[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 154 (Friday, September 29, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S14630-S14637]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, JUSTICE AND STATE, THE JUDICIARY, AND RELATED 
                   AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 1996

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to set the pending 
amendment aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 2840

     (Purpose: To provide funding for the U.S. Travel and Tourism 
    Administration for implementing certain recommendations and for 
                       carrying out a transition)

  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Nevada [Mr. Bryan], for himself, Mr. 
     Burns, Mr. Hollings, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Inouye, Mr. Akaka, 
     Mr. Graham, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Reid, Mr. Breaux, Mr. Daschle, 
     and Mr. Thurmond, proposes an amendment numbered 2840.

  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

            United States Travel and Tourism Administration


                         salaries and expenses

       For necessary expenses of the United States Travel and 
     Tourism Administration, for implementing the recommendations 
     from the White House Conference on Travel and Tourism and for 
     carrying out the transition of that Administration into a 
     public-private partnership, $12,000,000, to be transferred 
     from the amount for deposit in the Commerce Reorganization 
     Transition Fund (established under section 206(c)(1) of this 
     title) that is made available in the item under the heading 
     ``commerce reorganization transition fund'' under the heading 
     ``General Administration'' under this title, notwithstanding 
     any other provision of law.

  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I am pleased to report the floor manager 
has indicated that this amendment will be accepted. I want to 
acknowledge the support of the distinguished Senator from Montana, who 
has been most helpful in working through this amendment.
  I yield the floor, if I may, to him. I made remarks earlier this 
morning. This deals with the USTTA. The distinguished floor managers 
have accommodated that.
  I yield to the Senator from Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank my friend from Nevada. I do not 
think there is anybody on the Commerce Committee who is any more 
dedicated to the health of the industry we call tourism. If the 
American people would look around, this happens to be one part of the 
Commerce Department that produces an export that is $20 billion to this 
country in the black--not in the red. In fact, if it was not for 
agriculture and tourism, our balance of payments would look really bad.
  But when any industry produces around $77 billion in foreign exchange 
earnings every year, we have to take note, especially since this 
country probably makes less investment in this part of our national 
economy than any other part.
  Mr. President, 7.7 million people visited our State of Montana. 
Sometimes 

[[Page S 14631]]
we think we are pretty authentic, but I also understand where the 
Senator from Nevada is coming from, too, because they have a very 
active tourism part of their State government and he has been 
supportive of that.
  If this amendment is accepted, it is only an increase of around $5 
million, because there is already $7 million of transition funds in 
there. Also, the plans and preparations are being made to privatize 
this department because the tourism industry wants to put together the 
funds. They think they can do a better job in establishing this 
commission than the Government can, and we agree with them. But let us 
give them the time, some funds, and a transition period and let them do 
it.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Mr. President, as a former Governor of Florida, where the 
tourism industry is the State's largest employer, I am amazed at the 
fact that an industry with such tremendous economic impact can 
continually be so under-appreciated and misunderstood. Travel and 
tourism is the second largest industry in the United States behind 
health care, employing more than 13 million Americans both directly and 
indirectly. Last year, foreign spending on U.S. travel accounted for 39 
percent of all service exports and 9 percent of total U.S. exports 
resulting in a $22 billion trade surplus.
  The work of the administration gives our country international 
presence. USTTA plays an important role in helping States and the 
private sector to develop its international travel market, a part of a 
coordinated national marketing and economic strategy. State governments 
and private industry depend on USTTA research to assist them in 
marketing activities and spending decisions.
  In Florida, tourism represents a $33 billion a year industry, 
employing 750,000 residents. International visitors, who make up 20 
percent of Florida tourists, also have a regional impact. Often, 
tourists first visiting the United States will travel to Florida or 
California. On subsequent visits, however, statistics show they are 
likely to travel throughout the region or the country.
  Yet while we are debating this issue today it is imporant to note 
that the National Governors Association at their 1995 summer meeting, 
adopted a resolution supporting the USTTA and their proposal to 
transition the agency into a public private partnership at the end of 
fiscal year 1996.
  The resolution states:

       The Governors believe that a strong public private 
     partnership is essential to promote tourism abroad and 
     increase visitation to the United States. The Governors also 
     believe that in a number of areas, the federal government 
     bears responsibility for functions that can ensure benefits 
     for state and national economies and international visitors.

