Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. If this is compassion, the shedding of tears means nothing. Where is the compassion when it comes to spending money to send our men and women overseas, with all of this big, loose talk that we hear, and we are spending money hand over fist. Nobody suggests cutting a nickel or a dime when it comes to putting money in the military. There is no across-the-board cut there. The taxpayers elect us to make careful choices. So I thank the distinguished Senator for bringing out this inequity. The Women, Infants and Children Program, which provides essential sources and nutrition to millions of low-income families, would be cut by $138 million. If food costs and program demands continue to climb, this cut could mean that 224,689 eligible women, infants, and children could be turned away from the WIC program later in the year. At a time of heightened concern about the safety of our Nation's food supply, the Food Safety Inspection Service would be cut by $22 million, eliminating the salaries of 490 food safety inspectors. Last fall, at an Intelligence Committee hearing, FBI Director Mueller testified. He said: I have a hard time telling the country that you should be comfortable-- This is Mr. Mueller talking. The Director said that the FBI is focusing on the threat of terrorists who would use military action against Iraq as a pretext to strike America. That is what he said. That is not what I am saying. That is what he said. Yet, this across-the- board cut would result in the FBI losing 1,175 agents, including 188 agents through attrition, 90 agents through current vacancies, 110 agents that were requested in the fiscal year 2003 budget request, and 787 agents from the agency would have to be laid off. Yesterday, my friend, Mr. Gregg, the distinguished senior Senator from New Hampshire, said in so many words, but I think they all added up to this: The FBI is flush with cash. Well, after this across-the- board cut, the FBI will be scrounging for pennies. How about that song, ``Pennies from Heaven.'' I don't know where the pennies will be coming from, but they are going to be pretty scarce, that is sure. At the same Intelligence Committee hearing, FBI Director Mueller, in discussing the potential for terrorist attacks in America, focused attention on certain high-risk sectors, such as transportation, energy, and agriculture. The FBI has sent warnings urging extra precautions in those sectors. Yet, this across-the-board cut would reduce funding for security at our nuclear powerplants by $18 million. This cut will result in a reduction of more than $280 million in funding for the Transportation Security Administration and the Coast Guard, two critical agencies whose mandates are to protect our airports and our ports. A reduction of this size will require the Coast Guard to conduct fewer port security patrols and further degrade their efforts in the areas of drug interdiction, marine safety, and fisheries patrol. Coast Guard ships will spend more time sitting at the dock for the lack of fuel, money, and operating funds. The Customs Service would have to cut 1,600 positions, including agents and inspectors, at our Nation's seaports. Now this is serious. This is not just play money. This is serious. The administration has continually stated that places of national interest have specifically been targeted by terrorists for attack, and yet this arbitrary cut would reduce funds for the U.S. Park Police, resulting in approximately 35 fewer Park Police officers at the very same time that the agency is beefing up its antiterrorism efforts at our most visible national symbols, such as the Statue of Liberty, the Washington Monument, and the Jefferson Memorial. With these additional cuts, total funding in the bill for homeland security programs would be reduced to less than $24.4 billion. This is virtually a freeze at the level for fiscal year 2002. At a time of heightened vulnerability at home, the FBI will be losing agents, the Customs Service will be losing inspectors at our ports, the Food Safety Inspection Service and the Food and Drug Administration will be losing food inspectors, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service will be losing Border Patrol agents. In addition, the resources to help State and local governments train and equip first responders for potential terrorist attacks with biological, chemical, or nuclear agents will be cut--that is right, cut--by 2.9 percent. Is this any way to govern? I think not. Environmental cleanup activities would be cut by $203 million. Such a cut would delay short-term cleanup milestones at Hanford in Washington State, Savannah River in South Carolina, as well as in Idaho, in New Mexico, in Nevada, in Ohio, in Kentucky, yes, and even at Rocky Flats in Colorado. Let's talk about the Head Start Program. The Head Start Program would be cut by $192 million, eliminating services for 2,722 children, adding to the 2,800 children that the National Head Start Association claims would be displaced by the President's budget. This cut would result in the elimination of services to a total of 5,522 children in fiscal year 2003. The budget for the National Institutes of Health would be cut by $778 million, scuttling the plan to double NIH's budget over 5 years. A 2.9- percent cut would reduce VA medical care by $692 million. How about that? This would result in 230,000 fewer veterans being treated and 1.8 million fewer visits by veterans to outpatient clinics. Go to the veterans the next time you go home; go around your State and tell the veterans what you have done. Tell them you have cut the money for their clinics. Tell them you have cut the money for VA medical care. Tell those veterans, look into their eyes, tell them we have cut their money. Yes, I voted to cut it. I voted to cut it. Last year, though, I did not vote to cut it. When we reported out those bills last year, we supported it. So this would result in 230,000 fewer veterans--let me say it again, 230,000--being treated and 1.8 million fewer visits by veterans to outpatient clinics. This cut would also result in 236,000 veterans remaining on VA's waiting list to see a doctor because the VA would not be able to hire additional staff to reduce the backlog of veterans waiting to see a doctor. These across-the-board cuts are simply not acceptable. They are real cuts. If Senators care about health care for our veterans, if you care about homeland security, if you care about the National Institutes of Health, you should support this amendment regardless of political party; you should support this amendment. I urge Members to support my amendment to strike this arbitrary and ill-considered cut. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. How much time do I have left?

