: ``referenced above''? You have to go through all these beautiful figleaves to find out what resolutions are referenced. And even some of those resolutions have long gone out of existence. They no longer exist. And yet are we going to raise from the dead, like Lazarus, U.N. resolutions that have long ago gone out of existence, that no longer have life in their bodies? No. We say we are going to revive them. Like the Shulamite woman in the Bible, we are going to revive her son. . . . referenced above-- ``Referenced above''? They do not tell you specifically what resolutions. defend the national security interests of the United States against the threat-- What threat? Is it a direct, immediate, imminent attack on this country? Then, that is one thing. But ``against the threat posed by Iraq. . . .'' A threat determined by whom? Who determines what the threat is? against the threat posed by Iraq, and restore international peace and security in the region. What a broad grant of naked power. To whom? One person, the President of the United States. This Constitution itself refutes--it refutes--this resolution right on its face.

Mr. BYRD. All right.

Mr. BYRD. I say to those people out there who are watching through the electric lenses, let the leadership of this Congress know, tell the leadership of this Congress, urge the leadership of this Congress, to put aside this fateful decision which may affect the blood and the lives of our sons and daughters, put it aside until after the election so that our representatives in both Houses can make a determination in an atmosphere that is not so supercharged with politics. Let them come back after the election. They are getting paid for all the days of the year. Bring them back then. Let them make a decision when they are not distracted by politics, by an election. Tell the leadership of this Congress. Let them hear you. You do not have to worry where I stand. I am telling you now. I am stating my position now. Tell the leadership of this country, both Houses: Hold up, wait, listen, ask questions, debate, and wait until politics can be shoved aside. Wait until after the election. Tell the leadership this affects your blood, your treasury, your son, your daughter, your grandson. Let them know in no uncertain terms. Tell them. They will hear you. I am proud to say that our leader on this side of the aisle has not yet made a final determination, I do not think. He has not joined with the leadership in the other body that went like lambs to the slaughter following after the President. I respect the President of the United States. We should work with him, and we should support him when we can. But remember what Madison said: The trust and the temptation are too great for any one man. We elected representatives of the people are not supposed to follow any President, whether he is a Democrat or Republican, meekly and without question. I do not believe there is a Republican in this body who knows me well who would believe for a moment, if we had a Democratic President today, I would not be saying exactly what I am saying right now. I took the position against our President on the line item veto. I did not go along with President Clinton because he supported the line item veto. Nor would I go with any President in this more fateful matter, this question of peace or war, if they were a Democrat. I am standing where the Constitution says I should stand. There is no king in the American scheme of things. There is no place for kings in our constitutional system. But there is a place for men. When I say ``men,'' of course, I am speaking of men and women, but when the Constitution was written it was only men. There is no place for weakness. There is no place for wishy- washiness. There is only a place for steadfastness and a place for supreme dedication to the Constitution of the United States, for every word that is in it, and to stand by the spirit with which it speaks. We cannot stand by that spirit and just go along. The people want a political party that stands for something. They want men and women in office who stand for them. They do not want men and women in office who just go along because their party goes along or because the President goes along. They want men and women who think for themselves and who keep in mind that they are sent here by the people who cannot speak on this floor but who expect us to speak. That is where I stand. That is where I am going to stand always and forever. As long as I live and have the privilege of representing the people of the State of West Virginia, that is exactly where I am going to be, regardless of where any President is. If I differ with him, I will say so, and I differ with this President on this issue. I do not think there is any new evidence that compels us to vote on this resolution before we go home. Oh, they say we need to get it behind us. We cannot get this issue behind us. We can vote for this resolution, but that will not get the issue behind us. The President will have us back on that question every day until the election is over, and he can do that. He has the bully pulpit. Do not think for a moment this issue is going to be put behind us before this election is over. Another thing we will not get behind us is the record of where we stand, the record of where I stand, the record of where he or she stands. We will not get that behind us. That will be there engraved in stone, in marble, and in bronze, until the Lord comes home. Until kingdom come, it will be there. You cannot efface it. You cannot erase it. It is there. I intend to let my record stand. I do not intend to put a blemish on it by walking away from the Constitution in this fateful hour. There are questions to be asked. What is going to happen to Israel? What is going to happen to the people of Israel? What is going to happen to the Palestinians? What are the ramifications of going to war in a preemptive strike, which this Constitution does not represent and does not allow? What are the ramifications around the globe? What is the image of the United States then going to be: A nation that is a rogue nation, that is determined to wipe out other nations with a preemptive strike? And what will happen if we deliver a preemptive strike? Will other nations be encouraged to do the same? What will be the cost? How many men and women do we expect will become casualties if this country goes to war in a preemptive strike against Iraq? What is going to be the cost in dollars? The President's economic advisor says: Oh, $100 billion or $200 billion. He says that is nothing, $100 billion. That is nothing. Even $9 billion has been a stumbling block and a bone in the craw of this administration when it comes to appropriations bills. All that has kept us from having agreements on appropriations bills is $9 billion. What is going to be the price tag? What is it going to cost in terms of homeland security? Might we expect other terroristic acts if we launch a preemptive strike? How can we be sure we will not be subject to preemptive strikes of terrorists? What will be the cost? What is likely to happen on our borders? Are we going to have to maintain greater vigilance in our ports? What is going to happen to the needs of veterans? What is going to happen to the needs of education? What is this going to do to the American pocketbook? What is it going to do to the deficits? There are these and many more questions. They ought to be questioned. It is not unpatriotic to ask. I thank the distinguished Senator for yielding. I thank the distinguished Senator from Virginia. I hope I have not tried the patience of these two Senators too much.

