Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, it is my information that this side has not yet adequately followed this amendment and has not seen it until recently to the extent that we are prepared to accept it. It appears to be a good amendment, but we may or may not want to accept it. Will the Senator allow us a little time for further study?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Yes. May I say, prior to doing that, this is not just one more report. It is like the making of our laws, Mr. President. We have the books full of laws, but we always see the need for enacting more and more laws. There are Ten Commandments. If we listen to the argument of the distinguished Senator from Alaska--and he is a very distinguished Senator--then one Commandment should have been enough; the others would have been repetitive. That is not the case. This is an important reporting requirement. I hope the Senate will approve it. We are talking about $20 billion here. So I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Comptroller General, General Accounting Office is an arm of the Congress. Let the Congress carry out its proper role of oversight under the Constitution. That is all I am asking for here. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, as the ranking member of the Committee on Appropriations, it is my sad duty to inform the Senate family of the passing this morning of Kurt Dodd. Kurt served as the Democratic clerk on the Interior and Related Agencies Subcommittee from 1998 to 2000. Those of us who knew Kurt, and particularly those of us who were lucky enough to have worked closely with Kurt, will truly miss his gracious manner, his soft-spoken style, and his profound dedication to duty. I have said on many occasions that the individuals who hold staff positions here in the Senate are, in my opinion, some of the smartest, most dedicated individuals in government service. Kurt Dodd stood at the head of that line. No one knew more about his areas of responsibility than Kurt. No one was more responsive to the needs of the Members of our committee than Kurt. And no one was more widely respected for his integrity and honor, than was Kurt. Mr. President, on behalf of the Committee on Appropriations, and I am sure on behalf of the entire U.S. Senate, I send deepest condolences to Kurt's family.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that amendment No. 1818 be introduced by me for myself, Mr. Kennedy, and Mr. Leahy and that amendment No. 1819 be shown as having been proposed by me on behalf of myself and Mr. Durbin.

Mr. BYRD. I ask unanimous consent that two amendments which I have discussed with Mr. Stevens be introduced, that they be considered as having been read, and that they be temporarily set aside for the calling up of other amendments.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, West Virginians know sacrifice. Families from the Mountain State have lost loved ones in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Members of the West Virginia National Guard and the members of the Reserves have been deployed around the world, their lives on the line each day in the most dangerous of circumstances. Our troops deserve to be commended, as do all Americans who have supported them: their husbands and wives; their sons and daughters; and all the members of their communities. I have grave concerns for the situations that our troops now find themselves in. In Iraq, constant attacks have caused the toll in American lives to more than double after May 1. In Afghanistan, which is in danger of becoming the forgotten war, Taliban and al-Qaida terrorists are hiding in the mountains, regaining their strength, and plotting against us. I will vote for the resolution that is before the Senate, but only because we must not offend those who have sacrificed in the wars in which the United States is now engaged. It should be a moral obligation to support those who have lost loved ones in battle, and those who wear our Nation's uniform. But I do not agree with many of the where-as clauses to the resolution that are before the Senate. It is wrong to commingle the images of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. I do not agree that our attack on Iraq is part of the ``Global War on Terrorism.'' It is misleading to imply that the United States had run out of diplomatic options before attacking Iraq. It is dangerous to think that we have eliminated Afghanistan's terrorist infrastructure. The first three pages of this resolution lay out a distorted history of how we came to be involved in the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. We need to stop the spin and distortions. They do a disservice to the public.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, the Senate today takes up the President's $87 billion Iraq war supplemental. This is a massive spending bill that holds vast implications for America's long-term foreign policy objective. It will have an enormous impact on American taxpayers for years to come. It is a measure that deserves our full attention, our thoughtful consideration, our thorough scrutiny. This is not an issue to be measured by the standard of party loyalty. This is a matter that cries out for solemn deliberation, personal integrity, and intellectual honesty. I remain concerned that the Senate is acting with unnecessary haste in calling up this bill today, less than 24 hours since it was reported out of the committee, but I compliment the leaders and especially the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Stevens, for responding to concerns that I and other Senators have raised. In fact, there is no need for the Senate to act too quickly. The House has not yet even taken up its version of the supplemental. While it is not a constitutional requirement the House act first, it has been customary for many years that the House of Representatives act first. It is smoother and more thorough. It is more reasonable to go about legislating if the Senate lets the House act first so the House bill can be before Senators for their debate and amendment. The House has not taken up its version of the