Mr. BYRD. How much time does the Senator want?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. BYRD. What is the Chair's ruling?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, there is $3.9 billion in this bill in defense funding for related activities. What I am saying, I think, is very germane to what we are talking about. The Senator from Arizona hasn't shown me the courtesy of even hearing my speech.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this debate is germane. I have not finished my speech yet. I hope the Senator will show me the courtesy that I would show him.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am speaking about the defense of this country. This bill involves the defense of this country. There is $3.9 billion in this bill for national defense.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield myself such time as I may consume. And I send to the desk an amendment.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Alaska has been very gracious in proposing that I, as the author of the amendment, have 45 minutes and that he, the manager on the other side, have 15 minutes. My hearing isn't too good at this point. I am trying to clarify.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. I yield 6 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Nevada.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, let me thank my friend from Alaska again. He is, in Shakespeare's words, ``a man after my own kidney.'' He offers me three times as much time as he intends to claim. What does that tell you? That tells you he is a very fair man. And it also tells you he is very sure of his votes. We saw, yesterday, how well disciplined the Republican majority is. Every man, every woman, right down the line--no variation, no veering off course--straight to the object, no matter what the contents of the amendment, no matter what its attributes, votes it down. I say this with all due respect to Senator Stevens. But he is sure of his votes, which indicates to me that the other side has caucused, they have said they are going to say no to every amendment we offer on this side. I respect them and I admire them for their discipline. Now, Mr. President, to the amendment. After the election--remember the election, my friend from Rhode Island, who presides this morning over this Chamber with a degree of discipline and poise and aplomb that is so rare as a day in June--after the election, the President of the United States threw down the gauntlet and insisted that total discretionary spending not exceed $751 billion. He said: That is it. That is the line. That is the mark. No more. That far but no further. To meet this arbitrary target, Senator Stevens was forced to reduce the 11 bills that were approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee last July, on bipartisan, unanimous votes, by $9.8 billion. What a change. What a change a few months can make. These 11 bills were approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee last July, when we had 15 Democrats, 14 Republicans, and--to the man and to the woman--we had a bipartisan vote, a unanimous vote, in support of these 11 bills. And now, because the President has drawn a line in the sand and sent the message to the Republican majority: Cut it. Cut it--and we see the discipline on the other side of the aisle-- everybody is marching to the tune of the President of the United States on that side of the aisle. So what he says goes. He says: That far. It will go this far, and no further. All right. So to meet this arbitrary target, Senator Stevens was forced to reduce the 11 bills that were approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee last July, on bipartisan, unanimous votes, by $9.8 billion. Let's see how everybody votes today. This shortsighted and arbitrary ceiling on spending forced Senator Stevens to make dramatic reductions in priority programs designed to defend our homeland, educate our children, improve our transportation systems, and strengthen our law enforcement programs. The legislation before us also includes a 2.9-percent across-the- board cut in all domestic programs. Get that, an across-the-board cut in all, not just some but all domestic programs. This provision, buried in 1,052 pages of legislative text, will exacerbate the cuts that are already made in the bill. A cut of 2.9 percent now, or $11.4 billion, in domestic spending is no technical adjustment. The President insisted that there be a vote on going to war with Iraq before the election. He insisted that he must have that vote. The Republicans insisted that we must have the vote on Iraq before the election so that the impending election would affect the outcome of that vote. I wonder why they didn't say: Let's vote on the 11 appropriations bills before the election, with the across-the-board cut of 1.6 percent and then with the addition yesterday of 1.3 percent, making a total of 2.9 percent across the board. How would that have been before the election? How would that have been perceived before the election if we had this vote then? If we could have only had the vote that is about to come, if we could have had it before the election, what a difference that would have made. Here we are now. This country is faced with a cut of 2.9 percent, or $11.4 billion, in domestic spending. This is no technical adjustment. This is a real cut. Nor can it be fairly characterized as capturing the savings from agencies operating under a continuing