  This resolution like the Bryan-Burns amendment has bipartisan support 
because in the final analysis international tourism promotion is an 
investment in economic development and job creation. The United States 
cannot afford to be the only one of 157 developed nations without an 
official National Tourism Office.
  Additionally, the first ever White House Conference on Travel and 
Tourism will bring together the recommendations of over 15,000 travel 
and tourism representatives from the 55 States and territories. One of 
the key recommendations to be announced is the strong support for a 
national tourism office that will serve as a catalyst for implementing 
a national tourism strategy for the 21st century.
  Please join me in supporting the Bryan-Burns amendment which provides 
one additional year of funding at the $12 million level to allow the 
agency to transition itself in a businesslike and professional manner 
while implementing the recommendations of the first ever White House 
Conference of Travel and Tourism.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I think we have worked out a good agreement 
here. We have decided in the committee to terminate this agency. Our 
dear colleagues asked for a provision that would allow them to phase it 
out over a year's period with a definite commitment that at the end of 
the year it is gone, with a transition into a private partnership 
program. I think it is an excellent amendment. I am happy to accept it.
  I know Senator Hollings feels the same way, so we are happy to accept 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? The 
Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. BRYAN. Mr. President, I acknowledge publicly my appreciation for 
the response of the Senator from Texas.
  I ask unanimous consent the junior Senator from California, Senator 
Boxer, be listed as a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 2840) was agreed to.
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LOTT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.


                           Amendment No. 2841

     (Purpose: To protect the reproductive rights of Federal women 
                               prisoners)

  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection the pending amendment is set 
aside. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Specter], for himself, 
     Mr. Cohen, Mr. Jeffords, Ms. Snowe, and Ms. Mikulski, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 2841.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 34, strike lines 1 through 7.

  Mr. GREGG addressed the Chair.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield to my distinguished colleague 
from New Hampshire on the condition I do not lose my right to the 
floor.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I seek to propound a unanimous consent 
request at this time that I will present a sense-of-the-Senate 
amendment to this amendment that is pending, there will be 20 minutes 
of debate equally divided, that there will be a vote at 6 o'clock on 
the sense-of-the-Senate amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent that be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SPECTER. Reserving the right to object, I am prepared to accede 
to the vote at 6 o'clock providing there is a consent to my amendment 
which I discussed with the manager.
  Mr. GRAMM. Which is this?
  Mr. SPECTER. This is the amendment to strike the language which 
prohibits the expenditure of funds to pay for abortion for a woman in 
prison.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I will not object with the understanding it has been 
cleared on our side. Is that the understanding of the Senator from 
Pennsylvania?
  Mr. SPECTER. No; it has not been cleared on that side.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Then we have to object until I have had the opportunity 
to consult with our manager.
  Mr. SPECTER. I object to the interruption of the pendency of the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the amendment which I have sent to the 
desk--I had not sought clearance from Senator Hollings because Senator 
Gramm objected to it so there was no point in seeking clearance. But 
the amendment provides we strike lines 1 through 7 on page 34. The 
amendment would strike the following language:

       None of the funds appropriated by this title shall be 
     available to pay for abortion except where the life of the 
     mother would be in danger if the fetus were carried to term, 
     or in the case of rape, provided that should this prohibition 
     be declared unconstitutional by a court of competent 
     jurisdiction, this section shall be null and void.

  Mr. President, the law at the present time is that a woman in prison 
may obtain an abortion under circumstances where the prison authorities 
think it is appropriate to do so. The use of this procedure has been 
very, very limited.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will please come to order.
  Mr. SPECTER. The procedures have been used on a very limited basis. 

[[Page S 14632]]
   From April of 1995 through July 18, only nine abortions were performed 
on Federal women prisoners.
  The restrictions on the ban were lifted in late 1993, but when 
language was not included in the appropriation bill, the Bureau took 
more than 1 year to reestablish procedures for funding abortion 
services. In 1994, I am advised that there were 73 live births to 
Federal prisoners. In 1995 there have been 21 births.
  The Bureau of Prisons advises that there are nearly 7,000 women 
incarcerated for Federal crimes, and about 70 percent of those are 
there on drug offenses.
  The situation would exist, if this language were to become law, the 
language which I seek to strike, that women in prison who have a 
serious medical need would be denied an abortion. They obviously are 
not in the position to pay for their own abortions when they are in 
jail and unable to earn any money.

