Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. No.

Mr. BYRD. Oh, absolutely, I agree with that. That is what my amendment is about. Here we were, over in the Armed Services Committee. I asked the Secretary of Defense how much is our country spending per month in Iraq, on the war in Iraq, on the occupation of Iraq, and how much in Afghanistan? In both instances the Secretary said he didn't know. He would have to wait a while and get back to me. Well, that is an old game.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. Does the distinguished Senator from Alaska have any further questions at the moment?

Mr. BYRD. Questions of me?

Mr. BYRD. What we are advocating is that funds would be provided in the Appropriations Act to specific accounts set forth in such act.

Mr. BYRD. Yes. I yield for a question.

Mr. BYRD. It does.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, my amendment reads as follows: It is the sense of the Senate that--any request for funds for a fiscal year for an ongoing overseas military operation-- The word is ``ongoing''-- for an ongoing overseas military operation, including operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, should be included in the annual budget of the President for such fiscal year as submitted to Congress under section 1105(a) of title 31 United States Code. . . . These are ongoing--ongoing operations. What is to keep this administration from sending up an amended budget request right today? The administration has already said we are spending $3.9 billion a month in Iraq and almost $1 billion a month in Afghanistan. Why doesn't the administration send up an amended budget request right now and let us include that money in this appropriations bill? Now, the administration knows that is what it is spending. Why couldn't we at least include it in this bill that is before the Senate, rather than wait until next February when the administration will send up a request for that amount plus a great deal more? And why not anticipate the remaining months the administration expects to be in Iraq and Afghanistan and anticipate for the same amount on into the future? It is this thing that I feel very strongly about: the Congress of the United States being held at bay when it comes to getting information from this administration. When it comes to appropriations, the Congress has control of the purse strings. And when we asked the administration witnesses, at least one of them said these figures are not knowable, this information is not knowable. Well, they have these estimates. They had them then, and they could have been included. So the Congress can exercise its constitutional oversight over these moneys that are being appropriated and spent. I am glad the distinguished Senator from Alaska has indicated he intends to accept this amendment. But while we are on this subject, I have a chart here. Now, the distinguished Senator from Alaska--and he is a distinguished Senator, a very distinguished Senator, my friend--time and time again he has said something about the moneys during the Clinton administration. The supplementals for Kosovo and Bosnia were in the range of $2 billion to $3 billion for each mission. The Iraq supplemental that was passed this April was $62.6 billion. If we are to believe the cost estimates of Secretary Rumsfeld, that he testified to at a recent Armed Services hearing, the current cost of supporting 150,000 troops in Iraq and 10,000 troops in Afghanistan is $4.8 billion per month, or $58 billion if our troops are to remain in Iraq and Afghanistan for all of fiscal year 2004. The fiscal situation is completely different today than it was in 1998 and 2000 when supplementals were approved for Bosnia and Kosovo. As one can see on this chart, in those years, we were running large surpluses: $69 billion in fiscal year 1998 and $236 billion in fiscal year 2000. The issue of how to finance a $2 billion supplemental was not and did not need to be a critical element of the debate. Just this week, the White House released their Mid-Session Review. And the White House projections are on this chart. The White House projects deficits of $455 billion for fiscal year 2003 and $475 billion for fiscal year 2004. The estimate of $475 billion for fiscal year 2004, the year of the Defense appropriations bill that is now pending before the Senate, does not include any cost, not one dime, for the incremental cost of the war in Iraq or the mission in Afghanistan. Therefore, if the President had requested a budget amendment or a supplemental for these missions, the deficit for fiscal year 2004 would likely be over $500 billion. And if you exclude the Social Security surplus, the deficit for fiscal year 2004 could exceed $650 billion.

Mr. BYRD. Let me just finish briefly. The cost of the war in Iraq and the mission in Afghanistan is over $1 billion per week. General Franks has said that it is likely we will need to retain significant numbers of troops in Iraq for years to come. We know that now. We should not hide the ball from the American people until next year. If we want to talk about then, we were running huge surpluses back in those days. Yet the cost was small, talking about $2 billion, $3 billion, when surpluses were running $69 billion, $125 billion, $236 billion, $127 billion. Now we are talking in a deficit situation. We are running huge deficits, astronomical deficits, never to be heard of before deficits. The costs we are talking about hiding here and waiting until the supplemental comes before Congress are many, many times higher than they were during the Clinton administration. So it is a little like trying to equate apples and oranges. Yes, I yield.