supplemental. Senators are being asked to legislate on this massive spending bill without the benefit of a committee report, without the benefit of printed committee hearing, without the benefit of the input by other committees such as the Armed Services Committee, the Intelligence Committee, and the Foreign Relations Committee. The Senate ought to have the printed hearings of the Senate Appropriations Committee. We ought to have the printed hearings containing the testimony of Ambassador Bremer, containing the testimony of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, containing the testimony of other witnesses. Why do we spend all of our time in Senate hearings if we do not intend to make those printed hearings available to our colleagues and to ourselves as we go forward with Senate debate? That is one of the tremendous benefits in having hearings so that they will be printed. Why have them? Because they will be printed then, for our colleagues to scrutinize and to help bring back memories of those Members on the Senate Appropriations Committee as to what the testimony was, what the answers were to the questions that were asked. But here we have been rushed. We have had hearings--some hearings. I asked for more hearings, more than once, more than twice. Several times I asked for more hearings. But even with the hearings that we had, we do not have printed copies of hearings before us. No, there has been a rush, a mad rush to move forward on this bill. There was some talk about even having the final action on the bill by the end of this week. Fortunately, with the aid of the distinguished chairman, and others, that press for action by the end of this week is no longer upon us. That was an unreasonable expectation. It did not measure up to common sense. And it certainly was not the best thing. Fortunately, that is no longer the goal of the party in control here. There are many aspects of this bill that trouble me, but what concerns me as much as anything else, or perhaps most, is the fundamental reason that this measure is before the Senate today. American taxpayers have been presented with an $87 billion bill for the military occupation and reconstruction of Iraq. That is a big, big bill--$87 billion. That is $87 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born, $87 for every minute since the water was changed into wine, $87 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. That is a lot of money. That is more than $3,000 for every Iraqi man, woman, boy, and girl. Now, think about that. The taxpayers are being asked--the taxpayers of this country are being asked--to shell out more than $3,000 for every Iraqi man, woman, boy, and girl. That is what this bill does. There are roughly 25 million, we will say, Iraqis. One thousand dollars per each Iraqi is $25 billion. Pretty easy to compute. So $75 billion would be $3,000 per every Iraqi. And $87 billion is roughly, let's say, $3,500 for every Iraqi--every man, woman, boy, and girl. Now, this is $87 billion on top of the $79 billion which was appropriated in the fiscal year 2003 supplemental passed by the Senate in April of this year. We are putting upon the American taxpayers a load. This administration, in this bill that we are being asked to pass, is asking the American taxpayers to shell out--in this bill--over $3,000 per Iraqi man, woman, boy, and girl, on top of the $79 billion in the fiscal year 2003 supplemental. So when you add both of these together, this year we will have--if we pass this bill hook, line, and sinker--we will, in the Senate, have passed legislation requiring the American taxpayers to shell out $6,600 per Iraqi--$6,600 per Iraqi. Well, the American taxpayers have been presented with an $87 billion bill for the military occupation and reconstruction of Iraq. Why? Because the President decided 6 months ago to launch a preemptive strike on Iraq in the face of very shaky evidence and worldwide opposition--strong worldwide opposition. We have seen the lengths to which some in this administration will go. Now we learn of retribution efforts aimed at those who tried to correct the zealous propaganda which drove this Nation into war. Now the taxpayer is asked to pay the piper--pay the piper. It is a steep price, indeed, in treasure and in blood. Much has been made of the fact that we must pass this bill quickly and without question to show our support for the troops. I do not agree. ``Support the Troops'' is a bumper sticker. ``Support the Troops'' is a bumper sticker, a bumper sticker. That is what it is: ``Support the Troops''--a bumper sticker. It is not a foreign policy. Rubberstamping this bill is not--N-O-T--an expression of support for our troops except in the most simplistic of ways. Rubberstamping this bill merely means that thousands of American soldiers will be sentenced to another year in Iraq, without the Senate even demanding to know why so many United States soldiers need to remain there, how long they are going to be there, or why this President has failed to persuade more nations to send troops to help. Are we to ask our troops to shoulder this burden alone for another year? Are we to ask our troops to shoulder this burden alone for years to come? When is this administration going to face the fact that we need international help? We want to help our troops. Let's get other nations to send their troops there and, thus, help our troops and help us to bring our troops home. We are certainly not serving the long-term interests of the military by rushing to embrace this bill. The headline in yesterday's USA Today newspaper sums up the situation succinctly: ``Army Reserve Fears Troop Exodus.'' That was the headline: ``Army Reserve Fears Troop Exodus.'' According to the article in yesterday's USA Today, the chief of the Army Reserves is concerned that the excessive demands on the Guard and Reserves as a result of the war in Iraq could wreak havoc on military retention rates. That is a serious matter. Last week, another report documented a sharp drop in National Guard recruiting rates. The military decisions this administration is making in Iraq today will have serious long-term consequences on