Mr. BYRD. Hold on a minute. Madam President, there has to be a little levity. Even the wisest will stop for a moment to smile, laugh a little, be a little jovial. But this is a tremendous victory; as a member of the committee on which this great man serves, I am proud to serve on that committee. On another subject which has been injected here, no Senator should have to stand in a party caucus and defend this Constitution. No Senator should have to stand in a party caucus and refer to this document. This is a time when we must return to the language and the spirit of this Constitution. All too often I hear the leaders of this Nation in both parties refer to this document or that document or what this person said or that person said, but very seldom do I hear on the television talk shows on Sundays and other days of the week, seldom, relatively speaking, do I hear them base their position on the Constitution of the United States. As I have witnessed the tides that ebb and flow on the world stage over these 50 years, all the more have I come to believe that the Constitution is the principal mast to which we should rope ourselves in order to put wax in our ears to the siren calls that will lead us astray from what the Constitution says. The Constitution very clearly says in a nonambiguous sentence, the Congress shall have power to declare war. I am very pained to see a Congress, most of the leaders of which say we should pass this resolution, meaning S.J. Res. 46. We should pass it now, pass it here, get it behind us before the election. Get it behind us. Madam President, if the Senator will further yield without losing his right to the floor, permit me to say we are not going to get this issue behind us. Say what you will. It is front and center. Why? Because the Bush administration has made this issue front and center in these last few days before the election. Why did they not make homeland security front and center? Because that would not have shifted the national perspective and focus away from the domestic issues which also are important. But to turn the emphasis to Iraq shifts the emphasis of the debate away from homeland security, shifts the emphasis of debate away from domestic issues, shifts it to a foreign scene and a foreign stage and a foreign field of action. So our eyes have been averted from what we should be watching, and that is homeland security, the defense of this country. Homeland security, protecting this country right here against attack, subtle attacks--it may be individual attacks, it may come in the form of an attack by one person or two or a group of six, as we saw in New York recently when the FBI arrested a cell of six individuals who were from Yemen. They are American citizens, but they were originally from Yemen. The FBI arrested them. The FBI did not have to have any Department of Homeland Security to bring that about. The people who are on the front line securing this country, securing you and me, securing the people of this country every day, every night, every hour of every day, every hour of every night are on the line now. They are out there on the borders. They are out there in the ports of entry. They are out there working day and night as we saw when the FBI did its work. Here just before an election, our eyes taken away from the education needs of this country, away from the security needs of this country, away from the questions that involve the health of our citizens, away from the veterans of this country. This issue has been shifted away so that our eyes temporarily are distracted and we are looking in another direction. Where are we looking? We are looking at Iraq. Yet, Madam President, there is nothing new in the evidence. I have asked the Director of the CIA on two different occasions: What is different? Do not tell me anything about policy; we will make the policy. But tell me what there is by way of intelligence where you are the expert? What is there that is new today, that you know today that you did not know 3 months ago or 6 months ago? What is it that is so new, so compelling that all of a sudden, after we heard all this business to the effect there is no plan on the President's desk? I asked that question of the Secretary of State: What is it that is new? I have asked that question of the Secretary of Defense. What does he say? The thing that is new is September 11. That is not so new; that is over 365 days old. So what is there that is new that requires us to make this fateful, far-reaching decision before the election? There is nothing new. They have known it for 3 months, 6 months. A lot of it they have known for years. This is a fateful decision, and the decision ought to be made here, and this Congress ought not turn this fateful determination, this decision, over to any President, any one man, because, as James Madison said, the trust and the temptation are too great for any one man. Oh, that Madison were here today. Oh, that Madison could speak today. We would hear him say: The trust and the temptation are too great for any one man. Hear his voice as it rolls across the decades of history. Here we are today; we have rubber spines, rubber legs, and we do not have backbones. This branch of Government, under the Constitution, is the branch consisting of the immediately-elected representatives of the people, and under the Constitution it is to declare war. The Framers were very wise when they determined that these two matters--the decision to go to war and the making of war--should be in two different places. The decision, the determination to declare war, should flow from this branch, the people's branch, and the matter of making war should be in the hands of a unified commander, the Commander in Chief. What are we doing? In my view, if we accept this resolution as it is written, we are saying both of these vital functions would be placed in the hands of one man. And what did Madison say? He said: The trust and the temptation are too great for any one man. So in closing, if the Senator will further yield----

Mr. BYRD. Let me look at that one.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, as a member of the Rules Committee on which sit the distinguished Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, and our chairman, Mr. Dodd from Connecticut, I have asked the chairman to yield to compliment him. I want to compliment him, and I do compliment the chairman for his patience, for his dogged determination, and for his far-seeing vision in pursuing and pressing on to the end this cause for which he has been studying, speaking, and fighting for so long. It has an importance that goes far beyond the surface. This, we often hear, is a democracy. It is a Republic. We say that clearly each time we ``pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands.'' We have democratic principles under a republican form of government. There you are. It is a republican form of government. The importance of encouraging and persuading and leading the citizens of the country to vote--what a great duty it is of each citizen to vote his or her sentiments. And what a sad commentary on this Republic, whose people have been so far blessed beyond the peoples of any other nation, and then to think that so few, relatively speaking, of the American people bother--bother--to go to the polls and exercise their duty at the polls. It is a sad commentary on the American people. We take this duty loosely, and we take advantage of this right in a very cavalier fashion. The Senator from Connecticut has performed an extremely important service to the people of this country today and to future generations, by his stick-to-itiveness, by his incessant application of his enormous talents to bring to fruition the completion of this work on which he has been engaged for so long. It is not the kind of work such as the work we do on some other measures. It is kind of a dry subject when one stops to think about it. It is kind of like the rules of the Senate. They are dry, there are no headlines in them, but how important the rules of the Senate are. It is that way with this piece of legislation that our dear friend has so long labored in the vineyard to bring to fruition. I compliment him. I salute him. He has performed an immeasurable service to the people of this country; whatever we can do to bring about a greater focus and a greater application of the people's views when it is election time because, after all, that helps to mold the character of this country and to present the image of this country as a nation. I wish it were possible to say that 80 or 85 or 90 percent of the people in this country turn out and vote. What a great victory that would be for this Republic and for the principles of democracy. I not only salute this man, I say thank you to the distinguished senior Senator from Connecticut. He is my candidate for President. Throw your hat in the ring.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, if the distinguished Senator will yield.

Mr. BYRD. Let me read from it.

Mr. BYRD. Yes. Let me read it. I am sorry Mr. Lieberman has joined in this resolution, but he is a Senator, and he has the perfect right to join any resolution he wants to join. But I think the American people want somebody who stands for something. They are tired of this wishy-washy going along and saying: We have to get it over, and we have to put it behind us. We are not going to put this thing behind us. The President has chosen to make this the battlefield. Iraq: He has chosen to make that the battlefield. His administration has chosen to do that. His chief political adviser, Karl Rove, advised the Republican members of the National Committee in January to do that, make that the battlefield. So they have chosen to do it. And you will find a way to get away from it. You can't do it. So let's fight that battle on that battlefield, and in so doing, let's draw attention to the shortcomings of this administration when it comes to the domestic issues and the problems facing this Nation: health issues, the issues of homeland security. That is where the battle ought to be fought. But if it were fought on that battleground, the eyes of the people would not be deflected during an election. Well, here is what the verbiage says: The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines-- ``He.'' Madison said that was too much, too much trust, too much temptation, too great to be turned over to any one man. And that is precisely what we are doing here. The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq-- Why, Iraq has posed a threat for decades now. But how imminent and how much is it directed toward the heart of America? He can do anything he wants and say: Well, Congress said I could defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and Congress also included the language ``and enforce all relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.'' How much looser can that be, ``enforce all relevant''? What do we mean by ``relevant U.N. Security Council resolutions''? A resolution may have long ago expired, gone out of existence by virtue of the happening of some circumstance. Yet like Lazarus, we are going to say: Lazarus, come forth, and Lazarus came forth when Jesus called him to come forth. He came forth wrapped in his grave clothes. And Jesus said: Loose him and let him go. We can't say that about U.N. Security Council resolutions. We can't say ``resolutions come forth; come forth in your grave clothes. Loose that resolution and let it go.'' We can't say that. That is what we are saying here, ``enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.'' This is, plain and simple, a blank check given to the President of the United States. I won't touch it. With all respect to those Senators who believe in what they are doing, they believe in it as sincerely as I believe they are wrong, but they believe they are right. I don't say anything with respect to their integrity. I don't challenge their honor. I don't challenge for a moment their dedication to their country. I say it is wrong. We are giving to the President of the United States a blank check, and Congress cannot do that. Congress should not do that. Where is the termination? Where is the deadline? Where is the sunset language that says after this happens, this resolution shall no longer exist, this resolution we are over and done with? There is nothing. This goes on to the next President of the United States. Show me if I am wrong. It goes on to the next President of the United States, and the next one. We are going to have a Democratic President at some point in this country. Then where will my friends on the other side of the aisle be? I know where they will find me. They will find me right where I am now, if God lets me live. But that is what we are doing. We are unwittingly passing a blank check, not just to this President but to any future President, until such time as the Congress acts to repeal or amend this resolution. I am not willing to do it. Put a sunset provision in it. That would help some.

