Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object--I withdraw my reservation.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, a mass liquidation of the Government is underway. U.S. corporations and industry entrepreneurs are salivating at this administration's effort to open at least 850,000 Federal jobs to private contractors. If this administration has its way, the most basic services of the Federal Government--from national security to tax collection to air traffic control to the maintenance of our national parks--will be handed over to private contractors like birthday party favors. And to expedite the process the administration has rewritten the Federal Government's A-76 contracting rules for the entire Federal Government, opening each agency and department to a host of potential abuses. The President's proposal has political disaster written all over it. I voted in favor of the Mikulski amendment to block this egregious scheme from going into effect. Also, the record should reflect the fact that the Thomas amendment would allow executive agencies to use funds appropriated for other purposes to monitor the performance of an activity or function that has been subjected to public-private competition. Such a provision is a preemption of the appropriations powers of Congress. The Congress should not be handing over such broad spending authority to executive agencies. I voted to protect congressional prerogatives and against the Thomas amendment. Amendment No. 1928

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment.

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I send the amendment to the desk.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be waived.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, and I also thank the distinguished Democratic whip for their courtesies. Madam President, in 1837, Danish author Hans Christian Andersen wrote a wonderful fairytale which he titled ``The Emperor's New Clothes.'' It may be the very first example of the power of political correctness. It is the story of a ruler of a distant land who was so enamored of his appearance and his clothing that he had a different suit for every hour of the day. One day two rogues arrived in town, claiming to be gifted weavers. They convinced the emperor that they could weave the most wonderful cloth, which had a magical property. The clothes were only visible to those who were completely pure in heart and spirit. The emperor was impressed and ordered the weavers to begin work immediately. The rogues, who had a deep understanding of human nature, began to feign work on empty looms. Minister after minister went to view the new clothes and all came back exhorting the beauty of the cloth on the looms even though none of them could see a thing. Finally a grand procession was planned for the emperor to display his new finery. The emperor went to view his clothes and was shocked to see absolutely nothing, but he pretended to admire the fabulous cloth, inspect the clothes with awe, and, after disrobing, go through the motions of carefully putting on a suit of the new garments. Under a royal canopy the emperor appeared to the admiring throng of his people--all of whom cheered and clapped because they all knew the rogue weavers' tale and did not want to be seen as less than pure of heart. But, the bubble burst when an innocent child loudly exclaimed, for the whole kingdom to hear, that the emperor had nothing on at all. He had no clothes. That tale seems to me very like the way this Nation was led to war. We were told that we were threatened by weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but they have not been seen. We were told that throngs of Iraqis would welcome our troops as liberators. They have not been seen as liberators but as occupiers. We were told that the throngs of Iraqis would welcome our troops with flowers, but no throngs or flowers appeared. We were led to believe that Saddam Hussein was connected to the attack on the twin towers and the Pentagon, but no evidence to that effect has ever been produced. We were told in 16 words that Saddam Hussein tried to buy ``yellow cake'' from Africa for production of nuclear weapons, but the story has turned into empty air. We were frightened with visions of mushroom clouds, but they turned out to be only vapors of the mind. We were told that major combat was over but 101--as of October 17-- Americans have died in combat since that proclamation from the deck of an aircraft carrier by our very own emperor in his new clothes. Our emperor says that we are not occupiers, yet we show no inclination to relinquish the country of Iraq to its people. Those who have dared to expose the nakedness of the administration's policies in Iraq have been subjected to scorn. Those who have noticed the elephant in the room--that is, the fact that this war was based on falsehoods--have had our patriotism questioned. Those who have spoken aloud the thought shared by hundreds of thousands of military families across this country, that our troops should return quickly and safely from the dangers half a world away, have been accused of cowardice. We have then seen the untruths, the dissembling, the fabrication, the misleading inferences surrounding this rush to war in Iraq wrapped quickly in the flag. The right to ask questions, debate, and dissent is under attack. The drums of war are beaten ever louder in an attempt to drown out those who speak of our predicament in stark terms. Even in the Senate, our history and tradition of being the world's greatest deliberative body is being snubbed. This huge spending bill-- $87 billion--has been rushed through this Chamber in just 1 month. There were just three open hearings by the Senate Appropriations Committee