Liberated Text -> Congressional Record -> Nine Senators of Shame

---

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from West Virginia.

Mr. Byrd: Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside temporarily so that I may offer an amendment.

The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1992

Mr. Byrd: Mr. President, more than 2,000 years have passed since Cicero said, "Endless money forms the sinews of war."

Let me repeat what I have said. More than 2,000 years have passed since Cicero, a great Roman senator, said, "Endless money forms the sinews of war."

How astute he was to point that out and how little the times have changed. Today, the United States is engaged not just in one war but two wars. The first of the two wars began 4 years ago when our country was invaded. Our country was attacked by 19 hijackers sent on their deadly mission by Osama bin Laden. That war continues today in Afghanistan. That is a war that was thrust upon us. That was a war in which the United States was invaded by 19 hijackers, not one of whom was from Iraq--not one. That war, as I say, was thrust upon us. The United States was invaded. The United States was attacked and thousands of Americans lost their lives. That is the war that I support. That is the war that I supported from the beginning.

But there is also another war, a war which the United States started, a war in which the United States was the attacker. We didn't wait to be attacked; we attacked another nation. We invaded, the United States invaded another nation that did not pose a threat, a direct and immediate threat to our national security. We, the United States, invaded another country that did not act to provoke our invasion.

Since March 19, 2003, our troops, Americans troops, have been sent into the breach in Iraq, a country which had no connection--none--no connection to the September 11 attacks on our country. I was against our policy with reference to the invasion of that country, Iraq. I was against that. That country did not pose an immediate threat to our national security, no. I said so then and I was right. No weapons of mass destruction were found. No weapons of mass destruction have been found to this day there in Iraq.

I hold no brief for Saddam Hussein, but we acted under the unconstitutional doctrine of first strike. The first strike doctrine, that is the doctrine that we followed. That is the doctrine that got us into Iraq. It is unconstitutional on its face. Why? Because the Constitution says Congress shall have power to declare war.

How can it be constitutional if a President, one man, Republican or Democrat or independent or whatever, can declare war if Congress has nothing to say about it, if Congress has no opportunity to debate it?

I do not question the inherent power of any President to defend our country. Congress may be out of town. Congress may be in recess. If we are invaded, of course, he has the power to act. But that was not the case here.

I and 22 other Senators voted against shifting that power to declare war, that constitutional power to declare war from the Congress to a President, and that law is still on the books. It has not been repealed.

We can talk about that at another time, but let me say today, these two wars have cost the lives of many Americans. In the first war, the one being fought in Afghanistan and elsewhere against Osama bin Laden, 243 American troops have given their lives in the line of duty. I support our efforts in that war. I have done so from the beginning.

In the second war, the war in Iraq, 1,934 young men and women have perished. I disagree with the policy that sent our troops to Iraq, but I join with all other patriotic Americans in supporting the men and the women who have been sent to Iraq. I don't support the policy that sent them there, but I support those men and women. They went, they heeded the call, they did their duty, and they are still doing their duty. Of course I support them. I join with all other Americans in supporting them and honoring those men and women who have paid the ultimate price in service to the United States.

In addition to lives lost, these wars have also cost our country a fortune, a colossal fortune in our national wealth. According to the Congressional Research Service, the Congress has already appropriated $310 billion to pay for these two wars. The Defense Appropriations Committee bill being debated now in the Senate adds another $50 billion to that figure. Most observers believe that tens of billions more dollars will be required in a matter of months. Who knows, before it is all over, we may find that the ultimate cost in Treasury may amount to $1 trillion. Who knows, when we think of all the things that must be done. We have to replenish the equipment that has worn out, that has rusted, that has been destroyed--the military equipment. Our own military people will have their requests in this year, next year and the next year and the next year, for money to replace that equipment.

Could we fight another war if we should be invaded today? Would we be prepared to fight another war? Could we?