  By way of background, in 1995, an amendment was offered to prohibit 
funding to the Federal prison system for abortions on pregnant inmates 
except when the life of the mother was in danger. A tabling motion 
failed on a 46 to 46 vote. Then the amendment was defeated on a 
constitutional point of order--may we have order, Mr. President?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct. The Senate will be in 
order.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair.
  The amendment was then defeated on a constitutional point of order 47 
to 48, that prisoners are legally entitled to adequate medical care 
when there exists a serious medical need.
  The thrust of this amendment would place women in prison in a very 
disadvantaged position, and it is my view this language ought to be 
stricken.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, I am pleased to support the amendment 
offered by the distinguished senior Senator from Pennsylvania.
  The amendment would strike from the bill before us the provision 
which prohibits Federal funds from being used for abortion services for 
women in Federal prison.
  But, let me be clear. The amendment would leave intact language in 
the bill which provides a conscience clause for those opposed to 
abortion. That language, which this amendment does not touch, ensures 
that no person would be required to perform, or facilitate in any way 
the performance of, any abortion.
  Let me tell you why I believe this amendment must be adopted.
  The provision contained in the committee-passed bill is part of a 
wideranging assault on women's reproductive rights. Mr. President, it 
is going to be a long autumn for America's women. Let us look at what 
has happened already.
  The Senate has voted to deny women who are Federal employees coverage 
under their health plans for abortion services.
  A Senate/House conference committee has voted to ban abortions for 
women in the military stationed overseas.
  The House has voted to let States deny Medicaid abortions for victims 
of rape and incest.
  The House version of the D.C. appropriations bill would tell the 
District of Columbia that it can not use its own, locally raised, 
revenues for abortions for poor women.
  Legislation to ban certain late term abortions, even when severe 
fetal abnormalities are present or the woman's life or health is at 
serious risk, is under consideration in both the House and Senate.
  And now, under the bill before us, no abortions for women in Federal 
prisons.
  Action after action, vote after vote, we have seen yet another attack 
on women's reproductive rights. We are facing a full scale assault on 
women's constitutionally protected right to choose.
  Those who oppose reproductive rights know better than to launch a 
direct attack. The public strongly supports the right to choose, and 
the antichoice forces know it.
  So, instead they chip away at the right, hoping perhaps that no one 
will notice that yet another group of women have lost their rights.
  The bill before us today picks upon a particularly vulnerable 
population. Women in prison. Women who are totally dependent on health 
care services provided by the Bureau of Prisons.
  Let us be honest. There is no significant Federal expense involved in 
providing abortions for women in Federal prisons.
  Only nine women have obtained abortions since earlier prohibitions 
were repealed in 1993. So this is of no real consequence to the Federal 
budget.
  Yet, it is a huge issue for the few women who do find themselves in 
this desperate circumstance. These are not women who have the resources 
to ever afford private medical services. So by including this provision 
in this bill we are voting to deny these women access to a legal 
medical procedure.
  And who are these women?
  Over two thirds of the women in Federal prisons are drug offenders. 
Many of them are in poor health, perhaps HIV-infected, or suffering 
from AIDS--with all the risks this entails for a developing fetus. Many 
are themselves victims of abuse.
  To add to all this, if these women are forced to carry a child to 
term, they face the certainty that the child will be taken from them. 
How can we force women facing these circumstances to bear children 
against their will?
  To deny these women the right to make their own decision on 
abortion--a decision carefully arrived at after consultation with a 
physician and appropriate counseling--is unconscionable.
  The provision included in this bill is bad policy. It is one more 
attack on women's reproductive rights.
  I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting the amendment offered 
by the Senator from Pennsylvania.


 in opposition to back-door approach to undermining the constitutional 
                          right to an abortion

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to sections 103 
to 105 of the Commerce Justice State appropriations bill. These 
sections would further undermine the constitutional right to an 
abortion.
  The right to an abortion was first articulated by the Supreme Court 
in the 1973 Roe versus Wade decision. This decision balanced the 
interests of protecting the fetus with the important interests of the 
mother, establishing a trimester system under which the right to choice 
in this country was delineated. Subsequent decisions have held that the 
Government may not place an undue burden on the woman's right, prior to 
fetal viability, to make a decision whether or not to have an abortion.
  There is no right to choose without access to choice. Restricting 
women's choice on these appropriations bills, and on other unrelated 
legislation, is a circumspect, back-door approach to prohibiting 
abortions.
  For women who cannot afford an abortion on their own, for poor women, 
this back-door approach to limiting abortions is just one more step to 
a back alley abortion.
  The many efforts to undercut the constitutional right to an abortion 
in this Congress, and earlier Congresses, have been documented by the 
National Abortion Rights Action League in their publication, ``The Road 
to the Back Alley.'' I recommend that interested individuals consult 
this publication.
  Efforts to undercut a woman's right to choose have included:
  Blanket restrictions on Federal funding for abortions. As an 
alternative to unsuccessful congressional efforts to prohibit abortion 
outright, abortion opponents have worked to ban the use of Federal 
funds to pay for abortions. These restrictions, popularly referred to 
as ``Hyde amendments,'' have been attached to appropriations bills ever 
since Roe Versus Wade. The most recent of such measures was 
Representative Istook's amendment to give States the option of not 
providing funds to Medicaid recipients in cases of rape and incest.
  Banning U.S. aid to international family planning groups performing 
abortions or abortion counseling. In June, the House approved an 
amendment to a foreign affairs bill that would ban U.S. aid to any 
international organizations that perform abortions, counsel women on 
abortions, or lobby on abortion issues.
  Prohibiting health insurance companies from paying for abortions for 
Federal employees. On July 19, the House approved reinstatement of 
legislation 

