[Congressional Record Volume 148, Number 13 (Wednesday, February 13, 2002)]
[Senate]
[Pages S700-S708]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
WAR ON TERRORISM
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in his State of the Union address on January
29, President Bush reminded the nation, at great length and in great
detail, that we are a nation at war, and that we will stop at nothing
to rid the world of terrorism.
His words were stirring, his message sweeping.
The war on terror, he said, has only begun:
Tens of thousands of trained terrorists are still at large.
These enemies view the entire world as a battlefield, and we
must pursue them wherever they are.
Strong words--strong words indeed.
The President outlined an ambitious agenda for the war against
terrorism: first, to shut down terrorist camps, disrupt terrorist
plans, and bring terrorists to justice. Second, to prevent terrorists
and regimes that seek chemical, biological or nuclear weapons from
threatening the United States or the world. The President singled out
three such regimes--Iran, Iraq, and North Korea--describing them as an
``axis of evil'' that is posing a grave and growing danger to the
world.
The President's speech laid out a sweeping plan for the U.S. response
to
[[Page S701]]
global terrorism. It is a manifesto that he has stated many times to
many different audiences in the days following that address. At Eglin
Air Force Base in Florida last week--Feb. 4--the President told
cheering troops that ``We're absolutely resolved to find terrorists
where they hide and to root them out one by one. . . . History has
called us into action, and we will not stop until the threat of global
terrorism has been destroyed.'' Strong words--strong words, indeed.
Less there be any doubt as to where I stand, I have been a hawk on
defense issues for all of my 50 years in Congress.
When I came to Congress 50 years ago this year, I was strongly
opposed to the entry of Red China into the United Nations. I supported
the war in Vietnam and the budgetary requests that President Johnson
made. I supported down to the last penny his budgetary requests for
defense.
When I came to this body 44 years ago, I went on the Appropriations
Committee at the beginning of my service in this body, and I have been
on the Appropriations Committee 44 years this year.
I spoke highly of President Bush last Friday in my reference to his
speech at the National Prayer Breakfast. His expressions concerning
faith I complimented on the floor.
But when it comes to national defense, let nobody have any doubts as
to where I stand. I was supporting national defense and appropriations
for national defense in Congress when our President, Mr. Bush, was in
knee pants. On two committees, I served with the late Senator Richard
Russell of Georgia. He was chairman of the Armed Services Committee. He
was chairman of the Appropriations Committee. He held both positions--
not at the same time but at different times when I was on his
committees. I was on the Appropriations Committee and I was on the
Armed Services Committee. I supported Senator Stennis of Mississippi,
who was one of the giants of the Senate. So I need no one to stand
beside me and bear witness to my support for national defense.
During the war in Vietnam, I was majority whip in the Senate during
part of the war. I was also secretary of the Democratic Conference
during part of that war. There was pretty much solid, undivided support
almost at first. Then there developed a divisiveness among Senators on
the war in Vietnam.
The late Senator Mike Mansfield was majority leader of the Senate. I
became his assistant in 1967 as secretary of the Democratic Conference.
I sat on this floor practically every hour of every day and was always
at Mike Mansfield's elbow. Then I became the whip. I carried out his
wishes on this floor and watched the floor, worked the floor, learned
the rules, and Mr. Mansfield pretty much left the floor work to me as
his whip.
There came a time in that war when the Vietcong were striking at
American soldiers from across the Cambodian and South Vietnamese
border. I offered an amendment during a debate in which the late
Senator Church, the late Senator Cooper on the other side of the aisle,
and others were joined on the matter. I offered an amendment expressing
support for the President, who at that time was Richard Nixon, in his
efforts to bomb the Vietcong who were, as I say, working from enclaves
in Cambodia across the border from South Vietnam.
The Vietcong would go across the border and kill American soldiers. I
offered an amendment during that debate, in essence, saying that the
President of the United States has a duty to do whatever it takes to
protect American boys, who perhaps didn't ask to go to a foreign
battlefield. But they were sent into battle and a President has a
responsibility to do whatever it takes to protect those men from
attack. So I offered that amendment and it was defeated. I lost on the
amendment.
I need no one to attest to my credentials when it comes to supporting
defense, particularly from an appropriations standpoint--my having been
on that committee now for 44 years, as I say, this year.
I have been a hawk on defense issues for all of my 50 years in
Congress.
I fully support the President's resolve to strike back at the
terrorists who caused such devastation, destruction, and carnage here
in our country on September 11, 5 months and 2 days ago today. But I
also understand, having lived through several wars and studied the
history of many more, that war cannot be fought or won by rhetoric,
that true victory is tangible victory, that words do have meaning, that
words do have consequences, and that a rhetorical declaration of global
war may well precipitate real global conflict, involving horrific loss
of life.
It is crucial that we all realize that the war on terrorism is not
just a war of hot words. This war, like any war, must have tangible and
achievable goals and objectives. There must be benchmarks by which to
measure progress in attaining those objectives. And the American people
must clearly understand what sacrifices must be made and what
constitutes victory. These essential elements must be more clearly
defined than they have been thus far. We cannot be left to guess as to
what is meant.
I had the opportunity to discuss the war on terror with Defense
Secretary Rumsfeld a few days ago when he appeared before the Senate
Armed Services Committee. I think it was on February 5. The Secretary
appeared before the Committee to explain and defend the President's
$379 billion defense budget request for Fiscal Year 2003.
Socrates would say, ``Define your Terms.'' I asked Secretary Rumsfeld
to define the parameters of our war on terrorism. What are our goals?
What are our objectives? What are the standards by which we should
measure success in this war? How will we know when we do achieve
victory?
Much has been said about bringing terrorists to justice. We have
bombed the Afghanistan mountains into rubble. We have struck deeply at
the caves. We have already spent $7 billion in Afghanistan. Where is
Osama bin Laden? How will we know when we do achieve victory?
Secretary Rumsfeld is an outstanding Secretary of Defense. I have
seen a good many Secretaries of Defense in my time here, and I have a
great respect for Secretary Rumsfeld. He has been around a long time,
too. I have watched and listened to many of Secretary Rumsfeld's
briefings on the war in Afghanistan, and he has impressed me. He is
candid, straightforward, and to the point. If he cannot answer a
question, generally he says he cannot answer the question.
Unfortunately, Secretary Rumsfeld could not answer my questions,
although he certainly was candid. I think he basically told the
committee that it is difficult to say how we will know when we have won
the war on terrorism.
Although he has said the war on terror has just begun, President Bush
has also said on numerous occasions that we are winning the war in
Afghanistan. Perhaps it was to our good fortune that there was, one
might say, a ready-made military force on the ground there opposing the
Taliban.