the viability of America's All-Volunteer Armed Forces in the future, not to mention our ability to counter future threats to our own national security. It is time to face these facts. We are stretched thin. We are stretched thin, and a long United States occupation in Iraq is not wise. Moreover, how are we to exercise proper oversight of $87 billion? The Wall Street Journal of September 26 states: Without a United Nations imprimatur, the Administration has constructed its so-called coalition of the willing in piecemeal fashion, cutting open-ended, individual deals with each country that is willing to send troops--save Britain, which is picking up its own tab. Officials who have seen these agreements acknowledge the deals are notably short on specifics. In most cases, the U.S. will foot the bill for transporting, equipping and feeding troops during their service in Iraq, with no dollar figures mentioned and no cap on costs. It is not in our Nation's interest to rush this bill through the Senate. By rushing to war based on inadequate, incorrect, or unsubstantiated intelligence, without developing an international consensus, President Bush has undermined the credibility of our Nation. We need to make sure we do not compound that error by hustling this bill through the Senate without adequate scrutiny and consideration. The $20.3 billion contained in the spending bill for Iraq reconstruction is equally troubling. For months, top administration officials assured the American people that Iraq, sitting atop the second--and possibly the largest--supply of oil in the world, could finance its own reconstruction. Only now do we learn how woefully off the mark the administration was on this count. Only now do we learn that $20.3 billion is just a downpayment--hear me out there--just a downpayment, and that the reconstruction of Iraq will cost as much as $60 or $70 billion or more. Last week, Ambassador Paul Bremer, the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, told the Senate Appropriations Committee that Iraq could not finance its own reconstruction because it was overburdened with Saddam Hussein's debts to France, Germany, Russia, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. Ambassador Bremer conveniently ignored the debt the United States is incurring in this spending package. The debt the United States is incurring, the additional burden that will be brought to bear upon the American taxpayer by this legislation, Ambassador Bremer ignored that. The President is insisting we pay for the war in Iraq and the reconstruction of that nation by plunging our own country deeper into debt. Every dollar we spend in Iraq to avoid increasing Iraq's debt is an IOU we are passing on to our children. Think of it. We are writing a $20.3 billion IOU for this year alone for building a massive new infrastructure in Iraq. The money the President wants to borrow for Iraq will come directly out of American taxpayers' wallets in the form of Medicare and Social Security surplus receipts. That is your money. We have collected that money from the pockets of American workers, the American workers who gave their sweat in the factories, in the mines, in the fields, on the oceans--the American workers. No one told them they were paying to rebuild Iraq. We don't even know how much of the $20 billion in reconstruction funds will flow to government contractors in Iraq. Estimates range from one-third of the reconstruction funds to almost all of them. Whatever the amount is, we know that the size and the scope of the profits being made will be enormous. Former Bush administration officials are even setting up consulting firms. Listen to that. Former Bush administration officials are even setting up consulting firms to act as middlemen for contractors hoping to take part in the Iraq bonanza. Are we turning the U.S. Treasury into a grab bag for favorite campaign contributors to be financed at taxpayer expense? Is that why the administration is so reluctant to make concessions that would bring other countries on board? Instead of redoubling our efforts to spread the burden of rebuilding Iraq among the international community, the President appears content to simply present the bill to the American taxpayers, and to their children. The stability of Iraq is of concern to nations other than the United States. Could they be resisting helping out because they resent the President's highhanded decision to spurn the United Nations and attack Iraq on his own terms with only meager international support? There is a donors conference in Madrid later this month. Could we be overbilling the American taxpayers by rushing this package through the Senate now and signing up for $20.3 billion in debt before we even try to make the real accommodations which would encourage other nations to reach into their own pockets? The package before the Senate goes far beyond asking the Senate to write a check on the taxpayers' account for $87 billion. The package before us asks the Senate to underwrite the long-term democratization of Iraq as some sort of catalyst for triggering the democratization of the entire Middle East. One cannot help but wonder how the United States can single-handedly precipitate the democratization of the entire Middle East when, with all our will and all our might, we cannot even budge the stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process. How are we going to do it? Where is the muscle? I expect there will be a number of amendments offered to this supplemental package. I have several I intend to offer. If they are adopted, they will, in my opinion, improve this bill. Whether they will improve it enough to win my endorsement remains to be seen. I was opposed to the President's war in Iraq before it began. I am strongly opposed to the doctrine of preemption on which the war in Iraq was predicated--the doctrine of preemption, unilateralism, preemption, strike-first, invade first. I support unconditionally the men and the women in uniform and their families--they are bearing the most direct burden of the war in Iraq-- but I remain unconvinced that this bill is the best way to offer those troops our