Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Absolutely, positively.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. There has been none. There is none. There has been none. I see only a huge black hole. No plan. No plan. No plan. No vision. We are there with no vision, and people perish and they perish. Too many lives have already been lost in pursuit of this nefarious doctrine of preemption, unconstitutional on its face--on its face. How can there be a congressional debate if one man may decide when to hit, where to hit? I urge the administration to turn away from that dangerous doctrine of preemptive war and adhere to the requirements of the Constitution of these United States, to which we all swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic. Lord, Lord, help us. May God bless these men and women who gave their lives, and God bless their families who mourn them every day, every night, and there is no end in sight. May God help this Nation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. President, I thank Chairman Judd Gregg, the House Chairman Harold Rogers, Representatives Martin Sabo, Representative Dave Obey, and all of the House and Senate conferees for their hard work on the Homeland Security appropriations conference report. I also commend the thousands of men and women who are on the front lines of Homeland Security. God bless them. I thank them. While I remain very concerned that we are not giving these men and women the tools they need to do their job, that in no way detracts from their commitment to serve the Nation. The conference agreement that is before the Senate sends a strong signal to the Department that it needs to move in a new direction. The Department needs to be nimble and responsive, not bureaucratic and slow. It needs to target limited resources on future threats, not simply the threats posed by the attacks of September 11. The conference agreement includes numerous improvements to the President's budget, particularly with regard to border security, air cargo security, improved screening of airline passengers for explosives, funds to hire firefighters, as well as funding to protect the all-hazards Emergency Management Performance Grant Program. The conference agreement builds on the bipartisan border security initiatives I offered along with the very able Senator, Mr. Craig, with Chairman Gregg's support to the 2005 emergency supplemental bill. Between the supplemental enacted in May and this bill, Congress will have increased the number of Border Patrol agents by 1,500; Congress will have increased the number of immigration investigators, agents, and detention officers by over 750; and Congress will have increased the number of detention beds by at least 1,800. I commend all of the conferees and in particular the inimitable chairman, Judd Gregg, for that action. The inimitable chairman. Do you hear that? The inimitable chairman, Judd Gregg. He is not here, but he will hear about it. In addition, the agreement contains an important protection for the privacy rights of Americans. The agreement would prohibit the use of commercial databases in the implementation of Secure Flight, the Department's proposed new airline passenger profiling system. Such commercial databases are unreliable and potentially could be used to invade people's privacy. The conference agreement provides $30.8 billion for discretionary programs, an increase of just 4.6 percent. This is a very lean bill. The committee was put into a difficult position as a result of the administration's proposal to have the Appropriations Committee increase the fees paid by airline passengers by $1.68 billion. How about that? The Appropriations Committee does not have jurisdiction--what is the matter with the White House?--the Appropriations Committee does not have jurisdiction over airline fees. The White House knows that. The Budget Office knows that. So as a result of what the White House did, the committee was forced to reduce spending on critical homeland security programs--your programs, your people's programs, your constituents' programs. This ill-considered administration proposal--hear it--this ill- considered White House proposal resulted in real cuts--real cuts--in firefighter grants, first responder grants, Coast Guard operations, and in the number of airport screeners. Now listen. Listen. It is regrettable that the administration's apparent lack of understanding of the legislative process--when will they learn?--their apparent lack of understanding of the legislative process will have such a direct impact on programs that are important elements of our homeland security strategy. How about that? Time and time again--time and time again--this administration has talked a good game on homeland security, but it has not followed through with a sustained commitment of resources and ideas. I fear that the administration believes that it fulfilled its commitment to securing the homeland by creating the Department of Homeland Security, which I voted against. And I am glad I voted against it. Well, America is not made safer by simply reorganizing boxes on an organizational chart. Repeatedly, the energy, the initiative, the resources, and the leadership for homeland security have come from the Congress--the Congress. From border security to transit, rail, and port security, to air cargo security and explosives detection, the initiative--hear me-- the initiative to fund these efforts came from--where?