Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Yes. It was a fine delegation.

Mr. BYRD. Yes. Mr. WARNER [continuing]. To meet with President Gorbachev. I remember that day as if it were yesterday.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. The Senator is correct, yes.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator for remembering that occasion. north korea

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Virginia, the senior Senator, who is a gentleman. The old saying is: ``He is a gentleman and a scholar.'' I have known him and worked with him, confided in him and with him for these many years. I cherish his friendship.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. I would be glad to.

Mr. BYRD. I say to the Senator, courage is fine. I don't think the President lacks courage. Nobody is questioning his courage. But whether he has wisdom or vision or exercises good judgment along with courage is something else. I am simply saying this administration has not been forthright with the American people and has not been forthright with the Congress. We can debate that as long as you wish, but that is the way I see it. At some future time, if the distinguished Senator wishes to debate that, I will be happy to accommodate him.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator. I think we certainly need, more and more, to debate this situation. I think we have not debated it enough. I believe that where we missed the boat was last fall when this Congress turned over to the executive branch the authority, by a resolution, virtually to declare war. I think Congress was wrong in doing that. I voted against that resolution. I am proud of the vote that I cast at that point. I think Congress, under the Constitution, has the authority to declare war, and I think we shift aside our responsibilities and our duties under the Constitution when we attempt to shift that duty and that responsibility and that authority over to the Chief Executive of the United States. The time for debate was then. It is not too late to debate it now. I have been attempting to say a good bit from time to time on this matter, and will continue to, if we have much time left. But time is closing in on us, as I see our troops massing on the borders of Iraq. I don't think there is much time left to debate. But as long as that time remains, I think we ought to utilize it. We ought to tell the American people what their losses are going to be and what the cost is going to be to them. That is where I think the administration is falling down. It ought to let the American people know the sacrifices they may have to make and what the cost of this war is going to be in terms of money, in terms of lives, and in terms of our image before the world--what it is costing us there. So let's have more from the administration on this point.

Mr. BYRD. Of course there are always two sides to issues. Preston County, WV, is a great buckwheat flour-growing area. They make fine buckwheat cakes. But there is no buckwheat cake so thin that there isn't two sides to it. So there are two sides. It seems to me we have just been recreant in not telling the American people what this is going to cost. I have a feeling they don't know very much, from the lack of debate that has gone forward, and from the fact that this administration has not come forward with the facts and told the American people what the cost may be to them. And all the while we see our young men and women being shipped out, as the National Guard goes forth and takes our schoolteachers, our policemen, our firefighters, our lawyers, and our churchmen. It takes people from all walks of life and sends them overseas--for how long we do not know. We don't know. They don't know what the duration will be. They don't know whether they will come back, of course. And I am sure their salaries are suffering when they go over as National Guardsmen. The people are entitled to know more than this administration has been willing to tell them. So I hope the Senator will join me in urging the administration to come forward with the facts and tell the American people, his constituents and mine, what they may have to pay.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I say to my friend, I hope the President will display this kind of desire to engage in multilateralism more so than he has with respect to Iraq. This is the approach I favored all along. We should get the United Nations, be sure the opinion of the world is with us in Iraq, and get the support of the United Nations. I have a resolution I introduced some time ago urging we seek a second U.N. resolution. If the President would show more interest in a multilateral approach to that situation, I think many would feel better. I recall his saying, I think, to the U.N.: If you don't do it, we will. If the U.N. doesn't do this, I will--or we will. That kind of an attitude has not been to my liking, certainly, and it does not show enough concern about the opinions of other nations, and it does not show enough desire to have the support of other nations. But this President is determined, apparently, to have a war in Iraq, even if he has to go it alone. That has been the impression I received thus far. When he says to the U.N., if you don't do it, I will, or we will, that doesn't show any great inclination to wait on other nations to help join in that situation.