If these estimates are accurate, the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan could easily exceed $400 billion by early next year--$400 billion. That is $400 for every minute since Jesus Christ was born. That is a lot of money, isn't it?

Once again, "Endless money forms the sinews of war."

That is simply the visible part of the cost of the war. We are slowly, slowly but surely, coming to realize that there are financial costs to the war that are buried deep within the Government's ledgers. In June, the Department of Veterans Affairs admitted to a major shortfall in its budget. Working together with Senator Craig and Senator Murray, I supported an amendment to add $1.5 billion in emergency funds to the veterans health care budget. My colleagues and I then worked to add $1,977,000,000 to the VA budget for the fiscal year 2006.

Why? Why? Why is the VA running short of funds?

Part of the reason lies in the fact that the administration did not budget enough funds to take care of troops coming home from these wars with serious injuries. But there is more. These injured veterans have earned compensation from the VA for their wounds.

According to the Defense Department, more than 15,000 troops have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan. Congress is yet to see a full estimate of the costs of these veterans' benefits.

There is also the matter of revenue that the Government coffers will never see because of the deployment of our troops to these wars. Troops serving in combat zones are exempt from income taxes. National Guardsmen and reservists often must do without their higher civilian pay during their deployment. No one would argue that wounded veterans should not receive compensation from the VA or the troops in war zones ought to pay taxes while they are risking their lives for our country. But the American people are not being told about these hidden costs of these wars. Why? Why is that?

The fact is, the administration has never provided the Congress with a budget estimate of what the war is costing the American taxpayers. Some may argue that the budget resolution passed in Congress by the thinnest of margins included $50 billion for the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. That is true. That money is in there. The $50 billion also appears in this appropriations bill. But that estimate is just a number made out of whole cloth. The President did not request a single dime for the wars in his budget estimate submitted to Congress in February--not one thin dime, not even one copper penny. Instead, Congress picked a number out of thin air--$50 billion--and stuck it in the budget resolution.

That number is not backed up by any number crunching, any careful analysis, or any budgetary data. It doesn't even match up with the numbers prepared by the Congressional Budget Office, which estimates that $85 billion will be required to fight these wars next year, nor is that $50 billion paid for. This $50 billion is simply added to our national debt, a debt that will have to be paid by our children and our children's children.

I say one more time, "Endless money forms the sinews of war." I am quoting Cicero, of course.

The administration needs to budget for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It should not be sufficient for Congress to pick a number out of a hat, appropriate funds to match that number, and hope that our troops will be taken care of. The administration needs to step up to the plate and tell Congress and the American people how much it expects to spend on the war, what the money will be used for, and how our Nation is going to foot the bill. It may be easier said than done, but we ought to do our best.

To some observers, the importance of budgeting for the war may seem like a furor over how much paper should be pushed around in Washington, DC. Although the terms used in this debate are arcane--how many people outside the beltway know anything, or much at least, about emergency supplementals, the budget process, or outlays and budget authority--the principles are vitally important to our country.

There is an important principle that a country must share the burdens of war among its citizens. Think back to World War II and what was asked of the American people in that conflict: victory gardens, daylight savings, gasoline rationing, and on and on. We do not see anything like that today. Quite the opposite. For the first time in American history, our Nation has cut taxes during a time of war.

The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have forced great sacrifice.

Let me say that again.

These wars--the war in Afghanistan, which I support, the war in Iraq, which I have never thought we should engage in--have forced great sacrifice among those who serve our country, and their families as well. Our troops risk life and limb while their spouses, their parents, and their children pray for their safety and for their return home. It is these troops and their families who have had so little relief from the burdens of these wars.

Last year, Congress passed a law to compensate Americans for spending up to $1,000 out of their own pockets to send body armor, boots, gloves, and other equipment to troops serving overseas. But the Pentagon still has not implemented this law, giving short shrift to those who have done the most to support our troops. These families have not been recompensed for their support of the troops. Why is the Defense Department bureaucracy so slow to implement this law? Why? Why is the Defense Department bureaucracy so slow to implement this law? It ought to be a priority to help these Americans who have done so much to help our troops.