--the Congress, you, this body, the other body, the people's branch, the Congress. This conference agreement continues in that tradition, and I commend Chairman Gregg and former Chairman Cochran. I commend them for their excellent leadership. However, following the terrorist attacks on 9/11, the Madrid and London train bombings, many other bombings such as those in Bali just a few days ago, and Hurricane Katrina, Congress should be approving a more robust homeland security bill. If there is one lesson we should all learn from Hurricane Katrina, it is that when you starve our Nation's infrastructure and allow our emergency response capacity to wither on the vine, there are consequences. There are consequences. There will be consequences. In conference, I joined with Representatives Obey and Sabo in offering an amendment to provide $1.7 billion of targeted investments for emergency disaster planning, predisaster mitigation, grants to hire, equip, and train firefighters, and grants for transit, port, and chemical security. The amendment would also have helped the Coast Guard maintain the ships, the planes, the helicopters that they have used so effectively in evacuating over 33,000 people following Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita. The entire bill that is before us, the budget for the entire Department, is only $30.8 billion. Now, I understand the need to live within limits, but sometimes those limits simply do not correspond to the reality that confronts us. Why not limit somewhere else? Why not limit somewhere else? How much are we giving to Iraq? How many questions do we ask, then, when we give there? We build infrastructure in Iraq. How about building it here in our country? Charity begins at home. In the past month, we appropriated $60 billion as an emergency for one agency that is funded by this bill, FEMA. One agency received a supplemental that is double the annual budget of the entire Department, and yet in this bill we fail to make the investments to help us avoid future $60 billion supplemental bills. We should be increasing predisaster mitigation efforts. What if something happens here in Washington? What if something hits Washington? There will be millions of people from Washington, Virginia, and Maryland heading--where?--heading westward, heading toward West Virginia, heading toward parts of Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. Then what? Yes, what about that? We have seen the problems created by Katrina. What if the terrorists were to hit here, and then we have this massive, massive flow of people Westward? That is what we are talking about when we talk about predisaster mitigation efforts. My Governor, the Governor of West Virginia, the most handsome Governor in the country, Governor Joe Manchin, has proposed that there be more money--more money, that we need to prepare ahead of time, that we need to pre-position medical supplies, pre-position gasoline, pre- position other items that will be needed when and if that disaster hits here. That is what we should be increasing: predisaster mitigation efforts--not cutting them. We should be doing the disaster planning now so that if there is a terrorist attack in a major city such as Washington, DC, that produces a mass evacuation, there will be pre-positioned food, water, fuel, and communications equipment to help the millions of affected citizens evacuate safely. When less than 25 percent of eligible applications for firefighting grants were approved last year, should we be cutting firefighting funds by $105 million? Why, that is sheer madness--madness. That is sheer madness. May I say to one of my favorite Senators of all time, the Senator from Vermont, Jim Jeffords--one of my favorite Senators--that is sheer madness. When the Madrid and London train bombings proved that there is a real threat to our transit systems--hear me, New York City--when there is a real threat to our transit systems, should Congress be providing just $150 million, when the estimated need is $6 billion--$6 billion. When two Russian airplanes were simultaneously blown out of the sky by terrorists 1 year ago, should we be satisfied that only 18--only 18--out of the 448 commercial airports in the United States have received new checkpoint technologies to screen passengers for explosives? Hear me. We better act in time. I believe Chairman Gregg--the inimitable chairman, I say; he is a Republican, but he is a great chairman; I am proud of him--has put together a bill that makes significant improvements to the President's budget. I commend Chairman Gregg for those choices. However, as we move forward on a Katrina supplemental bill, I hope we will reconsider the investments contained in the amendment that was defeated--hear me-- defeated in conference. Sometimes I say, yes, sometimes you have to spend money to save money and to save lives. Let me say that again. Sometimes--sometimes, Senators; sometimes, Mr. President; sometimes, I say to the White House--you have to spend money to save money and to save lives. And you do have to spend it here in America, in this country, to save American lives. I commend the staff--our wonderful staff, our great staff, our dedicated staff--for their contributions to this important legislation. In particular, I thank Chairman Gregg's staff: Rebecca Davies, James Hayes, Carol Cribbs, Kimberly Nelson, Shannon O'Keefe, and Avery Forbes. And do you think I would forget my own staff? No. My own staff, I commend them: Charles Kieffer--man, he is it, he is the man, Charles Kieffer--Chip Walgren, Scott Nance, Drenan Dudley, and our Coast Guard detailee, Sean MacKenzie. What a staff. Finally, on a personal note, I mark the recent passing of Robert M. Sempsey this past Saturday. Bob Sempsey worked for the Congressional Budget Office for nearly 25 years. He was the principal analyst for the Homeland Security and Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bills. He was a good friend. He was a fine teacher for many of our Senate staff. To his wife and three children, I extend my hand in your time of grief. Bob was a fine public servant. He will be sorely missed. With regard to the Homeland Security conference report, I again compliment the inimitable Chairman Judd Gregg. I urge its adoption, and I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Hear hear.