Mr. BYRD. He was gracious in his yielding to me. The Senator from Massachusetts is going to address the Senate at 2:30.

Mr. BYRD. Will the Senator yield at that point?

Mr. BYRD. I have listened with great interest to what he is saying. Does the Senator know--he is on the Armed Services Committee of the Senate as I am--does he know of any plan the administration has in readiness to deal with any one of these several possible contingencies in which we may find ourselves if we attempt to launch a unilateral strike, a unilateral invasion? Does he know of any plan that the administration has? I have heard time and again the administration's surrogates say that the President has no plan on his desk. The distinguished Senator has made reference to a plan. Does he know of any plan that the administration has ready today and, if so, does he not believe the American people ought to know something about that plan? Does he believe the Congress ought to be informed of that plan?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator yield for another question?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I understand it is possible the United States could be lucky if the United States made a unilateral decision to invade Iraq. We could be lucky, but we might not be. Does the Senator have any idea, based on his having information from the administration, what is the likelihood we might find ourselves bogged down in the hot sands of the Middle East and our men and women may have to fight a house-to-house, apartment-to-apartment battle in any one of the cities of Iraq? What would be the cost in terms of human life, not only of Iraqis but of our own men and women, if we were faced with a war in which we have to go street by street, avenue by avenue, house by house, floor to floor, to root out the snipers? What would be the cost in American lives? The distinguished Senator has stated that in this war, Saddam may believe he has nothing to lose by pushing the button and going the final mile, the last way, and making whatever expenditure in human life that flows from that decision. I wonder if the administration, in its planning, has determined at any point that we may be faced with that kind of situation. I wonder this further, if the Senator will allow me: Have the American people been asked to face up to that possibility? And, no, the administration will not make its military officers available for one reason or another to accommodate the Senate Armed Forces hearings, but why then do we have to rush in and make a decision before an election that is only 30 days away? Why should the leadership of this Congress not say we are going to go home, we are going to talk to the people, we are going to listen to what they have to say? After all, they are the ones who are going to have to pay the price. We will go home and we will await this fateful, momentous, all-important, vital decision until after the election, and we will come back. When I was the majority leader of this Senate, I, from time to time, included in the adjournment resolution a provision that allowed me to call the Senate back after discussing it with the minority leader. I was able to call it back. Why should we go home? What is there about this that says we need to make this decision now and go home? I have only heard the feeble excuse: Oh, we have to put it behind us. Does the Senator believe, with me, that we are not going to put this behind us, even though we vote on this resolution? If we are weak enough to support this resolution, with all due respect to the authors thereof, this is a blank check to the President of the United States, dressed up in the glittering figleaves of ``whereases,'' beautifully flowered whereases. They are pretty, but this is nothing but a blank check. There could be a saving in paper if we wrote it in one sentence, just turn it over lock, stock, and barrel, give it to the President of the United States--not only this one but also the next one. It is so broad in scope and there is no end to it. It is just open ended. May I ask my friend from Massachusetts, why shouldn't the leadership of this Congress say that the concerns are so great, the potential is so weighty, that we, the people's representatives, ought to go back and talk to the American people about this? Let's hear from them before we make this final decision. Why should we have to have our thoughts cluttered up with an election, with the supercharged politics of this atmosphere in which we vote? Why should we be forced to make this decision now? Does the Senator agree with me?

Mr. BYRD. He speaks of biological weapons in the hands of Saddam Hussein as being something new. That is not new. That is not new. This Nation itself helped to build, helped to create the building blocks of biological weaponry years ago when we sent to Saddam Hussein, this country made available to Iraq, back in the days when we thought that Saddam Hussein would be our friend. A few years later, after we provided Iraq help in making biological weapons, today we find he is our enemy. This is the way it is. Yesterday's friend is today's enemy. We have known about the biological weapons for years. We helped Iraq to have the building blocks. Now we have claimed this is something new. This is not new. This is not a new pretext. We have known this all along. The Israelis knew these things. They knew what was happening in Iraq with respect to nuclear weapons. These things are not new, but they are new just before this election. That is what I am saying. Let us come back after the election and then debate, and then, who knows? I might join with the distinguished Senator in promoting a resolution to declare war, Congress declare war.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, Titus Livius, one of the greatest of Roman historians, said: All things will be clear and distinct to the man who does not hurry; haste is blind and improvident. ``Blind and improvident''--``Blind and improvident.'' Congress would be wise to heed those words today, for as sure as the Sun rises in the East, this country is embarking on a course of action with regard to Iraq that is both blind and improvident. We are rushing into war without fully discussing why, without thoroughly considering the consequences, or without making any attempt to explore what steps we might take to avert the conflict. The newly bellicose mood that permeates this White House is unfortunate--unfortunate--all the more so because it is clearly motivated by campaign politics. Republicans are already running attack ads against Democrats on Iraq. Democrats favor fast approval of a resolution so they can change the subject to domestic economic problems. Before risking the lives--I say to you, the people out there who are watching through those electronic lenses--before risking the lives of your sons and daughters, American fighting men and women, all Members of Congress--Democrats and Republicans alike--must overcome the siren song of political polls and focus strictly on the merits and not the politics of this most grave, this most serious undertaking--this most grave, this most serious issue that is before us. The resolution--S.J. Res. 46--which will be before this Senate is not only a product of haste, it is also a product of Presidential hubris. This resolution is breathtaking--breathtaking--in its scope. It redefines the nature of defense. It reinterprets the Constitution to suit the will of the executive branch. This Constitution, which I hold in my hand, is amended without going through the constitutional process of amending this Constitution. S.J. Res. 46 would give the President blanket authority to launch a unilateral preemptive attack on a sovereign nation that is perceived to be a threat to the United States--a unilateral preemptive attack on a sovereign nation that is perceived to be a threat to the United States. This is an unprecedented and unfounded interpretation of the President's authority under the Constitution of the United States, not to mention the fact that it stands the charter of the United Nations on its head. Representative Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to William H. Herndon, stated: Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose--and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after you have given him so much as you propose. If, to-day, he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, ``I see no probability of the British invading us'' but he will say to you ``be silent; I see it, if you don't.'' The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood. If he could speak to us today, what would Lincoln say of the Bush doctrine concerning preemptive strikes? In a September 18 report, the Congressional Research Service had this to say about the preemptive use of military force: The historical record indicates that the United States has never, to date, engaged in a ``preemptive'' military attack against another nation. Nor has the