Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I shall not unduly delay the distinguished chairman, let me also thank our ranking member of that subcommittee, Mr. Inouye. I thank again Senator Stevens. He has been a great chairman of that committee, and he has always been fair with me. So once this bill is brought up before the Senate--and it will be up before the Senate very soon, within the next few minutes--I shall do everything I can to help to get action on this bill today. But let me say to the Senate and to the Senate leaders and to the Republican leaders in the House, this matter of extending and increasing the debt limit is a matter which should be brought before the American people. It should be debated; it should be voted upon. I shall do my best to see to it, if it is on any appropriations bill or any other bill, that we get a freestanding vote, and we are going to try to debate this issue. The American people are entitled to hear the debate on this bill. When I came to the Congress almost 52 years ago, they did not sneak the debt limit into an appropriations bill as the attempt might have been made here but for the good judgment of Senator Stevens and Senator Frist. They didn't sneak it into the bill. The Republicans controlled the House when I first came to the House of Representatives. They didn't do a thing like that. They laid everything on the table and they debated it. I hope we will get back to that point of debating the debt limit so the House Republicans will not be let off the hook. They have a responsibility to the American people to lay it on the table and to debate it. I thank the distinguished Senator from Alaska, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, for yielding to me. I do not object. I remove my reservation.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I do not object, but I say this so the Republican leadership in the House, in particular, understands that sneaking the debt limit in an appropriations bill is not going to get by. I thank the Senator. I no longer reserve.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Yes. I thank the distinguished chairman.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished friend, the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. Amendment No. 3502 Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, last year, the Senate overwhelmingly approved an amendment that I offered to urge the President to budget for ongoing military operations. Mr. President, 81 Senators agreed that the administration should include in its budget request, which is sent to Congress in February each year, an estimate of the funds needed to support our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The sense-of-the-Senate amendment that I authored was included in the fiscal year 2004 Defense Appropriations Act, as signed into law by the President on September 30, 2003. But there was no request for funds for our troops deployed overseas in the budget that came to Congress on February 2, 2004. That budget was stone-cold silent about our troops in Iraq and in Afghanistan. It was as if the White House had no plan for how to pay our troops overseas, or how to pay for their fuel and ammunition. We sometimes hear Korea described as the forgotten war, but the President's budget forgot about the wars ongoing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Senators on both sides of the aisle realized the folly of ignoring the massive costs of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In an act of fiscal responsibility, the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee included in his mark of the fiscal year 2005 budget resolution an additional $30 billion reserve fund for the costs of the wars. The House of Representatives went even further by including a $50 billion reserve fund in its version of the budget resolution. Again, these funds were not requested by the President, but Congress decided to include them for the sake of fiscal sanity. The Defense appropriations bill before the Senate today includes $25 billion to pay for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The White House requested these funds literally at the last minute. The Armed Services Committee had completed its markup of the Defense authorization bill the week before the administration submitted its request for these moneys. Talk about hiding the ball, the administration stiff-arms Congress by not making any budget estimate for Iraq and Afghanistan until after the markup of the Defense authorization bill is completed. Does anyone think this $25 billion will cover the cost of the wars for the next 12 months? Not a chance, Mr. President. According to the Department of Defense, the cost of operations in Iraq now averages $4 billion per month. The cost of operations in Afghanistan is up to $900 million-plus per month. At that rate of spending, the President's $25 billion reserve fund will not even last half a year. Talk about short-changing our troops. That is why, for better or worse, the White House is planning on springing a supplemental budget request of $50 billion or more on Congress and the American taxpayer sometime next year. Tragically, all of these funds are being financed by deficit spending. Since the administration refuses to send Congress an estimate of how much the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will cost, much less any plan for how to pay for those costs, each last-minute emergency request for funds that the President sends to Congress sends our country deeper into red ink. Congress has already devoted $122 billion to Iraq, and every single dollar of that amount is going to have to be paid off by the sweat and toil of our children and grandchildren for decades to come, because it is the taxes the future generations will pay that will be used to