Mr. BYRD. Right.

Mr. BYRD. Shame.

Mr. BYRD. What a shame.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Shame. Shame.

Mr. BYRD. Shame.

Mr. BYRD. Cut the funds for Iraq.

Mr. BYRD. Shame.

Mr. BYRD. Right.

Mr. BYRD. Shame.

Mr. BYRD. Right.

Mr. BYRD. Right.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I understand that the distinguished Senator from Louisiana, Ms. Landrieu, wishes to continue her speech. I ask unanimous consent that I may speak briefly for not to exceed 10 minutes and that she then be recognized to continue her speech.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator from Alaska, and I thank the distinguished Senator from Utah. Mr. President, last night, in a closely divided vote, the Senate rejected an attempt to add much of the Defense authorization bill to the Defense appropriations bill. Each of these bills is vitally important to the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces but for different reasons. Inasmuch as I am a member of both the Senate Appropriations Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee, the importance of each of these bills is very clear to me. The Defense appropriations bill contains the funds that are needed to keep our military running. This bill contains $440 billion that is required to, among other things, pay, train, and equip our troops for the next 12 months. It is often said that our troops are the best trained, the best equipped, and the most capable military force in the world. In large part, this is true because Congress has appropriated the moneys that are needed to create this outstanding fighting force. That, in a nutshell, is the importance of the Defense appropriations bill. The Defense authorization bill also has an important purpose. That bill is intended to establish in law critical defense policies. The Defense authorization bill contains provisions that relate, among other things, to the setting forth of the number of military personnel that the United States is to maintain; expanding health care options for our troops and their families; and increasing pay and compensation for active-duty, National Guard, and retired servicemembers. The bill also includes many complex technical provisions, such as changes to military acquisitions policy. The authorization bill is important to our troops, but it is a very different bill from the Defense appropriations bill. Last night, I opposed the effort to fuse these two bills into one. That move, had it been approved, would have resulted in a delay in our troops getting the appropriations that they require. It also would have resulted in less attention to the policy matters in the authorization bill that affect our troops in so many ways. The Senate owes our troops and their families a conscientious, well- informed debate on such important authorization matters as improving health care benefits for the National Guard, among other things. The American people need to know what their elected representatives in Washington are doing when it comes to defense policy. The American people have given their sons and daughters to fight for their country. Can't the Senate give a few days to them? Can't the Senate give them a few days of debate to inform them about what the Congress proposes to make the law of the land concerning defense policy? Many believe that the Senate could debate, amend, and approve the Defense authorization bill within a week, plus or minus a few days, if it were brought before the Senate for open debate and amendment. Passing the authorization bill in that way would serve our troops far better than keeping that legislation on the shelf, where it has been for several months now. The Senate will pass the Defense appropriations bill later today. Surely--surely--Senators can spare the time required to finish action on the Defense authorization bill. Our troops are overseas. They are serving in harm's way and need both of these bills to be debated, passed, and signed into law. The Senate has spent all too much time conjuring up complex parliamentary procedures instead of facing the real issues confronting our military servicemembers. The Senate should call up the Defense authorization bill and let the sun shine on our deliberations and debate. We are the servants of the people. We are the servants of the people, not their masters. We owe the people a public accounting of decisions on such important matters, instead of a fast shuffle that avoids difficult issues and difficult votes. Iraq Mr. President, on another matter, next week, the people of Iraq will go to the polls and cast a critical ballot. They will decide whether to endorse the constitution as drafted by their political leaders. It is an important day, and I pray that