Mr. BYRD. Nine hundred and forty-three million.

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

Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object, and I do not object, I wonder if the Senator would mind having the vote on my amendment as the first vote. It would occur 5 minutes after the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may I make an inquiry of the distinguished Senator from Alaska? The Senator is prepared to accept my amendment, and the Senate will vote on it. Does he think that amendment will have any impact on the procedures? Does he think that will result in any change in the procedures which we have been experiencing heretofore? It is a sense-of-the-senate resolution but, in his opinion, may we expect to see it carried out?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I will take 1 minute. I thank the distinguished chairman of the committee for his courtesies and for the cooperation he has given. He has sought to get action by the Senate on various and sundry amendments. He has tried to move the bill forward, and he has lived up to what I think is the reputation of not only fairness but also of integrity. I am thankful to him for accepting this amendment. I was interested in his response to my question a moment ago. I believe he means what he says, and I hope he will join me in urging the Office of Management and Budget and the White House to live up to the intent, the spirit of this amendment whether it is the current administration or a following administration, which may be Democratic or Republican.

Mr. BYRD. Yes, I yield.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, 216 years ago yesterday, in a sweltering room in Philadelphia, 55 men of extraordinary talents reached a most critical decision on the design of a new government for the United States. Days and weeks of acrimonious debate had failed to resolve disputes on the representation of each of the original 13 colonies. Men like Washington, Madison, Franklin, and Hamilton struggled over the issue of how the people of our Nation would be represented in their Government. But then, on July 16, 1787, the Framers of what came to be our Constitution reached a breakthrough. On that date, yesterday, 216 years ago, they struck a bargain that has come to be known as the Great Compromise. States with large populations would have the benefit of more numerous representation in the House of Representatives and States with small populations would be protected by equal representation in the Senate. Without that landmark agreement, work on a new constitution to replace the failed Articles of Confederation might have foundered. Without the Great Compromise, we in this Chamber might never have met to debate the issues of the day. But as we debate the bill before us, one cannot help but recognize the perilous situation in which the United States finds itself with respect to our foreign commitments. We take up the fiscal year 2004 Defense appropriations bill at a time when nearly 150,000 of our troops are facing guerrilla attacks as they patrol Iraq. While the administration had once predicted that our liberating forces would be greeted with smiles and covered with flowers, the Secretary of Defense is now warning that attacks on our troops may increase during the rest of July. In light of all of these facts, some may argue that we need to pass this bill soon in order to show support for our troops who remain under fire, nearly 17 weeks after the war in Iraq began and nearly 11 weeks after the President delivered his victory speech on the USS Abraham Lincoln where there was a banner over his head which proclaimed, ``Mission accomplished.'' There it was, that banner streaming above his head proclaiming, ``Mission accomplished.'' If we rush to pass this bill to show support for our troops in Iraq, we will be rushing for naught because not one thin dime, not one copper penny, contained in this Defense bill is for the additional cost of war in Afghanistan or Iraq. There is not one red cent in this bill for the additional costs to support 150,000 troops in Iraq or the nearly 10,000 troops who remain in Afghanistan. Linking speedy action on this bill to support for our troops who are now standing in harm's way is what is known as a bait and switch routine. This is a bill that only funds our military as if we were in a time of peace, but we all know we are going to be hit with a massive bill for wartime costs in a couple of months. Let there be no doubt, the amount of money we are spending in Iraq and Afghanistan is massive. Since September 11, 2001, Congress has appropriated $104.3 billion to the Defense Department for homeland security missions in pursuit of al-Qaida in Afghanistan and elsewhere, and the war in Iraq. The total bill in Iraq so far, according to the Pentagon's comptroller, has reached $48 billion. The Secretary of Defense reported last week, I believe it was, to the Armed Services Committee that we are spending $3,921,000,000 each month for our occupation of Iraq, a figure nearly double that of its prewar estimates. Secretary Rumsfeld also reported that we are spending nearly $943 million each month for military operations in Afghanistan. I opposed the war in the beginning. I opposed the war in Iraq. Contrary to White House charges of revisionist history--which I maintain, as far as the revisionist part is concerned, is on the side of the White House--I never believed that Iraq posed a clear and imminent threat to the United States, and I stood right on this floor and said that. I never believed, and so