resolution for 4 months. Don't you believe that. The President's budget for fiscal year 2003 was simply inadequate when it came to critical domestic programs. The President proposed to freeze domestic spending, excluding homeland security, and last summer the Senate Appropriations Committee approved, on a bipartisan unanimous vote, an allocation that provided just enough additional resources, about $11 billion, to cover the cost of inflation for domestic programs. Every Republican on the Appropriations Committee voted for that. Every Democrat on the Appropriations Committee voted for that. With those additional funds, the committee was able to restore essential funding for programs that the President proposed to cut, such as veterans medical care, highway funding for the States, education programs, the new No Child Left Behind law, Amtrak, and State and local law enforcement. Now what a change. Now the President has not only insisted on virtually eliminating the $11 billion increase that the committee approved last summer, but by including this 2.9-percent cut in domestic programs, spending will actually be cut overall by 1 percent. It is also deeply troubling that some of this $11.4 billion across-the-board cut is being imposed on domestic programs to pay for increases in mandatory programs. The mandatory side of the Federal budget is going through the roof unchecked, going through the ozone layer, while the domestic programs that are being funded through the annual appropriations process are being squeezed--like I squeezed my grapefruit this morning. The domestic programs that are being funded through the annual appropriations process are being squeezed. Approximately $4 billion of the $11.4 billion across-the-board cut is included in the bill to pay for increased mandatory spending in Medicare, in assistance for needy families, and for drought relief. While these are important programs, should our veterans have to pay for them with longer lines at hospitals and clinics? Hear me. I am asking you, the people out there who are listening and watching through the electronic eye, I am asking you. I am asking my friends on the other side of the aisle, while these are important programs, should our veterans have to pay for them with longer lines at hospitals and clinics? How many pregnant women and infants have fewer meals through the WIC program? How about that? The silence is deafening. Should we fail to meet our commitment to double the budget for the National Institutes of Health over 5 years? I think not. And the Senate, based on previous votes, thinks not. Once we start down this road of paying for increases in mandatory programs by cutting domestic funding, where will it stop? When I came to Congress more than 50 years ago, I seem to remember that the Appropriations Committees of the two Houses controlled something like 90 percent of the domestic spending programs. My memory is not infallible, but it was a tremendous figure over today's. We have been hearing in recent years that the Appropriations Committees have control over about one-third of the total expenditures. Now what we are doing, with these mandatory programs, you might refer to them as backdoor spending. Congress, and the Appropriations Committee, has absolutely no control over that. That change has come about in my 50 years in Congress. Now what we are going to do is pay for some of those mandatory programs with an across-the-board cut in discretionary spending. Now, go back and face your constituents. I wish we had this vote before the election. This is the vote we should have had before the election. Once we start down this road of paying for increases in mandatory programs by cutting domestic funding, where will it stop? There will be no stopping it. There is only $385 billion of domestic funding for fiscal year 2003. We are talking about funding that is important to 290 million people in this great Nation. Are we going to pay for the new prescription drug benefit with cuts in domestic programs? Are we? There simply is not enough domestic spending in the entire budget to cover such mandatory costs. Let's be sensible about this matter. Let's forget politics for a moment. An across-the-board cut of 2.9 percent is a real, honest-to- goodness cut that would change people's lives across this Nation. Where do you stand? Go back to your constituents, tell them where you stand. What was the first question that was ever asked since the human race began? In reading the Book of Genesis, the first chapter, the first question ever asked was when God walked through the Garden of Eden in the cool of the day, before the shades of night had fallen, and he was looking for Adam and Eve. They had eaten of the forbidden fruit. I know some people think it is old-fashioned to refer to the Holy Bible. I don't. Right there in that first chapter of Genesis you will find the greatest scientific treatise that was ever written, giving the chronology of creation, and the scientists don't dispute that chronology as it is laid down there. But God went through the garden and he asked: ``Adam, where art thou?'' Adam was hiding. He and Eve had gotten over behind some bushes. They were hiding. Can you hide from God? They found they could not. But they were hiding over behind some bushes. God went through the garden and said: ``Adam, where art thou?'' I say to my friends, you are going to be asked by the people: Where were you? Where were you? Where were you when these cuts took place? Where were you?