support. I, frankly, think our most meaningful support would be to take the diplomatic steps needed to get help from other nations which will result in getting our troops out of the quicksands of Iraq. That is the way to support the troops. Get other nations in. This bill does not do that. This bill, in my opinion, sets the United States up for what could well be a prolonged military and financial investment in Iraq. It ignores the hard realities of democratization of totally different cultures. It ignores the religious divisions which inflame the Middle East. Again, I thank Senator Stevens for his willingness to accommodate me and others who have expressed concerns with this bill. I appreciate the difficult conditions under which he is working. I look forward to a full and robust debate. I encourage all Senators to focus closely on this bill, listen carefully to the debate, and draw their own conclusions in the fullness of time based on a dispassionate evaluation of the merits of individual amendments. I will have more to say at a later time. For now, I ask my colleagues to consider carefully the implications of the policies implied in the funding of the bill before us and to give this measure the full time and attention it deserves. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. In response to the Senator, if I may say, the first action by the Senate was in April of this year when the Congress passed the 2003 supplemental appropriations bill. That appropriated $79 billion. The Senate is now being asked to enact an $87 billion 2004 supplemental appropriation. That is before the Senate today.

Mr. BYRD. It is indeed.

Mr. BYRD. Would the Senator withhold his objection temporarily?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the manager of the bill and chairman of the committee. Mr. President, the President has asked Congress to appropriate a great deal of money for the occupation and reconstruction of Iraq. But the American people have not yet been convinced that spending this money is the right thing to do. One poll conducted by the Washington Post found that 61 percent opposed spending $87 billion for Iraq and that 85 percent were concerned about our country becoming bogged down in a long and costly peacekeeping mission. One of the most contentious parts of the President's request is $20.3 billion in reconstruction aid for Iraq. The more details that come out about this aid, the more the American people are uncomfortable with this spending. They are seeking important answers to fair questions. Why can't our allies bear some of the cost? How much money will the administration seek for Iraq after this aid package? What about our needs for reconstruction here at home? In the 14 days we have had in which to examine the President's supplemental appropriations package, I do not think anyone has come up with the answers to those questions. What we do know is that this reconstruction money will not cover all that is needed to be done in Iraq. Ambassador Bremer, in his testimony to the Appropriations Committee, stated there are $60 billion to $70 billion in reconstruction needs in Iraq over the next 4 to 5 years. Spending $20.3 billion now could leave us on the hook to spend billions more later. Before we commit our country to this path, we would be wise to seek a consensus and common understanding of the appropriate roles for the United States, our allies, and the Iraqi people in rebuilding that country. I am offering a unanimous consent request to divide the bill that is before the Senate so we may give close scrutiny to the two distinct issues that are addressed in this bill, the $65.6 billion in defense funding that is contained in title I, plus the $5.1 billion for Iraq's security forces; and the remaining $15.2 billion in foreign aid spending in title II for Iraqi reconstruction. Each of these elements is deserving of debate on its own right. The administration is sure to oppose dividing the content of this bill so that the Senate may consider independently the issues of military funding and reconstruction funds. But, why? Perhaps the White House is afraid that its $15.2 billion for Iraqi reconstruction cannot withstand the scrutiny of the full Senate unless it is wrapped up in the guise of support for our troops. But that has not been administration's argument. We have heard again and again from Ambassador Bremer and Secretary Rumsfeld that the administration views this reconstruction money as every bit as important as the military portion of the bill. If they are confident in their case, let the Senate divide the bill. Perhaps the administration's arguments will carry the day. But the American people know this is really two bills wrapped into one. In just a few days, the Senate will go into a week-long recess and our constituents will ask Senators what they are doing to scrutinize the huge amount of reconstruction spending in the bill. The American people want us to deal with reconstruction spending differently than with military spending. We owe it to them to consider the two components of this bill in the most reasonable manner possible by dividing the bill and giving each part the scrutiny it is due. The task of rebuilding Iraq will be enormous. The American people are beginning to understand this. The United States can hardly afford to bear the costs of reconstruction by ourselves. For this reason alone, we should debate the issue of reconstruction separately from the request the President has made for our armed services. My unanimous consent request is a commonsense approach to proceeding with this debate in the Senate. Let me again repeat my request. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be divided into two freestanding bills, the first including the funds for our military in Iraq and Afghanistan and the funds for rebuilding the Iraqi security forces and the emergency designation included in title III; the second including the funds for Iraq reconstruction and the emergency designation included in title III, and that the second bill be laid aside to be considered immediately upon the disposition of the first bill dealing with the funds for our military.