stated at the time, that Iraq posed a clear and imminent threat to the security of our country. But when the war in Iraq began, I stated I would do everything in my power to provide our troops with the funds needed to ensure their safety, even though I disagree with the policy that took them into Iraq. GEN Tommy Franks said to the House Armed Services Committee on July 11 that our troops could be patrolling Iraq for the next 4 years, and the new commander in Iraq, GEN John Abizaid, acknowledged that our troops are facing guerrilla attacks. In today's papers he so stated. We know our troops need money for food, fuel, ammunition and pay. There is no reason we must wait to provide for these needs until the administration requests its next stopgap spending measure. Congress should insist that these costs be included in the President's regular budget request. I am sure it will come as a surprise to many Americans to know that the administration has not presented Congress with any request nor any explanatory detail regarding the costs that are racking up right now, this very minute, during our occupation of Iraq. The President has not requested any funding for the additional costs of the 150,000 troops who are expected to remain in Iraq for an extended period of time, nor has the President requested any additional funds for the cost of rooting out al-Qaida from Afghanistan. The American people would be stunned to learn that the Senate is taking up a $368 billion appropriations bill for the Department of Defense that does not include one thin dime for the additional costs, the incremental costs, of the war in Iraq or the mission in Afghanistan. When we start talking about appropriations, budget resolutions, and supplemental spending bills, the eyes of many Americans start to glaze over. While John Q. Public may not know the intricacies of Federal budgeting, he fully expects that somebody in Washington is watching over his taxpayer money and that somebody is making sure of its effective use, that somebody is asking questions about the expenditures of his monies. But when it comes to financing military missions overseas, the White House continues to try to turn the Constitution on its head. The White House wants to spend the money first and have Congress approve the funding later. When it comes to this war in Iraq and the aftermath of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the administration views Congress like an automatic teller machine: Just put the request into the machine, into the ATM, and the money slides out in seconds, no questions asked. Last October, Congress approved a resolution authorizing military action in Iraq. I voted against that. I am proud I voted against it. As long as I stay in the Senate, I shall keep the tally sheet right in front of me, as I sit at my desk in my office, showing the votes on that matter. At the time, the White House and the Department of Defense asserted that the cost of the mission was not knowable. That is what the administration witnesses said before our committee--that the costs were not knowable. The message from the White House was basically, trust me, trust me. It is your money. We have heard that. We have heard that old saying right here. But in this instance, it is your money, trust me. They said they would send the bill, the costs to Congress when they knew more about the details of the mission. Well, when the President submitted his FY 2004 budget to the Congress in February, he continued to keep Congress in the dark. He requested no funding for the war in Iraq. Why? The House and the Senate needed to pass budget resolutions that the President hoped would include $1.5 trillion of additional tax cuts. Perhaps the White House feared that a $60 billion bill for Iraq, just for FY 2003, might worry some Members who are concerned about deficit spending when it came to voting on the bill to cut taxes. On March 13, 2003, the Senate Budget Committee approved the budget resolution with $1.3 trillion of additional tax cuts and assumed no additional costs for the war in Iraq. On March 21, 2003, the House passed their budget resolution, including $1.3 trillion of tax cuts and assumed nothing about the cost of the war in Iraq. On March 26, the Senate passed a budget resolution that assumed over $800 billion in tax cuts. What was curiously missing from the conference report was an amendment that had been offered by Senator Feingold and approved by the Senate to set aside $100 billion for the war in Iraq. When did the White House finally send up their request for a supplemental for the costs of the war in Iraq? The White House waited until March 25, 2003, to submit a massive $62.6 billion request for the Department of Defense--6 months after the Congress considered the resolution to authorize military action in Iraq, 2 months after the President submitted his FY 2004 budget to Congress, and 1 week after the war in Iraq began. Once the request was made to the Congress, the White House put its foot on the gas pedal and insisted that Congress move rapidly to pass the request in order to support the troops that were already deployed in the field. One hearing was held on March 27. As I recall, the hearing was so compressed for time that Members were not even allowed to make opening remarks. On April 1, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved the President's total funding request for DoD. On April 3, the Senate approved the request. Thirteen days later, the Iraq supplemental for FY 2003 was public law. So the administration strategy worked. The strategy