Mr. BYRD. Save me 1 minute, I say to the Chair.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. That is just one example, and it is a shameful--not just a disgrace, it is a shame, a shame. This across-the-board cut is not a careful choice. This cut would result in ham-handed reductions in veterans' programs, public health programs, education programs, and homeland security programs. Yes, this is a shame.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, let me go back in my speech and pick up where I was interrupted. I have been in Congress more than 50 years. There have been 11,707 Members of the House and Senate since the Republic began. I am the fourth--only three Members, men and women, of all the 11,707 men and women elected to both Houses in the Congress exceed me. And here I am making a speech on what I consider to be important, and I think it is very germane to what we are talking about. We are talking about the national defense of this country when we have this appropriation bill up. We are talking about the expenditures for the military in this bill. We are facing a situation in which we may be spending more and more and more money for the military. I thank the Chair for the ruling. I am just sorry I was interrupted on this matter. I would not interrupt the Senator from Arizona concerning germaneness on a speech he maybe making at any time. I would not do that. I will back up and then pick up where I was interrupted. I am relieved that the administration, despite North Korea's alarming rhetoric, appears to fully comprehend the folly of a preemptive military strike on a nation which we believe is a nuclear power, and has finally agreed to at least talk with the North Korean government and to work with other nations in the region toward a diplomatic solution to the crisis. The situation in Iraq, however, appears to be heading in the opposite direction. Iraq, which, by all accounts, does not have nuclear weapons, and is presently the subject of scrutiny by U.N. inspectors, is under the heavy threat of a preemptive U.S. attack. The airwaves are awash with video snapshots of brave young American soldiers bidding tearful goodbyes to loved ones. When it comes to Iraq, America's war machine seems to be cranked up to a fever pitch. This is going to cost money, real money. We have talked about a 2.9 percent across-the-board cut here in domestic discretionary spending. Nobody is saying anything about a cut in military spending, no. I am not advocating that. I want to face up to the situation that confronts us. I want the American people to start looking and listening to what is going on. Ever since Congress voted last year to hand to the President the power to decide--we did that; Congress did that over my obstreperous objection, vociferous objection; Congress did that. Twenty-three Members of the Senate did not do that. Twenty-three Members decided to vote against handing this power over to the President, the power to declare war. Ever since Congress voted last year to hand to the President the power to decide why, when, how, and where we will wage war against Iraq, the question of whether we should wage war has largely been overlooked. It is past time to remedy that omission. Where is the debate on the wisdom of actually resorting to force? Is that going to cost money? Where is the debate? How much is it going to cost? How many men and women in the Armed Forces are we likely to lose? What may happen here at home in the war against terrorism? Where is the urgency? Why not let the inspectors do their job? Why are our allies backing away? Congress made a serious mistake in passing the open-ended use-of- force authorization last year, but we only compound that mistake by sitting idly by while the Pentagon draws up war plans--costly war plans--and sends our young men and women abroad. Now is the time for informed debate. Here we are about to go out for a recess. It is time for us to look at this matter. It is facing us. Now is the time for informed debate, and now is the time for a public examination of where we are headed and why. The President has stated repeatedly that he has not decided whether to invade Iraq. We must take him at his word. It is my hope that he will not rush to judgment. The situation demands a careful and thorough examination of the views of our allies, the costs in money, the costs in lives, the risks before any final conclusion that war is the only recourse. Congress must be part of that debate. The United Nations must be part of that debate. A vote taken last fall should not constrain Members of Congress from reevaluating the situation in light of recent developments. However bad it was--and it was very bad, I think--the use-of-force resolution passed by Congress last October did not impose an oath of silence on Congress or on the American people. It did not prohibit the continued questioning of the administration's decisions with regard to Iraq. This may be difficult to do when the war drums are beating, but that is sometimes the uncomfortable role of the true patriot. Mr. President, without so much as a whisper of debate, our Nation is actually mobilizing to attack a sovereign state before U.N. weapons inspectors have even made serious headway in their work. Is this what the policy of preemption means: That we preempt evidence and move to attack based on suspicions? The administration's new policy of preemption has repercussions far beyond Iraq. Other nations are watching what we are doing. North Korea is one of those nations. Even Brazil is reported to be contemplating the development of nuclear weapons as an insurance policy against possible attack. Iraq and North Korea are both charter members of the President's infamous ``axis of evil,'' and yet at the same time that the President is turning the heat up on Iraq, he and his administration have been vigorously downplaying the crisis in North Korea. Iraq has at least allowed U.N. weapons inspectors into the country. North Korea threw them out. Iraq, to the best of our knowledge, does not currently have nuclear weapons. North Korea, on the other hand, has brazenly admitted that it is working to develop nuclear weapons, and there is evidence that it already has some nuclear capability. Iraq at least is going through the motions of cooperating with the United Nations. Meanwhile, North Korea has announced its withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, threatened to resume missile testing, and declared that U.N. sanctions will mean war. Yet the United States is mobilizing for war with Iraq while politely tiptoeing around the far more dangerous situation on the Korean peninsula. The President, in the same breath that he assails Saddam Hussein, has gone to great lengths to assure the world he has no intention of invading North