United States ever attacked another nation militarily prior to its first having been attacked or prior to U.S. citizens or interests first having been attacked, with the singular exception of the Spanish-American War. The Spanish-American War is unique in that the principal goal of the United States military action was to compel Spain to grant Cuba its political independence. The Congressional Research Service also noted the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962: . . . represents a threat situation which some may argue had elements more parallel to those presented by Iraq today-- but it was resolved without a ``preemptive'' military attack by the United States. Article I, section 8, of the Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war and to call forth the militia ``to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.'' Nowhere-- nowhere--in this Constitution, which I hold in my hand--nowhere in the Constitution is it written the President has the authority to call forth the militia to preempt a perceived threat. And yet the resolution which will be before the Senate avers that the President ``has authority under the Constitution to take action in order to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States, as Congress recognized in the joint resolution on Authorization for Use of Military Force'' following the September 11 terrorist attack. What a cynical twisting of words. What a cynical twisting of words. The reality is Congress, exercising the authority granted to it under the Constitution, granted the President specific and limited authority to use force against the perpetrators of the September 11 attack. Nowhere--nowhere--was there an implied recognition of inherent authority under the Constitution to ``deter and prevent'' future acts of terrorism. It is not in there. It is not in that Constitution. There is no inference of it. There is no implication of it for that purpose. Think, for a moment, of the precedent that this resolution will set, not just for this President--hear me now, you on the other side of the aisle--not just for this President but for future Presidents. From this day forward, American Presidents will be able to invoke Senate Joint Resolution 45 as justification for launching preemptive military strikes against any sovereign nations they perceive to be a threat. You better pay attention. You are not always going to have a President of your party in the White House. How will you feel about it then? Other nations will be able to hold up the United States--hold up the USA--as the model to justify their military adventures. Do you not think, Mr. President, that India and Pakistan, China and Taiwan, Russia and Georgia, are closely watching the outcome of this debate? Do you not think future adversaries will look to this moment to rationalize the use of military force to achieve who knows what ends? Perhaps a case can be made Iraq poses such a clear and immediate danger to the United States that preemptive military action is the only way to deal with that threat. To be sure, weapons of mass destruction are a 20th century and 21st century horror the Framers of the Constitution had no way of foreseeing. But they did foresee the frailty of human nature. And they saw the inherent danger of concentrating too much power in one individual. They saw that. That is why the Framers bestowed on Congress--not the President--the power to declare war. As James Madison wrote, in 1793: In no part of the Constitution is more wisdom to be found, than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace to the legislature, and not to the executive department. Beside the objection to such a mixture of heterogeneous powers, the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man. . . . That was James Madison: ``the trust and the temptation would be too great for any one man.'' Mr. President, Congress has a responsibility to exercise with extreme care the power to declare war. A war against Iraq will affect thousands--if not tens of thousands, and even hundreds of thousands--of lives and perhaps alter the course of history. It will surely affect the balance of power in the Middle East. It is not a decision to be taken in haste, as we are being pushed today, as we are being stampeded today to act in haste. Put it behind us, they say, before the election. It will surely affect the balance of power in the Middle East. It is not a decision to be taken in haste under the glare of election-year politics and the pressure of artificial deadlines. And yet any observer can see that is exactly, that is precisely what the Senate is proposing to do--the Senate and the House. What a shame. Fie upon the Congress. Fie upon some of the so-called leaders of the Congress for falling into this pit. The Senate is rushing to vote on whether to declare war on Iraq without pausing to ask why. We don't have time to ask why. We don't have time to get the answers to that question: Why? Why is war being dealt with not as a last resort but as a first resort? Why is Congress being pressured to act now, as of today, I believe 33 days before a general election, when a third of the Senate and the entire House of Representatives are in the final, highly politicized weeks of election campaigns? Why? As recently as Tuesday, October 1--this past Tuesday--the President said he had not yet made up his mind. As late as this past Tuesday, he had not yet made up his mind about whether to go to war with Iraq. And yet Congress is being exhorted, is being importuned, is being adjured to give the Presi- dent open-ended--open-ended--authority now--give it to him now-- to exercise whenever he pleases in the event that he decides to invade Iraq. Where are we? Where are our senses? Why is Congress elbowing past the President to authorize a military campaign that the President may or may not even decide to pursue? Aren't we getting a little ahead of ourselves? The last U.N. weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capability. Intelligence reports also indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons but has not yet achieved nuclear capability. It is now October in this year of Our Lord 2002. Four years have gone by in which neither this administration nor the previous one felt compelled to invade Iraq to protect against the imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction, until today, until now, until 33 days before election day. Now we are being told that we must act immediately. We must put this issue behind us. We must put this question behind us. We must act immediately, we are told, before adjournment and before the elections. Why the rush? Is it our precious blood which will spew forth from our feeble veins? No. Those of you who have children, those of you who have grandchildren, those of you who have great-grandchildren should be thinking: It is the precious blood of the men and women who wear the uniform of these United States; that blood may flow in the streets of Iraq. Yes, we had September 11. But we must not make the mistake of looking at the resolution before us as just another offshoot of the war on terror. We know who is behind the September 11 attacks on the United States. We know it was Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida terrorist network. We have dealt with al-Qaida and with the Taliban government that sheltered it. We have routed them from Afghanistan. We are continuing to pursue them in hiding. So where does Iraq enter into the equation? Where? No one in the administration has been able to produce any solid evidence linking Iraq to the September 11 attack. Iraq had biological and chemical weapons long before September 11. We knew it then. We helped to give Iraq the building blocks for biological weapons. We know it now. Iraq has been an enemy of the United States for more than a decade. If Saddam Hussein is such an imminent threat to the United States, why hasn't he attacked us already? The fact that Osama bin Laden attacked the United States does not de facto mean that Saddam Hussein is now in a lock-and-load position and is readying an attack on these United States. Slow down. Think. Ask questions. Debate. In truth, there is nothing in the deluge of administration rhetoric over Iraq that is of such moment that it would preclude the Senate from setting its own timetable and taking the time for a thorough and informed discussion of this crucial issue. What is the matter with us? We are the elected representatives. We are the most immediate elected representatives of the American people across this land. What is wrong with our taking the time to ask questions? The American people want questions asked. It is not unpatriotic to ask questions. Why shouldn't we ask questions? Why do we have to be rushed into voting on S.J. Res. 46? We should have an informed discussion of this crucial issue. The President is using the Oval Office as a bully pulpit to sound the call to arms, but it is from Capitol Hill