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator. I think we are going pretty far from the subject that I started out with today. I was talking about the fact that we are not paying the kind of attention that should be paid; we are not addressing the real crisis that is developing. We are not looking at the real peril that is facing this country; namely, North Korea. We are being distracted by the developing situation in Iraq, which, as far as I am concerned, does not present to this country anything near the peril, the danger, that we are confronted with in North Korea. Now, if the distinguished Senator wishes to engage in a freewheeling debate on the whole subject matter, fine, we will do that another day. But I am addressing the Senate on the need to open talks with North Korea and not wait for other nations to take the lead. We need to take the lead ourselves. Every day counts. Every 24 hours counts. We are already seeing this situation advance quickly. As long as Kim Jong II thinks we are going to be distracted with Iraq, he is likely to take further advantage of the situation. That is the issue I am addressing.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, while the United States continues its relentless march to war against Iraq, a crisis that is potentially far more perilous is rapidly unfolding halfway around the world on the Korean peninsula. While Saddam Hussein hunkers down in Baghdad, under the thumb of the United Nations weapons inspectors, and is being forced to begin destroying some of his most prized missiles, North Korean leader Kim Jong II is aggressively taunting the United States and moving full speed ahead toward restarting his nuclear weapons program. Over this past weekend, the North Koreans took their defiance and contempt of the United States to a new level when four North Korean fighter jets intercepted an unarmed U.S. reconnaissance plane in international airspace over the Sea of Japan. According to news reports, the armed North Korean jets came within 50 feet of the American plane and shadowed it for 22 minutes. Initial reports suggest that one of the North Korean pilots may have engaged his radar in preparation for firing an air-to-air missile moments before the U.S. aircraft aborted its mission and returned safely to its home base in Kadena, Japan. This latest action by North Korea is a marked escalation of the recent tensions between the U.S. and North Korea. Not since it shot down an unarmed U.S. surveillance plane in 1969--more than 30 years ago--has North Korea engaged in aerial confrontation with the United States. That last weekend's provocation by the North Koreans ended without incident is a relief, but it is not a reprieve from concern. Given the hostility and volatility of the North Korean government, this latest confrontation could easily have ended in disaster--a major disaster. The White House branded North Korea's actions as ``reckless behavior,'' and the Pentagon promptly dispatched 24 long-range bombers to Guam in a move that was seen by some as a not-so-subtle warning to Kim Jong Il that a military response to North Korea's increasing bellicosity is not outside the realm of possibility. But the President has given no indication that he is willing to address the North Korean crisis head-on by engaging North Korea diplomatically in an effort to defuse tensions. To the contrary, the White House appears determined to continue to proceed in its no-talk policy toward North Korea while it focuses the vast weight of its energy and resources on preparing for war with Iraq. I am increasingly alarmed that this administration's military and diplomatic fixation on waging war with Iraq is serving to overshadow and possibly eclipse the mounting crisis in North Korea. Benign neglect is a dangerous policy to apply to North Korea. The nation is isolated and its people are starving. Kim Jong Il is hostile, erratic, and desperate for cash. He is also armed and heavily fortified. In open testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 12, CIA Director George Tenet noted that ``the United States faces a near-term ICBM (Intercontinental Ballistic Missile) threat from North Korea.'' According to intelligence estimates, North Korea already has one to two nuclear weapons and continues to develop the Taepo Dong-2 missile, which has the capability of reaching the United States with a nuclear- weapon-sized payload. Recent relations between the United States and North Korea were far from good to begin with, but since October, when it was revealed that North Korea had a secret program to produce enriched uranium, the resulting nuclear standoff between the United States and North Korea has gone from bad to worse. In a period of just over 4 months, North Korea has moved swiftly and boldly to take the necessary steps to resume the production of nuclear weapons. Following the disclosure of its covert nuclear program in October, North Korea in December expelled U.N. inspectors from its nuclear facilities at Yongbyon, removed U.N. monitoring seals and cameras, and announced it would reactivate the facilities. In January, a month before last, North Korea announced its withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and appeared to begin moving its stockpile of nuclear fuel rods out of storage. Just last week, on February 27, American intelligence sources concluded that North Korea had, indeed, reactivated the Yongbyon facility. The significance of starting up the reactor is that it could, over time, provide a continuing source of plutonium for nuclear weapons, which North Korea could either stockpile or sell. If North Korea also begins reprocessing its nuclear fuel rods, some U.S. intelligence officials have concluded that it could begin producing bomb-grade plutonium within a matter of weeks, a process that could yield