The President is correct, if winning means routing the Taliban from
the Government of Afghanistan. But if winning this war means destroying
the al-Qaida terrorist network, or if winning means bringing to justice
Osama bin Laden, and Mullah Omar, and the rest of the al-Qaida
leadership, then we may have jumped the gun in such expressions. By
those standards--standards the President himself has set--we still have
a way to go in Afghanistan. In fact, many of the former Taliban forces
are still in that country. They have simply switched sides for now.
Should circumstances change, they may very well switch back again.
Those are the realities of Afghanistan.
The President said in his State of the Union Address: ``I will not
wait on events, while dangers gather. I will not stand by, as peril
draws closer and closer. The United States of America will not permit
the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most
destructive weapons.''
Mr. President, facts matter. Standards matter. Words matter. Words
have consequences. When the President described Iran, Iraq, and North
Korea as an ``axis of evil,'' and pledged that the United States will
not permit those nations to threaten the world with weapons of mass
destruction his florid words were cause for alarm to many of our
allies. What did the President mean? Was he signaling a plan to attack
one or more of these three nations?
[[Page S702]]
I asked Secretary Powell that question during his appearance
yesterday before the committee. Secretary Powell answered: There is no
plan.
He was very careful in the way he responded to my questions. He said:
There is no plan. There is no such recommendation on the President's
desk today.
I will put the entire transcript of Secretary Powell's responses, and
my questions, in the Record at the close of my remarks. But what did
the President mean? Was he signaling a plan to attack one or more of
these three nations?
Secretary Powell, as I said, was very careful in his responses.
Secretary Powell has been around a long time. I remember working with
then-National Security Adviser Colin Powell when I was majority leader
of the Senate in 1987, 1988.
I remember the INF Treaty, I withstood great pressure from the then-
Reagan administration, to bring up that INF Treaty. I withstood that
pressure and said: I will not be stampeded into calling up the INF
Treaty until we have answers to our questions, until Sam Nunn, who is
chairman of the Armed Services Committee, has answers to his questions
about futuristic weapons and other very key and important questions. I
just will not bring up this treaty. Say what you will, I will not bring
it up.
I remember quoting the words from, I believe it was Scott's ``The
Lady of the Lake'':
Come one, come all! this rock shall fly
From its firm base as soon as I.
I said: I will not call up this treaty until we have the answers to
Sam Nunn's questions, not until we have the answers to David Boren's
questions--David Boren was chairman of the Intelligence Committee--not
until we have the answers to the questions of Senator Pell. He was
chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.
I said: We have to have these answers before I will call this treaty
up. And I did not call it up until we had the answers.
At that time, Colin Powell was National Security Adviser. He
scampered across the ocean to Europe to help get those answers. Colin
Powell, as I say, at that time, who was the National Security Adviser,
complimented the Senate, and complimented me as leader at that time of
the Senate, the majority leader, on staying the course, on standing our
ground against being pushed into a premature consideration of that INF
Treaty. Mr. Powell, himself, said, the Senate rendered a service. And
he complimented me personally.
I have had a long experience here with Mr. Colin Powell. He is now
Secretary of State, and I have a great deal of confidence in him. He
has had the experience. He was a soldier for 35 years, National
Security Adviser, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He has led men into
battle. He has made command decisions. Here is not a man who blew in by
the winds from a cyclone that came from far away. He has been around
here a long time. He has the experience that gives him the independence
of thought.
Secretary Powell was very careful as to how he answered my questions,
leaving me to believe that, indeed, the administration is certainly
considering, as an option--this is a conclusion I have drawn from what
he said and from what newspaper stories have reported--the
administration, indeed, has under consideration, as an option--this is
my reading, but it would be pretty hard, I think, for others not to
reach the same conclusion--that the administration is, indeed,
considering, as one of its options in dealing with Iraq and Iran, maybe
North Korea--certainly as an option--an attack upon one or more of
these states. That is a conclusion I have drawn.
As I said to Secretary of State Powell, does the President have some
new evidence of complicity in the September 11 attacks by these three
nations? Those are very strong words. The President seems to be saying
that we will attack any nation we consider to be a threat. Perhaps I am
reading something into the matter that is not there.
The question is, How do we back up that message if Iran, Iraq, and
North Korea do not change their behavior? Does the President intend to
invade or strike one or more of these nations? Why has he included
North Korea in that list? It is certainly not clear to me that North
Korea was in any way involved in the September 11 attacks on our
Nation. Perhaps I am overlooking something.
A Nation's leaders have a responsibility to think beyond the stirring
rhetoric of war, particularly in the case of what could be a long,
costly, global conflict which could very well unleash forces most of us
only dimly understand and which could cause great loss of life. This
Nation's leaders also have a responsibility to obtain the support of
the people's elected representatives in Congress before undertaking
endeavors which may claim the lives of the Nation's sons and daughters.
The U.S. Constitution. I have a copy of it in my pocket--a copy of
the U.S. Constitution. May I say to the distinguished Senator who today
sits in the chair and presides over this deliberative body with dignity
and skill, may I say that his two representatives from the State of
Georgia who signed this Constitution were William Few and Abraham
Baldwin. This Constitution still lives. That is the mast which will
hold us always to the ship of state--the Constitution.
I hope this administration remembers that there is still a
Constitution. I hope that we in this body still remember there is a
Constitution to guide us.
This Constitution does not mention ``consultations'' with Congress.
This Constitution does not reference the United Nations and what the
United Nations may want or not want. But this Constitution, in section
8 of article I, says that Congress shall have the power to declare war,
to raise and support armies, to provide and maintain a navy, and so on.
So let us in this body remember that there is still a Constitution. It
has served us well, and it will always serve us well.
I am going to follow that Constitution as closely and as nearly as I
can follow it in the days to come; in perilous times, if they come. I
will support a Commander in Chief when I think he is right. I will not
support any Commander in Chief, be he Democrat or Republican, if I
think he is making a mistake in such a very serious matter.
The U.S. Constitution declares the President to be the Commander in
Chief. But see what the Constitution says about the Commander in Chief.
One can almost count the sentences that are enumerated in this
Constitution with reference to the Commander in Chief's powers as the
number of fingers on one's hand. But there are many sentences, one will
find enumerated in this Constitution, with respect to the Congress--
many sentences. Let us keep an eye on this Constitution.
The President would do well to obtain the support of the people's
elected representatives in Congress before undertaking endeavors which
may claim the lives of our Nation's sons and daughters. The
Constitution declares the President to be the Commander in Chief, but
it is Congress that has the constitutional authority to raise and
support armies, to provide and maintain a navy, and to declare war.
