[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 148 (2002), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1195-1202]
[From the U.S. 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 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

[[Page 1196]]

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?
  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

[[Page 1197]]

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.
  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

[[Page 1198]]

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:

       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

[[Page 1199]]

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 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.

[[Page 1200]]

       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 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

[[Page 1201]]

     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 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

[[Page 1202]]

     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.
                                  ____


                               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
2009.......................................................        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.

                          ____________________