that such orders must flow. Read the Constitution of the United States. The orders must flow from Capitol Hill, not from the Oval Office. The people, through their elected representatives in Congress, must make that decision. Why don't we have time? Why don't we take time? We make a huge mistake in deciding this issue in an effort to ``get it behind us.'' We are not going to get this issue behind us. It is not going to be put behind us. It is here that debate must take place and where the full spectrum of the public's desires, concerns, and misgivings must be heard. If Senators will have the backbone to speak out, to ask questions, to demand the answers to questions, the American people are waiting. They are listening. They want answers to their questions. I hear no clamor to go to war from my people. I hear only the telephones incessantly ringing, saying: Keep asking questions. We want to know why. Stand up for us, Senator. It is here that debate must take place. We should not allow ourselves to be pushed into one course or another in the face of a full-court publicity press from the White House. We have, rather, a duty to the Nation and to the sons and daughters of this Nation to carefully examine all possible courses of action and to consider the long-term consequences of any decision to act. As to the separation of powers, Justice Louis Brandeis observed: The doctrine of the separation of powers was adopted by the Convention of 1787, not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power. No one supports Saddam Hussein. If he were to disappear tomorrow, no one would shed a tear around the world, other than possibly tears of thanksgiving. I would not. My handkerchief would remain dry. But the principle of one government deciding to eliminate another government, using force to do so, and taking that action in spite of world disapproval is a very disquieting thing. Where does it end? What nation will be next? I am concerned that it has the effect of destabilizing the world community of nations. I am concerned that it fosters a climate of suspicion and mistrust in U.S. relations with other nations. The United States is not a rogue nation given to unilateral action in the face of worldwide opprobrium. We are about to change the face of the United States, a nation which believes in liberty, justice, and human rights. What are we about to change? What is it going to be? What is the new image of the United States going to be? That of a bully, ready to draw both guns and start shooting immediately? This is preemptive action, isn't it? I am concerned about the consequences of a United States invasion of Iraq. It is difficult to imagine that Saddam Hussein, who has been ruthless in gaining power, ruthless in staying in power, would give up without a fight. He is a man who has not shirked from using chemical weapons against his own people. I fear he would use everything in his arsenal against an invasion force, or against an occupation force, up to and including whatever chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons he might still have. Iraq is not Afghanistan, impoverished by decades of war, internal strife, tribal conflict, and stifling religious oppression. Though its military forces are much diminished--and ours are somewhat diminished-- Iraq has a strong central command and much greater governmental control over its forces and its people. It is a large country that has spent years on a wartime footing, and it still has some wealth. Nor do I think the Iraqi people would necessarily rise up against Saddam Hussein in the event of a United States invasion, even if there is an undercurrent of support for his overthrow. The Iraqi people have spent decades living in fear of Saddam Hussein and his network of informers and security forces. There has been no positive showing, that I know of, in the form of riots or large and active internal opposition groups, that popular sentiment in Iraq supports a governmental overthrow or the installation of a democratic or republican form of government. There is no tradition of democracy in Iraq's long history. There is, however, a natural instinct to favor the known over the unknown, and in this instance the United States is an unknown factor. The President and his Cabinet have suggested that this would be a war of relatively short duration. If that is true--which I doubt--why would the Iraqi populace rush to welcome the United States forces? In a few weeks, they might have to answer to the remnants of Saddam Hussein's security forces. A prudent Iraqi would just put his or her head under the bed covers and not come out until the future became clear. Who knows, we might be lucky. We have been pretty lucky thus far in some of our adventures. We might be. But we might not be lucky. A United States invasion of Iraq that proved successful, and that resulted in the overthrow of the government, would not be a simple effort. The aftermath of that effort would require a long-term occupation. The President has said he would overthrow Saddam Hussein and establish a new government that would recognize all interest groups in Iraq. This would presumably include the Kurds to the north and the Shiite Muslims to the south because the entire military and security apparatus of Iraq would have to be replaced. The United States would have to provide interim security throughout the countryside. This kind of nation building cannot be accomplished with the wave of a wand by some fairy godmother--even one with the full might and power of the world's last remaining superpower behind her. To follow through on the proposal outlined by the President would require the commitment of a large number of U.S. forces--forces that cannot be used for other missions, such as homeland defense--for an extended period of time. It will take time to confirm that Iraq's programs to develop weapons of mass destruction are well and truly destroyed. It will take time to root out all of the elements of Saddam Hussein's government, military and security forces, and to build a new government and security elements. It will take time to establish a new and legitimate government and to conduct free and fair elections. It will cost billions of dollars--your dollars, the taxpayers of America--to do this as well. And the forces to carry out this mission and pay for this mission will come from the United States. There can be little question of that. If the rest of the world doesn't want to come with us at the outset, it seems highly unlikely that they would line up for the follow- through, even though their own security might be improved by the elimination of a rogue nation's weapons of destruction. So if the Congress authorizes such a mission, we must be prepared for what will follow. The Congressional Budget Office has already made some estimations regarding the cost of a possible war with Iraq. In a September 30 report, CBO estimates that the incremental costs--the costs that would be incurred above those budgeted for routine operations--would be between $9 billion and $13 billion a month, depending on the actual force size deployed. Prosecuting a war would cost between $6 billion and $9 billion a month. Since the length of the war cannot be predicted, CBO could give no total battle estimate. After hostilities end, the cost to return U.S. forces to their home bases would range between $5 billion and $7 billion, according to the CBO. And the incremental costs of an occupation following combat operations varies from $1 billion to $4 billion a month. This estimate does not include any cost of rebuilding or humanitarian assistance. That is a steep price to pay in dollars. But dollars are only a part of the equation. There are many formulas to calculate costs in the form of dollars, but it is much more difficult to calculate costs in the form of human lives--in the form of deaths on the battlefield and death from the wounds and diseases that flow from the den of battle. Iraq may be a weaker nation militarily than it was during the Persian Gulf war, but its leader is no less determined and its weapons are no less lethal. During the Persian Gulf war, the United States was able to convince Saddam Hussein that the use of weapons of mass destruction would result in his being toppled from power. This time around, the object of an invasion of Iraq is to topple Saddam Hussein, so he has no reason to exercise restraint. Now, we are being told by the White House, let him be assassinated: The cost of one bullet would be much less than the cost of a war. Now this Nation is embarking, isn't it, on a doctrine of assassination of other leaders of the world? Is the ban on assassinations being lifted? What do we hear from the White House? Are we going to revert to the age of the Neanderthals, the cavemen? The questions surrounding the wisdom of declaring war on Iraq are many, and they are serious. The answers are too few and too glib. This is no way to embark on war. The Senate must address these