enough plutonium for five to seven bombs by this summer. In other words, North Korea could begin grinding out the essential components of nuclear weapons for its own use or for sale to the highest bidder even before the first volley is fired in Iraq. At the same time that it has been ratcheting up its nuclear activity, North Korea has also been ratcheting up its rhetoric and its military saber-rattling. In February, a North Korean MiG fighter jet crossed briefly into South Korean air space for the first time in 20 years. On February 24, North Korea rattled the inauguration of South Korea's new president by test firing an anti-ship missile into the sea. Earlier, North Korea threatened to abandon the armistice that ended the Korean War. And just this week on March 3, Kim Jong Il warned that nuclear war could break out if the U.S. Government attacks North Korea's nuclear program, while President Bush explicitly raised the possibility of using military force against North Korea as a ``last resort'' if diplomacy fails. The pattern of increasingly hostile words and actions on the part of North Korea, coupled with the moves it appears to be taking toward building up its nuclear arsenal, make North Korea one of the most volatile and dangerous spots on Earth today. The Bush Administration's inattention to the problem and its unwillingness to engage in diplomacy with North Korea are only exacerbating an already precarious situation. Under the circumstances, North Korea presents a far more imminent threat than Iraq to the security of the United States. It is ironic that the President has made it clear that a military response to the crisis in North Korea would be considered only as a last resort at the same time that he is massing forces in the Persian Gulf region to launch a preemptive military strike, possibly within a matter of weeks, if not days, against a much less potent threat to the United States. What is particularly frustrating is that the North Korean crisis might never have reached the proportions it has reached had President Bush taken a different tack with respect to North Korea when he came into office. Today's nuclear standoff with North Korea is, in many ways, a replay of a similar crisis in 1994, when North Korea pushed the envelope on its nuclear program, nearly precipitating a military response from the United States. That crisis was resolved when the Clinton administration reached an agreement, called the Agreed Framework, to freeze nuclear production in North Korea in exchange for fuel oil and light-water reactors. Unfortunately, when he took office, President Bush put relations with North Korea in the deep freeze by heaping suspicion and disdain on the North Korean Government, branding Kim Jong Il a ``pygmy'' and including North Korea in the ``axis of evil.'' Even so, the current crisis might well have been defused weeks ago, before the two leaders started exchanging threats of war, had the United States agreed to talk directly to North Korea, as our allies in the region have been pleading with us to do. Instead, the administration drew a line in the sand, insisting that the United States would not be blackmailed into one-on-one talks with North Korea. As a result, the Americans and the North Koreans have been talking past one another for the past 4 months, and the progress has been all downhill. It has come to the point that, whether by accident or design, the situation in North Korea could rapidly disintegrate from a war of words and gestures into a war of bullets and bombs perhaps even nuclear bombs. As it stands now, North Korea has shown no evidence that it is willing to back down from its nuclear confrontation with the United States, and the United States has shown no evidence that it is willing to talk to North Korea. Stalemate and neglect are not effective tools of foreign policy. Wishful thinking is not an effective tool of foreign policy. The situation in North Korea is a crisis, and the United States must come to grips with it. We must open a dialog with North Korea. To ignore the peril presented by North Korea and its nuclear ambitions is to court--to court--disaster. Frankly, the longer the United States procrastinates and lets North Korea set the agenda, the harder it will be to deal with the situation diplomatically. If we do not act quickly, we may inadvertently paint ourselves into a corner as we have done in Iraq. It does not have to be that way. It is time for both nations to stop posturing and start talking. It is time for the United States to deal with the crisis in North Korea. I call on this administration to address the growing peril in North Korea, and to fully engage in a diplomatic effort to resolve what may well become an international problem of epic proportions. We can, and must, be firm, but we cannot remain aloof. We can, and should, insist that other nations with a stake in the future of North Korea be at the table, including China, Russia, Japan, and South Korea, but we can wait no longer for those nations to take the lead. The situation in North Korea is serious, but it is not yet desperate. The window to initiate diplomacy is not yet closed, but the longer the United States drags its feet, the narrower that window becomes. It is time to start talking to the North Koreans. If the United States takes the lead, our allies in the region are likely to follow. But it is the United States that must lead the way. The only practical way to solve the crisis in North Korea, before it erupts into chaos, is with patience, skill, and determination at the negotiating table. Let us begin now, before it is too late.