[[Page S 14633]]
prohibiting the Federal Employees Health Insurance Program from paying 
for abortions, except when a woman's life is in danger. The Senate 
approved similar language on August 4, with exceptions for rape and 
incest.
  Barring abortions at military hospitals, even when paid for 
privately. On June 16, the House voted to restore a ban President 
Clinton had lifted against privately funded abortions in overseas 
military hospitals.
  Prohibiting certain types of late-term abortions. On July 18, the 
House Judiciary Committee reported legislation that would make it a 
crime for doctors to perform a late-term abortion procedure called 
intact D&E. This procedure is extremely rare, and almost exclusively 
limited to cases in which tragic fetal deformities have been detected.
   This is only a partial list of the back-door assaults on a woman's 
right to choose. The proposed language is just one more step in the 
long line of rollbacks on women's reproductive freedoms. I urge my 
colleagues to strike this language from the Commerce-Justice-State 
appropriations bill.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. GRAMM. Mr. President, this is House language in the bill. The 
House language is very clear. We are talking about taxpayers' money. 
Both the House and the Senate have taken the position that when the 
taxpayers' money is being spent to fund abortions, that abortion should 
be restricted, that it ought to be restricted to rape, to incest, and 
to the life of the mother.
  What the distinguished Senator from Pennsylvania will do by striking 
the Hyde language from this bill is to basically give taxpayer funding 
for abortion on demand. I do not believe that the House or the Senate 
supports that action, and I am opposed to it.
  Let me see if any of my colleagues want to speak on the issue. If 
not, we will have a motion to table.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would like to make another attempt at 
propounding this unanimous consent.
  I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the debate and 
disposal----
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, may we have order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will be in order. Will Senators and 
staff please take their conversations to the cloakrooms?
  The Senator from New Hampshire may proceed.
  Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of debate 
on the present Specter amendment, that my sense-of-the-Senate 
proposal--which would be to the underlying bill which will be offered 
and not be subject to a second degree--would be debated for 20 minutes, 
with 10 minutes on both sides, and that there would then be a sequence 
of votes should there be a vote ordered on the Specter amendment. If 
there is not a vote ordered on the Specter amendment, then there would 
be just a vote that would occur on my sense-of-the-Senate amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will agree to that time agreement, and 
I think 10 minutes on each side is adequate. I will only modify it with 
the one additional request, that the Senator from Wisconsin, Senator 
Kohl, be recognized to offer the next amendment following the 
disposition of the Specter amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. SPECTER. Reserving the right to object, I want to be sure I 
understand this. At the conclusion of the debate on this amendment, 
then the Gregg amendment would follow, and there would be back-to-back 
votes on my amendment and the amendment by the Senator from New 
Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. There would be 20 minutes of debate on my sense of the 
Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, is there an understanding 
as to how long we will be debating the Specter amendment? Could we get 
a time agreement on that?
  Mr. GRAMM. It is our intention to move to table the amendment now.
  Mr. SMITH. Will the Senator yield?
  I say to the minority leader, I have no intention to debate. I am 
prepared to move to table. But I do not want to cut the debate off if 
there are others who wish to speak. At this time, if it is appropriate, 
I move to table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
offered by the Senator from New Hampshire, as modified by the 
Democratic leader?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, I move to table the Specter amendment.
  Mr. SPECTER. Will the Senator from New Hampshire hold off on that for 
a brief reply to what the Senator from Texas had to say?
  Mr. SMITH. Yes. I withhold.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, by way of a very brief reply, the 
language in this bill is even more restrictive than the Hyde amendment. 
As the Senator from Texas has propounded, the language of the Hyde 
amendment limits abortion except for rape, incest, or the life of the 
mother, and that amendment does not even permit an abortion in the 
event of incest. Rather, the current language of the bill does not 
permit abortion even in the event of incest.
  The language is that none of the funds appropriated by this title--in 
prison, my colleague from Texas says. But a prisoner can be impregnated 
as a result of incest before coming to prison. This language is even 
more restrictive than the Hyde language. This language says that none 
of the funds appropriated by this title shall be available for an 
abortion except for the life of the mother----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If the Senator will withhold, the Senate will 
please come to order.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Except when the life of the mother would be endangered 
if the fetus were carried to term, or in the case of rape.
  It is entirely possible that a woman might be the victim of incest 
prior to the time she is incarcerated. It still takes 9 months from the 
time of impregnation to give birth to a child. Incest is a distinct 
possibility within that time limit.
  Contrary to what the Senator from Texas has said, this is not a 
matter of abortion on demand. This is a matter of abortion when the 
prison authorities permit the abortion to be carried out. It is not a 
matter that a woman can simply demand it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senate please come to order?
  Mr. SPECTER. And if there is a case of serious medical need, a woman 
ought to be entitled to have an abortion. These women are in prison. 
They are obviously not able in most cases--in many cases--to earn 
enough money to have an abortion. When the matter is left within the 
discretion of the prison officials considering all the circumstances, 
it has been used on a very, very limited basis, with the statistics 
showing that only seven abortions were conducted in a period of several 
months since they were begun in April 1995 through mid-July.
  I think this is a very reasonable position leaving the decision in 
the hands of the prison authorities, and I urge adoption of the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. SMITH. Mr. President, if no one seeks recognition for further 
debate, I move to table the Specter amendment.
  Mr. FORD. I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from New 
Hampshire is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Chair.


                           Amendment No. 2842

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from New Hampshire (Mr. Gregg) proposes an 
     amendment numbered 2842.