it goes well. No matter how well the vote goes, whether or not the constitution is ratified, it appears that the men and women of our Nation's Armed Forces will be in Iraq for a long time to come. I applaud those men and women. Our soldiers, our sailors, our airmen, our marines, our National Guard, our Reserves--our troops--have displayed unique courage in the face of great trials. My support for them has never--and will never--waiver. They have earned the respect and thanks of this Nation. But even more than laudatory words, our troops deserve a plan for Iraq from their Commander in Chief. The American people deserve the same. We must have a plan with measurable goals and objectives, a plan that gives some surety to our military as well as to the people of this Nation. Today, in a speech to the National Endowment for Democracy, the President talked a great deal of why we have forces in Iraq, but the President did little to provide any plan for success. The American people want to know how we will measure progress. In response, the President said: We never back down, never give in and never accept anything less than complete victory. No specifics, no plans, no way to measure success. Maybe the President did not offer specifics because the specifics are not very encouraging. Consider the Iraqi troops. For a new American soldier, basic training takes 9 weeks to complete--9 weeks. The United States has, for more than 2\1/2\ years, been training a new Iraqi military. Basic training for all Iraqis, and specialized training after that--2\1/2\ years. In June, the Senate was told by the Department of Defense that 3 of 100 Iraqi battalions were fully trained, equipped, and capable of operating independently--what the Defense Department calls ``level one trained.'' Two and a half years: three battalions--three battalions. Between June and the end of September, one would assume that we would be growing that number. Yes, one would assume that we would be growing that number. We are training more Iraqi forces, so more Iraqis should be ready to stand up and defend themselves. Yet, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on September 29--just a few days ago--GEN John Abizaid, the Commander of the U.S. Central Command, poured cold water--cold water--on hopes for progress. Between June and September, the number of ``level one trained'' battalions went from three to one. How about that? Instead of moving forward, we are going backward. Perhaps the reason that the President did not tell the American people how to gauge success is because he does not have success to report. I must admit, I listen to every address--every address--about Iraq with great skepticism. And it is because of the track record of this administration. Don't just take my word for it. The record is replete with examples that cause one to look askance at the White House claims. One example is from this past May. Vice President Cheney was asked about progress against the insurgency by CNN. He responded: I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency. The Vice President was confident. The Vice President was unwavering. The Vice President was wrong. Again, in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee last Thursday, GEN George Casey, the Commanding General of the Multinational Force in Iraq, explained that the ``last throes'' was a rosy scenario. The average counterinsurgency in the 20th century has lasted nine years. Fighting insurgencies is a long-term proposition, and there's no reason that we should believe the insurgency in Iraq will take any less time to deal with. Now, those are the words not of Robert C. Byrd, but they are the words of General Casey. Whom should the American people believe? What should the American people believe? It is time for the deceptions and the distortions and the misrepresentations to end. The American people deserve the truth. Instead of broad platitudes, the American people deserve the facts. Most importantly, the American people deserve a plan. When will the Iraqi people be able to defend themselves? When will the Iraqi military be able to fight the insurgency without the American forces? When will the Iraqi police forces be able to control the streets? What is the timetable for reconstruction? What is the target for constant electrical power in the major cities? For communications? For safe transportation? What is our strategy for preparing the Iraqi people to be able to defend themselves? We seem to have no strategy--no strategy--with benchmarks for success, no plan for progress. How will we know victory if we cannot even define it? What is the plan for our heroes in Iraq? What is the plan to stabilize that nation? The American people and the Iraqi people deserve to know the answers. The people of the United States must know not only how their country became involved, but where we are heading. That is the end of the quotation. I agree with those words. But they are not mine. Those words belong to a Congressman from the State of Illinois in August 1965. Those words belong to our current Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld. And they echo as true today as they did in that summer 40 years ago. I urge the Bush administration to level with the American people. Moreover, I urge the White House to level with itself. Face the facts. Stop the spinning. Get a grip on the situation. Then please, please, oh, please, explain to us all where we are heading in Iraq. Mr. President, I thank all Senators and I yield the floor.