Mr. BYRD. I think that is a good approach normally, if there is time and if there is an indication that those other nations are going to take that lead. That is one thing. But there is not time here. There is not the indication that the other nations are going to take that lead. So I say we need to act more expeditiously. I do not think we can afford to wait. This is a crisis that is developing, and developing quickly, and there is every indication that if we continue to wait, Kim Jong Il is going to take additional steps. I understand he may have one or two nuclear weapons now, and he is fast getting into the position where he will be able to manufacture a weapon a month and then faster. We do not have the luxury of waiting until these other nations finally decide they want to do this. They seem to be reluctant. They have not shown any dexterity in moving in to fill this void up to now. I do not think we can afford to wait. In addition, yes, other nations have thought we acted too fast. They have done that in spades with respect to Iraq. We have gone hellbent into that. It seems the President has been determined to conduct a war in Iraq from the beginning almost. I would say as far back as last August he had said there were no plans. That was the response we received from all of the people in the administration. I know once before the Appropriations Committee, Secretary of State Powell, in answer to a question from me, said: There are no plans. The administration and its functionaries must have taken Members of Congress as fools when the administration continued to at that time say, well, the President has no plans. Anybody could see through that. He may not have plans today. He may not have plans on his desk. That was the way it was phrased: He had no plans on his desk. It takes only a fool not to be able to see through that. Perhaps he does not have plans on his desk, but there may be plans on some other desk somewhere that the President knows about, or the President may have plans tomorrow. He is certainly not immune to knowledge of what is going on all around him. After all, he is the Commander in Chief, the top man in the executive branch; he is supposed to know what is going on. So while we were fed that line by the administration, they simply did not want to tell us, and they do not want to tell us yet. It is not that they do not want to--that other nations have a right to complain about this administration moving pellmell into a situation without waiting for other nations, without wanting to wait for other nations. Not only that, but the administration treats us the same way in the Congress. The administration does not want to tell us what the cost of this was is going to be. They say it is such a range of costs that it might change from day to day. They do not want to say what it will be now because, who knows, maybe tomorrow it will be different. Well, of course, that is to be expected. But I think the administration ought to be honest, upfront, and sincere with the elected representatives of the people in Congress, and say now this is the situation today, Senator, as we see it. We think the range would be somewhere between A and B. That can change, Senator. Mr. Chairman, that can change. It can change tomorrow. But as of today, we cannot pinpoint the exact figure, but it would appear that it would be thus and so. Now, if the war lasts longer than a week, lasts longer than 2 weeks, 10 days, or 3 weeks, it may cost more. Of course, if we win the war, and win it quickly, it will not cost much. But then there is the problem of the morning after. What is the cost going to be in helping to rebuild Iraq? If we are going to be responsible for destroying a great portion of it, we have a responsibility of rebuilding it. So, the cost would be, the estimate would be, thus and so. If the administration would come before the Appropriations Committee and address it like that--we understand that any administration would find it difficult; it would be impossible to be sure as to what the costs would be. But if an administration sits down with the congressional committee and says: Here is the situation; we estimate it to be thus and so, because we think the war will not last more than a week, or 10 days, or 2 weeks, or a month; if it lasts longer, it will cost more--that is being honest and forthright with the elected representatives of the people. We understand that. We were not born yesterday. But to just say, ``We do not know exactly,'' what does the administration think that Members of Congress are fools? We can see all that. We know all that. We know these things are difficult to figure. But when we also know that estimates are being kicked around internally, we believe we are entitled, on behalf of the people, to know what those estimates are.