goes like this. Force the Congress to make difficult choices with either inadequate information or bad information. Deploy the forces. Get the funding hook in the nose of Congress by putting the troops in the field. Go to war. Spend the money. And insist that Congress move promptly to approve the funding again, after it is spent and more is needed to replenish accounts. Now the Senate has before it the FY 2004 Defense Appropriations bill. Once again, the White House is hiding the ball when it comes to facing up to the true costs of the mission in Iraq. Apparently, there will be no request for the additional costs of this mission until next February--after the fact. In other words, it will be a replay of last year. Meanwhile, there are 150,000 troops in the field in Iraq and 10,000 in Afghanistan, but no dollars to support them; no submission to Congress for how the money will be used; no oversight to ensure accountability; no plan for when the troops might come home; no plan for how to manage troop strength so that we do not have to keep our reserves deployed overseas for years at a time; no plan for attracting troops from other countries; no plan for seeking contributions from other countries to help cover the costs of the war and the peace in Iraq. No, this White House wants to simply dictate the decisions and have the congressional ATM machine spit out the money. The administration's only proposal so far is to slap down the national credit card and stick Congress and the taxpayer with a huge bill for supplemental appropriations somewhere down the road. This is not an acceptable way to pay for our overseas missions. This is a blatant attempt to mislead the American people about administration policies that are leading to fiscal disaster. That is why I offer an amendment that states the sense of the Senate that the President should include in the budgets that he submits to Congress a specific request for funds to pay for our incremental costs in Iraq and Afghanistan. We should put an end to this financial shell game of allowing the administration to hide the cost of occupation by using supplemental appropriations bills. My amendment would stop allowing this administration to hide the costs of these foreign adventures from the public. My amendment calls on the President to be up front with the American people about how much money we will really need to support our ongoing military operations overseas. Congress needs to start holding the administration accountable for the funds that it spends for our military. We need to scrutinize the President's budget to make sure that we are getting the best value for our taxpayer money. If the administration keeps secret how it is spending the money appropriated to it for Iraq and Afghanistan, there is no check on its activities. In the weeks before the war, the chief U.N. weapons inspector lambasted Saddam Hussein for playing a game of ``catch as catch can.'' The chief U.N. weapons inspector excoriated the Iraqi regime for submitting misleading documents that did nothing to reveal what that secretive regime was up to. Why in the world is the U.S. Congress settling for a game of ``catch as catch can'' when it comes to having this administration be honest about how we are going to pay for the huge costs of occupying Iraq? Why would the Congress, which holds the power of the purse--the Constitution has not been amended but 27 times, but not once in this matter. Congress still holds the power of the purse. It rests here in the people's branch. Why would the Congress, which holds the power of the purse, settle for misleading budgets from the President that are intended to disguise the enormous budget deficit by excluding the costs of occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan? We have to plan for these huge costs. There ought to be some tough questions asked about some of these expenditures. For example, we are paying $3.9 billion per month to support 150,000 troops in Iraq, and $950 million per month to support nearly 10,000 troops in Afghanistan. Many Americans must wonder, why does it cost $26,000 a month to support one soldier in Iraq but $95,000 a month to support one soldier in Afghanistan? By using supplemental appropriations bills to fund the costs of extensive military deployments, the administration has found a tactic to avoid elementary questions such as that one. The folks at the Pentagon and the Office of Management and Budget only need to wait until the right moment to send a supplemental funding request to Congress, and use the old cattle prod that we must pass the bill immediately, no matter what its cost, or our troops will run short of supplies. It works. It works like a charm. Yes, like a charm. In the end, it is a budget tactic that is deceitful, allows for abuse and misuse of the public treasure, and cynically uses the very real emotional attachment that all Americans have for our troops. The American people are coming to grips with the dangers of postwar Iraq. They read about them every day. They have read the headlines of daily attacks on American soldiers and they understand that the stakes are very high. The American people want a plan for postwar Iraq, so that they can be assured their loved ones will stay in harm's way only as long as absolutely necessary. Congress must come to grips with the costs of postwar Iraq, as well as those associated with our continuing mission in Afghanistan. Yet a look at this defense budget leaves one wondering how these costs are being covered. There is no additional money for Iraq or Afghanistan.