It is no accident that the Constitution, in assigning these powers to
Congress, includes both the common defense and the general welfare of
the Nation on this list. The structure, the scope, and the cost of the
Nation's defense have an enormous impact on the general welfare of the
people. It is Congress, and specifically the Appropriations Committees
of the Congress, that has the responsibility for appropriating the
money to fight the war on terrorism.
The President has said that this war is costing American taxpayers
over $1 billion a month. We have already spent over $7 billion waging
war in Afghanistan. The President's 2003 defense budget amounts to an
expenditure of $379 billion, over $1 billion a day. The President is
forecasting continued increases in the defense budget.
I will insert into the Record the amounts that are being considered
and questioned by the administration over the next 10 years for
national defense, and the total over that period, I think we will find,
will be nearly $5 trillion.
That is serious money. It is made more serious by the fact that we
are returning to budget deficits. We are borrowing to support this huge
defense budget, and that means we are paying interest on that money
that is borrowed, interest on that debt.
[[Page S703]]
How long--we have heard that phrase before--how long, how long can
this Nation afford to spend $1 billion a day? We will find that that $1
billion a day will increase substantially over the next 10 years--more
than $1 billion a day on defense.
Exactly what level of national security are we buying with that
investment of money? What nondefense needs are we forfeiting? As
President Bush said in a 1999 speech at the Citadel:
We must be selective in the use of our military, precisely
because America has other great responsibilities that cannot
be slighted or compromised.
I agree with every word of that statement by now-President Bush.
We must not allow a bloated defense budget to eat away at our ability
to fund other important priorities such as Social Security, Medicare,
health care, and education, to name just a few priorities.
Clearly, the budget that was presented to Congress on February 4
sacrifices a great deal for defense. While domestic discretionary
spending increases by only 2 percent, and is essentially flat in some
areas, the President has asked for an additional $48 billion in
military spending, 15 percent above last year's defense budget, which
was itself 10 percent above the previous funding level for 2001. The
size of the requested increase alone is greater than the military
spending of many, if not all, of our NATO allies.
Moreover, such a colossal defense budget increase must be justified.
It must be approved by Congress. Both Congress and the American people
must understand how this money is to be spent and whether it will
really enhance our national security.
Let me repeat: Look, again, at my record of support for
appropriations for national defense over a period of 50 years. There is
no equivocation in that record.
Congress must also understand much, much more about the proposed $10
billion defense reserve fund that is in this budget, including the
plans for its use.
The President's huge defense budget does make minimal cuts in a few
outdated weapons systems, but it also increases spending on the big-
ticket ships and airplanes that account for a good portion of the U.S.
defense procurement funds. Do these types of weapons fit into a
national security strategy in today's world, where asymmetrical warfare
and the existence of terrorist cells in more than 60 countries,
including the United States, seem to constitute the most serious threat
to our national security? Are these big-ticket items that we are
purchasing moving us toward a 21st century military, or are they
squandering tax dollars by continuing a cold war military structure?
May I remind ourselves that there has been on the books a law which
requires appointments and agencies to audit and to be able to come up
with clear audits of their expenses. The Constitution itself requires a
clear accounting of the moneys that are appropriated by Congress. I
believe it was last year that I raised this question with Secretary of
Defense Rumsfeld. The Defense Department could not identify $3.5
trillion in its more than $7.6 trillion in defense accounts--in
accounting entries. Now, if the Defense Department cannot, after a
law's having been passed and put on the books requiring Departments to
be able to come up with audits, if the Defense Department cannot
account for $3.5 trillion in its accounts--it doesn't know what the
weapons are, what is on hand, what spare parts are on hand, what spare
parts it really needs, what moneys have and have not been spent--how
can the American people have confidence enough to support an additional
$48 billion for defense this year? Who can account for this money? How
are we going to account for it? Where are we going? And we are denying
other needs. The President said in his speech to the Citadel some time
ago that we must not overlook other very important priorities. How can
we do it? Where are we going with all of these expenses?
Are these big-ticket weapons we are purchasing moving us toward a
21st century military, or are we squandering taxpayers' dollars by
continuing a cold war military structure? Are these weapons the best
ones with which to wage a global war on terrorism, or are they intended
to attack the ``axis of evil,'' as the President called Iran, Iraq, and
North Korea? Could they be meant to counter the threat of a rising
world power such as China? How about China?
No one has explained. These are critical questions for which we have
yet to hear clear, concise answers. Congress needs to be given those
answers. The American defense budget should not be a cookie jar with
goodies for every defense contractor lucky enough to afford a hefty
lobbying budget. This Nation is again in deficit status, and we have to
guard against committing huge sums for weapons that are not needed,
which will only drive us deeper into debt and sap our overall economic
strength.
The patriotism that runs deep in the veins of Americans, and the
horrors of September 11, have aroused our emotions and galvanized our
support for the fight against terror. But that support could wane, both
at home and abroad, if the administration does not carefully weigh its
use of broad threats, undefined objectives, and the murky consequences
of shackling both our domestic and foreign policies to a militaristic
fervor which may or may not reflect realistic possibilities or sound
choices.
We would do far better to hear clear explanations of our goals in the
war on terrorism, and detailed justifications of our defense budget
that use cold logic, rather than a hot head. We are a powerful country.
There has never been one so powerful. We cannot hope to eliminate
terrorism from the world without other nations on our side. A
recognition of our limitations in that regard is critical. We are a
rich country--so rich that if the Queen of Sheba were today alive, she
would come to this country and forget about Solomon in all of his
glory. We are a rich country, but we can never, never spend our way
into perfect national security--I say perfect national security. Our
resources are finite and choices have to be made, and there will always
be forces and circumstances in the world that are unpredictable and
beyond our control. There always have been and always will be. But we
can strive to be a wise nation--one that avoids bombast in favor of
methodical analysis, one that understands its extraordinary
possibilities as well as its very real limitations on the global stage.
I do not know what these words by President Bush may portend for our
future. Are they meant to convey the chilling possibility that Mr. Bush
may be contemplating an invasion of Iraq, or Iran, or North Korea? I
don't know. Just looking at the words themselves, I cannot understand.
Are they meant to be the harbinger of an attack on one or more of these
nations? When Secretary Powell testified before the Budget Committee
yesterday, he could only give weak assurances that the President ``has
no plan on his desk'' to start a war with one of these countries. It
has yet to be seen whether the President's strong words will mean some
future action against Iran, Iraq, or North Korea, or whether they are
just considered as a rhetorical flourish to a wartime speech.