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

[[Page S 14634]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place insert the following:
       It is the sense of the Senate that none of the funds 
     appropriated or otherwise made available pursuant to this act 
     should be used for the deployment of combat-equipped forces 
     of the Armed Forces of the United States for any ground 
     operations in Bosnia and Herzegovina unless--
       (1) Congress approves in advance the deployment of such 
     forces of the Armed Forces; or
       (2) the temporary deployment of such forces of the Armed 
     Forces of the United States into Bosnia and Herzegovina is 
     necessary to evacuate United Nations peacekeeping forces from 
     a situation of imminent danger, to undertake emergency air 
     rescue operations, or to provide for the airborne delivery of 
     humanitarian supplies, and the President reports as soon as 
     practicable to Congress after the initiation of the temporary 
     deployment, but in no case later than 48 hours after the 
     initiation of the deployment.

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the amendment which I proposed originally I 
had planned to offer as to the continuing resolution, as an act versus 
a sense-of-the-Senate, but in an attempt to accommodate my colleagues--
--
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, may we have order?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is correct. Staff 
and Members will please take their conversations to the Cloakroom.
  Mr. GREGG. To accommodate my colleagues----
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the Senate is not in order. I cannot 
hear the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Mexico is correct. The 
Senators to the left of the Chair, please take their conversations to 
the Cloakroom.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator from New Mexico for his courtesy.
  Mr. President, in an attempt to accommodate my colleagues, who I 
understand wish to move on to other business but who I also think 
desire to speak on this issue in some manner before we break for a 
week, I have made this----
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, if I may say, there are conversations on 
the floor of the U.S. Senate when the Senator is trying to speak about 
a very crucial issue that is a matter of life and death, and I urge, if 
the Chair could, the Chair to be even stronger than he has been to get 
some order because it is hard for me to hear sitting right across from 
the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair is attempting to be strong. I hope 
the Senators will be strong in holding forth their conversations 
elsewhere.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. I thank the Chair for his strength.
  The purpose of this amendment is to raise the issue of how this 
legislative body should address the pending potential introduction of 
troops into Bosnia, American troops.
  The administration has stated on a number of occasions that it is a 
distinct possibility that up to 25,000 American soldiers will be asked 
to serve on the ground in Bosnia. That, of course, creates a 
significant issue first for those soldiers who would be putting their 
lives at risk but also for us as a country as to whether or not it is 
appropriate for us to be asking our men and women to put at risk their 
lives in this conflict.
  It seems, when there has been such a clear statement of purpose and 
potential risk for American troops, it is appropriate that we as a 
Congress act to either approve that action or disapprove that action. 
Clearly, the power to undertake actions which put American soldiers' 
lives in harm's way lies primarily and first with the President, but 
obviously we as a Congress also play a major role, not only on the 
appropriating side but, more importantly, on the side of being 
concerned for our soldiers, many of whom will obviously be our 
constituents.
  Therefore, I feel strongly that prior to the President taking this 
action, he should come to the Congress and ask for our approval. I 
believe he should meet three tests before we give him that approval.
  First, he should be able to define what it is that the soldiers will 
be asked to undertake, what the conflict is that we will be entering 
and what our role is in that conflict.
  Second, he should be able to explain to us the length of time and the 
manner in which they are going to serve when they are on the ground and 
what sort of risks they will be put at.
  And, third he needs to be able to express to us how we will be 
getting our soldiers out.
  I think it is very important that he define in this process what our 
national interest is in putting American lives at risk. That is the 
bottom line, I believe, that he must satisfy as President.
  In addressing that issue, the appropriate body to address it to, 
obviously, is the American people but also the Congress of the United 
States as the representative of the American people. Therefore, I do 
feel it is absolutely critical that before troops are deployed in this 
region, especially in the numbers which are being considered by the 
administration--25,000--we have a full and open debate of the matter 
here in the Congress and that we get from the President a clear and 
precise and understandable definition of purpose in undertaking this 
very serious act.
  So this sense-of-the-Senate resolution essentially addresses that 
issue. It says that the President shall come to the Congress before he 
sends troops into harm's way in Bosnia except in certain limited 
circumstances.
  The language which I have agreed to is actually language which I 
originally drafted and then presented to the other side, which was 
reviewed, and to which they made some adjustments, and I understand it 
is now acceptable to the Democratic leader. As such, I hope we could 
have strong support of this because it is clearly the role of the 
Congress to undertake this sort of debate and pursue this sort of 
action before our troops are deployed in this type of situation.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who controls time in opposition to the 
amendment?
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I believe I am in control.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, could I be notified after 4 minutes?
  Mr. President, I agree with this amendment expressing the sense of 
the Senate that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made 
available pursuant to this act shall be used for deployment of combat 
equipped forces of the Armed Forces of the United States for any ground 
operations in Bosnia unless, and then the two conditions as set forth: 
Congress approves in advance deployment of such forces of the Armed 
Forces and the temporary deployment authority.
  Mr. President, this amendment does not have the effect of law and 
does not tie the President's hands. It does state the sentiment and 
view of the Senate of the United States. If it did tie the President's 
hands at this critical juncture while the peace negotiations are 
underway, I would oppose it and vote against it. We should not tie the 
hands of the President at this critical juncture. If the word went out 
that there was going to be no U.S. participation after a peace 
agreement is entered into, then there likely would be no peace 
agreement entered into by the parties.
  Mr. President, America must lead. We have seen what happens when we 
do not lead. We have recently seen what happens when we do lead. Our 
leadership must be in NATO and through NATO. Our objections to 
deployment, if there are objections to deployment, of troops by the 
United States should also be applicable to NATO troops because we are 
part of that alliance. It is not just the United States we are 
concerned about. It is also our allies and the alliance itself. Our 
conditions for deployment should be made known through NATO and that 
forum.
  Before any decision is made to deploy U.S. forces or in my view NATO 
forces pursuant to a peace agreement, we should ask a number of 
questions, a very difficult set of questions, a very important set of 
questions regarding that deployment.
  The first question that I would have--and there would probably be 
others that would occur to me as time goes on--are the borders between 
the various factions under the peace agreement both definable and 
defendable? Is 