The sacrifices demanded by the two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are falling disproportionately on the few. The President has said our Nation is at war. No. Our Nation is not at war. Our military is at war. Yes. The National Guard, the men and women in the military, they are at war but not the Nation. We scarcely hear much about it.

Our troops are shedding their blood, and their families are doing so much to support them. Meanwhile, the average American goes about his day-to-day business with little interruption, only to pause in solemn reflection upon the occasional news report about the tragic death of another soldier from his community.

When Winston Churchill rallied his country in World War II, he urged the British to "defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets."

It was a call not just to English soldiers to fight but for the country to share the burden of the struggle.

What a stark contrast to the wars we are in today in which so little is asked of the American people compared to what is demanded of our military personnel. In light of the incredible toll of these wars on our country, it is time to rethink that unfair balance of sacrifice.

Three times before, the Senate has voted to urge the administration to budget for the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan so that there may be a debate about how the President intends to spread the sacrifice fairly among all Americans. Three times, the Senate has voted to urge the administration to budget for the cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and three times that call has not been honored, it has been dismissed. The enormous cost of keeping hundreds of thousands of troops fighting in two wars, each of them half a world away, continues to be a black hole in the President's budget.

Congress and the American people keep hearing the same old line: The administration cannot budget for the cost of the war because the true cost is unknowable. The Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld, when he was asked about the cost, said the cost is unknowable. Of course, he is right. It is unknowable, but surely the administration has some estimate somewhere. Surely the Defense Department has some estimate, and it has had some estimate--some estimate of what the war was going to cost.

We have heard that the cost is unknowable. We have heard that many times before. But it strains one's belief to argue that the Secretary of Defense, with legions of bureaucrats and accountants at his disposal, cannot make an estimate of how much it will take to support our troops for the fiscal year that began last week. With 18,000 American troops in Afghanistan and 149,000 troops in Iraq who are risking their lives each and every day, one would think that the Pentagon could muster the courage to estimate how much money it will take to support our fighting men and women. We are talking about an estimate.

The amendment that I offer to the Defense appropriations bill again states the sense of the Senate that the President should budget for the war. We have been at these two wars a long time now. I could understand how he might not be able to budget for the first few months of a war, but we have been at these wars a long time and we still see no budget for them. Still the American people do not know. Whatever is requested of the Congress, the administration does it with supplemental appropriations bills. There are not very thorough hearings on supplemental appropriations bills. They say: We spent this much and we have to appropriate.

The American people do not realize the cost of these wars. So let me say again, the amendment I offer to the Defense appropriations bill states it is the sense of the Senate that the President should budget for these wars. President Roosevelt did it for World War II, President Johnson did it for Vietnam, President Clinton did it for Bosnia, President Bush did it for Kosovo, and it is time to do it for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Let the American people know how much of their hard-earned tax dollars will be needed for these wars. Let Congress debate how these costs must be borne. Let our Government take a responsible approach on how we pay for our troops in the field.

I urge my colleagues to once again support the President, support my amendment, and urge the President to budget for the war.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Feingold may have his name added as a cosponsor of the amendment.

The Presiding Officer (Mr. Martinez): Without objection, it is so ordered.

Amendment No. 1992

Mr. Byrd: Mr. President, I call up amendment No. 1992.

The Presiding Officer: The clerk will report.

The bill clerk read as follows:

The Senator from West Virginia [Mr. Byrd] proposes an amendment numbered 1992.

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

The Presiding Officer: Without objection, it is so ordered.

The amendment is as follows:

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate on budgeting for ongoing military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere overseas)

At the appropriate place, insert the following:

Sec. __. (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:

(1) The Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2004 (Public Law 108-87), the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2005 (Public Law 108-287), and the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 (Public Law 109-13) each contain a sense of the Senate provision urging the President to provide in the annual budget requests of the President for a fiscal year under section 1105(a) of title 31, United States Code, an estimate of the cost of ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan in such fiscal year.