Korea. Is it any wonder that our allies are scrambling to make sense of America's foreign policy? Is it any wonder that the new image of the United States has caused turmoil and puzzlement even among our staunchest allies? I am sure many of our friends around the globe wonder why diplomacy can remain an option with a regime as treacherous and threatening as North Korea and yet can be taken off the table when it comes to a much weaker Iraq. I wonder if the administration has calculated enough the ramifications of a military solution in Iraq not only in terms of dollars, but also in terms of bloodshed and hardship in the Middle East and terrorist attacks here at home. What is the message we convey to the world if we are eager to apply a doctrine of preemption on those countries with limited ability to defend or counterattack and yet waffle over a preemptive response to dangerous regimes with the firepower to get back? Are we not, in effect, saying that nuclear weapons and long-range missiles can provide small countries with an insurance policy against a U.S. preemptive strike? The unanticipated result of this doctrine of preemption may be to unleash a global scramble to acquire the means to deter the United States from unprovoked attacks. We could be at the brink of a new type of arms race, unleashed by fear of a preemptive U.S. strike. There are many risks to an inconsistent foreign policy that, in some cases, threatens the use of force as a first response and, in other cases, takes military action off the table entirely. Our national treasure will be increasingly poured into bullets and bombs at a time when homeland security is an equally pressing concern, or even greater concern. Our efforts to preach peace and restraint as a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be sabotaged by our own our own foreign policies. American citizens at home will face an increased threat at the hands of terrorists lying in wait for the chance to cripple our economy and derail our war machine, and we will be increasingly hard pressed to prevent terrorist destruction because our resources will be sucked up--sucked up--by the war machine that now drives our foreign policy. Additionally, if we stay the current course, thousands upon thousands of American families will face a painful uprooting. Many of the men and women who will be sent to Iraq are members of the National Guard and Reserve. Military officials have said that the activation of National Guard and Reserve troops for a war against Iraq could exceed 100,000. The impact of such a large activation will reverberate throughout the Nation in communities large and small, in the small community of Sophia where I have lived and where I have voted for these many years. On January 7, the Charleston, WV, Gazette reported that a speeding motorist raced through three tollbooths and drove more than 75 miles on the West Virginia Turnpike before any State troopers were available to pursue him. The problem? The State Police force is suffering a severe shortage of troopers. The fear? The situation will get much worse if the 51 West Virginia troopers who are also members of the Guard and Reserve are called up for duty. This problem is not unique to West Virginia. According to the Charleston Gazette, law enforcement agencies across the nation, whose members are heavily represented in the Guard and Reserve, are worried about the impact of a war on their ability to protect the public. And law enforcement will not be the only profession to be affected by a Reserve call-up. Members of the Guard and Reserve are not just part- time soldiers--they are also full-time members of their communities, holding key jobs. Policemen, firefighters, paramedics, doctors, nurses, teachers--their professions run the gamut, and their absences when on active duty leave significant voids for those left behind. America will be at great risk of terrorist attack--we are told--if we invade Iraq. Shortages among the ranks of health and public safety professionals diverted from their civilian jobs to go to war with Iraq will leave Americans with a perilously thin margin of protection at home just when they are likely to need it most. We must not be in a rush to initiate war against Iraq. Saddam Hussein is certainly in no position to launch a strike against the United States with thousands of our troops massed on his doorstep. Iraq will not be able to rebuild its ailing military in the coming months or to covertly produce weapons of mass destruction under the watchful gaze of the U.S. military and the U.N. weapons inspectors. Today's headlines reveal that the UN inspectors discovered a cache of empty chemical warheads in an ammunition dump. Who knows what tomorrow's inspections may uncover. Where is the urgency that would drive us to preempt the inspectors before they have adequate time to fulfill their mission. While there is dwindling international support for using the initial findings of the U.N. inspectors as a trigger point for invasion, there is great support for the overall United Nations arms inspection program. Saddam Hussein is politically isolated, and the world is virtually unanimous in supporting the disarmament of Iraq. I support that disarmament. To act precipitously now, however, without the full support of our friends and allies, could cost the United States dearly in the long run. Already, some of our strongest allies in the region, most notably Turkey, must chafe at U.S. pressure to join in the war on Iraq. According to a recent survey by the nonpartisan Pew Research Center, 83 percent of Turks oppose allowing U.S. forces to use bases in their country to attack Iraq. And yet our war plans call for the stationing of as many as 80,000 U.S. troops in Turkey. In Europe, the same poll found that large percentages of the population believe that U.S. desire to control Iraqi oil is the chief reason that we are considering attacking Iraq. These perceptions can only serve to undermine our global influence in the years to come. If the U.S. can seize Iraq for its oil, what other nation might it decide to conquer? These thoughts must be on the minds of those who question our new and belligerent foreign policy. The possibility exists that the crisis in Iraq can be resolved without a shot being fired. With more time and increased diplomatic efforts, there is a chance that Saddam Hussein could be peacefully forced into exile. But first, the fever pitch of war rhetoric often heard from this White House must subside. If we fancy ourselves a superpower then we must behave as a superpower, with confidence, with wisdom, and with dignity. Some very important dates are fast approaching. The first is January 27, when the United Nations weapons inspectors are due to present to the Security Council their first formal assessment