[[Page S 14635]]
this a sound peace agreement? If we are deploying pursuant to a peace 
agreement, the key question is, what kind of peace agreement? Is it a 
sound peace agreement? Does it have a reasonable chance of success? And 
can U.S. forces and NATO forces enhance the prospects of success?
  The second question I would have: Has the President clearly made the 
case to the American people that the deployment of U.S. ground forces 
is important to America's national security? That case must be made. 
The American people must understand this. They must support it. That is 
a condition that has to be fulfilled if we are going to have a 
sustainable position if things get rough in Bosnia. And they could get 
rough--no one should be mistaken about that--although the risk has gone 
down substantially compared to a month ago when the lines were not as 
clear as they have been since the recent ground action.
  Mr. President, the concern I have would not be simply the rights of 
the Bosnian Moslems versus the Bosnian Serbs but also the rights of the 
Bosnian Moslems vis-a-vis the Croatian-Bosnians, if that kind of 
federation breaks up. And it is very important that federation not 
break up.
  Another question, Mr. President, that I think has to be discussed by 
our executive branch and by Congress, do we have an exit strategy? By 
that I mean, do we know when the mission will be successful, when it 
will end and how we define success?
  That involves at least deciding in advance with our allies whether we 
are going to arm the Bosnian Moslems before we exit--before we exit--or 
whether we are going to find another way to level the playing field so 
that the parties can defend their own territory including the 
possibility of a build down.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has consumed 4 minutes.
  Mr. NUNN. I yield myself 1 more minute, Mr. President.
  Mr. President, the other question that occurs to me at this moment is 
whether NATO is clearly going to be in charge. NATO must be in charge. 
There must be no dual key. We cannot have a repeat of what we have had 
in the last 2 years with the United Nations having the dual key. I 
believe it is also imperative, if we are going to deploy NATO forces 
and U.S. forces, that we deploy a robust force, a force that is big 
enough and tough enough and well enough equipped not to be pushed 
around and to defend itself in the event of any kind of conflict.
  There must be clear rules of engagement. And those rules of 
engagement must permit a very vigorous response to any attack on U.S. 
forces or NATO forces.
  Mr. President, these are just a few of the questions that I believe 
are important.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator 
Lieberman and Senator Domenici as cosponsors.
  I yield 2 minutes to Senator Specter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. I support this sense-of-the-Senate resolution because I 
think it is indispensable that advance approval be given by Congress 
before U.S. troops are deployed, absent the emergency situation 
described in subparagraph 2.
  When the distinguished Senator from Georgia talks about impeding the 
ultimate peace agreement, it seems to me that we ought to put everyone 
on notice that congressional approval is required before there will be 
a commitment of 25,000 U.S. personnel. What we are really involved in 
in modern times is that the constitutional authority of the Congress to 
declare war has been undermined by the conflict in Korea, which was 
really a war without a congressional declaration, and by the Vietnam 
war, which was really a conflict there without a congressional 
declaration, the Gulf of Tonkin resolution not really being a 
substitute.
  There was very serious debate on the floor of this body in January of 
1991 when the use of force was authorized. I took the position, as did 
many Senators, that the President, a Republican President, George Bush, 
did not have the authority to go into the gulf war without 
congressional authorization.
  The questions which have been posed by the Senator from Georgia are 
very important questions for congressional debate. We should not have a 
decision made to obligate U.S. personnel without congressional 
authority. And everyone who is a party to the negotiations there ought 
to understand that that is the position of the Congress.
  Without support from the American people, the military action cannot 
be sustained. That support is determined by the action of the Congress 
of the United States. So this is a very important resolution to put 
everyone on notice, including the President of the United States.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Who yields time?
  Mr. LEVIN. Would the Senator from Georgia yield me 1 minute?
  Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. NUNN. I yield the Senator from Michigan 1 minute.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized for 1 
minute.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator and I thank the Chair.
  I wonder if the Senator would be willing to answer a question 
relative to his understanding of this resolution.
  I, first of all, think he laid out a series of very important 
questions, and I concur that those are critical questions that need to 
be answered prior to the use of ground forces in Bosnia.
  But my question of the Senator is this: He pointed out this is not 
legally binding because it is a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. If this 
same language at a later time were offered without the words that it is 
a ``sense of the Senate'' so that it did then become a legally binding 
document or language, would it be consistent for those of us who might 
vote yes today to vote no at a later time because of the timing of the 
offer of that language or for any other of a number of possible 
reasons?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. LEVIN. Would the Senator yield me 30 additional seconds?
  Mr. NUNN. I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I will respond to the Senator from Michigan that his question should 
be answered, yes, it would be consistent. There is a great deal of 
difference in expressing to the President what the view of the Senate 
is and then passing a law that binds the President, particularly when 
this kind of negotiation is going on. So it would be consistent.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. GREGG. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina is recognized 
for 2 minutes.
  Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I went to the White House today and met 
with the President and Members of the Senate on this particular 
subject. I took the occasion at that time to make three points:
  First, the American public needs to fully and completely understand 
what U.S. national security interests are at stake before the United 
States commits or sends United States service men and women to Bosnia.
  Next, the President of the United States should not commit or send 
U.S. troops without congressional approval.
  Now, if that congressional approval is given--this is the third 
point--any U.S. forces will have to be under the NATO operational 
control with robust rules of engagement. And I feel that this is such a 
serious situation, that these three points should be observed in 
considering this important matter.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I yield 1 minute to the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Georgia. I thank 
the Senator from New Hampshire also for working out language with us. 
This is precisely the same thing we have already voted on in the Senate 
by 99 to 1. We basically already approved this language. It is a 
variation in the language here today. But it is the same principle. And 
the principle is very simple; that if we are going to engage in a 
large-scale peacekeeping effort, the country is better off and the 
President 