What is for certain is that other countries have reacted to the use
of bellicose terms.
Our European allies are now wondering if the United States will soon
call upon them to support military action against one of those three
countries.
Hasn't Russian leader Putin raised a question, has he not expressed
concern about our intentions toward Iraq? Only yesterday I believe, or
the day before, I read in the newspaper about his cautionary words.
Russia has issued a strong warning against a possible U.S. attack on
Iraq. Alliances between nations can be fractured and broken because of
rash or insulting statements.
Iranians who voted for moderate candidates in last year's elections
joined with hardliners in taking to the streets of Tehran on Monday,
February 11, to protest the categorization of their country as
``evil.''
I read from the New York Times of the day before yesterday:
Millions of Iranians galvanized by President Bush's
branding of their nation as part of an ``axis of evil''
marched in a nationwide pep rally today that harkened back to
the early days of the Islamic revolution, with the American
flag burned for the first time in recent memory.
The story goes on to say:
[[Page S704]]
Ever since Mr. Bush designated Iran part of an
international terrorist network open to American attack,
conservatives in Iran have been greatly buoyed, trying to use
a resurgence of disgust with America to quash reform at home,
daily denouncing Washington and exhorting Iranians to follow
suit. This has made it difficult for President Khatami to
preserve his reformist agenda of promoting democracy and
rooting out corruption an agenda he emphasized today before
he, too, criticized American foreign policy.
I ask unanimous consent that this article in its entirety be printed
in the Congressional Record at the close of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. BYRD. Madam President, I also ask unanimous consent that at the
close of my remarks there be printed a transcript of the questions that
I asked of Secretary Colin Powell and his answers when he appeared
before the Senate Budget Committee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 2.)
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, will my friend from West Virginia yield
for a question?
Mr. BYRD. Yes, I yield to the distinguished senior Senator from New
York.
Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, I thank my colleague. Before I ask my
question, I wish to thank the Senator from West Virginia for taking to
the floor on such an important and timely issue because we are in a
grave new world.
No one can doubt the Senator's fidelity as a patriot and somebody who
cares about a strong America, an America that defends itself. I
followed his career long before I ever came to the Congress in 1980. It
was true then and it is every bit as true, even more true today.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.
Mr. SCHUMER. Only he could give such a speech with the strength that
is needed. I wish to ask the Senator a question, given his knowledge of
the Constitution and our history.
Senator Byrd has focused on two issues: the ability to declare war
and the ability to spend funds in execution of that war. It is my
understanding that if there were ever a part where the Founding Fathers
wanted the checks and balances of our system--the consultation of the
executive branch with the Congress, the legislative branch--it would be
in these two areas.
I wonder if the Senator might address that issue briefly because I
think it ties his knowledge of history with the very appropriate and
apt words of today.
Mr. BYRD. I thank my friend, the senior Senator from New York, whose
State experienced the greatest sacrifice in blood and human lives that
has ever been brought to this country by terrorists in its entire
history, brought in 1 day in the course of a few hours, and is still
suffering from the losses that were visited upon New York City by these
men who, indeed, were evil men.
The Founding Fathers were very suspicious of a strong Executive. The
Framers of our Constitution were not strong devotees of ``democracy.''
They believed in a strong legislative branch. They believed in checks
upon an Executive. And so they were rather sparse in the language that
they used when it came to enumerating the powers of the Chief
Executive, the Chief Magistrate of the country.
Some of the Framers had a concern that a legislature might impinge
upon the powers of a Chief Executive; that the vortex of the
legislative branch was ever seeking more power. I think in these
regards, the Founding Fathers would find that their concerns about a
Chief Executive were perhaps well-founded, especially in time of war.
In a time of war, powers and authorities seem to gravitate toward the
Chief Magistrate as Commander in Chief. They felt that they had
adequately protected against that by virtue of the many powers that are
enumerated in the Constitution and vested in the Congress, the most
powerful of which, the most important of which is the power of the
purse which we find vested in the Congress. We find it in section 9 of
the first article of the Constitution.
Yes, they were concerned about an overweening Executive, so they
included adequate safeguards. They vested this power to send the
Nation's sons and daughters into war in the hands of Congress when they
said, in section 8, the Congress shall have the power ``To declare
war.''
This was a safeguard that the Framers wisely put into the hands of
the elected representatives in the people's branch--that first branch,
mentioned in the very first sentence of the Constitution. There is
where the power to make law resides. These are people who are directly
elected by the people.
The Framers were not at all enamored with the idea of having an all-
powerful Chief Executive.
Mr. SCHUMER. I thank the Senator. His speech, which I have heard thus
far, is a marvelous one. I commend it to my colleagues and will read
the rest of it myself. I apologize; I must go chair a hearing, but it
is one of the reasons I am glad to be in the Senate, to hear brave and
important words such as these. I thank the Senator and yield back to
him.
Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator from New York, Mr.
Schumer, for his words and his confidence. I thank him also for his
reference to the Constitution.
We need to retire into the inner sanctums of our minds and ponder the
Constitution every once in awhile.
I also ask unanimous consent that a chart regarding defense budget
expenditures be printed in the Record at the close of my remarks.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(See exhibit 3).
Mr. BYRD. How lately have we read the Constitution?
When we send a signal to the rest of the world, we should pay more
attention to the content of our message than to creating a sound bite.
It seems that a new front has opened in our public relations war
against terrorism, and the world wants to know what kind of action we
may be contemplating to back up those words.
I am reminded of the words of Gaius Sallustius Crispus. Gaius
Sallustius Crispus was a Roman historian. He lived between the years 86
and 34 B.C. If one wants to read a good account of the Catilinian
conspiracy, one ought to read Sallustius' account of the conspiracy of
Catiline. One ought to read Sallustius' account of the Jugurthine War
which occurred perhaps between the years 112 and 106 B.C. It was
Sallustius Crispus who said, ``It is always easy to begin a war but
very difficult to stop one, since its beginning and end are not under
the control of the same man.''
The country is behind the President's efforts thus far to trace the
whereabouts and to bring to justice--to use Mr. Bush's words--Osama bin
Laden and other terrorist leaders. But if, indeed, the President is
contemplating an attack on a sovereign nation, the President should
contemplate seeking a declaration of war by Congress in advance. I may
very well vote for such a declaration, depending upon the circumstances
at the time. I would not rule that out.
As Edmund Burke so well stated, ``War never leaves where it found a
nation.''
The President would be well advised to have the people of the Nation,
acting through their elected representatives in Congress, behind him in
the event that he seriously contemplates an attack on any one or more
of the nations which he included in his ``axis of evil'' about which he
spoke during his State of the Union Address.