Mr. BYRD. How much time do I have?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, first I thank my colleague, Senator Stevens, for his courtesy. I want to tell him again that my association with him is not so fragile as to be injured by any differences we may have between us on this amendment or any other question. The American people have only recently been exposed to some of the details of the $15.2 billion in funds that the President has requested for the reconstruction of Iraq. The more the public learns about this request, the more the people will want Congress to take a closer look at this request. My amendment would strike $15.2 billion in reconstruction funding for Iraq. But it does not touch 1 cent of the security-related funding in this $87 billion appropriations bill. My amendment would allow the Senate to go back to the drawing board and consider an entirely new bill that would only contain funds for rebuilding Iraq. A vote for the Byrd amendment is a vote for taking a fresh look at $15.2 billion in Iraqi reconstruction spending. A vote for the Byrd amendment is a vote for more hearings, more hearings about why these funds are needed, more hearings about your money. I have heard that expression so much when it has been used by our friends on the other side, talking about the tax cuts, saying: It is your money. It is your money. It is the people's money that we are talking about here. A vote for the Byrd amendment is a vote for more hearings about why these funds are needed. Are there reasons to vote against my amendment? There sure are. There sure are reasons to vote against my amendment. If Senators want to spend $10 million to hire 48 bureaucrats for Iraq at the cost of $208,333 per pencil pusher, that is a good reason to vote against my amendment. If Senators want to support $9 million for creating new ZIP Codes in Iraq, vote against my amendment. That is a good reason. That is a dandy reason to vote against it. Let me say that again. If Senators want to support $9 million for creating new ZIP Codes in Iraq, vote against my amendment. Go to it. If Senators want to buy 80 pickup trucks at $33,000 when pickup trucks at a car dealership in any town in the USA start at just $14,000, vote against my amendment. Go to it. Vote against my amendment. A vote against the Byrd amendment to strike $15.2 billion in aid to Iraq is a vote for a padded bill. Go to it. A padded bill. The questionable items funded by this bill go on and on and on. The President's request contains $3.6 million for 600 radios and telephones at $6,000 each. How about that? According to the Business Week of May 12, Iraqi merchants sold satellite phones during the war for $900 each. This bill has $20 million to send Iraqis to a 4-week business school course at a cost of $10,000 per month. How about that? That must be a great education. That must be a great education because tuition at Harvard Business School is less than $4,000 per month. As long as we are talking about education, the administration also wants to spend $30 million for English classes, at a cost of $1,500 per student. How about that? Thirty million dollars for English classes at a cost of $1,500 per student. Similar English programs in the United States reportedly cost just $500 to $1,000 per student. And there is more. There is more. There are more reasons to vote against my amendment. For example, there is also $2 million for museums and memorials. Is this money really an emergency? Is it? Some Iraqis don't think so. On September 29, USA Today quoted a car dealer in Iraq as saying about this money: OK, garbage collection I can understand, but statues? After Saddam, we are fed up with statues. If Senators support this kind of excessive spending, then vote against the Byrd amendment. But I think the Senate must take a new look at the $15.2 billion in reconstruction spending proposed by the administration. Interestingly, just yesterday, members Of the Iraqi Governing Council told the leadership of the Senate that they had not been consulted in putting together this budget request for the reconstruction of Iraq. We need to make sure there is a coherent plan for how this money is to be spent. I do not yet have any confidence that the administration has a solid plan for how it plans to spend this money, and the lack of a plan could leave working Americans on the hook for billions of dollars more for many years. I also do not yet have confidence that the administration has a plan for bringing in the international community to the occupation and reconstruction effort in Iraq. Some have argued that, if this reconstruction spending is delayed, it will result in increased danger to the troops. I simply don't understand how creating new ZIP Codes in Iraq, how hiring more bureaucrats for Iraq, how purchasing more pickup trucks for Iraq will make American troops any safer. What they need is a plan and an exit strategy, which includes getting troops and money from the international community. Vote for the Byrd amendment to strike this $15.2 billion and let the Senate take a new look at how we can share the cost of this reconstruction spending with the international community. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I sought, in the Appropriations Committee on yesterday, to sever the title that involves the reconstruction money for Iraq and send to the Senate two bills, one dealing with the military funding and one dealing with the reconstruction. I failed on a party line vote. I am trying, at this time, to do virtually the same thing. I ask unanimous consent that the bill be divided into two freestanding bills, the first including funds for our military in Iraq and Afghanistan and the funds for rebuilding the Iraqi security forces and the emergency designation included in title III, the second bill including the funds for Iraq's reconstruction and the emergency designation included in title III, and that the second bill be laid aside to be considered immediately upon the disposition of the first bill dealing with the funds for our military.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I respect my colleague greatly, and I respect his reasons for objecting to my unanimous consent request. I have already offered the unanimous consent request to divide the President's supplemental request into portions, one on the $71.5 billion for our military and for Iraq's own security force, and one for $15.2 billion in reconstruction aid. Although there was objection to my request, the American people understand why the issue of security is not the same as the issue of reconstruction. The amendment that I will now offer would strike $15.2 billion in reconstruction aid from the supplemental appropriations bill. This would allow the Senate to proceed with its consideration of $70.7 billion in security-related funding for Iraq, $5.6 billion for the Department of Defense, $5.1 billion for building the new Iraqi army and a national police force, and $1 billion for aid to Afghanistan, and State Department operations. Adopting my amendment would allow the Senate to return to the issue of reconstruction after completing action on the President's request for security-related funding. In the meantime, the Senate should give more careful consideration to the administration's plan for rebuilding Iraq. We should take a closer look at the plan for postwar Iraq. The plan distributed by Ambassador Bremer to the Appropriations Committee on September 22 adds but 28 pages. The plan provides few details, and it only looks out on the next 5 months of our occupation. However, in the same hearing, Ambassador Bremer said he had a plan that ran to 98 pages and containing 300 or 400 individual action items. That does not sound like the plan he gave to the Appropriations Committee. It sounds as if the Senate does not even have the full version of the administration's plan for the reconstruction for Iraq. Surely if we are to commit the United States to spending $15.2 billion over the next 12 months, Congress should be able to see the full plan for the rebuilding of Iraq. If it is indeed just the 28 pages that were given to the Appropriations Committee, I think we are in trouble. If Congress is going to pay for the activities that are called for in the plan to reconstruct Iraq, we should also have a say on formulating that plan. By waiting to approve the $15.2 billion in reconstruction funding, Congress could take advantage of that time to debate the proper role of the United States, our allies, and the Iraqi people in sharing the cost of reconstruction. The cost of acting without a solid plan for rebuilding Iraq could be very high--well beyond the $15.2 billion in reconstruction funds the President has requested for the next year. We could end up wasting billions of dollars more and losing even greater numbers of American troops. In the words of Publius Cyrus, nothing can be done at once hastily and prudently. I urge my colleagues to vote to give Congress more time to consider this $15.2 billion in rebuilding aid, and I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. Amendment No. 1794

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

Mr. BYRD. I am not in a position at the moment to respond to that request, I say most respectfully.