finance the deficit spending of today. What kind of wars are we running when we saddle our children, and their children yet to be born, with the responsibility of paying for them? I have heard all of the tired excuses about why the administration does not want to estimate the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. I wish I had a nickel for every time I have heard someone say that the cost of the war is ``unknowable.'' For example, on July 9, 2003, at a hearing of the Armed Services Committee, I asked Secretary Rumsfeld for an estimate of how much is being spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. His response? ``I would not want to venture a guess and be wrong.'' I wouldn't accept that answer. I told Secretary Rumsfeld to go call the Pentagon and find out. That's exactly what he did, and he finally reported back that we were spending $4.8 billion in Iraq and Afghanistan every month. That's why I just don't buy it when the administration says it has no idea what it might cost to finance ongoing military operations. It is an open secret that the Defense Department is well able to produce an estimate of the cost of its operations. The only problem is that Congress has been continually stiff-armed in our attempts to learn about those estimates. I have also heard time and again that the United States never budgets for the cost of wars in advance. That is just not true. The Congressional Research Service does state that ``since 1990, Congress generally has funded combat operations with supplemental appropriations.'' However, the Congressional Research Service also concludes that as military operations become more predictable, such as in peacekeeping operations, Congress begins to fund those operations by a combination of regular budget appropriations and supplemental appropriations and, eventually, by regular appropriations alone. Aside from the last decade, there is a long history of Presidents requesting funds in regular appropriations bills for ongoing military operations. CRS has reported that President Roosevelt requested regular appropriations for the conduct of World War II in fiscal years 1943, 1944, 1945, and 1946. Presidents Johnson and Nixon received funding for the Vietnam War in every Defense Appropriations Act from fiscal year 1966 through 1973. In fact, there were no supplemental appropriations bills for the Vietnam War after 1969. Even in more modern times, ongoing military operations in Bosnia, Kosovo, and the patrol of the no-fly zones over Iraq were made part of the regular budget and appropriations process. The amendment that I offer to urge the President to budget for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan isn't a break with how our government pays for wars. My amendment says that the President should stick with historical precedent and fiscal responsibility in budgeting for the wars that we are now in. The amendment that I offer today is precisely the same amendment that I offered to last year's Defense Appropriations bill, which was supported by 81 Senators. The amendment simply states the sense of the Senate that the President should request funds for ongoing military operations in his regular budget request, and that such funds should be appropriated in regular accounts. The administration's practice for paying for the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan must change. This week, Deputy Defense Secretary Wolfowitz acknowledged to a House committee that our troops could be in Iraq for years to come. If that is true--and I hope that it is not--now is the time for Congress to get serious about making the President figure out a budget plan for paying for the massive cost of a long-term military presence in Iraq. The alternative is to continue with the current administration policy: more last minute spending requests, more reports that our troops are running out of money, and more deficit spending. This is a recipe for a fiscal disaster. Current White House policy on paying for the war perpetuates an ongoing budgetary crisis for our troops overseas: rather than planing for their needs, we force our troops to bounce from one stop-gap spending measure to another. This is just plain wrong. Congress should not allow itself to be streamrolled. It should not allow the President to send up an emergency supplemental, and then demand immediate action by the Congress. That is now mistakes are made. Last year, the President failed to request sufficient funds for body armor for our troops. Last year, the President failed to request sufficient funds for armor for Humvees. Last year, the President failed to request sufficient funds for locating and destroying conventional weapons in Iraq. Now all Americans know what tragic mistakes those were. Congress must insist on receiving a detailed budget request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so that mistakes like those are not repeated. The Byrd amendment tells the President that he should budget for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is a simple, common-sense approach that promotes fiscal responsibility. The Senate already endorsed this approach last year in an overwhelming vote, and I urge my colleagues to support my amendment again. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished friend. I really wish to have a rollcall vote on this amendment. It was a very popular amendment last year. I thank the distinguished chairman for his willingness to proceed on a voice vote.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. That would be very satisfactory.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. BYRD. What do these resolutions do?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator. I thought there was another resolution the Senator mentioned.

Mr. BYRD. That was all, Mr. President, this one resolution?