Going to war with Iraq or North Korea would be a very--and the same
can be said with reference to Iran--serious undertaking. Given the
right cause, I would say let's go. Given the right cause and the right
circumstances, yes, but let us be cautious and prudent.
North Korea is estimated to have the fourth largest military in the
world. Iraq has had 11 years since the Gulf War to rebuild what was
once touted as the world's third largest military. Going to war against
well-armed foes such as these will require the serious and sustained
support of the American people.
The President should not misinterpret the support which he enjoys in
poll after poll throughout the Nation to mean that he can throw the
weight of the Nation's full military power at any one of these three
nations and expect this Nation and its elected representatives to
follow down that road
[[Page S705]]
without their elected representatives also having had an opportunity to
pass some judgments in committing the Nation's blood and the Nation's
treasure to the task. In the words of Aeschylus, ``the people's voice
is a mighty power.''
All of us have supported the President in his actions thus far, but
there are some things that are worthy of pause. I do not offer my words
today in criticism. I merely offer my words as cautionary.
I have heard much saber rattling, much jingoism. It is one thing to
track down terrorists, to chase them into the holes and caves, and to
vow they shall not hide and we will ``get 'em.'' It is quite another to
consider going to war--if that indeed is being weighed as an option in
high places--without a declaration of war by Congress, as set forth in
the Constitution.
Let me say again, I will leave no doubt about it, I am not saying
that a declaration of war on a certain nation at a given time cannot be
justified. As to Iraq, for example, there may arguably be a sufficient
justification to make a solid case, given our past experiences with
that country and the leader of that country. I might very well be one
Senator who would support such a declaration at a given time, based
upon compelling facts. But as someone once said, ``A wise man should
try everything before resorting to arms.''
There is an old English proverb that says, ``He that preaches war is
the devil's chaplain.'' I do not believe that there is any such thing
as an inevitable war. Given the history of our relations with Saddam
Hussein, it may be that such a conflict one day must take place or
shall take place. Our military might is overwhelming, but as Cicero is
reported to have said, ``An Army is of little value in the field unless
there are wise counsels at home.'' Then, let us have wise counsels, not
just consultations. Cato the Elder used to close every speech, every
letter, with the words, ``Carthage must be destroyed!'' Eventually, in
the year 146 B.C., Carthage was destroyed. There must be careful
counsels, and let us vote when the time comes.
I hope and pray that the President will think and pray carefully as
all options are being considered. He will do well to heed, and to read
again and again, the records of history. In particular, he must not
forget the lessons we learned in the war with Vietnam. We did not lack
a mighty military in the field in that war. However, the unstinting,
unflagging dedication to the prolonged waging of that contest was
lacking among the people back home. It is a lesson worth remembering.
Scriptures say that a strong man armed keepeth his palace. I have
supported defense budgets now for 50 years, to keep our ``palace,'' our
Ship of State, our country strong. I expect to continue to do so. But
there need to be questions asked. It will require a lot of questions
and a lot of answers. And they should be asked.
Let us remember the Constitution. It will keep us bound to the mast
of our Ship of State.
I yield the floor.
Exhibit 1
[From the New York Times, Feb. 12, 2002]
Millions in Iran Rally Against U.S.
(By Neil MacFarquhar)
Tehran, Feb. 11.--Millions of Iranians galvanized by
President Bush's branding of their nation as part of an
``axis of evil'' marched in a nationwide pep rally today that
harkened back to the early days of the Islamic revolution,
with the American flag burned for the first time in recent
memory.
Amid the dirgelike chants of ``Death to America!'' marking
the revolution's 23rd anniversary, President Mohammad Khatami
tried to display Iran's milder face, stressing his
government's interest in detente.
Ever since Mr. Bush designated Iran part of an
international terrorist network open to American attack,
conservatives in Iran have been greatly buoyed, trying to use
a resurgence of disgust with America to quash reform at home,
daily denouncing Washington and exhorting Iranians to follow
suit. This has made it difficult for President Khatami to
preserve his reformist agenda of promoting democracy and
rooting out corruption an agenda he emphasized today before
he, too, criticized American foreign policy.
``Our policy is a policy of detente, Mr. Khatami told the
throng clogging all avenues to Freedom Square in Tehran. ``We
intend to have ties and peaceful relations with all nations
in the world,'' except Israel.
Although less strident than his old guard foes, Mr. Khatami
suggested that the United states was partly to blame for the
Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. ``The American people,'' he said,
``should ask today how much of the awful and terrifying
incidents of Sept. 11 were due to terrorist acts, and how
much of it was due to the foreign policy adopted by American
officials.''
The threat to Iran ``originates from the fact that America,
or at least some of its officials, see themselves as masters
of the world,'' Mr. Khatami said. ``Since they have power,
they want to force the world to obey them and exert pressure
on countries that disobey. Your revolution threatened
America's illegitimate interests in the region, so it is
obvious that your are the target of its animosity.''
After each important line, the orderly crowd burst into
another round of ``Death to America!'' and waved a variety of
signs, including one in English quoting the late
revolutionary patriarch, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, saying,
``The U.S. cannot do a damn thing.''
The chanting switched occasionally to ``Death to Bush!''
One man wrapped his white donkey in a hand-painted American
flag with ``Bush'' written on the side, while a truck carried
a hug poster mounted with five large close-up photographs of
the American president next to five similarly sized pictures
of an ape.
In his State of the Union address on Jan. 29, Mr. Bush
singled out Iran for trying to develop weapons of mass
destruction and for its support for groups like Hezbollah
that the United States labels terrorist. In addition,
Washington has recently accused Iran of sending weapons to
the Palestinians, of trying to undermine the effort to build
a stable central government in Afghanistan and of helping Al
Qaeda members to escape.
In suggesting that the United States review its own foreign
policy rather than cast aspersions. Mr. Khatami specifically
cited what he depicted as the plight of Palestinians denied
human rights because of American support for Israel.
The threats expressed by Mr. Bush and other administration
officials over the last two weeks surprised many in Iran. In
some ways, they have united the reformists and the old guard
here in criticism of the United States; in other ways, they
have strengthened the hand of the conservatives.
Any time we face international problems, democracy stops,''
said Ali Reza Haghighi, a political science professor. ``Now
all the discourse must be against the Americans.''
Mr. Khatami worked to keep his reformist agenda alive.
Some people must not object that we are talking so much
about democracy, religious democracy,'' he said. ``The stress
on democracy is the soul of the Islamic revolution.''
Mr. Khatami's supporters had envisioned the efforts to
rebuild Afghanistan as a kind of side door to re-establishing
ties with Washington, a prospect that alarmed the hard-liners
who still control many of the levers of power here.