Mr. BYRD

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

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, my remarks will not be lengthy, but I entitle them as follows: ``Putting $87 Billion Into Context.'' The Senate will soon consider the President's request for an additional $87 billion to fund the U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan and to aid in their reconstruction. The $87 billion supplemental brings to a total of $194 billion the amount the United States is spending in Iraq and Afghanistan. Let me repeat that. The $87 billion supplemental brings to $194 billion the amount the United States is spending in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than twice what the administration had led the public to believe just a few months ago. The 1991 Persian Gulf war, by contrast, cost $61 billion, of which the United States paid only $7 billion. That is $7 billion spent in 1991 compared to $194 billion today, almost 28 times higher. The Bush administration's $87 billion supplemental request is the largest emergency spending request since 1977. The $87 billion request, just for Iraq and Afghanistan, just for next year, roughly equals, in current dollars, the total amount of money spent to rebuild the entire continent of Europe after World War II. The request is larger than the $74 billion the Defense Department plans to spend on all new weapons purchases next year. The request is more than twice the administration's entire $35 billion homeland security budget for next year. That means that for every $2 spent on the President's supplemental request for Iraq, the administration will spend less than $1 on homeland security here at home. The $20 billion the President is seeking for Iraq's reconstruction is $2 billion more than we are spending for foreign assistance for every other nation on the planet. The $87 billion request is 50 percent more than we spend on education for the entire United States. Let me say that again. The $87 billion request is 50 percent more than we spend on education for the entire Nation. With $194 billion spent or requested, the President's war spending in 2003 and 2004 already exceeds the inflation-adjusted cost of the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican War, the Civil War, the Spanish-American War, and the Persian Gulf war combined. The cost of the war and postwar occupation of Iraq will soon surpass the $196 billion inflation-adjusted cost of World War I. The monthly bill for the United States military missions in Iraq and Afghanistan now rivals spending during the Vietnam war. At $87 billion, the President's request is larger than the economies of 166 countries. It is larger than the individual economies of almost half the States of the Union. That is a lot of money. If approved, the President's request would increase the Federal budget deficit for fiscal year 2004 to $535 billion; in other words, more than half a trillion dollars. I will say that once more. If approved, the President's request would increase the Federal budget deficit for fiscal year 2004 to $535 billion. The White House is now in danger of violating its own self-imposed limit for budget deficits, 6 percent of gross domestic product or $600 billion. The administration hopes it will receive an additional $30 billion to $55 billion from other countries and Iraqi oil revenue over the next 2 years, but that money may never materialize. Iraqi oil production is 1 million barrels per day less than before the war. The oil infrastructure has been hobbled by severe looting and sabotage. Certain pipelines have been struck by a series of attacks since the United Nations lifted sanctions this summer. Iraq's oil revenues are likely to fall short of even the most modest expectations of this administration. As for the tens of billions of dollars the Bush administration is hoping to receive from other countries and international financial institutions, President Bush's request has fallen on deaf ears. The Bush administration has alienated most of the international community. After the Presidential swallowing of pride and having asked the United Nations for help, the Washington Post summed up the President's fundraising efforts with the headline, ``Bush Fails To Gain Pledges On Troops Or Funds For Iraq.'' Increasingly, it appears as if we are on our own in financing the occupation and the reconstruction of Iraq. I urge my colleagues to exercise patience before approving this request. This is not just an ordinary supplemental bill. This is not just a token amount of money. It is the beginning of a major commitment of resources in behalf of the American taxpayer. Before we act, we should make sure that taxpayers understand the size and consequences of this request and what will be asked of them in paying for it. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the distinguished leader yield further?

Mr. BYRD. Will the distinguished majority leader yield?

Mr. BYRD. I would rather my leader propounded this question but inasmuch as I am the ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, the reason I hoped all Members would sit--although there is no requirement they have to in the rules, unless the Chair insists on it-- we have a problem. I think the full Senate ought to know about it. That is why I have urged Senators sit if they will; then they will be more comfortable. I don't know how long it will last. I hope it will not last long. We have a problem in that we have the Iraq appropriations measure before the Senate Appropriations Committee. We have had hearings Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday in that committee. There have been other committees that have been having hearings, too; I believe the Foreign Relations Committee, and I know the Armed Services Committee has had hearings. Here is my problem as ranking member of the Appropriations Committee. We had hearings this past Monday on the Iraq bill. Our members were not fully informed that there would be hearings on Monday but we proceeded with hearings, in any event. Several of the members could not get there until very late. I have protested pretty consistently in that committee, saying we need more hearings, that we do not need to rush that bill through. It would be well to have the House act, let us see that bill so we would better know what amendments we should try to offer. I have urged that outside witnesses be called. Why should we just hear one side of the question, that being, of course, the administration's position? But we could be wiser, I think, if we had outside witnesses. That has been rejected. That proposal has been rejected. So we have pressed on, against my wishes. I believe we ought