on $87 billion--$87 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born--$87 billion without a single outside witness called to challenge the administration's line. Ambassador Bremer went so far as to refuse to return to the Appropriations Committee to answer additional questions because, and I quote: ``I don't have time. I'm completely booked, and I have to get back to Baghdad to my duties.'' Despite this callous stiff-arm of the Senate and its duties to ask questions in order to represent the American people, few dared to voice their opposition to rushing this bill through these halls of Congress. Perhaps they were intimidated by the false claims that our troops are in immediate need of more funds. But the time has come for the sheep-like political corrections which has cowed Members of this Senate to come to an end. The emperor has no clothes. This entire adventure in Iraq has been based on propaganda and manipulation. Eighty-seven billion dollars is too much to pay for the continuation of a war based on falsehoods. Taking the nation to war based on misleading rhetoric and hyped intelligence is a travesty and a tragedy. It is the most cynical of all cynical acts. It is dangerous to manipulate the truth. It is dangerous because once having lied, it is difficult to ever be believed again. Having misled the American people and stampeded them to war, this administration must now attempt to sustain a policy predicated on falsehoods. The President asks for billions from those same citizens who knew that they were misled about the need to go to war. We misinformed and insulted our friends and allies and now this administration is having more than a little trouble getting help from the international community. It is perilous to mislead. The single-minded obsession of this administration to now make sense of the chaos in Iraq, and the continuing propaganda which emanates from the White House painting Iraq as the geographical center of terrorism is distracting our attention from Afghanistan and the 60 other countries in the world where terrorists hide. It is sapping resources which could be used to make us safer from terrorists on our own shores. The body armor for our own citizens still has many, many chinks. Have we forgotten that the most horrific terror attacks in history occurred right here at home? Yet, this administration turns back money for homeland security, while the President pours billions into security for Iraq. I am powerless to understand or explain such a policy. I have tried mightily to improve this bill. I twice tried to separate the reconstruction money in this bill, so that those dollars could be considered separately from the military spending. I offered an amendment to force the administration to craft a plan to get other nations to assist the troops and formulate a plan to get the U.N. in, and the U.S. out, of Iraq. Twice I tried to rid the bill of expansive, flexible authorities that turn this $87 billion into a blank check. The American people should understand we provide more foreign aid for Iraq in this bill, $20.3 billion, than we provide for the rest of the world. I attempted to remove from this bill billions of dollars in wasteful programs and divert those funds to better use, but at every turn my efforts were thwarted by the vapid argument that we must all support the requests of the Commander in Chief. I cannot stand by and continue to watch our grandchildren and their children become increasingly burdened by the billions of dollars that fly out of the Treasury for a war and a policy based largely on propaganda, hype, and prevarication. We are borrowing $87 billion to finance this adventure in Iraq. The President is asking this Senator to pay for this war with increased debt, a debt that will have to be paid by our children and by those same troops who are currently fighting this war. I cannot support outlandish tax cuts that plunge our country into potentially disastrous debt while our troops are fighting and dying-- four more died within the last 24 hours--in a war that the White House chose to begin. I cannot support the continuation of a policy that unwisely ties down 150,000 American troops for the foreseeable future with no end in sight. I cannot support a President who refuses to authorize the reasonable change in course that would bring traditional allies to our side in Iraq. I cannot support the politics of zeal and ``might makes right'' that created the new American arrogance and unilateralism that passes for foreign policy in this administration. I cannot support this foolish manifestation of the dangerous and destabilizing doctrine of preemption that changes the image of America into that of a reckless bully. The emperor has no clothes and our former allies around the world were the first to loudly observe it. I shall vote against this bill because I cannot support a policy based on prevarication. I cannot support doling out 87 billion additional of our hard-earned tax dollars when I have so many doubts about the wisdom of its use. I began my remarks with a fairytale. I shall close my remarks with a horror story in the form of a quote from the book ``Nuremberg Diaries,'' written by G.M. Gilbert, in which the author interviews Herman Gehrig: We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction. . . . But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. There is one difference. . . . In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars. Oh, that is all well and good, but voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them that they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for a lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, do I have any time remaining?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.