of Iraqi compliance with U.N. disarmament demands. Their interim report, delivered to the Security Council on January 9, confirmed that Iraq's weapons declaration was incomplete and insufficient, but the inspectors also reported that they have found no ``smoking guns.'' I was heartened by Secretary of State Colin Powell's statement that, despite indications to the contrary, January 27 is ``not necessarily a D-Day for decision-making.'' We must give the inspectors adequate time to conduct a thorough search. While the White House continues to assert that Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction, it is important to note that the United States has just begun to share key intelligence information on the Iraqi weapons program with the U.N. inspectors. It will take time to pursue those leads. Even our staunchest allies, including Great Britain, are urging the U.S. to slow down on Iraq and let the inspectors do their work. The January 27 report is the first, not the final, step in that process. The second important date on the near horizon is January 28, when President Bush is due to deliver his State of the Union message. The dueling crises in Iraq and North Korea are grim reminders of his last State of the Union speech when the President branded those nations and Iran an ``axis of evil.'' The President's rhetoric that evening was colorful, but events have proved that it was not wise. I note that the President is now saying that he is ``sick and tired'' of Saddam Hussein. That is just the type of rhetoric we do not need at this volatile time. It only adds to our image of bellicosity. President Bush must resist any urge to personalize our foreign policy and tone down the supercharged public rhetoric which has been flying around for months. Whether George Bush is ``sick and tired'' is not the issue. Whether Robert Byrd is sick and tired is not the issue. It must not be perceived as the President's reason for sending American men and women to shed their blood in the hot sands of Iraq. America must not be viewed globally as a reckless power which views the world in terms of simply flattening the opposition. We must not continue to brandish our awesome military might, walk away from treaties and cooperative agreements, and ignore nuances and sensitivities. We are losing friends all around the world, and that is extremely risky business in an age of globalism and terrorism. A great nation should not have to rely solely on the force of its armies to inspire the world's admiration. A great nation should inspire other nations by the example it presents to the world. The doctrine of preemption is likely to cause us trouble far into the future. Labeling whole countries as ``evil'' invites a response and risks arousing hatreds and passions that are best left sleeping. Setting the United States up as the ultimate judge of good and evil, with the right to preemptively strike any nation which might pose a threat in the future, is the fastest way one can imagine to make us not only feared but also universally hated. When one considers that a single angry person in a crowd with a vial of some dreadful, active virus is the equivalent of billions and billions of dollars worth of U.S. military might, it becomes clear that we are making the wrong choices on the foreign policy front. When tensions across the globe are so high, the President would be prudent to measure his words carefully and reiterate for all the world to hear that he has not yet decided to attack Iraq, that he will fully engage in diplomatic solutions to the North Korean crisis, and that the United States will seek not to initiate war but to apply the soothing balm of patience to an anxious world. I call upon this Administration to cool the rhetoric; reevaluate its doctrine of preemption; initiate a return to the peace table in the Mideast; and go back to the United Nations for a final endorsement before we decide whether to unleash the deadly dogs of war. I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Yes. I am getting to that. I want Senators to answer the question from their veterans, where were you?

Mr. BYRD. Yes, where were you?

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Pastore rule, as I understand it, has run its course. The Senator is talking about the Pastore rule.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Washington.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes, and then I want to yield to the distinguished Senator from Washington. I thank the distinguished Democratic leader for his contribution today. I thank both the leader and the assistant leader for what they have contributed to this debate. Mr. President, we talk about sending our troops, men and women, fathers, brothers, husbands, wives, overseas to fight a war in Iraq. We talk as though it is just a video game. Nobody raised a question. We don't hear a whimper--not a whimper. We see the pictures on television every day. These people are going away. We see them kissing. We see them waving goodbye. We see them shedding tears. We know that those tears are shed at night on those pillows. There seems to be no thought to the sacrifices that may be in the offing for this country. They talk as though it is a video game, just a matter of pushing a few buttons and we will win. Well, now, we may be lucky. If we go to war, we may be lucky. I hope we will be lucky. But what if we are not lucky? Where will those who are silent now be? Why don't they raise their voice now? Why don't we ask questions? I am not one to be driven in a hole. We hear a lot about driving them in the holes and we will go in and get them. Our men--our men--will go in and get them. We talk about driving the enemy into holes in Afghanistan and in Iraq--we will drive them into holes. I yield myself as much time as I may consume. We will drive them in the holes; we will go get them. Who is ``we''? It is not I. I don't think I will be going in those holes, driving anybody out. It is going to be those poor men and women who are giving up their salaries as lawyers, as doctors, as teachers, as security people, as law enforcement people, as firemen--they are the people who are going in those holes in Afghanistan. They are the people who are going to go into those holes and bringing out the enemy. We talk as though it is a video game. I hope and I pray to God that if we do go to war with Iraq, we will be lucky. I hope Saddam will catch the first plane out to Libya or to some other country. I hope he will. But what if he doesn't? We have to contemplate that. So I think it is our responsibility here in the Congress to do two things at least: Raise questions, and provide the money for the security of this homeland. We don't know what will happen to this homeland once we open fire in the hot sands of the deserts