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside temporarily so that I may offer an amendment.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, more than 2,000 years have passed since Cicero said, ``Endless money forms the sinews of war.'' Let me repeat what I have said. More than 2,000 years have passed since Cicero, a great Roman senator, said, ``Endless money forms the sinews of war.'' How astute he was to point that out and how little the times have changed. Today, the United States is engaged not just in one war but two wars. The first of the two wars began 4 years ago when our country was invaded. Our country was attacked by 19 hijackers sent on their deadly mission by Osama bin Laden. That war continues today in Afghanistan. That is a war that was thrust upon us. That was a war in which the United States was invaded by 19 hijackers, not one of whom was from Iraq--not one. That war, as I say, was thrust upon us. The United States was invaded. The United States was attacked and thousands of Americans lost their lives. That is the war that I support. That is the war that I supported from the beginning. But there is also another war, a war which the United States started, a war in which the United States was the attacker. We didn't wait to be attacked; we attacked another nation. We invaded, the United States invaded another nation that did not pose a threat, a direct and immediate threat to our national security. We, the United States, invaded another country that did not act to provoke our invasion. Since March 19, 2003, our troops, Americans troops, have been sent into the breach in Iraq, a country which had no connection--none--no connection to the September 11 attacks on our country. I was against our policy with reference to the invasion of that country, Iraq. I was against that. That country did not pose an immediate threat to our national security, no. I said so then and I was right. No weapons of mass destruction were found. No weapons of mass destruction have been found to this day there in Iraq. I hold no brief for Saddam Hussein, but we acted under the unconstitutional doctrine of first strike. The first strike doctrine, that is the doctrine that we followed. That is the doctrine that got us into Iraq. It is unconstitutional on its face. Why? Because the Constitution says Congress shall have power to declare war. How can it be constitutional if a President, one man, Republican or Democrat or independent or whatever, can declare war if Congress has nothing to say about it, if Congress has no opportunity to debate it? I do not question the inherent power of any President to defend our country. Congress may be out of town. Congress may be in recess. If we are invaded, of course, he has the power to act. But that was not the case here. I and 22 other Senators voted against shifting that power to declare war, that constitutional power to declare war from the Congress to a President, and that law is still on the books. It has not been repealed. We can talk about that at another time, but let me say today, these two wars have cost the lives of many Americans. In the first war, the one being fought in Afghanistan and elsewhere against Osama bin Laden, 243 American troops have given their lives in the line of duty. I support our efforts in that war. I have done so from the beginning. In the second war, the war in Iraq, 1,934 young men and women have perished. I disagree with the policy that sent our troops to Iraq, but I join with all other patriotic Americans in supporting the men and the women who have been sent to Iraq. I don't support the policy that sent them there, but I support those men and women. They went, they heeded the call, they did their duty, and they are still doing their duty. Of course I support them. I join with all other Americans in supporting them and honoring those men and women who have paid the ultimate price in service to the United States. In addition to lives lost, these wars have also cost our country a fortune, a colossal fortune in our national wealth. According to the Congressional Research Service, the Congress has already appropriated $310 billion to pay for these two wars. The Defense Appropriations Committee bill being debated now in the Senate adds another $50 billion to that figure. Most observers believe that tens of billions more dollars will be required in a matter of months. Who knows, before it is all over, we may find that the ultimate cost in Treasury may amount to $1 trillion. Who knows, when we think of all the things that must be done. We have to replenish the equipment that has worn out, that has rusted, that has been destroyed--the military equipment. Our own military people will have their requests in this year, next year and the next year and the next year, for money to replace that equipment. Could we fight another war if we should be invaded today? Would we be prepared to fight another war? Could we? If these estimates are accurate, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could easily