Mr. BYRD. May I say to the distinguished Senator from Alaska that he holds no monopoly on the support for the troops. I was supporting American troops before the Senator from Alaska ever came to Washington. I have been supporting the American troops for over 50 years. And let the Record not stand with the Senator's words, if I interpreted them correctly, that those who vote against this bill are voting against the troops. I defy that statement. I defy that statement, and I hurl it back into the teeth of the Senator from Alaska. I support the troops. I would say that every Senator here, regardless of how he or she votes, supports the troops. So do not throw that old canard over here, over this way. I am sorry that the Senator from Alaska takes that view. I thought each of us could have our own viewpoint here without being charged with not supporting the troops. I regret the Senator from Alaska takes this view. I am sure that there are a lot of the American people out there-- millions of them--for whom I speak and for whom those who vote against this bill today speak who do not believe that this war was justified, who do not believe in the doctrine of preemption, who do not believe that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. They have not been found yet. So, Mr. President, I close by congratulating those Senators who have the courage to speak their will, to stand up for their own consciences, and who speak for those soldiers, men and women, who are in Iraq today who did not ask to go there but who feel that those of us who speak our will speak for them and who do not support the doctrine of preemption. Fie on that doctrine of preemption! Fie on it! Here we have an America that has invaded another country that did not invade our country, that did not attack us. That is a dangerous doctrine. Those who vote against this bill are voting against that doctrine. So do not be ashamed of it. I close with the words written on a statue to Benjamin Hill that stands in Atlanta, GA: Who saves his country, saves himself, saves all things, and all things saved do bless him! Who lets his country die, lets all things die, dies himself ignobly, and all things dying curse him! Vote to save your country, I say to my colleagues. Vote to save your country. I was not brought here by any Commander in Chief. No Commander in Chief brought me here, and no Commander in Chief is going to send me home. My first and last stand by which I live and by which I hope to die is this Constitution of the United States. It says I have a right, and the men and women of this Chamber have a duty, to speak the people's will. There are millions of people out there, millions of men and women, there are many men and women in Iraq who believe that we who vote against this bill today speak for them. I am not ashamed to do it. I am proud to do it. Yes, I voted against sending American troops into Iraq. Yes, I am one of the 23. And if I had it to do over again, I would vote the same way again--10 times, 10 times 100 against this doctrine, this doctrine of preemptive strikes. Fie on that doctrine! Fie on it! Now, if the Senator from Alaska wishes to talk further, I will be glad to hear him. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. BYRD. Does the Senator wish for me to yield him 2 minutes?

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. I call regular order with respect to amendment 1819, and I send an amendment to the desk.

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

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, by now it has become evident to even the most die-hard supporter of the President's goals for the reconstruction of Iraq that the $20.3 billion request presented to Congress contains scores of questionable projects and programs: $95 million for basic cosmetics at Iraq's airport; $19 million to build a wireless Internet system for the Iraq post office; $9 million to outfit Iraq with ZIP Codes; $54 million for a computer study for the Iraq Postal Service. The list goes on and on and on. In fact, the budget request for the reconstruction of Iraq is riddled with frivolous, preposterous items. This is not just my conclusion. The Republican-controlled House Appropriations Committee last week found a total of $1.655 billion in questionable and unnecessary expenditures buried deep within the President's $20.3 billion request for Iraq's reconstruction. As a result, the Republican-controlled House Appropriations Committee reallocated that money to other priorities. I applaud the actions of the House Appropriations Committee. The amendment I am proposing, and which is cosponsored by Senators Durbin, Biden, Leahy, Dorgan, Mikulski, Landrieu, and Feinstein, would mirror the cuts made by the House Appropriations Committee and reallocate those funds to four areas of far more urgent priority: $600 million to secure and destroy conventional weapons in Iraq; $386 million to accelerate reconstruction activities in Afghanistan; $200 million for disaster relief for Liberia, of which $50 million is allocated from funds in the bill; and $519 million to repair critical military and Coast Guard facilities in the United States damaged by Hurricane Isabel. The projects for which the President is seeking $1.655 billion in funding have nothing to do with protecting American troops in Iraq, and they have nothing to do with enhanced security in Iraq. Why does the administration need to spend $2 million on 40 garbage trucks, at $50,000 each? Why does the administration need $20 million for a 4-week business course at $10,000 per student? Why does a country rich in oil reserves--the second largest in the world--need $900 million to import petroleum products? According to the Congressional Research Service, if we purchased those petroleum products at market prices, it would cost $704 million. I wonder who is profiting from this sweetheart deal at the U.S. taxpayers' expense. And that is to say nothing about the billions of dollars being requested to upgrade the transportation, water, and energy sectors of the Iraq economy to levels not seen in decades. These are not funds to buy body armor for our troops or secure munitions that may be used against them. We are talking about building dams in the middle of the desert. There is no need more urgent than the need to protect U.S. troops in Iraq