Mr. Bush's remarks thus delighted the old guard, which
gleefully presented them as evidence that the American
attitude toward Tehran remained unchanged, no matter that
Iran helped in toppling the Taliban.
The reformists, while critical of America, have tried to
suggest that the actions Mr. Bush criticized were the work of
shadowy groups within the Iranian elite who want to keep the
country isolated and autocratic.
Possibly reflecting uncertainty over how to deal with an
American-backed government in Kabul, Afghanistan was barely
mentioned at the rally. ``The Taliban were a major
bete noire,'' said one western diplomat. ``But now they
see a U.S. colony with bases developing in their backyard
and they don't know how to handle it.''
At the rally, Iranians were generally polite to the few
Western reporters in their midst, saying things like
``Welcome to Iran.'' But there were occasional outbursts of
animosity. ``Garbage!'' ``Pigs!'' ``Get out of here!''
shouted one woman, while a man veered close to say, ``I would
like to punch America right in the mouth!'' at which point
the crowd edged in, bellowing ``Death to America!''
While the size of the Tehran crowd was impossible to
estimate authoritatively, the wide avenues and highways
leading to Freedom Square in Tehran were jammed with hundreds
of thousands of people. Iranian television suggested that
millions turned out across the country, showing pictures of
jammed streets in every city. Marchers said they were more
galvanized than in years past because they felt maligned by
President Bush.
The turnout also reflected the daily exhortations to attend
that accompanied every news bulletin since Mr. Bush's speech.
Employees at various government ministries said they had been
told to go.
The calls to attend did not move everyone. In affluent
north Tehran, where one occasionally hears support for the
idea that Mr. Bush should carry through with his threat to
bomb, cars laden with skis headed out of town toward the
slopes.
As marchers headed toward the rally, periodically one would
step out of the crowd to offer spontaneous thoughts about the
day. ``As long as our revolution is against America, we
support it,'' said one man, wagging his finger. ``The day
there is peace between this country and America, the
revolution is over.''
After 23 years, though, the sense of brooding menace that
pervaded marches of the past had mellowed. This one felt more
like a carnival, complete with a gold coin on offer for the
best Uncle Sam effigy.
A yellow banner painted with giant letters in Persian was
stretched across one over
[[Page S706]]
pass. In the early days of the Islamic Republic it would have
been read as ``America Is the Greatest Satan.'' But today the
lettering helpfully included its own English translation,
reading, ``America Is Extremely Naughty.''
____
Exhibit 2
Budget Committee Hearing With Secretary of State Colin Powell, February
12, 2002
Senator Byrd. I think the secretary, and I regret that we
have scheduled our votes in such a way that we overlooked the
importance of these committees and the importance of the
questions and the answers that may result in our attendance
here and the imposition on the time of witnesses like
Secretary Powell.
Let me begin by saying that I join in the commendations
that have been expressed by our chairman. I've had a long
service with Secretary Powell. When we debated the INF
treaty, 1988, I believe it was, I was majority leader for the
second time, and Secretary Powell at that time I believe was
the national security adviser to the president.
Secretary Powell complimented the Senate on the work that
the Senate did on that treaty. I refused to be pushed and
pressed and stampeded into a scheduling for debate of that
treaty until we had resolved some very, very important
questions raised by the then chairman of the Armed Services
Committee, Senator Nunn, the then chairman of the
Intelligence Committee, Senator Boren, the then chairman of
the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Pell. And I recall
that we waited until we got the answers, and the secretary of
state--now secretary of state, at the time complimented the
Senate on taking the time to resolve these important
questions. And Mr. Powell at that time I think engaged
himself and was active in helping to resolve some of these
very important questions.
So he is a man who has made command decisions, he has led
men in war. I think he speaks independently. He has the kind
of experience that affords him that view, that independence
of thought. He doesn't have to just listen to what somebody
else says and reports, he has analyzed many of these
questions. And I compliment him on his great service to this
country.
Our time is limited. There are two questions I would like
to ask. Let me premise the first one by what you have said
with respect to the president has no plan to attack, there
are no recommendations on his desk at this moment. Now, those
are very carefully worded responses to the questions by the
chairman, and those of us who have been around here anytime
at all recognize that they're not direct answers, and I can
understand the secretary.
The president, let me say, though, has made some very bold
statements about prosecuting those responsible for the
September 11 attacks. The president said that the terrorists
are on the run and that they will find no safe haven, there's
no cave that's deep enough. He said in the State of the Union
address that the terrorists will not escape the justice of
this country. I am with the president 100 percent when it
comes to punishing the individual terrorists, those who are
still living--some of them died on September 11, which was
five months ago yesterday--when it comes to punishing those
terrorists for the acts of September 11.
But the president has gone further in naming three states
that comprise an axis of evil, and you have used that term,
Mr. Secretary, already. Iran, Iraq and North Korea, the
president has said, ``are arming to threaten the peace of the
world,'' and he ``will not stand by as peril grows closer and
closer. The United States of America will not permit the
world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the
world's most destructive weapons.''
Those statements have left me wondering, is the president
signaling that we will attack one or more of these countries?
Congress passed a resolution on September 14 to authorize the
president to use force against those who carried out,
assisted or gave safe harbor to those responsible for the
attack of September 11. Iran, Iraq and North Korea are not
named in that resolution. I've heard no evidence that this
axis of evil was responsible for or complicit in the
September 11 attacks.
Now, if the president seeks to extend this war on
terrorism, a case must be made before Congress and the
American people that Iran, Iraq or North Korea are a clear
and present danger to our country, and I, for one, am willing
to listen to that case. But to carry out the war, the
president will need the sustained support of the American
people. We saw in Vietnam what the lack of support, sustained
support for that war, resulted in. If the president wants to
crystallize the support of the American people, he would be
well advised to seek from Congress a declaration of war.
After all, we're not talking about using our military
against terrorist cabals. We're talking about war against one
or more sovereign states. Now, reading many of the news
stories about this subject, I have come to a conclusion that
while there is no plan perhaps, while there is no
recommendation upon the president's desk today perhaps, these
matters are evidently being pursued, they're being discussed,
they're being considered as options.
Now, when it comes to making war, let's say on Iraq, having
been here when you helped to direct the war on Iraq, I
possibly could be convinced that we ought to vote--I would
vote for a declaration of war. But we're not dealing with
Afghanistan if we deal with Iraq. With respect to Iraq and
North Korea, we're dealing with countries that have powerful
military forces on the ground.