questions before acting on this kind of sweeping use-of-force resolution. We do not need more rhetoric from the White House War Room. We do not need more campaign slogans or fundraising letters. We, the American people need information and informed debate, because it is their sons, it is their daughters, it is their blood, it is their treasure, it is their children, men and women who are killed in the heat of battle. Before rushing to war, we should focus on those things that pose the most direct threat to us--those facilities and those weapons that form the body of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program. The United Nations is the proper forum to deal with the inspection of these facilities and the destruction of any weapons discovered. If United Nations inspectors can enter the country, inspect those facilities, and mark for destruction the ones that truly belong to a weapons program, then Iraq can be declawed without unnecessary risk or loss of life. That would be the best answer for Iraq. That would be the best answer for the United States. That would be the best answer for the world. But if Iraq again chooses to interfere with such an ongoing and admittedly intrusive inspection regime, then, and only then, should the United States, with the support of the world, take stronger measures. This is what Congress did in 1991 before the Persian Gulf war. The United States at that time gave the United Nations the lead in demanding that Iraq withdraw from Kuwait. The U.S. took the time to build a coalition of partners. When Iraq failed to heed the U.N., then and only then did Congress authorize the use of force. That is the order in which the steps to war should be taken. Everyone wants to protect our Nation. Everyone wants to protect our people. To do that in the most effective way possible, we should avail ourselves of every opportunity to minimize the number of American troops we put at risk. Seeking, once again, to allow the United Nations inspecting regime to peacefully seek and destroy the facilities and equipment employed in the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction program would be the least costly and the most effective way of reducing the risk to our Nation, provided that it is backed up by a credible threat of force if Iraq, once again, attempts to thwart the inspections. We can take a measured, stepped-up approach that would still leave open the possibility of a ground invasion if that, indeed, should become the last resort and become necessary. But there is no way to take that step now. Mr. President, I urge restraint. Let us draw back from haste. President Bush gave the United States the opening to deal effectively with the threat posed by Iraq. The United Nations embraced his exhortation and is working to develop a new and tougher inspection regime with firm deadlines and swift and sure accountability. Let us be convinced that a reinvigorated inspection regime cannot work before we move to any next step. Let us, if we must employ force, employ the most precise and limited use of force necessary to get the job done. Let us guard against the perils of haste, lest the Senate fall prey to the dangers of taking action that is both blind and improvident. Mr. President, a paraphrase of Jefferson would be that the dogs of war are too vicious to be unleashed by any one man alone; that the Framers of the Constitution thought the representatives of the people in the legislative branch ought to make these determinations. Let us sober up. Let us sober ourselves. Let us take hold of ourselves. Let us move back from this engine of haste and destruction, this desire to get it over, this desire to get it behind us before the elections. Here we have a resolution, S.J. Res. 46, nine pages of beautifully flowered ``whereases,'' nine pages. Here we have a resolution by which the Senate of the United States and the House of Representatives would be abdicating, pushing aside our responsibility to make decisions about going to war. This is an abdication of our responsibilities. Here it is; what a shame; what a rag; it is enough to make those eagles up there scream, the eagles beside the clock--for a period that is unlimited in time. Hear me, hear me now, listen to this resolution on which we are going to vote. For a period of time that is unlimited, the President of the United States is authorized to make war anywhere he determines is in some way linked to the threat posed by Iraq--anytime, anywhere, and in any way. Get that. That is what this amounts to. This is a blank check, nine pages. A blank check. A blank check with whereas clauses serving as figleaves. That is what it is, a blank check with beautifully flowered whereas clauses serving as figleaves. This is a blank check. There it is. Look at it, nine pages, a blank check that does not simply remove us as representatives of the people from decisionmaking about the use of force now or the use of force in Iraq. It removes us as representatives of the people from making decisions about the use of war so far in the future as we can see. It removes us. You cannot make anything outside of it. It is plain. I know it is obfuscated and it is all sugar-coated with these figleaves of ``whereases.'' That means, let's say in the year 2014, the Congress will have no role in determining whether military force should be used in some country linked with Iraq or some purpose related to Iraq. The President can send military forces into war wherever he determines, and it may not be the President we now have. It undoubtedly will be another President because this goes on into the future, as far as the human eye can see. Under the Constitution, we are abdicating the congressional power to the President of the United States. He can send military forces into war wherever he determines it is in some way related to the ``continuing threat'' posed by Iraq. This resolution, this power, this blank check, does not terminate if the regime is changed in Iraq. This resolution, this power, does not terminate if inspectors are allowed throughout Iraq. This resolution does not terminate if Iraq is disarmed and all of its weapons and weapons facilities are removed. No. The power goes on. You better read it--read it and weep. This resolution says that we, the Congress of the United States, are turning over our constitutional responsibility to the President for as long as there is some threat as the President determines; use whatever military forces he wants; wherever he wants to use them; as long as he determines it is necessary to react to the threat posed by Iraq and those working, no doubt, with Iraq, others that he can see as their allies. Do we want to do that? Do we want to abdicate congressional responsibility under the Constitution of the United States to this President or any President of any political party? Is that what we want? Do we want to be able to just wash our hands of it and say it is all up to the President; we turned it all over to the President? This resolution--it is nine pages--changes the constitutional presumption that the Congress makes the determination about whether to go to war and for the foreseeable future gives it to a single person elected by a minority of the people. Ronald Reagan, for example, was elected by one-fourth of the eligible voters of this country. So we turn this momentous power, this unimaginable power, over to one person, the President of the United States, elected by a minority of the people. The whereas clauses are pretty. Oh, they are pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty, pretty whereas clauses, but they are just window dressing. That is all. They are just figleaves. All that is necessary is the President's own determination. Why do we take up all this space? Why do we take up nine pages? Why waste all this paper? It is nine pages of beautifully phrased ``whereases.'' If we want to pass this resolution, we can pass it by cutting it down to one sentence. That is all we need, one sentence. We do not have to have all of this window dressing, all this sugar coating, on this bitter pill. One sentence is all we need. One page is all we need. That sentence could simply say, and it would be legally the same as this document--hear me--we could say the President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States for as long as he wants, wherever he wants, and in any manner he wants, without any approval by Congress, as long as he determines it is necessary to defend against a threat posed by Iraq, in his own determination. Let me read that again. Let's dispose of the 9 pages. All we need is one sentence in order to do exactly what the 9 pages would do. All that is necessary is the President's own determination. We can save a lot of space. We can save a lot of paper if we want to pass this resolution by cutting it down to one sentence, and that sentence could simply say-- and it would be legally the same as this 9-page document--the President is authorized to use the Armed Services of the United States for as long as he wants, wherever he wants, in any manner he wants, without any approval by Congress, as long as he determines it is necessary to defend against a threat posed by Iraq, in his own determination. Nothing else is needed but that sentence. The rest of it is of no legal consequence, just window dressing. That is the blank check part of this resolution. Let us guard against the perils of haste, lest the Senate fall prey to the dangers of taking action that is both blind and improvident. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator from the great State of California for her gracious remarks. I thank her, too, for what she stands for, for standing up for the Constitution and for representing the people of her great State so well, so consistently, and so effectively.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this morning's inspirational invocation was delivered by the Rev. Cecil Perry from Oak Hill, WV. I am pleased and proud to announce today, October 3, is the Reverend Mr. Perry's 85th birthday. I am also pleased and proud to point out that more than 50 years ago--as a matter of fact, it was more than 60 years ago--Mr. Perry and I worked together as meat cutters in the New River Company Store near Beckley, WV. Our careers took us on different paths. Mine became a career in public service. Mr. Perry became a coal miner. That is a very honorable title, a ``coal miner.'' The man who raised me was a coal miner. My wife's father was a coal miner. My wife's brother-in-law died of silicosis pneumoconiosis, which he contracted through working in the coal mines. His father was killed by a slate fall in a coal mine. So the coal miners have a great heritage of which they can be proud. After attending the Appalachian Bible Institute, the Reverend Mr. Perry was ordained in 1957 as a Baptist minister. For the next 40 years, he preached the word of God throughout southern West Virginia. The Senate chaplain's office, at my request, invited Mr. Perry to come to the Nation's Capital and deliver the Senate prayer for us today. I am pleased the Reverend Mr. Perry brought with him his wonderful family, including his son David Perry, who is a delegate in the West Virginia State legislature, and also his daughter Nancy James. Accompanying them are Cecil Perry's 4 grandchildren and 12 great grandchildren. I am glad the family has come to Washington and is visiting the U.S. Capitol. I trust they will return to the hills of our beloved West Virginia rewarded and informed by their visit here. The Scriptures say: ``Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially they who labor in the word and doctrine''-- 1 Timothy 5:17. The Reverend Mr. Perry has ``ruled well.'' He has ``labor[ed] in the word and doctrine.'' He is ``worthy of double honor.'' I am delighted, as a Senator from West Virginia, in having this good man visit the Senate today, and I thank him for helping us to begin our day with his eloquent and uplifting words which were not written but came from the heart. Happy Birthday, Mr. Perry. Last night, I passed beside the blacksmith's door And heard the anvil ring the vesper chime And looking in I saw upon the floor Old hammers, worn with beating years of time ``How many anvils have you had'', said I ``To wear and batter all these hammers so?'' ``Only one,'' the blacksmith said, with twinkling eye. ``The anvil wears the hammers out, you know.'' And so, the Bible, anvil of God's Word For centuries, skeptic blows have beat upon And though the noise of falling blows was heard, The anvil is unharmed--the hammers, gone.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. I also extend my thanks to the distinguished Democratic whip for his help in arranging for me to speak at this moment. Mr. President, today is October 2. In 2 days, the continuing resolution that Congress approved last week will expire. While the days flip by on the calendar, the work on appropriations bills remains at an impasse, a standstill. As a result of White House efforts to slow down the appropriations process--and those efforts have been successful--not 1 of the 13 appropriations bills has been sent to the President as of October 1, the beginning of the new fiscal year. This is the worst record for progress in the appropriations process since 1987. In 1987, my wife and I celebrated our 50th wedding anniversary. Here it is 15 years later, so we are now 65 years along on our journey, but how much further along are we in the appropriations process? Let me say again, this is the worst record for progress in the appropriations process since 1987. I would be very unhappy to say this with respect to my wife's and my journey of wedding anniversaries. Fifteen of them have passed since we had our worst year in 1987 in the appropriations process. So today, 15 years later, we are as bad as we were then. As a result of White House intransigence on total discretionary spending for this fiscal year, the other body, the House of Representatives, has not taken up a single appropriations bill on the House floor for 10 weeks--10 weeks. God created the Earth and all of the universe and created man in 1 week--6 days and rested on the 7th. Here we are, the House has not taken up an appropriations bill on the floor for 10 weeks--10 weeks. Rather than working with the House Appropriations Committee and moderates in their own party on a level of spending that could be approved on the House floor, the House Republican leadership, at the request of the White House, simply shut the appropriations process down. That is it. As a result, one of the most fundamental duties of the President and the Congress--namely, to make careful and responsible choices about how to spend the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars--has been put on automatic pilot. While the days slip away, the 4 million veterans in this country who rely on the Veterans Administration for their health care will have to worry as to whether or not that care is going to be available for them. While the days slip away, the 11,420 FBI agents who are supposed to be combating the war on terrorism will have to wonder whether they have the necessary resources to continue to fight that war. Why? Because of this administration's do-nothing policy when it comes to the appropriations process. Slow down the process. Stall. While the days slip away, the Government's effort to root out corporate fraud would be put on hold. While the days slip away, the President appears to be satisfied to forget his ``no child left behind'' promise and turn the commitment to educating America's children into another unfunded mandate, another unfulfilled promise. The President is quick to champion homeland security on the political speech tour. Yes, he will stand out there with a backdrop of marines, a backdrop of soldiers, a backdrop of sailors, a backdrop of the National Guard, and he will say: Congress, pass my homeland security bill. The President is quick to champion homeland security on the hustings when he is making fundraising trips, raising big dollars for the campaign. He is quick to champion homeland security, but his budget priorities reflect an entirely different agenda. The administration's adamant refusal to move off the dime in these appropriations discussions could jeopardize homeland security--and already has jeopardized homeland security. No matter when or how or whether any new Department of Homeland Security is created, by jeopardizing the appropriations bills, the White House jeopardizes critical funds for the new Transportation Security Administration. Many of the requirements of the Transportation Security Act require large expenditures in the first quarter of fiscal year 2003. Are they going to flow? Local airports are required to purchase explosive detection equipment to keep bombs from being placed on airliners. To do that, the airports need help. But the administration's refusal to be more flexible in its appropriations approach means that help is not on the way. Federal funds are also needed to hire new Federal screeners to make our Nation's seaports more secure. Is help on the way? Help is not on the way. The Immigration and Naturalization Service is at a critical juncture in developing a comprehensive entry and exit system to protect our Nation's borders. The Senate bill provides $362 million for this initiative. Is help on the way? No. The administration's inflexibility means that help is not on the way. The Customs Service is scheduled to hire more than 620 agents and inspectors to serve at the Nation's high-risk land and seaports of entry. Homeland security? The Senate provides the funding for the Customs Service. But is help on the way? No. The administration is being inflexible. Help is not on the way. Thousands of FEMA fire grants, grants for interoperable communications equipment, grants to upgrade emergency operations centers, grants to upgrade search and rescue teams, grants