[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 185 (Sunday, November 19, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17483-S17484]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        THE APPROPRIATIONS BILLS

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I would like to bring up the subject of 
the appropriations bill. I addressed the distinguished majority leader 
earlier today. We had indications that the President might sign two of 
the three pending appropriations bills.
  But at this hour there seems to be still some doubt as to whether or 
not he will sign the Defense appropriations bill which, as the majority 
leader recalls, the distinguished Senator from Alaska and the Senator 
from Hawaii, being chairman and ranking members of that committee, put 
through with a very strong vote.
  It would seem to me inconsistent. It seems to me if the President 
were thinking about a further commitment, a commitment for which I 
still have serious reservation, of ground troops into that theater that 
you would need to have as a foundation the signing of the Defense 
appropriations bill.
  There are $647 million in that bill for the specific purpose of 
contingency operations--not included in Bosnia but other operations, 
and should you put a further financial burden on the defense budget 
without the allocation of those funds for the ongoing, it seems to me 
to be just an inconsistent operation. I hope that this message would go 
to the White House at this moment.
  Mr. DOLE. I appreciate the Senator's interest in the defense 
appropriations bill.
  It has also been expressed by the chairman of the subcommittee, 
Senator Stevens, I think in a conversation earlier today with Senator 
Warner, a telephone conversation. I understand the President was going 
to sign legislative appropriations and Treasury, Postal appropriations 
about 5 o'clock today. I hope he has done that. That would mean, if we 
do not come together on a continuing resolution, which I think we will, 
that those people could be back at work.
  But I would underscore what the Senator from Virginia has stated. If 
the President is thinking about--and I know he is thinking about it--
any deployment in Bosnia, it seems to me he would be in a much stronger 
position--I leave that judgment to him because I have not made a 
judgment yet on that 

[[Page S 17484]]
issue--if he signed the Defense appropriations bill and did it very 
quickly and sent the appropriate signal that he was not going to weaken 
our defense in any way.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warner). The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Before the majority leader leaves the floor--and I know 
he is involved in very delicate negotiations in trying to get our 
Government running again--I express my appreciation for again what is 
clearly a balanced statement. It is one that clearly recognizes the 
constitutional authority of the President of the United States. But the 
majority leader's statement also clearly recognizes the constitutional 
responsibility of the Congress of the United States, and there is 
nothing in the majority leader's statement nor anything that has been 
done in this body that would be in abrogation of that constitutional 
authority the President has. But at the same time, as the majority 
leader said, we have no greater responsibility than to ensure that if 
our young men and women are sent into harm's way, we have exercised our 
responsibility in our role as those who provide the funding and the 
approval or disapproval.

  I think also Senator Dole's statement clearly sends a signal to the 
President of the United States that he can send troops, and he does 
have that constitutional authority, but without the approval of the 
Congress and the American people that exercise is doomed to failure. 
When we express our concern about the fragility or the permanence of 
NATO, nothing could be more damaging to NATO and the Atlantic Alliance 
than the dispatch of troops and some casualties taken by Americans 
because it was a peace agreement that did not meet the criteria just 
laid out in the majority leader's statement, and therefore the American 
people demand, as they did in Somalia and as they did in Beirut --only 
this time that crisis would be magnified by a thousandfold--that our 
American troops be withdrawn because it was a peace that could not be 
kept. Then I would suggest to our supporters of NATO--and the majority 
leader and I are members of that group--there is no greater damage that 
could be done to the Atlantic Alliance than that scenario. So before we 
send troops, I would hope there would be debate on this floor, debate 
and discussion, as there was concerning the Persian Gulf.
  Again, I recognize how great are the responsibilities the majority 
leader has at this moment. They are intense and severe. But I think it 
is very important, since we may be going out of session for this week, 
that the majority leader make this statement. He reflects the views of 
the overwhelming majority, I believe, of Members of both sides of the 
aisle. This statement may be lost in the short term, but we will be 
balancing what agreement is made, if an agreement is made, with the 
majority leader's statement, the criteria and the provisions which were 
laid out which I think are not only unreasonable but a bare minimum as 
the criteria for any agreement and any possibility it may have of being 
permanent.
  Again, I do not know exactly how to express the appreciation of lots 
of people for the role that the majority leader has played in this 
crisis, especially in his effort to lift the arms embargo. I do not 
believe we would have lost the tens of thousands of innocent lives if 
the arms embargo had been lifted at the time the majority leader first 
tried to achieve that goal, but now we are where we are. Now we are 
playing the hand we are dealt. I believe that if in the formulation of 
a peace agreement the criteria and provisions that the majority leader 
outlined are adhered to, we may have an opportunity to receive the 
approval of the Congress and the American people and prevent what could 
possibly be a very serious confrontation between the two branches of 
Government.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, again let me thank the Senator from Arizona 
for his constant assistance and leadership on this issue. I think he is 
correct. I think we speak for Senator Lieberman and countless Senators 
on the other side of the aisle. If they were here at this point, they 
would be speaking out. So this is not a partisan issue. It never has 
been a partisan issue. It is about what steps should be taken before we 
decide to commit American forces anywhere under any condition. There 
are many concerned parents and grandparents around the country as well 
as young men and women themselves. I think we owe it to them and to 
their families and anybody in the future to make sure that certain 
criteria have been met. In my view, these are reasonable. I hope the 
President will find the criteria outlined in the statement to be 
reasonable. We will be furnishing a copy to Mr. Lake, the President's 
security adviser, within the next few moments.
  (Mr. McCAIN assumed the chair.)
  Mr. DOLE. We are still working on the agreement. We are very hopeful. 
So I think unless there is somebody wishing to speak, I would ask we 
stand--does the Senator from Virginia wish to be recognized?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes.
  Mr. DOLE. Then would the Senator then go into recess subject to call.

                          ____________________