Mr. BYRD. I think the Senator is correct.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. They are indeed. It is amazing.

Mr. BYRD. Oh, yes, glossed over. There seems to be no thought given to it. I want to tell the Senator from Maryland that we on the Appropriations Committee and the American taxpayers are going to learn about it at some point when it is over, and the costs of this war may be colossal. The time to ask questions is now, not a year from now, not when the body bags start coming back, not when the paying of the toll is coming due. Madam President, I thank the distinguished Senator, one of the most able Senators I have ever seen in my 45 years in this body and in my 50 years on Capitol Hill. He is on committees that know something about dollars and cents and how they add up. I thank him for his incisive questions.

Mr. BYRD. Scriptures say that the wages of sin is death. We are not being told what the wages of this war are going to amount to. There is no discussion. One may be led to believe that this is going to be like a video game: It will be just over in a matter of moments, in days or weeks. There is no discussion of the cost. There is no estimate. Now, I find it very hard to believe that the administration has not carefully explored the potential cost of what the American people are going to be asked to bear; and I think the polls we read about, which indicate a pretty high degree of support for the President in his passion to lead us into this war--I don't believe those people who are asked questions have any idea whatsoever as to what the costs are going to be. Why should they? We ourselves don't have any idea. The administration is not presenting us with any estimates of the cost. This seems to me to be strikingly strange. We are being led into a war--led into a war--by an administration that makes no effort whatsoever to tell the American people what they are likely to pay in treasure, in lives, and especially with regard to a postwar Iraq. I think it is going to be like a bottomless pit.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I do yield.

Mr. BYRD. The distinguished Senator from Maryland is preeminently correct. There is no estimate of what the war will cost in the President's budget.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I am glad to yield.

Mr. BYRD. Madam President, since last August, the administration has worked aggressively to convince the American public that Saddam Hussein is a brutal dictator who directly threatens the United States. The President has been unambiguous, and often dangerously blunt, about his passion to use military force to destroy Saddam Hussein's regime. The Bush administration has promoted a vision of Saddam's removal from power quickly, easily, and bloodlessly. Indeed, part of the rationale for support for this war is that America's tremendous military superiority over Iraq will confine a military conflict to a relatively painless contest between the United States' awesome military forces and the relatively weak, conventional military machine of Saddam Hussein. A swift and simple military victory certainly is one possibility, but in our democratic Republic the administration also has a responsibility to inform the American people that much less pleasant scenarios are also possible and even likely. The Congress has a responsibility to explore all possible scenarios with an eye to the eventual costs of this war. We must not just accept the rosy projections so far offered by the administration. Frankly, I have seen little effort by either the administration or the Congress to inform the American taxpayer about the likely costs of this war. In both dollars and human lives, the administration has been ominously quiet about its internal calculations and estimates. What is even worse is that the Congress has barely bothered to ask about them. Earlier this month, the President unveiled his budget for the fiscal year 2004. Even assuming the most primitive and loose definition of the term ``fiscal responsibility,'' that budget request should certainly have included some rough estimate cost for a war with Iraq. Even a range of costs would have been somewhat illuminating. But no cost estimate was included in the budget of the President's. Now let me repeat that. There is no estimate of the cost of the looming war with Iraq in the President's budget--no cost estimate. That is hard to believe, isn't it? But that is the case. The possible war has dominated the airwaves for months, and yet there is no cost estimate in the President's budget. President Bush mentions the looming conflict in nearly every public pronouncement, and yet no cost estimate to fight the war appears in the President's budget--none. Is the administration trying