Mr. BYRD. The Burma resolution, is that the only resolution to which the Senator referred?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I remove my reservation.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object--I probably won't object--will the Senator identify the first resolution to which he alluded?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, does the Senator from Kentucky want to be recognized?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I voted against the Frist-Daschle resolution on the Middle East. My constituents are entitled to an explanation. I opposed the resolution, and I know the leaders, and indeed all of the Members of this body, are genuinely committed to advancing the cause of peace in the Middle East, but no one should be naive enough to think this resolution will move the process forward one centimeter. If anything, the lopsided pro-Israel slant of this resolution will serve only to strengthen the growing distrust of moderate Arab States toward the United States. This resolution is a blatantly unfair reading of the current status of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. It claims that the President's roadmap for peace is still relevant, even though it has been completely stalled for more than a year. The resolution wholeheartedly endorses Prime Minister Sharon's view of the barrier wall being built in West Bank, without so much as a mention of the wide opposition to its construction from moderate Arab countries, such as Jordan. The resolution contains language that could easily be construed to be in support of the controversial, and some claim illegal, practice of the targeted assassinations carried out by the Israeli Armed Forces. The United States is completely right to condemn the violence carried out by Palestinian terrorists, but we cannot turn a blind eye to the unwarranted excesses of the Israeli Government under Mr. Sharon. If our country truly wants to push both sides toward the negotiating table, we should condemn all violence arising from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, including that which has claimed the lives of innocent Palestinians. There is blame to be shouldered by both sides. If we are to regain our credibility--let me say that again. If we are to regain our credibility as honest brokers in the Middle East, we need to acknowledge that fact. Progress will only be made in resolving the Middle East violence when the United States weighs in with a fair, evenhanded position that points out the wrongdoings of both sides. Resolutions such as this one are a far cry from being fair, objective, or even-handed. Besides the specific provisions of this resolution, I oppose the thrust of the resolution, which is intended to express ``the Sense of the Congress in Support of United States Policy for a Middle East Peace Process.'' The United States has been completely disengaged from the Israeli-Palestinian peace process for far too long, and the number of victims on both sides is growing far too fast. I cannot support a policy that boils down to a benign neglect of the violence in the Middle East. Resolutions such as the one the Senate has taken up today may serve as a useful platform for a press release or a stump speech, but they do nothing to advance the cause of peace in the Middle East. I would jump at the chance to vote for a meaningful resolution that articulated the Senate's support of a viable policy to resolve the conflict between the Palestinians and the Israelis. But this administration has abandoned any pretense of promoting such a policy. To voice the Senate's support for what amounts to a set of empty promises and incendiary rhetoric is a foolish exercise of which I want no part. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, it is no secret that America's military forces are stretched thin across the globe. The relentless fighting in Iraq has exacted a heavy toll on the U.S. military, forcing thousands of American troops to face extended tours in a dangerous war zone. Stop- loss orders have prevented thousands more from leaving the military when their obligations have been fulfilled. America's men and women in uniform have gone far beyond the call of duty to meet the increasing demands that have been placed on them, and we owe them a great debt of gratitude. In the face of such hardship facing America's military personnel, this is hardly a propitious time to arbitrarily expand U.S. military obligations overseas, and yet that is exactly what the bill in front of us does. In an effort to help the Government of Colombia launch a new offensive in its civil war against guerrilla insurgents and the drug trafficking that funds them, the Defense authorization bill substantially increases the number of U.S. military and civilian personnel authorized to support the operations of Plan Colombia in Colombia. Plan Colombia is a 6-year antinarcotics initiative authorized by Congress in fiscal year 2000 to combat cocaine production and trafficking in Colombia. From the outset, many Members of Congress worry that United States intervention in Colombia's drug wars--even noncombat intervention--could serve to draw the United States into the thick of Colombia's longrunning civil war. In an effort to preserve congressional oversight and prevent mission creep in Colombia, Congress placed a cap on the number of U.S. personnel who could participate in Plan Colombia. Current law limits the number of U.S. personnel in Colombia in support of Plan Colombia to 400 military troops and 400 civilian contractors, for a total of 800. This is a part of my statement. I believe it was in the year 2000 that we placed a limitation. Originally, the 800 was divided into 500 military and 300 contractors, making a total of 800. That limitation on the number is current. This bill, however, would double the number of military personnel authorized to participate in Plan Colombia, raising the troop cap from 400 to 800. That troop cap is being doubled. The cap on civilian contractors would be increased by 50 percent, climbing from 400 to 600. This bill says let us put in a little more. Let us lift the number. The increases reflect the number of military and civilian personnel requested by the administration to carry out a 2-year training and support operation in relation to an aggressive new counterinsurgency offensive being undertaken by the Government of Colombia called Plan Patriota. With the stroke of a pen, just like that--just a stroke of the pen--this bill would increase the number of U.S. civilian and military personnel authorized to be in Colombia to support Plan Colombia from 800 to 1400. So we are just inching along, just inching along. That may