in the Middle East. We don't know what may break out in this country. Are our water resources fully protected? Are our energy resources fully protected? Are our nuclear facilities fully protected? Are our borders secure? Are our ports secure? Are our airports secure? Are our people secure? No. And here we strain at a gnat and swallow a camel when it comes to fighting and protecting ourselves on the homeland. How many here, right here in this Chamber today, will feel secure in this very Chamber in the future? I say we had better stop, look, and listen while there is time to stop, look, and listen. I will have plenty more to say on that subject. But on the subject of homeland security, let it not be said that we are not doing our very best to give this administration all the tools it needs, all that it can possibly usefully use, all that it can possibly efficiently use, to protect this homeland of ours. And who will say that this land is fully protected? Who feels secure in this homeland of ours today? Ask your wives. Ask your mothers if they feel secure. And here we are, quibbling over $5 billion. Nobody is going to put you in jail if you don't spend it. But if you need to spend it and don't--don't have it, and if you haven't spent it already, why haven't you? Surely we are not perfect. Surely we are not absolutely secure. Mr. President, how much time does the Senator wish? How much time does the Senator from Washington want?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from Washington for clarifying a very critical point. I thank her, and I apologize to her for keeping her waiting. She has been on the floor waiting to make this correction. I am glad she made the correction. I hope that Senators will carefully study what she has said. She has pointed to a yawning flaw in the argument of the other side. I thank her for her contributions to her country.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I yield my remaining time to myself. In this new world, we face a new kind of war--a war on our shores, a war that is different in scope and intensity from any that we have ever faced before. The enemy is no organized army. There is no organized army of infantry, or artillery. The enemy is not an organized army with maps and bayonets. The enemy follows no rules of engagement. The enemy heeds no Geneva Convention. Their weapon is fear. Their application is destruction. We cannot stand idly by and put our total faith in some new bureaucracy. We ought not be lulled into complacency that the hope of a new government department may eventually make us safer. This Congress has the responsibility to protect the American people. That responsibility lies here as well as downtown in the executive branch. This Congress has the responsibility to protect the American people. This Congress has the responsibility to invest the dollars where they are most needed and to focus on the Nation's many serious vulnerabilities. But by blindly supporting the arbitrary figures that are undermining the package before this Senate, we take a dangerous gamble with the lives of the American people. And we do not have that right. We do not have the right to take that danger and gamble with the American people. The White House does not have that right. The President of the United States does not have that right. Let him come before the cameras of the electronic eye. Let him say to the American people that you are secure and you don't need more money; that we don't need to spend another dollar; and that we don't need to spend any more than we have. I can be mistaken, and I am often mistaken. I don't maintain that I am always right. But I maintain that we have a duty to protect our people. I maintain that in the Appropriations Committee we conducted hearings--lengthy hearings. We heard from administration witnesses. We heard from the people at the local level. We heard from mayors. We heard from Governors. This Appropriations Committee, when I was in charge, unanimously voted out these bills appropriating moneys. Time and time again, this administration turned the back of its hand to the Congress and in so doing to the American people because the people in the Congress are the elected representatives of the American people. The people in the Congress are the elected representatives of those taxpayers out there who send us here. We don't come here at the bidding of any President. No President can say when I have to go home or when I can come to this place. The people of West Virginia determined that, and they are my bosses. No President is infallible. But this administration, more than any administration that I have seen in my 50 years in Congress, maintains that it is right; that it is always right; that Congress is wrong, always wrong. We are coming to some very difficult showdowns in this country. Who knows what may happen in the days ahead? This legislation would cut investments in homeland security. I appreciate the work and the effort Senator Stevens and his staff have put into this package given the arbitrary constraints placed on them by the White House. But the Senate should not allow itself to be handcuffed by the political advisers inside the White House. Who are they? To whom do they answer? They answer to the President of the United States, I guess. They do not answer to the American people. We should not accept the hundreds of miles of our northern and southern borders remaining unguarded. We should not accept the alarming deficiencies in our seaport security, an area that many experts have identified as perhaps the Nation's single greatest vulnerability. We should not accept the fact that first responders and local doctors and nurses do not have sufficient training and equipment to handle wide- ranging threats involving madmen who may have gotten their hands on weapons of mass destruction. This Senator from West Virginia is not now nor will he ever be prepared to accept those dangers. This Senator is prepared to do whatever it takes to close the gaps and to protect the American people. I urge my colleagues to join me. Since September 11, 2001, the threat of a terrorist attack has only increased. It has not decreased. Administration officials have said time and time again that another terrorist attack will happen. It is inevitable, they say, and it could involve weapons of mass destruction. Last September, the administration raised its terrorist alert system to its second highest level and closed nine embassies for security reasons. Last October, the FBI warned of terrorist attacks against railroads. Last November, the FBI warned hospitals in Houston, Chicago, San Francisco, and Washington of an imminent terrorist attack. The CIA director warned of terrorist dangers, and testified that once war begins in Iraq--hear me now, hear me--the CIA