[[Page S 14636]]
is better off with approval from Congress.
  I think it is very important to note that the meeting that the 
Senator from South Carolina just talked about today was attended 
broadly by House and Senate Members, bipartisan leadership.
  The President made it very clear, saying that he thought President 
Bush did the right thing in coming to Congress to ask for approval. He 
thought the Congress did the right thing in giving it. But we should 
remember that President Bush sent 500,000 troops to the gulf prior to 
any approval from Congress. All he had was a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution saying this was OK after the fact. The President 
appropriately has reserved the right with respect to constitutional 
power not to make a commitment. And we should not hold him to that.
  So I think it is entirely appropriate here today to say that a sense 
of the Senate should have unanimous approval. But if this were a law 
tying the hands of the President, I think many Members on the other 
side would also join us in disapproving it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. NUNN. I reserve the remainder of my time.
  How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute 55 seconds.
  Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, of that time, I yield to the Senator from 
Illinois 1 minute and I yield to the Senator from Connecticut 55 
seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized for 1 
minute.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I agree with everything the Senator from 
Georgia had to say. I reach a different conclusion. And I may be the 
only one voting against this. Tom Friedman of the New York Times had a 
column recently in which he said, ``France acts like a great power but 
does not have the resources. The United States has the resources but 
does not act like a great power.''
  We cannot have effective foreign policy if Congress micromanages it. 
The Senator from Georgia asks a series of questions. I think there is 
one other question. Does it help peace in Bosnia to adopt this 
resolution? I think it unnecessarily raises questions, and I am going 
to vote against the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut is recognized for 
the remaining time.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I rise to support the amendment. I am privileged to be 
a cosponsor of it because I think it ought to be the beginning of 
bipartisan cooperation on this question of authorizing American troops 
to be part of a peacekeeping mission in Bosnia. The fact is that this 
amendment is consistent with what President Clinton has said. He has 
clearly said he expects and would welcome congressional action prior to 
any dispatch of American troops to Bosnia to enforce a genuine and just 
peace agreement.
  Mr. President, I want to make very clear that I view the exercise of 
American leadership to bring about the NATO strikes which have brought 
Bosnia now to the verge of peace as an exercise of leadership which has 
revived NATO's credibility.
  There is no way, if there is a peace agreement, that we can maintain 
our credibility and NATO's if we do not contribute American troops to 
that peacekeeping force.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. GREGG. How much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has 2 minutes 
40 seconds.
  Mr. GREGG. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Maine.
  Mr. COHEN. Let me take a moment to challenge the notion that somehow 
the U.S. Senate is engaged in micromanagement.
  We are talking about the President of the United States, who is 
considering deploying 25,000 troops to one of the most hostile regions 
in the world, that has been filled for centuries with ethnic hatred, 
poison and death. And we are talking about deploying those troops to 
that region without having any sort of defined plan presented to us, 
without knowing what the ground rules are going to be, so to speak, 
without knowing who is in charge, without knowing what the Russian role 
is going to be.
  If ever there was a case in which we ought to be consulted and give 
approval, it is this one.
  Let me also take issue with those who said, ``Well, President Bush 
finally came to Congress.'' It was only after we insisted day in and 
day out and by going down to the White House, that the President 
finally agreed to come to Congress to get authority. Before that 
President Bush was determined to say, ``I only have to get authority 
from the United Nations, that's where I get my authority.'' We resisted 
that, and we actually forced the administration to come to us. Not only 
was it politically wise for him to do so, but we believe he was 
constitutionally mandated to do so.
  So the notion that somehow we are micromanaging is misconceived. We 
are the ones who raise and support the Army, and we have a coequal 
responsibility, not just the President, if we start deploying 25,000 
troops to a region that has been afflicted over the centuries with 
hatred and conflict.
  Mr. President, I support the Senator's resolution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire has 40 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this resolution lays down the ground rules 
for any major American involvement in Bosnia, and essentially they are: 
The President must explain to this Congress and the American people 
what the national interest is which justifies putting American lives at 
risk, and must receive the approval of this Congress before those lives 
are put at risk.
  That is a reasonable request in a democracy, and I appreciate the 
support of the Members of the Senate in this matter.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Snowe). The majority leader.
  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I will use 2 minutes of my leader's time 
to comment on the pending matter.
  We had a good meeting with the President this afternoon. Many of us 
were there, Republicans and Democrats. I think he understands the 
administration needs to present their case to Congress.
  I asked three questions, very short questions: How many? How long? 
And how much? How many American troops, men and women are going to go 
to Bosnia? How long are they going to be there? And how much will it 
cost? That is the first thing the American people want to know.
  I believe we are making progress in that part of the world because of 
the bipartisan efforts of Members of Congress who have stood firm in 
support of a small nation, an independent nation, a member of the 
United Nations, Bosnia and Herzegovina. That plus the Croatian military 
action a couple of months ago, in my view, moved us along, plus the 
negotiating efforts by the administration.
  So I think everybody can take some credit. But the case has not been 
made to this point. It may be made, perhaps it will be made. The view I 
had from the President, without quoting anything he said, is that he 
certainly understood that they would have to come up and make their 
case. They are going to ask for money, and I think they will go before 
the Foreign Relations Committee, maybe the Armed Services Committee and 
maybe make an excellent case.
  I know how bitter some of the debate was during the gulf crisis, and 
I know many in this body said we ought to have sanctions, that 
sanctions would work. We still have sanctions, and Saddam Hussein is 
still there. It has been years and years, so that was not the right way 
to go.
  In any event, I hope that we will do what we should do. We are 
talking about American lives, American young men and women, and we do 
need to make a very careful judgment, and I think this sends a strong 
signal that we will make that careful judgment. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  
[[Page S 14637]]