And I would hope, Mr. Secretary, that before we venture
into an attack or an invasion or whatever against any one or
more of these countries, the help, the support, the sustained
support of the American people would be carefully sought
through their elected representatives. We ought not to go
around shooting from the hip. And I think that some of the
statements that have emanated from the administration have
alarmed other countries and they're alarming a lot of people
in this country.
Now, is the president signaling that we will attack one or
more of these countries? If he is considering such an attack
as a possible course of action, do you believe, Mr.
Secretary, that the president should seek a declaration of
war from Congress before unleashing our military might on any
one of these sovereign states?
Now, I can understand the inherent powers of the commander
in chief. If there's an attack about to occur against this
country, he has the inherent power to act. But we have time
here to discuss these matters, to discuss the case, to debate
pro and con. And I personally believe that the president,
before he takes such a step, if that's being considered as an
option, we'd better be very careful to bring the American
people in on making the case, and we'd better seek a
declaration of war from Congress in such a case. That's going
to be a very costly venture, if it occurs, it's going to be
costly in treasure and in blood, and you know that as well,
perhaps more so than I do. And unless he has that support,
that sustained support, we'll be engaged in another very
costly, dreadful, Vietnam-like venture where the support of
the American people vanished. That's one question.
Let me give you one other question to conserve my time, and
then you can answer them as you see fit. My other question--
well, perhaps you'd better try that one first. [Laughter]
Secretary Powell. First of all, Senator Byrd, I could not
even begin to answer this question without commenting on your
opening remarks about the INF treaty. It is one of the more
vivid experiences of my career, to have been, shall I say,
taught by you about the Senate's prerogatives with respect to
treaties. And I'll never forget the meeting you, I and Howard
Baker had in your chambers one day, where you made it clear
that the Senate had to give its advice and consent in a
measured way, only with full information, and I went off to
Geneva the very next day to get that full information.
And if I may, I'll never forget you looking at me and say,
``We will not be hurried by any summit meeting that you all
have scheduled or anything else of that nature, we will do
our job.'' And the Senate did do its job, and I thank you for
that guidance and that support at that time.
To get directly to your questions, the president's words in
the State of the Union speak for itself. He did not declare
war on anyone, nor was he saying he was getting ready to
declare war on anyone. In fact, since the State of the Union
he has repeated what he had said two times before the State
of the Union with respect to Iraq: Let the inspectors in, let
the U.N. inspectors in to determine whether or not you were
doing the things we are accusing you of, and if you can
establish that you are not doing these things, then the world
will be a safer place, and you will have dealt with the U.N.
We still think we would be better off with someone other than
Saddam Hussein running the country.
So the president has made no decisions--to repeat myself--
and no recommendations on his desk, even though, as a matter
of prudence, we should be examining options with respect to
all of these countries. But the first instance is looking at
diplomatic and political means.
We have been eyeball to eyeball with North Korea for the
last almost 50 years now, and trying to make sure that they
are contained, this regime that is a despotic regime. And so
I can assure you that the president is very sensitive, first,
to the feelings and the views and the perspective of the
American people, and he is very appreciative of the role that
Congress plays in such matters.
And I'm sure that if he believes some action is taken, or
some action is required, he will consult with the Congress,
and as a result of consultation will make a judgment as to
how Congress should be involved in whatever actions are
taken, whether it is by declaration of war or a resolution of
the Congress supporting an action that is taken pursuant to
some United Nations resolution or through the president's
inherent right as commander in chief to engage the armed
forces of the United States. You'll recall what we did at the
time of the Gulf War, Senator, where with a resolution we
then got a resolution from both houses. So I'm sure the
president would consult at an appropriate time and determine
what he would ask Congress to do, and Congress has, of
course, it's own inherent power and right to do what it
chooses to do.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Secretary, I thank you for that response.
Of course, you and I know that the Constitution does not
speak about consultations, nor does it refer to U.N.
resolutions. Those are things that have developed over later
time. But the Constitution
[[Page S707]]
still says that Congress shall have the power to declare war.
And I believe, as I said earlier, that if the president is
contemplating attacking one or more of these countries, I
would urge that he not just seek consultation, but he seek a
declaration of war. And I might very well vote for that,
depending on the case that is made at the time.
My second question, I may miss this vote--I'd do that with
regret--but I'm very appreciative of this opportunity to
visit with you across the table that's here and to ask these
questions. By the way, I've cast more roll call votes than
any senator in the history of this republic, and this is not
a democracy, this is a republic. But I've cast more votes
than any other senator in its long history, and so I don't
pass up a vote easily, but I will in this case if I have to.
My second question is this. The president's FY 2003 foreign
operations budget requests reflect business as usual when it
comes to U.S. aid to Egypt and Israel. But despite providing
roughly $5 billion a year--my, how the Appropriations
Committee would like to use that $5 billion a year to help
some of the states in this country and the people throughout
this country with some of their problems--$5 billion a year
in economic and military assistance to the Middle East, the
conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians continues
to worsen.
It seems to me that our foreign aid dollars to the Middle
East, which have no strings attached that I know about, and
are not conditioned on any progress being made in the peace
process, are being squandered in pursuit of an increasingly
elusive peace. Now, this subject, this question isn't often
laid on the table as plainly as we're doing right now, but I
think it ought to be.
Every year we appropriate roughly $5 billion countries with
virtually no questions asked, and they look upon it, I think,
as an entitlement, almost as an entitlement. They, I'm sure,
from what I've read and learned, that they include it in
their budgets at the beginning of the budget process because,
as I said, they look upon it virtually as an entitlement.
They can be pretty sure of it. I think it's time for
questions to be asked.
As a result of the current escalation of violence between
the Palestinians and the Israelis, the U.S. seems to be
increasing its historic tilt toward Israel and abandoning
attempts to negotiate with Yasser Arafat. Given the
continuing terrorist attacks by the Palestinians, it is
understandable that we're fed up with Arafat. But I've read
in the media that even some Israeli reserve soldiers are
refusing to serve any longer in the occupied West Bank and
Gaza Strip, citing the dehumanizing impact of the occupation.
Do you have any concern that the perception of a greater
U.S. tilt toward Israel could prove and is proving to be
counterproductive by increasing anti-American and anti-
Israeli sentiment in the region by emboldening hardline
Israelis who are opposed to the peace process and by
precluding the U.S. from fulfilling the role of honest broker
in the peace process?
I think, Mr. Secretary, that it is time to put some strings
on our foreign assistance in the Middle East and to condition
our assistance, to condition our assistance on evidence of
progress in the peace process. I think that would be the axis
of my questions.