for emergency responder training, and grants to improve State and local planning would be funded under the Senate's appropriations bill. Is help on the way? No. The administration is inflexible. These are the special interests, I suppose, that the President was talking about, these firemen, policemen, and emergency health personnel who appeared before the Senate Appropriations Committee last spring in support of more money for homeland security. So here are these special interests--the firemen, the policemen, the emergency help personnel, the people from the hospitals, and the nurses who came before our Senate Appropriations Committee and pleaded for more money for homeland security. Are these the special interests the President is talking about? Help is not on the way. Talk is cheap. Homeland security is not cheap. By forcing the Government to operate on autopilot, the administration wants the Nation to fight terrorism at home with one hand tied behind our backs. The President needs to come out of the White House war room long enough to focus on the situation at home. There is no need to go to Iraq, no need to go to the Middle East. The war on terrorism is being waged at home. Is help on the way? No. By December 31, 2.3 million unemployed Americans will be cut off from employment assistance. As the days slip away, our Nation's farmers and ranchers are left with no assistance in the face of the worst drought since the Dust Bowl days of the 1930s. I remember those Dust Bowl days of the 1930s. I was beginning my last 4 years in high school in the 1930s. That is when mechanically sliced bread first came along. ``The greatest thing since sliced bread,'' we hear. That goes back to the 1930s. The promise made to America's senior citizens for an effective prescription drug benefit is left for another day. Help is not on the way. A weakened economy and rising health care costs are the main reasons for the growth in the number of the uninsured. When people lose their jobs, they often lose their health coverage. The number of unemployed men and women has increased by about 2 million since January 2001, so it should come as no surprise that the number of uninsured is also going up, up, up. Health insurance premiums also increased by 12.7 percent during the past year, making coverage less affordable for employers and workers. According to the Census Bureau, the number of people with employment- based health coverage dropped in 2001 for the first time since 1993. What is the response to this situation from the Bush administration? What is the response? What? I can't hear you. A deafening silence. In 2001, the 30 top earning corporate executives took home $3.1 billion, an average of $104 million. We are talking about the 30 top earning corporate executives. What did they do to earn their money? They bilked shareholders. The 30 top-earning corporate executives took home $3.123 billion, an average of $104 million. Why be a U.S. Senator? Why be a Senator? Why be anything else? Become a corporate executive. Not all of them are like that, but there are some bad apples there. Compared to the national median income in 2001, these 30 corporate executives earned the equivalent of 73,955 households. I would never believe it, but these 30 corporate executives earned the equivalent of 73,955 households. What is the response to this inequity from the Bush administration? What? A deafening silence. Have I lost my hearing? What has happened? Here I am, 85 years old, and I have no ear plugs in all these years. What? A deafening silence. Deafening. Unfortunately for the American people, it is not a record on which to look back with pride. It is a record that rejects compromise in favor of obstinance. It is a record that rejects progress in favor of partisanship. It is a record that puts politics ahead of the American people. As for the appropriations bills, the ranking member of the full committee, the senior Senator from Alaska, Mr. Stevens, and I have urged the administration and the House Republican leadership to move closer to the Senate levels in these bills. The 13 bills approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee total $768.1 billion. These bills are consistent with the committee allocation approved by a vote of 29-0 in June. The bills are consistent with the $768.1 billion allocation that was approved by the Senate Budget Committee when it reported its budget resolution last March. The bills are consistent with the $768.1 billion allocation that was supported by 59 Members of the Senate when the allocation was voted on during floor debate on the Defense Authorization bill on June 20. The Senate bills do not promote an explosive growth in spending. The big growth in the bills is for the 13-percent hike proposed by the President for Defense and the 25-percent increase proposed by the President for homeland defense. The fight with the President is over the Senate's desire to provide a 2.6 percent increase for domestic programs, barely enough to cover inflation. Clearly, a bipartisan effort in the Senate has produced good pieces of legislation. But progress on these bills is at an impasse because the House leadership, under direction from the administration, will not move beyond its arbitrary funding level of $759 billion. Just $9 billion between us, $9 billion. Yet the administration will not move. On the other hand, someone asked Larry Lindsey, the President's top economic adviser, at the White House the other day: How much will the war cost? Maybe $100 billion, maybe $200 billion. That is nothing. That was his response. That is nothing. Yet we have come to a standstill because of $9 billion that the Appropriations Committee in the House and the Appropriations Committee in the Senate believe is needed for domestic programs that benefit the Nation's families, children, and veterans. By its calculated machinations, the administration is turning its back to the needs of the American people at the exact moment where those needs are reaching the breaking point. This should not be about political winners or losers. This year, of all years, we should not play political games with the appropriations bills. But it seems as if the administration is more than willing to roll the dice with these important bills. And I fear that their gamble will come up snake eyes. Time and again, the President called on Congress to pass the Defense appropriations bill before the break for the election. I agree with the President. We should pass that bill. The Senate's bipartisan Defense package is $1.2 billion above the House-passed level. The Senate, which some claim is uninterested in defense and in the security of the Nation, provided significantly more resources for our soldiers, sailors, and airmen than the House. This Senate has answered the call and responded to the needs of the military. Congress should not pinch pennies at this time for the men and women in our Armed Forces, and I continue to urge the House to move closer to the Senate level. We are making progress on the Defense package, and I hope that we can conference those bills soon. But, in order to do that, we need the House Republican leadership and the administration to be more flexible in their approach. Taking such a hard line on these appropriations bills threatens the security of the country forces Congress to gut vital domestic initiatives. The atmosphere of the White House is a heady one. It can cause even the most level-headed occupant to focus on what is important inside the Washington beltway and to forget what is important in the rest of the Nation. I, for one, do not forget what is important to America. I recognize, as do many Members of this body, the importance of these appropriations bills to the future progress and security of this Nation. I recognize the importance of these appropriations bills to the farmers, to the teachers and their students, and to the veterans. I recognize the importance of these bills to future breakthroughs in medical research and cancer treatments. I recognize the importance of these bills to our Nation's energy independence and to our transportation network. Without these bills, promises will remain unfulfilled, problems will remain unattended, and progress will be stalled. Tomorrow, the House is expected to debate a second continuing resolution that would simply extend the first continuing resolution through Friday, October 11, and I will recommend that the Senate approve that resolution without controversy. But we should not continue to place the Government on autopilot. We should complete work on our appropriations bills. I urge the administration and the House Republican leadership to join this Senate in passing 13 responsible pieces of legislation that respond to the needs of the Nation, at home and abroad. I urge that arbitrary budget figures be left at the door and we complete our work before adjourning this session of Congress.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.