  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska.
  Mr. EXON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be granted 
1 minute for debate before the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. EXON. Madam President, I wish to congratulate the majority leader 
for the remarks he just made. I thought it was an excellent meeting at 
the White House today.
  I will simply say that I think the President unquestionably has 
agreed to consult with the Congress. I believe that commitment was made 
again today.
  This is a very critical time. I hope and believe that adoption of 
this measure is meaningless, but I hope and think at this particular 
time we could do no good by adopting this once again, but, obviously, 
it will be adopted. I will oppose it because I think it is ill-timed 
for us to be stepping into this matter once again at this particular 
juncture.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to print in the 
Record a letter the President sent to me on October 20, 1993. Let me 
read one paragraph:

       I also have made clear that it would be helpful to have a 
     strong expression of support of the United States Congress 
     prior to the participation of U.S. forces in implementation 
     of a Bosnian peace accord. For that reason, I would welcome 
     and encourage congressional authorization of any military 
     involvement in Bosnia.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                              The White House,

                                 Washington, DC, October 20, 1993.
     Hon. Robert Dole,
     United States Senate,
     Washington, DC.
     Dear Mr. Leader:
       The violent conflict in the former Yugoslavia continues to 
     be a source of deep concern. As you know, my Administration 
     is committed to help stop the bloodshed and implement a fair 
     and enforceable peace agreement, if the parties to the 
     conflict can reach one. I have stated that such enforcement 
     potentially could include American military personnel as part 
     of a NATO operation. I have also specified a number of 
     conditions that would need to be met before our troops would 
     participate in such an operation.
       I also have made clear that it would be helpful to have a 
     strong expression of support from the United States Congress 
     prior to the participation of U.S. forces in implementation 
     of a Bosnian peace accord. For that reason, I would welcome 
     and encourage congressional authorization of any military 
     involvement in Bosnia.
       The conflict in Bosnia ultimately is a matter for the 
     parties to resolve, but the nations of Europe and the United 
     States have significant interests at stake. For that reason, 
     I am committed to keep our nation engaged in the search for a 
     fair and workable resolution to this tragic conflict.
       In closing, I want to express my sincere appreciation and 
     respect for the manner in which we have been able to work 
     together on important issues affecting national security. 
     Over the years, the greatest successes in American foreign 
     policy have had bipartisan support. I am gratified that we 
     have been able to sustain that tradition and thank you for 
     your leadership in that regard.
           Sincerely,
Bill Clinton

                          ____________________