Department of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2004

DEPARTMENTS OF VETERANS AFFAIRS AND HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2004

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE AUTHORIZATION BILL

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, on May 22 of this year, 2003, I cast my vote in opposition to the fiscal year 2004 Defense authorization bill. I cast that vote to protest the errant course of the defense establishment in seeking larger and larger regular defense budgets. The budget for the Department of Defense is exploding, even if we do not count the vast sums being used to maintain our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The regular defense budget, not including the costs of the war on terrorism in Afghanistan or the other war, the war in Iraq which we started, has gone up by 31 percent since 2000. I will say that again. The regular defense budget, not including the costs of the war on terrorism in Afghanistan or the other war which we started in Iraq, has gone up by 31 percent since 2000.

In 2000, Congress authorized $304.1 billion to fund the routine day-to-day operations of our military. The conference report before the Senate today authorizes $401.3 billion to pay the routine bills for our defense establishment. As I say, I am not even speaking of the costs of Iraq on the one hand or the costs of Afghanistan. So if we were to just ignore Afghanistan and Iraq in looking at the costs of the military, we are authorizing today in the conference report $401 billion to pay the routine bills for our defense establishment as against the $304.1 billion that Congress authorized in the year 2000-in other words, roughly $100 billion more today than we authorized in 2000, just ignoring Iraq, on the one hand, and Afghanistan on the other.

The growth of the so-called peacetime budget of the Department of Defense is expected to continue into the foreseeable future. The Pentagon estimates that it will request $502.7 billion for routine defense operations in the year 2009. Think of that. That is more than a half trillion dollars. The Pentagon estimates it will request $502 billion for routine defense operations in 2009. But a request for half a trillion dollars-as we will be undertaking in 2009-should be anything but routine, especially if not one red cent of those funds would be for any contingency military operation.

Instead, these growing defense budgets are proof that there is no longer any real effort to provide a smarter defense plan that will modernize our forces for the 21st century while eliminating the vestiges of a cold war era military force. Nearly 3 years ago, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld announced he would conduct a series of top-to-bottom reviews of the Pentagon. I lauded him for doing that. I applauded him publicly and in private conversations. I applauded the Secretary of Defense. Those reviews were supposed to get rid of old weapons systems, field new ones, and refocus the defense establishment to get more bang for the taxpayers' buck.

I, along with many others, supported those efforts as announced by the Secretary of Defense. But any hope of modernizing our Armed Forces while maintaining fiscal discipline has gone-gone out the window. The defense transformation effort which began as a frontal assault on irresponsible spending at the Pentagon has been replaced by the quest for flexibility-"flexibility," the latest buzzword to describe efforts to consolidate greater and greater and greater power into the hands of a select few at the top of the executive branch.

I voted against the Defense authorization bill on May 22 of this year. Why did I do that? I was the only one, the only Senator who voted against it. Why did I do that? I voted against that bill in order to voice my protest to spiraling defense budgets when the American people are expecting smarter spending by their Government, and I will vote against the conference report today to this bill for the very same reason, as well as because it gives rubberstamp approval to consolidating new, broad powers in the Secretary of Defense.

This conference report creates the "National Security Personnel System," so-called, which gives the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, unchecked powers-unchecked powers to rewrite civil service rules for civilian employees of the Pentagon. The conference report includes sweeping authorities-sweeping authorities to allow the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, to waive landmark environmental protection laws with a stroke of the pen.

The conference report establishes new "flexibilities"-flexibilities for the Pentagon to use to develop and deploy an unproven national missile defense system. That is a sinkhole, a sinkhole for your money, the taxpayers' money.

The conference report grants new multiyear authority to transfer appropriations-now, get this. Hear me! The conference report grants new multiyear authority to transfer appropriations of unlimited sums. This is not chickenfeed we are talking about. We are talking about unlimited sums of "your money," the taxpayers' money, from numerous accounts in order to increase spending on Navy cruiser conversions and overhauls.