exceed $400 billion by early next year--$400 billion. That is $400 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. That is a lot of money, isn't it? Once again, ``Endless money forms the sinews of war.'' That is simply the visible part of the cost of the war. We are slowly, slowly but surely, coming to realize that there are financial costs to the war that are buried deep within the Government's ledgers. In June, the Department of Veterans Affairs admitted to a major shortfall in its budget. Working together with Senator Craig and Senator Murray, I supported an amendment to add $1.5 billion in emergency funds to the veterans health care budget. My colleagues and I then worked to add $1,977,000,000 to the VA budget for the fiscal year 2006. Why? Why? Why is the VA running short of funds? Part of the reason lies in the fact that the administration did not budget enough funds to take care of troops coming home from these wars with serious injuries. But there is more. These injured veterans have earned compensation from the VA for their wounds. According to the Defense Department, more than 15,000 troops have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. Congress is yet to see a full estimate of the costs of these veterans' benefits. There is also the matter of revenue that the Government coffers will never see because of the deployment of our troops to these wars. Troops serving in combat zones are exempt from income taxes. National Guardsmen and reservists often must do without their higher civilian pay during their deployment. No one would argue that wounded veterans should not receive compensation from the VA or the troops in war zones ought to pay taxes while they are risking their lives for our country. But the American people are not being told about these hidden costs of these wars. Why? Why is that? The fact is, the administration has never provided the Congress with a budget estimate of what the war is costing the American taxpayers. Some may argue that the budget resolution passed in Congress by the thinnest of margins included $50 billion for the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is true. That money is in there. The $50 billion also appears in this appropriations bill. But that estimate is just a number made out of whole cloth. The President did not request a single dime for the wars in his budget estimate submitted to Congress in February--not one thin dime, not even one copper penny. Instead, Congress picked a number out of thin air--$50 billion--and stuck it in the budget resolution. That number is not backed up by any number crunching, any careful analysis, or any budgetary data. It doesn't even match up with the numbers prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, which estimates that $85 billion will be required to fight these wars next year, nor is that $50 billion paid for. This $50 billion is simply added to our national debt, a debt that will have to be paid by our children and our children's children. I say one more time, ``Endless money forms the sinews of war.'' I am quoting Cicero, of course. The administration needs to budget for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It should not be sufficient for Congress to pick a number out of a hat, appropriate funds to match that number, and hope that our troops will be taken care of. The administration needs to step up to the plate and tell Congress and the American people how much it expects to spend on the war, what the money will be used for, and how our Nation is going to foot the bill. It may be easier said than done, but we ought to do our best. To some observers, the importance of budgeting for the war may seem like a furor over how much paper should be pushed around in Washington, DC. Although the terms used in this debate are arcane--how many people outside the beltway know anything, or much at least, about emergency supplementals, the budget process, or outlays and budget authority--the principles are vitally important to our country. There is an important principle that a country must share the burdens of war among its citizens. Think back to World War II and what was asked of the American people in that conflict: victory gardens, daylight savings, gasoline rationing, and on and on. We do not see anything like that today. Quite the opposite. For the first time in American history, our Nation has cut taxes during a time of war. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have forced great sacrifice. Let me say that again. These wars--the war in Afghanistan, which I support, the war in Iraq, which I have never thought we should engage in--have forced great sacrifice among those who serve our country, and their families as well. Our troops risk life and limb while their spouses, their parents, and their children pray for their safety and for their return home. It is these troops and their families who have had so little relief from the burdens of these wars. Last year, Congress passed a law to compensate Americans for spending up to $1,000 out of their own pockets to send body armor, boots, gloves, and other equipment to troops serving overseas. But the Pentagon still has not implemented this law, giving short shrift to those who have done the most to support our troops. These families have not been recompensed for their support of the troops. Why is the Defense Department bureaucracy so slow to implement this law? Why? Why is the Defense Department bureaucracy so slow to implement this law? It ought to be a priority to help these Americans who have done so much to help our troops. The sacrifices demanded by the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are falling disproportionately on the few. The President has said our Nation is at war. No. Our Nation is not at war. Our military is at war. Yes. The National Guard, the men and women in the military, they are at war but not the Nation. We scarcely hear much about it. Our troops are shedding their blood, and their families are doing so much to support them. Meanwhile, the average American goes about his day-to-day business with little interruption, only to pause in solemn reflection upon the occasional news report about the tragic death of another soldier from his community. When Winston Churchill rallied his country in World War II, he urged the British to ``defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets.'' It was a call not just to English soldiers to fight but for the country to share the burden of the struggle. What a stark contrast to the wars we are in today in which so little is asked of the American people compared to what is demanded of our military personnel. In light of the incredible toll of these wars on our country, it is time to rethink that unfair balance of sacrifice. Three times before, the Senate has voted to urge the administration to budget for the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so that there may be a debate about how the President intends to spread the sacrifice fairly among all Americans. Three times, the Senate has voted to urge the administration to budget for the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and three times that call has not been honored, it has been dismissed. The enormous cost of keeping hundreds of thousands of troops fighting in two wars, each of them half a world away, continues to be a black hole in the President's budget. Congress and the American people keep hearing the same old line: The administration cannot budget for the cost of the war because the true cost is unknowable. The Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, when he was asked about the cost, said the cost is unknowable. Of course, he is right. It is unknowable, but surely the administration has some estimate somewhere. Surely the Defense Department has some estimate, and it has had some estimate--some estimate of what the war was going to cost. We have heard that the cost is unknowable. We have heard that many times before. But it strains one's belief to argue that the Secretary of Defense, with legions of bureaucrats and accountants at his disposal, cannot make an estimate of how much it will take to support our troops for the fiscal year that began last week. With 18,000 American troops in Afghanistan and 149,000 troops in Iraq who are risking their lives each and every day, one would think that the Pentagon could muster the courage to estimate how much money it will take to support our fighting men and women. We are talking about an estimate. The amendment that I offer to the Defense appropriations bill again states the sense of the Senate that the President should budget for the war. We have been at these two wars a long time now. I could understand how he might not be able to budget for the first few months of a war, but we have been at these wars a long time and we still see no budget for them. Still the American people do not know. Whatever is requested of the Congress, the administration does it with supplemental appropriations bills. There are not very thorough hearings on supplemental appropriations bills. They say: We spent this much and we have to appropriate. The American people do not realize the cost of these wars. So let me say again, the amendment I offer to the Defense appropriations bill states it is the sense of the Senate that the President should budget for these wars. President Roosevelt did it for World War II, President Johnson did it for Vietnam, President Clinton did it for Bosnia, President Bush did it for Kosovo, and it is time to do it for Iraq and Afghanistan. Let the American people know how much of their hard-earned tax dollars will be needed for these wars. Let Congress debate how these costs must be borne. Let our Government take a responsible approach on how we pay for our troops in the field. I urge my colleagues to once again support the President, support my amendment, and urge the President to budget for the war. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Feingold may have his name added as a cosponsor of the amendment.