I think it's time to condition our assistance on evidence
of progress in the peace process. We have a tool here. We
don't seem to use it. Both sides are able to count on a
continuation of this money every year, it seems to me. It
isn't being used as leverage, as it should be, in the pursuit
of the peace process, which would be of the greatest benefit
to both of those countries and to our own country and to
world peace. Yasser Arafat may be unwilling or unable to act
on his own, but I have to believe that Egypt and Jordan, and
hopefully other Arab nations, would apply considerably more
pressure on the Palestinians if their foreign assistance
dollars were at stake.
And I have to believe that Israel might be more willing to
discuss the issue of Israeli settlements, which are a real
bone of contention, in disputed areas if their foreign
assistance dollars were at stake. Mr. Secretary, this is my
question: Why shouldn't we condition our assistance to the
Middle East, why shouldn't we use this leverage on both sides
to get them to the peace table and to make them understand
that this money is just not going to be had there for the
asking, that they have to produce some evidence, they have to
show a willingness, they have to act in pursuit of that
willingness? That's my question.
Secretary Powell. Thank you, Senator Byrd. On the first
question, as you know, the roughly $4.6 or close to $5
billion that is spent every year for Egypt and Israeli in FMF
and ESF funding is a result of decisions that were made many
years ago, after the Camp David accord, and there's been a
balance between those two, and as a result we did have a
peace agreement between Egypt and Israel.
And as part of that, this funding was appropriate to let
both sides develop and let both sides feel strong as a result
of defensive FMF funding, which allows them to maintain their
military. With respect to the situation with the Palestinians
and the Israelis, I must say that Egypt has been enormously
supportive of our efforts, and Egypt has been applying
pressure on Chairman Arafat to get the violence under control
so that both sides can move forward to achieve the kind of
peace that you talk about.
With respect to should we use Egypt's money to pressure
them, they're doing what we ask of them now with respect to
this, they're putting pressure on Mr. Arafat. They are one of
our strongest interlocutors with respect to how we deal with
Mr. Arafat. We have not cut Mr. Arafat off. I am in touch
with his closest associates, and I spoke to him about 10 days
ago.
With respect to the Israelis, they are under attack from
terrorist organizations that are linked to the Palestinian
Authority. We saw the ship come in with 50 tons of military
equipment that escalated the situation or would have if it
arrived. And to say to them, ``We're going to cut your funds
while you are under these kinds of terrorist attacks unless
you do something to reward these terrorist attacks,'' is not
a strategy that I think will be successful. The strategy we
are trying right now and applying right now is to remain
committed to a vision of these two states living side by
side, remain committed to the Mitchell plan, which provides a
path to get there, and committed to the Tenet work plan,
which gets us into the Mitchell plan by getting a cease-fire,
by getting the violence down.
And in recent days I have been in touch once again with the
closest aids to Mr. Arafat talking about the specific things
that need to be done so that we can get the violence down and
then see an Israeli response, because they now are confident
of moving forward into the Mitchell plan. The Mitchell plan
talks about settlement activities stopping. The Mitchell plan
talks about opening closures. The Mitchell plan has
everything we need to get the negotiations, negotiations
which under appropriate U.N. resolutions 242 and 338 can lead
to a settlement of this crisis and a peace between these two
sides.
But until Mr. Arafat really is able to crack down, if he
can--and I think he still can, I still think he has that
authority, people want to push him aside as a leader, but
he's still the leader of the Palestinian people, they see him
as such and he's the elected leader of the Palestinian
Authority. And so I think he has to use his moral
authority and his political authority to get the violence
down, as which point we can get into a cease-fire and move
toward the Mitchell plan.
We are constantly reviewing the level of funding for both
Egypt and Israel and the determination of how it should be
allocated between FMF and ESF, and we believe they both make
solid cases to us every year that justifies the allocation
that we have made to them, and that is the case again this
year. But we have not walked away from this, and we are
always looking for a means by which we can encourage both
sides to show restraint, both sides to do everything that is
possible to get toward a cease-fire and progress into the
Mitchell plan.
Senator Byrd. Mr. Chairman I have signaled to the floor
leadership that I'm willing to give up that vote in order to
have been here to ask these questions, Secretary Powell, and
I gave it up very reluctantly. My attendance record over a
period of 44 years, my roll call attendance record is 98.7
percent of the time. I wouldn't have done that for many
secretaries.
Secretary Powell. I'm honored.
Senator Byrd. I thank you for your response to the
question. I hope that there will be increased consideration
given to my suggestions here as to the use of this
assistance. The American taxpayers give up a lot, they give
$5 billion a year to these countries, and there needs to be a
return to the taxpayers' investment, I believe to use your
words, in the Middle East. So I hope that there will be
increased consideration of using this leverage.
And also, Mr. Secretary, I hope you'll convey to the
president that we need to use our words with care. Words mean
something, especially in this context. We cannot shoot from
the hip if we're contemplating as one of the options going
into one of these countries or attacking them. This would be
a very sobering, somber, serious matter, and I would
appreciate it if you would tell the president about this.
And I'm not out to pick on the president, I spoke on the
Senate floor one Friday about the president, about his speech
to the National Prayer Breakfast, and I have many good things
I can say about the president. But this is very sobering, and
some of the words that have appeared to come from the hip
from this administration have caused considerable alarm. I
don't have to tell you that, you sense that, I'm sure.
Secretary Powell, Senator Byrd, thank you. And I've been
through several crisis with the president in our year
together, some big, some small. There was the Soviet spy
crisis of the early days of the administration, then the
Chinese reconnaissance plane, and then what we've done since
September 11, and I have been through many crises in my
career with several presidents.
And this president does not shoot from the hip and he does
not act from the hip. He handles each one of these with a
clarity of purpose, with patience, with prudence, listens to
all the advisers that he has in his administration and
gathers the support of the American people and his coalition
partners as he moves forward. And I'm sure that as new
challenges arise in the future, particularly if they arise
with these three countries or other countries, he will act in
a similar manner.
Senator Byrd. I hope so, Thank you.
[[Page S708]]
____
Exhibit 3
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.--MILITARY (051)--DISCRETIONARY
[In billions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget
Year authority
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002....................................................... 330.8
2003....................................................... \1\ 379.3
2004....................................................... 387.9
2005....................................................... 408.8
2006....................................................... 429.6
2007....................................................... 451.4
2008....................................................... 463.7
2008....................................................... 476.3
2010....................................................... 489.3
2011....................................................... 502.7
2012....................................................... 516.4
2003-12.................................................... 4,505.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Includes $10 billion request for the Defense Emergency Response Fund.
Source: Office of Management and Budget, January 24, 2002.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
____________________