to tell the people of this Nation it is for free? When the Defense Secretary presented the President's defense budget to the Senate Armed Services Committee, and was asked what the administration projected that a war in Iraq would cost, he would only say that such costs are ``not knowable.'' Let us contemplate that answer: ``not knowable.'' Does the Secretary of Defense mean to say that this great Nation does not yet know what its plans include for a war with Iraq? Is that why the costs are ``not knowable''? Does he mean to say that we do not yet know exactly what we are going to try to achieve in Iraq? Is that why the costs are ``not knowable''? Or does he simply mean to indicate that he does not want to divulge the potential costs, therefore to us they are ``not knowable''? One must presume that by now the administration would have made several internal forecasts of the military cost of the war using various scenarios, and that the White House Council of Economic Advisors would have prepared for the President a classified study of the projected economic impact of the war. Reportedly, OMB Director Mitch Daniels has been working on war estimates for months, and yet we are told that these costs are ``not knowable.'' None of this information has been made available to the public, nor, I suspect, is it likely to be released in the near future. This Congress--these two Houses; the people's elected Representatives--has a responsibility to demand that information. The people have a right to know. They are going to suffer the costs. Congress must not accept the answer, ``not knowable.'' The American people, I say, deserve to know. They deserve to know the truth. There was one cost estimate provided by the administration which came from an interview last fall with Larry Lindsey, the President's former economic advisor, who said that a war with Iraq could cost between $100 billion and $200 billion. He went on to opine that that was ``nothing.'' Yet the White House quickly distanced itself from that comment, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget rebuked that estimate, saying that Lindsey's estimate was ``very, very high.'' The OMB Director suggested that the cost of the war would be closer to $60 billion or $70 billion. The Pentagon recently stretched that estimate to $95 billion. I wonder just what we are to make of these conflicting estimates. How are we to gauge the validity of such widely varying numbers? How are the American people to gauge the validity of such widely varying numbers? Do these figures contemplate other complications? What if casualty estimates grow into the thousands? And they may. What if oil prices skyrocket, sparking inflation and lines at the gas pump and costing the U.S. economy thousands of American jobs? Suppose the Middle East erupts in a tornado of violence, toppling regime after regime in the region. Even a rudimentary list of the possible contingencies shows that costs may grossly exceed what the administration wants the public to believe. The Congressional Budget Office reported last September that the incremental cost of just deploying a force to the Persian Gulf--that is, those costs incurred above those budgeted for routine operations-- could be between $9 billion and $13 billion. Prosecuting a war, according to the CBO, could cost between $6 billion and $9 billion per month. And after hostilities ended, the cost just to return U.S. forces to their home bases could range between $5 billion and $7 billion. Regardless of the swiftness of a military victory--it could be swift, but it might not be--there remains the cost of a postwar occupation of Iraq, which the administration says could last for up to 2 years and could mean another $1 billion to $4 billion, or more, per month during that period. On top of that, the United States might face a humanitarian crisis, including rampant disease and starvation, if Saddam Hussein employs a scorched earth strategy in defending his regime. What about the need for a cleanup of biological and chemical weapons if the Iraqi Republican Guard employs them against U.S. soldiers? Reconstruction and nation-building costs resulting from installing a democratic government in Iraq have to also be thought about. The American Academy of Arts and Sciences projected that the minimum reconstruction and nation-building cost for Iraq could be as high as $30 billion, and that is under the very best of circumstances. Will the administration propose something similar to the Marshall plan for Iraq? The Academy reported that U.S. investments in Western Europe after World War II under the Marshall plan cost a total of $13.3 billion over a 4-year period. That is the equivalent of $450 billion over 4 years if measured as a percentage of GDP in 2002.