director warned of terrorist dangers and testified that once war begins in Iraq, Islamic extremists will likely increase their effort to attack us here at home. It is not to be a video game. Oh, praise God that we will be lucky. We could be. I hope we will be. Last December, the administration reported that Islamic extremists associated with al-Qaida may have taken possession of chemical weapons. Canadian intelligence told us that al-Qaida was plotting attacks from Canada. An increasing number of terrorist warnings threats to the use of weapons of mass destruction against us, a war with Iraq that could escalate the threat level, yet this Congress and this President process all of that information and conclude that the best place to find savings is in the funding for homeland security funds. That is simply astonishing. Our borders remain dangerously unguarded. They leak like a sieve. We don't know if terrorists have crossed into the country, as we saw over the New Year's holiday, when the FBI was frantically looking for suspected terrorists. Do you remember that? They were frantically-- frantically--looking for suspected terrorists who they later concluded had not entered the country after all. Yet this administration wants to cut border security funding by $705 million. The Customs Service is able to inspect only 2 percent--at most, 5 percent--of cargo entering this country. We know terrorists could smuggle weapons of mass destruction into our ports, either to blow them up and cause massive economic and physical destruction or to explode those weapons within the interior of the country near a major city. Yet this Bush administration wants to cut port security funding by tens of millions of dollars. Astonishing? Yes, astonishing. The FBI lacks the law enforcement personnel to track potential terrorists and disrupt potential terrorist cells already based inside this country. Yet this White House--this White House--the Bush administration wants to cut money for Federal law enforcement personnel by more than $250 million. Irresponsible? Yes, irresponsible. The President has suggested that a smallpox attack is a big enough risk to the American public that a smallpox vaccine should be made available to the public by the beginning of 2004. Yet this President knows that State and local governments lack the necessary funding to administer the smallpox vaccination plan, let alone provide for the homeland security protections for which the State and local governments are responsible. Never mind. This administration wants to cut aid to the States by more than $500 million. Our nuclear facilities remain dangerously exposed. Yet this White House, this administration, seeks to cut funding to protect our nuclear facilities by more than $230 million. Airport security, mass transit security, cybersecurity, water security, embassy security, food safety--these are all critical vulnerabilities and yet the administration wants to whack those moneys by a total of $1.5 billion. Then, on top of all of those reductions, this bill has an across-the- board cut of 1.6 percent for each and every Federal law enforcement and homeland security initiative across this country. It is a shameful way--a shameful way--to fund the protection of this Nation. Sound policy decisions cannot possibly be driving these spending cuts. Clearly, these programs need more money, not less. The administration cannot blame these decisions on growing budget deficits because that same administration now argues that deficits don't matter. It is politics. The administration chose an arbitrary number last year, and it is twisting the arms of the Congress to stick to it. The result is a disaster for homeland security programs. While our troops overseas are equipped with high-tech gadgets to fight our enemies, our troops left at home will have to defend us with meager resources. Our troops in the desert are bouncing their communications off satellites, while our homeland defenders may have to communicate with twine and coffee cans. This may sound ridiculous, but it is much closer to the truth than many of us would like to believe. When it comes to fighting overseas, this administration's attitude is: Spare no expense. There is no pricetag on freedom. But when it comes to fighting the war here at home, this White House, this administration, prefers to shop in bargain basements. Delays of this funding for a few months, until the next fiscal year's appropriations bills, translates into more than a calendar year. By waiting for the next fiscal year, we would force first responders to wait for help until the calendar year 2004. By waiting for the next fiscal year, we force our airports and our seaports to struggle with security until the calendar year 2004. These delays do not serve any constructive purpose, and they certainly do not help to protect American lives. If we provide these moneys, the oversight committees should do their job to ensure that the agencies invest these dollars quickly and effectively. The amendment I have proposed would invest funds where they are most needed. First, it would restore the $1 billion in reductions in homeland security initiatives made from the original committee-passed appropriations bills and for which every member of the Appropriations Committee voted. Second, it would restore much of the $2.5 billion in emergency homeland security funds that passed this Congress overwhelmingly in the summer but was vetoed by this White House. Finally, this amendment would fund the priorities that Congress has found so necessary and that President Bush has already signed into law. This amendment would fund the border security authorization bill that passed the Senate 97 to 0 and that the President signed last May. This amendment would fund the port security authorization bill that passed the Senate 95 to 0 and that the President signed into law last November. This amendment would provide funds--hear me now--this amendment would provide funds for the 10 million smallpox vaccinations that this administration has mandated from State and local health professionals. These dollars address our most critical needs, Mr. President. These funds would help to shore up our defenses and could save lives here at home. We are in new and dangerous times. No attack should be deemed so unlikely that it can be ignored. The men and women who send us here demand that we protect them, that we protect our country first. The fathers and mothers who send their children to school each morning expect us to invest the dollars to keep their little precious ones safe. That is a solemn duty that lies on the conscience of every man and woman Member of this body. It is a basic and sacred duty. And may God forgive us if we so cavalierly fail in our duty to protect our people, the American people.