to have more hearings. Now we come down to this point. We have completed what hearings we are going to have, as I understand it, in the Appropriations Committee. Now the pressure is on to have the bill marked up. When? Monday. We all know that Senators, in recent years especially, are more likely to be late getting in on Monday. They have faraway points of the compass to come from, and some of them have made appointments that will cause them not to get in until Tuesday morning perhaps. And yet we are being forced to have a markup on this coming Monday. This greatly creates a disadvantage to many of our Appropriations members. So I have expressed the hope we would not have that markup on Monday. There is no great reason to begin to have this markup. But we have been pressed hard to get through these hearings, and now we are being pressed to mark up the bill on Monday. Many of our Members cannot be here Monday. So I have acquainted my leader and my side of the aisle with this problem. And I have said we could have a markup on Tuesday. But my wife--and I hesitate to continue to inject my own personal problems into this matter--I said my wife has to have an operation on Tuesday morning. Not a major operation, but any operation at our age--if I were 40 or 50 or 60 again, I would say: You go on and have your operation and I'll see you at suppertime; see you tonight. That is not the way she wants it. That is not the way I want it. I have said this afternoon, speaking to Mr. Reid, and to Mr. Stevens: If you want to have this on Tuesday, go ahead. If I am 2 hours there or 3 hours or 5, I will come when I can. But go ahead and have the markup Tuesday. The word comes back that the Republicans say: OK, but there is a little catch to that: We will wait till Tuesday, but you have to give consent to take up the bill on the next day. That consent could be objected to, of course, causing a little longer wait. So now we are faced with: OK, you can take it up Tuesday--I hope I am not misrepresenting anyone here; at least this is the way I understand it--so you can have it on Tuesday, but you have to give consent to go to it Wednesday on the floor. I don't want to enter into that deal. In the first place, I don't think there is a necessity for our having that markup on Monday or on Tuesday. I think we ought to have more hearings. I think we are entitled to more hearings. I see this bill as being ramrodded through the Senate, when there is no necessity for that. I will not go into that further except to say, I am willing to proceed on Tuesday, but I am not willing for it to be in accordance with a deal. Call it a deal. Call it whatever you want--an agreement, whatever--``yes, we'll do that if.'' There are times when we do that around here, but on this occasion I don't think we ought to take it up on the floor that fast. We need more time on the floor. So I am unwilling to say: OK on Tuesday, but we will agree to taking it up on the floor on Wednesday. So here we are, Thursday afternoon, with no votes tomorrow, I guess, and many Members going home, and a Jewish holiday tomorrow. Here we are under this kind of pressure: You can have it on Tuesday, but you have to give us consent to take it up on Wednesday. I understand now the--this is just my understanding--the other side is not willing to go on Tuesday without such an agreement. As I further understand it, they are saying--I may be wrong about this, but that is what I understand--that the majority is saying: OK, you don't want any deal; we will do it on Monday. So there is where it creates a great hardship on the part of a lot of our Senators and, I suppose, on Senators on the other side. I think we are in a quandary, and we just ought to open it up here and have a full discussion of it rather than have the onus on me as the old plebeian soldier around here. OK. I don't want to cause my comrades on either side to have to come here on Monday and mark this up. There is some reason it has to be Monday or else. This bill is being pushed through, rammed through, and I think we ought to take more time on it. I think the American people are entitled to more time on it. Why don't we have more hearings? Is it that the majority is afraid to have questions asked? Do the questions hurt? What is the problem? Why do we have to have this--we are just not up against it. We passed the Defense appropriations conference report today. I would like to know, I say to the leader, why we have to mark up this bill in the Appropriations Committee Monday or Tuesday, and why, if we push it--if the majority is willing to go over to Tuesday--why they are going to exact that pound of flesh: OK, we will go over, but let us take it up on the following day. I am not willing to do that. If it were absolutely necessary to do that, I would be willing to do it. But that is not necessary. And in all my years here, I have never--I have never--seen the Appropriations Committee of the Senate, and especially the minority--this place is for the protection of the minority, a minority of Senators. I have said that many times. But to jam us up here against a Sunday and a Jewish holiday just preceding it, and then to come in here and say, you have to have this markup on Monday or you have to let us take it up on the floor on Wednesday, I have to say, I think that is very unfair. I have argued this out in the committee under the public eye, and I have talked with my colleague, Senator Stevens. I know he is under great pressure. I would hope to have a response to that. More than that, I would hope we would not have to mark it up Monday or Tuesday.

Mr. BYRD. Let me emphasize I am not asking that it be put off until Tuesday because of my wife's little problem. I said, go ahead, if I am 2 hours or 3 hours or 5 hours, I will get there when I can. I would rather you didn't, but in any event, if you do, I am going to be with her. That is an easy choice for me. But I didn't intend to get into the debate about the so-called war on terrorism as being the war in Iraq. I won't do that now. But the distinguished majority leader has opened an avenue for a great deal of debate in which I will partake, if the good Lord lets me live. I am not going to lie down and roll over for that argument that, oh, we are in a war and we have to press ahead here; we have people dying and so on, and we have to do this on Monday or Tuesday. I am as concerned about the people dying as is the distinguished majority leader. I was not for sending our people over there to die. But we won't get into that here. The distinguished Republican leader brought that up. I am only saying I would hope that we would stage the markup at a time when we could have full attendance on both sides.