Mr. BYRD. Yes. Yes, I do. (Mr. ALEXANDER assumed the chair.)

Mr. BYRD. The Senator is correct, with reference to incremental costs, additional costs. Of course, we will be paying salaries there that we would pay whether the personnel were there or whether they were back in West Virginia or in Maryland or wherever. The incremental costs for Iraq and Afghanistan, there is not one thin dime in this budget, not one.

Mr. BYRD. If I may finish, and then I will be glad to. That is an old game. You put it off. You don't want to answer on the record. You don't want to answer in public. And you don't want to answer that question lest there be a followup question. So you just put it off. Say, ``Senator, I am sorry, I don't have that figure. I will have to take a while. It may take me a while, take us a while to give you that figure.'' I said, Well, no, we want the figure now. That is the way we are being handled. That is the way Congress is being handled, and I think it is wrong. Then the answer came back, after a short recess of 20 or 30 minutes. The answer came back from the Secretary of Defense that the war in Iraq is costing about $3.9 billion per month, and almost $1 billion, $943 million, I believe, per month, in Afghanistan. Those answers we needed, and with that kind of information. I am sure the Defense Department had this estimate long before I asked them the question in the committee. They had these estimates. They should have incorporated them into a request in the budget bill. That could have been done. They could have foreseen--well, we are spending on the average of $1 billion a week in Iraq. Let's put it in the budget. Let's put $52 billion in the budget. That would be the way they ought to deal with Congress. That is the way they ought to deal with the people's representatives in Congress. But they are not doing it. They didn't do it then.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, there is ample precedent for across-the- board cuts in the Defense bill. In fact, the language is taken out of section 8135 of the fiscal year 2002 Defense Appropriations Act. Even with these cuts, the procurement, research, and development accounts remain $2 billion above the President's request and $6.7 billion above fiscal year 2003. So the procurement, research, and development accounts are robustly funded. This amendment provides the funds called for in the 78-to-18 vote last week on the State Department authorization which called for $3 billion. I understand Senator Harkin wishes to speak. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent that the names of Senators Bingaman and Cantwell be included as cosponsors.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I thank the distinguished Senator from Alaska for his patience and for waiting until we could finish our statements before he moves to table.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, let me reiterate a few things that have already been said. This is not an across-the-board cut on an entire bill. The language here is taken out of section 8135 of the fiscal year 2002 Defense Appropriations Act. In other words, there is ample precedent for the way we are providing the money. Even with these cuts, the procurement and research and development accounts remain $2 billion above the President's request and $6.7 billion above fiscal year 2003. These are real budget funds. Here we have a $368 billion Defense bill. We shouldn't hesitate to reduce it by $1.1 billion to pay for a program as important as global AIDS. I know the administration says it doesn't want that much money this year. The administration prefers doing the ramped-up approach. People understand simple math. Fifteen billion dollars over 5 years is $3 billion a year. I think we should provide the full $3 billion. People understand that is certainly going to be $15 billion over a 5- year period if we do it $3 billion a year. It is easy to understand that. But by doing the ramped-up approach, it appears that the President is not fulfilling his commitment. I want to help him fulfill that commitment. I remember, as well as the distinguished Senator from Alaska does, when we were trying to provide moneys for homeland security. We tried to provide moneys for our firemen, our policemen, and our health personnel. We were told by the then-Director of Homeland Security, former Governor Tom Ridge, in a letter that they didn't need that much. It seems that the administration doesn't need the money if some effort is being made on this side of the aisle to provide the money that the administration needs. They know they don't need that then and they come back later and ask for it themselves. They say they need it then. This is an opportunity to show the world that we mean what we say. This is an opportunity to show the world that the President means what he says. Here we are quibbling over eight-tenths of 1 percent. We are fiddling over that little measly amount of money when we could adopt the amendment. People of the world would understand what we are saying. They would believe the President is backing up his commitment. Why do we quibble over a few tenths of 1 percent here? I have made the case. I ask unanimous consent that certain letters I have received be printed in the Record. These are letters of support for the amendment. They come from the Global AIDS Alliance, the Episcopal Church Office of Government Relations located in Washington, DC, Physicians for Human Rights, the General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church, and the Center for Health and Gender Equity. I ask unanimous consent that these letters be printed in the Record.