from the vicious guerrilla warfare that has been overshadowing their operations and causing intolerable deaths and injuries. Almost 200 U.S. troops have been killed in Iraq since the President declared an end to major combat operations last May, more than half as a result of guerrilla warfare. American soldiers have been the victims of assassinations, mortar attacks, rocket-propelled grenades, snipers, and road mines. These are all conventional weapons attacks. Earlier, senior American officials estimated that as much as 650,000 tons of ammunition remained unguarded at thousands of sites used by the Iraqi security forces. This week, the New York Times reported that military officials now believe there may be as much as 1 million tons of leftover weapons and ammunition scattered throughout Iraq. Even more troubling, the Times asserted that two recent suicide bombings in Baghdad and virtually every other attack on American soldiers and Iraqis were carried out with weapons looted from Saddam Hussein's arsenal. GEN John Abizaid, commander of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, told the Senate Appropriations Committee last month: [T]here is more ammunition in Iraq than any place I've ever been in my life, and it is all not securable . . . I wish I could tell you that we had it all under control, but we don't. Mr. President, we know that scores of conventional weapons sites are not secure. We know these sites are being looted. We know these weapons could be and are being used against our troops. Yet the administration is asking us to believe that garbage trucks and parking garages are a higher priority than securing these weapons sites. The President's budget request includes only $300 million in a catchall account that lumps munitions security in with critically needed bulletproof vests and the rapid fielding of technological advances. This is the same budget request that includes $697 million for sewage improvements in Iraq, $150 million for the aforementioned garbage trucks and landfill sites, $200 million for an America-Iraqi Enterprise Fund, and $110 million for something called Market Oriented Specialized Training. Where on Earth is the administration getting its priorities? The Defense Department needs significantly more than an unspecified web of an already underfunded account to accelerate the effort to shut down Iraq's weapons dumps. This amendment is an attempt to restore a measure of sensibility to this bill. This amendment would delete $600 million from some of the most egregious provisions included in the President's request, and would reallocate those funds for the search and destruction of conventional weapons. The amount of money that is being redirected to this crucial mission is not a random figure. It is equal to the amount of money the media has reported was requested in this bill for the--so far--futile search for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and it is the sum U.S. authorities say they could use to expedite the efforts to secure and destroy loose conventional weapons in Iraq. Without additional funding, and a stepped-up program, U.S. officials estimate it could take 18 years to disarm Iraq. Mr. President, America's soldiers in Iraq cannot wait that long. We have already spent substantial sums of money in Iraq in an effort to find some scrap of evidence that Saddam Hussein possessed and was poised to use weapons of mass destruction. In the first Iraq war supplemental last spring, Congress approved $300 million for that purpose. For some reason, the administration has classified the current funding request for the Iraq survey team. It is unclear to me why this should be a classified figure. The creation of a group to locate weapons of mass destruction is not classified. Their mission to find weapons of mass destruction is not classified. The funding request included in the first supplemental for Iraq was not classified. It seems the only reason to classify that information now is to protect this administration from further embarrassment about how much it is spending to justify its largely discredited claims. This administration made a momentous effort out of preparing our troops for attack from weapons of mass destruction, and here we are losing a life almost every day to common, generic, conventional weapons being dug out of piles without even a simple fence. So accelerating the effort to secure and destroy conventional weapons in Iraq is a matter of the highest priority. Another priority in the war against terror is to speed the stabilization and reconstruction of Afghanistan. Contrary to assertions by Vice President Cheney that Iraq is the central front on the war on terror, Afghanistan, the Taliban, and most especially al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden represent the true heart of the war on terror. And these demons are not to be found in Iraq. Their power base is in Afghanistan. We cannot afford to forget Afghanistan. The President's budget request includes just $799 million for relief and reconstruction in Afghanistan. This is not enough. The situation in Afghanistan appears to be deteriorating as the Taliban shows signs of reconstituting itself. The House Appropriations Committee allocated an additional $375 million to speed up the reconstruction efforts in Afghanistan. The Senate should do no less. So this amendment adds $386 million for Afghanistan. We need to deal with the damage that Hurricane Isabel inflicted on U.S. military installations and Coast Guard facilities in the United States. As sympathetic as I am to the need for garbage trucks and vocational training institutes and employment offices in Iraq, I am even more concerned about the devastation Hurricane Isabel brought to a number of our east coast military and Coast Guard facilities. The operational facilities and family housing units alike suffered severe damage. Unfortunately, the military cannot tap into homeowners insurance when a storm sweeps through. The cost of repairing the damage caused by Hurricane Isabel comes out of operating expenses or it comes at the expense of other needed facility improvements. We have many glaring needs in Iraq and elsewhere that the President's budget request fails to meet. I believe we can be far more effective than the President by redirecting a small portion of the funds requested for dubious programs in Iraq to programs of obvious and immediate priority. I urge my colleagues to endorse the reduction made by the House Appropriations Committee and to redirect the $1.655 billion in funding to secure and destroy conventional weapons in Iraq, to accelerate the relief and reconstruction activities in Afghanistan, to provide emergency relief to Liberia and Sudan, and to help the United States military and Coast Guard recover from the devastation of Hurricane Isabel. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in response, I think everything has been said as far as I, personally, am concerned. I would say that a good bit has been said about the funding for a prison. There are funds in the bill for 26 detention facilities. It will take years to build the new prison that is proposed by the President. I don't know how a prison that will not be finished for years protects our troops today or tomorrow or a year from now. I find it hard to imagine that our troops would be protected by projects such as this. As far as I am concerned, I am ready to yield back time.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, the National Guard has been stretched to the breaking point. Not since the Korean war has the United States deployed so many members of the National Guard and the Reserves. Right now, more than 160,000 members of the National Guard and the Reserves are on active duty around the world, and more reservists are getting ready to ship out to Iraq. Last month, the President activated 10,000 more guardsmen for service in Iraq and put an additional 5,000 troops on alert. More callups are doubtlessly in the works. I have heard from many families anxious to know when their deployed loved ones might return home. I expect that all Senators have received similar letters and telephone calls. All of these families expressed a deep frustration with the open- ended, unfocused deployment of Guard and Reserve units. While the Nation's citizen soldiers are proud to serve their country overseas, they also have obligations at home. These part-time soldiers are full- time doctors, firemen, policemen, and a host of other roles which are critical to the security of American communities. We must do better to balance their commitments at home with their deployments overseas. The amendment before the Senate will help to relieve the strain that is being placed on our citizen soldier. It would prohibit the involuntary deployment of a member of the National Guard or the Reserves to support Operation Iraqi Freedom if that member has been deployed for a period of more than 6 months in the previous 6 years. This amendment would put an end to the back-to-back deployments that are causing the most strain on our reservists and their families. The amendment is based in part upon the direction that Secretary Rumsfeld issued on July 9, 2003, that members of the National Guard and Reserves should not be subject to more than one long deployment every 6 years. We are engaged in a long-term occupation mission under hostile circumstances. There are better ways to get the troops we need for this mission than calling tens of thousands of Guard and Reserve troops away from their homes, away from their jobs, away from their communities for 1 year at a time. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, we need to restore predictability in the lives of those who serve in the National Guard and the Reserves. This amendment would stop the back-to-back deployments that are straining the Guard and the Reserves to the breaking point. It adopts the approach suggested by none other than Secretary Rumsfeld. Our men and women in the National Guard and the Reserves need relief from their long missions in Iraq. We should not look to other units of the Guard and Reserve for relief. We need more help, and it all boils down to this point that we should have thought of long ago, that we need more help from the international community. It is the administration's fault that that help has not been sought more diligently, more timely, and more intensely. I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may I say to the distinguished manager of the bill, Mr. Stevens, I wish to go forward with the amendment protecting the powers of the Congress, striking broad new executive authorities.

Mr. BYRD. No. 1888.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I offered this amendment on behalf of myself, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Sarbanes, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Jeffords, and Mr. Dayton. On page 27 of the supplemental bill it reads: Provided further, That the President may reallocate funds provided under this heading. Those 12 little words, disguised as legalese, mean the President can spend $20.3 billion for the reconstruction of Iraq in any manner in which he pleases. The fine print in the bill allows the President to spend $20.3 billion in Iraq as he pleases. On page 27 I believe we find this language, beginning on line 9. This is page 27, line 9, of the bill: Provided further, That the President may reallocate funds provided under this heading. The President may reallocate those funds regardless of what the rest of this bill may say under this heading. The President may reallocate this. Now, if we want to make the President a king, this is the place to start. All those who believe in a monarchy in this country, support this against my amendment. That is what it says. Read the fine print: Provided further, That the President may reallocate funds provided under this heading. What is the heading? The heading is as follows: ``Iraq Relief and Reconstruction Fund.'' So that is the heading. And in the very first line, it reads as follows: For necessary expenses for security, rehabilitation and reconstruction in Iraq, $20,304,000,000, to remain available until expended, to be allocated as follows. And then it goes right down the line, item after item after item after item, and the dollar amounts. And then come over here to the fine print. Now hear me. Look at the fine print: Provided further, That the President may reallocate funds provided under this heading. Here is what it does. Here is what it does to the bill. It tears it up. The President can just reallocate it. The heck with the bill.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.