seem like an insignificant increase to some, but I expect it looms large in the minds of U.S. forces who have seen their tours in Iraq extended or who have been prevented from leaving the military when their obligations have been fulfilled. The 800 military personnel who could be sent to Colombia under the proposal are 800 military personnel who would not be eligible to relieve American troops in Iraq, Afghanistan, or elsewhere. Before signing off on such a measure, the Senate should consider very carefully the ultimate goals of Plan Colombia and the amount of oversight Congress should maintain on the program. I am offering an amendment. The amendment I am offering is an effort to address these considerations. My amendment provides a reasonable and sustainable level of support to continue Plan Colombia and to support Plan Patriota, but it limits the support to immediate needs, not presumed needs a year or two from now. Under my amendment, the cap on both U.S. military and civilian personnel would increase from 400 to 500 each, for a total limit of 1,000. My amendment conforms with the House-passed version of the Defense authorization bill. The House bill caps the number of military personnel in Colombia at 500. The House bill does not address the civilian caps, but the State Department has determined it needs fewer than 100 additional contractors next year to support Plan Patriota. Plan Colombia remains a volatile and dangerous mission. Three American civilian contractors operating in support of Plan Colombia have been held captive in the jungle by Colombian insurgents for more than a year. Five other U.S. civilians were killed as a result of aircraft crashes. Additional cocaine fumigation flights have been fired on, and since August 2003, two planes have been downed by hostile fire. This is not the time, colleagues, and Colombia is not the place for the United States to ramp up its military commitment so sharply. Although the numbers may be relatively small, the mission in Colombia has been constantly increasing. That is the problem. The mission in Colombia has been constantly increasing, evolving from a strictly antinarcotics campaign into an operation encompassing antiterrorism, pipeline protection, and an air- bridge denial program to intercept drug trafficking flights in Colombia. A major infusion of additional U.S. personnel into Colombia will place more American personnel at risk and will increase the prospects of the United States being drawn ever deeper into Colombia's civil war. The State Department has confirmed that it needs fewer than 100 additional personnel next year to accomplish its goals. The Defense Department has estimated that it needs no more than 158 additional personnel to support the second phase of Plan Patriota next year. Defense Department officials have also said they do not need a total of 800 personnel and do not anticipate a time when 800 military personnel would be in Colombia in support of the initiative. The Department is asking Congress to provide broad flexibility through an unnecessarily large troop commitment at a time when both human and financial military resources are severely limited. I think Congress should take a more conservative approach to Plan Colombia and particularly to the involvement of U.S. forces in Plan Patriota. I am willing to authorize a modest increase in the number of military and civilian personnel for next year, but I believe Congress should review the progress that has been made a year from now before determining what the final number should be. If the Pentagon cannot tell Congress how many troops it will need in Iraq a year from now, how can it say with such certainty how many forces it will need in Colombia 2 years from now? The United States has spent the past 4 years training and equipping Colombian troops and flying cocaine crop eradication missions for the Government of Colombia. According to the Congressional Research Service, U.S. funding for Plan Colombia, since fiscal year 2000, totals approximately 3.7 billion bucks. The administration has characterized the next 2 years as a ``window of opportunity'' to assist Colombia with its war against the insurgents. Now, that may or it may not prove to be true, but the burden of securing that window has fallen on--guess who?--Uncle Sam. That is where it lies, in the lap of Uncle Sam. If the Government of Colombia is as committed to eradicating the drug crops and defeating the guerillas as the administration contends, then the Government of Colombia should take the lead in seizing this opportunity. Four years and $3.7 billion into Plan Colombia, the United States should be on the verge of tapering down its commitment to Colombia, not sharply increasing it. Where are we going here? When is this going to come to an end? Plan Colombia has ample flexibility built into it to allow the military to surge, if needed, to respond to emergencies such as search and rescue or evacuation of operation. In addition, at the request of the administration, Congress has agreed to broaden routine exemptions to personnel-counting procedures, giving the Defense and State Department even greater flexibility in managing the number of personnel in Colombia. Routine exceptions now include such activities as port calls, DOD civilian visits, certain military exercises, aircrew overnights as needed for weather, maintenance, or crew rest overlapped during deployment location, headquarter staff visits, and traditional commander's activities, just to name a few. Instead of the United States committing more troops and more civilian contractors to Colombia than are actually needed, the Government of Colombia should increase the resources it is committing to Plan Patriota to mitigate the burden on the United States. My amendment increases U.S. support for Plan Colombia, but it does so at a prudent level that allows the Defense and State Departments to commit the minimum number of additional U.S. personnel needed to assist the Government of Colombia in prosecuting Plan Patriota while maintaining necessary congressional oversight on Plan Colombia. In recognition of the current sacrifices this Nation is demanding of its men and women in uniform, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and to resist unwarranted and excessive increases in a level of military and civilian personnel that may be deployed in Colombia. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield the full 3\1/2\ minutes to my friend from Michigan.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on this amendment?

Mr. BYRD. I ask for the yeas and nays on this amendment.

Mr. BYRD. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may proceed for no more than 3 minutes.