(2) The budget for fiscal year 2006 submitted to Congress by the President on February 7, 2005, requests no funds for fiscal year 2006 for ongoing military operations in Iraq or Afghanistan.

(3) According to the Congressional Research Service, there exists historical precedent for including the cost of ongoing military operations in the annual budget requests of the President following initial funding for such operations by emergency or supplemental appropriations Acts, including--

(A) funds for Operation Noble Eagle, beginning in the budget request of President George W. Bush for fiscal year 2005;

(B) funds for operations in Kosovo, beginning in the budget request of President George W. Bush for fiscal year 2001;

(C) funds for operations in Bosnia, beginning in budget request of President Clinton for fiscal year 1997;

(D) funds for operations in Southwest Asia, beginning in the budget request of President Clinton for fiscal year 1997;

(E) funds for operations in Vietnam, beginning in the budget request of President Johnson for fiscal year 1966; and

(F) funds for World War II, beginning in the budget request of President Roosevelt for fiscal year 1943.

(4) In section 1024(b) of Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005 (119 Stat. 252), the Senate requested that the President submit to Congress, not later than September 1, 2005, an amendment to the budget of the President for fiscal year 2006 setting forth detailed cost estimates for ongoing military operations overseas during such fiscal year.

(5) The President has yet to submit such an amendment.

(6) The Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2006, as reported to the Senate by the Committion on Appropriations of the Senate on September 28, 2005, contains a bridge fund of $50,000,000,000 for overseas contingency operations, but the determination of that amount could not take into account any Administration estimate on the projected cost of such operations in fiscal year 2006.

(7) In February 2005, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that fiscal year 2006 cost of ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan could total $85,000,000,000.

(b) Sense of Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate that--

(1) any request for funds for a fiscal year after fiscal year 2006 for an ongoing military operation overseas, 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;

(2) the amendment to the budget of the President for fiscal year 2006, requested by the Senate to be submitted to Congress not later than September 1, 2005, by section 1024(b) of Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami Relief, 2005, is necessary to describe the anticipated use of the $50,000,000,000 bridge fund appropriated in this Act and set forth all additional appropriations that will be required for the fiscal year; and

(3) any funds provided for a fiscal year for ongoing military operations overseas should be provided in appropriations Acts for such fiscal year through appropriations to specific accounts set forth in such appropriations Acts.

Mr. Byrd: I have indicated the purpose of the amendment and the intent of the amendment.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Massachusetts.

Mr. Kerry: Mr. President, did the manager of the bill have something?

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Alaska is recognized.

Mr. Stevens: It would be the intent of the managers of the bill to indicate to Senator Byrd that we would be pleased to accept that amendment when the time comes. We will leave up to Senator Byrd when he wants to have the vote.

The Presiding Officer: The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.

Mr. Stevens: The Senator indicated he would be willing to have the amendment considered at this time.

The Presiding Officer: The question is on agreeing to the amendment.

The amendment (No. 1992) was agreed to.

Mr. Stevens: I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. Inouye: I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. Stevens: This is similar to an amendment we have carried in the bill before. We appreciate the Senator's position. It is the position of the Senate. The President has decided otherwise, but we hope next year the regular Defense bill will include the moneys for the ongoing war on terrorism.

Mr. Byrd: Mr. President, I thank the very distinguished Senator from the great State of Alaska for his statement. I thank the very great Senator from the State of Alaska for his statement and his support. I also thank our colleague on this side of the aisle, the other manager of the bill, Senator Inouye, for his support.

Incidentally, may I say I guess I am the only remaining person in Congress who voted for the entry of both Alaska and Hawaii into the Union. Praise God, I did that in each case. These are two fine Senators, two of the greatest.