These are but a few examples of the new powers granted to the executive branch, downtown, at the other end of the avenue, in this bill-this bill. I am not reading from "Alice in Wonderland." I am reading from this conference report.

Our country continues to be threatened by Osama bin Laden. Our troops are under fire in Iraq in the aftermath of a preemptive war, a preemptive war that we started, a preemptive war that our President, as Commander in Chief, started.

Fie on us, the Congress! For shifting that power to the President last October, last October 11. Twenty-three Senators in this body voted against shifting that power to the President. I was one of those 23. I was against shifting that power to this President or to any President. It doesn't make any difference to me what his politics-what his political party is, or would be, so help me, God. I would stand against that with any President. Fie on us! Only 23 Members in this body stood firm for the Constitution of the United States under which, power to declare war is vested in the legislative branch. Soldiers are fighting and dying half a world away and the wealth of this great country is being diverted from the United States Treasury in order to carry out an experiment in nation building in Iraq.

If there were ever a time to demand more accountability and efficiency in how taxpayer dollars are spent on our military, this is it. But instead of holding the feet of the Secretary of Defense to the fire, Congress gives the Secretary vast new powers to hire and fire workers as he sees fit.

Instead of turning the screws-the screws, instead of turning the screws-on this Defense Secretary to straighten out this mess, the accounting nightmare at the Pentagon, Congress grants the Pentagon more flexibility over how it can use funds appropriated to it. We cut the strings by which Congress limits the use of taxpayers' money. Instead of demanding greater accountability over how our military is preparing to meet the military threats of the coming decades, Congress creates new loopholes. The inescapable conclusion, is that Congress has been distracted from the most important issues facing our military posture. Instead, Congress is asked to take action on peripheral matters, and even then we simply pass the buck by closing our eyes and hoping that the Defense Department can straighten itself out if it is invested with enough new powers and "flexibilities."

If the leadership of the Pentagon thinks that "defense transformation" means getting Congress to stick its head in the sand, count me out. My idea of transformation means spending smarter to build a stronger military, not turning a blind eye to Executive Branch power grabs.

It is our fault. I can understand how the executive branch seeks to grab power. The executive branch is operating 24 hours a day every day, 365 days a year. Everywhere its imprint is seen throughout the globe, Congress sleeps.

The flexibilities in this bill are the antitheses of accountability. For each new "flexible authority" that Congress hands over to the Secretary of Defense-any Secretary of Defense-Congress signs away one more lever that should be used to compel the Secretary to build a smarter defense plan.

The Commander in Chief beats his chest and throws down the gauntlet, saying, "Bring them on," in front of the TV cameras, but pictures of the fallen dead coming home to Dover are not allowed.

Oh, we don't want to display the pictures of bringing back the caskets at Dover, DE. No. The American people must not see that side of the war. This is a stubborn course that we have chosen that could tie down our forces in Iraq for months and months and months, and years even to come, and it is a course that I oppose today. It is a course I have opposed from the beginning. This ill-advised invasion and occupation of a Middle Eastern country stands to sap-sap-our military power through the attrition of our brave men and women in uniform. The effects of such a toll could affect our national security for decades to come.

The United States cannot afford to shelve-to place on the shelf-efforts to leap forward a generation in military power by investing in a smarter defense plan. If our country does not prioritize efforts to change our military to respond to the asymmetric warfare of the 21st century-whether those threats emanate from North Korea, or a belligerent China, or Iran-the long-term toll of the adventure in Iraq could weaken our military for years to come, just as our Armed Forces were found to be hollow in the years after Vietnam.

I will vote against the conference report to the Defense authorization bill. It transfers vast unchecked powers to the Defense Department while avoiding any break with the business-as-usual approach to increasing defense spending. It dodges the most important issues facing our national defense posture, and I cannot support such a bill.

I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.