[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 62 (Thursday, May 18, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4122-S4170]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




             MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senate will now resume 
consideration of S. 2521, which the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (S. 2521) making appropriations for military 
     construction, family housing, and base realignment and 
     closure for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes.

  Pending:

       Levin amendment No. 3154, to strike certain provisions 
     which require ground troops be withdrawn from Kosovo by a 
     fixed date.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The pending amendment is the Levin 
amendment No. 3154.
  Under the previous order, the Senator from Kansas, Mr. Roberts, is 
recognized to speak for up to 15 minutes.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may 
proceed for 20 minutes.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, there is a time that has been allocated to 
each side. I ask my good friend from Kansas whether or not the 
additional 5 minutes will come out from the time that is allocated to 
his side.
  Mr. ROBERTS. The Senator is correct. Last night I asked, under a 
unanimous consent request, for 20 minutes. I discovered this morning it 
was 15 minutes. I am merely asking for an additional 5 minutes. 
Obviously, it will come out of our time.
  Mr. LEVIN. I have no objection if it comes out of their time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered. The Senator is recognized for 20 minutes.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I rise to lend my support to the proposed 
legislation by my colleagues, Senator Byrd and Senator Warner, in 
reference to U.S. obligations and involvement in Kosovo and, in a 
larger sense, in NATO as well, and in opposition to the amendment to 
strike that has been offered by the distinguished Senator from 
Michigan.
  In this regard, I am a cosponsor of the language introduced several 
weeks ago by the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee, Senator Warner. I had the privilege of being in the 
Presiding Officer's chair when he introduced his legislation. Senator 
Warner, after many trips to Kosovo and firsthand experience, became 
convinced that our united efforts in the Balkans would have no chance 
of success unless promises made by our allies were kept--obligations 
for humanitarian assistance and reconstruction so crucial to any 
positive outcome.
  Senator Warner, in effect, issued a strong warning to our valued 
allies, and I believe his legislation has become a catalyst for action. 
Almost every contributing NATO ally and the officials within the 
administration, has assured the chairman, that they have been, are, or 
will step up to the plate and fulfill their financial obligations.
  I feel with certainty that President Clinton can and will certify the 
Warner requirements have been met, so essential to achieving peace and 
stability in Kosovo. Regardless of how Members feel about this 
legislation or U.S. involvement in Kosovo, we owe Senator Warner a debt 
of gratitude.
  The second part of this legislation has been authored by Senator 
Robert Byrd. His knowledge of the U.S. Constitution has no equal in 
this body and his tireless efforts in defending and protecting the 
constitutional prerogatives of this institution will be among the many 
legacies he will leave us.
  Senator Byrd has a not-so-unique conviction. He believes, and I 
believe, that we should balance the need for Presidential flexibility 
in foreign affairs and our constitutional power of the purse.
  His legislation signals the end to open-ended--and I emphasize the 
word ``open-ended''--U.S. peacekeeping operations in Kosovo and by 
periodic reporting promote actual consultation with the Congress and 
enable us to abide by the Constitution's directives on the separation 
of powers.
  I certainly identify with Senator Byrd's purpose, as I authored a 
somewhat similar reporting requirement in 1998 during consideration of 
the Defense appropriations bill, as did Senators Cleland and Snowe. 
This is not new ground we are plowing. The reporting requirement was a 
little different. It was after the fact, and it was a foregone 
conclusion in terms of our involvement. We were trying to better 
determine the mission, the cost, the timing, et cetera. Again, this is 
not new ground we are plowing.
  Notwithstanding the actual content of the Byrd-Warner amendment, it 
certainly has caused quite a fuss, so much of a fuss that the Senate of 
the United States is actually in the midst of a foreign policy debate, 
some $15 billion and 6 or 7 years into intervention in the Balkans.
  We actually have Senators in both the Republican conference and the 
Democratic caucus involved in some very spirited debate about the U.S. 
policy in the Balkans, so emblematic of the so-called Clinton doctrine. 
Imagine that, foreign policy actually getting

[[Page S4123]]

some attention in the middle of an election year and a Presidential 
campaign. That is good. That is not bad; that is good. We need this 
debate.
  In fact, I know of two Senators, the Senator from Georgia, Mr. 
Cleland, and this Senator from Kansas who have braved the morning 
business hours, always held in the late afternoons, to launch what we 
call a foreign policy dialog and discuss at length our vital national 
security interests, the direction of our foreign policy, and the use of 
force and related topics.
  A few Senators have joined us, particularly Senators Hutchinson, 
Hagel, Lugar, and Levin. It was a good dialog. We will have more. But 
this debate is about an actual amendment calling for the Senate to meet 
our obligations and responsibilities to be an equal partner with the 
executive in determining where and why our American men and women in 
uniform are put in harm's way, and for what purpose, and commensurate 
with our commitments in regard to our allies.
  This is almost beyond the hopes of Senator Cleland and myself, who 
have been trying to attract attention to this topic for the better part 
of this session.
  My colleagues, this legislation does us, our military, and the 
American people a big favor, it seems to me. It places the Congress 
into a process, a process where we already have a constitutional 
obligation. Simply put, if we, as a body, believe our continued 
presence in Kosovo is justified, then we do so by voting to stay.
  Second, the provision asks the United States to provide a plan to 
return the peacekeeping responsibility--I emphasize that, the 
peacekeeping responsibility--to our allies in Europe by the first of 
October of next year--18 months away.
  Last, it asks the President to certify that the E.U. and the European 
members of NATO meet the obligations for the humanitarian assistance 
and the reconstruction they have promised.
  This legislation has created quite a fuss. Supporters have been 
labeled--and I am quoting here--as ``isolationists,'' ``Cassandras,'' 
and ``blind to the facts.''
  The critics of this legislation say, if this amendment is adopted, 
Europe will be plunged into darkness, NATO will resemble Humpty-Dumpty, 
and 50 years of U.S.-Europe cooperation will be in danger, not to 
mention the peace and stability in the Balkans. Really?
  My colleagues, to suggest that if we ask to bring our combat troops 
home after an orderly turnover to European peacekeepers, to ask the 
Congress to vote on their approval or their disapproval of continued 
U.S. participation in Kosovo, and to ask that the President certify 
that the Europeans will meet their funding obligations they promised--
if that represents a lessening of our commitment to Europe, this, to 
me, is histrionics of amazing proportions.
  Let the critics, let all of my colleagues who oppose this 
legislation, answer the following questions:
  First: Are the Europeans capable of maintaining the peace in Kosovo? 
That is a very important question.
  Second: Are the Europeans solvent enough to meet their promised 
fiscal responsibility? I think we all know the answer to that.
  Does the Congress have any responsibility for foreign policy?
  Have we asked the President, time and time again, with numerous 
reporting requirements--as I have indicated, as Senator Cleland, 
Senator Snowe, and I have over 2 years ago--to better inform and 
include Congress in foreign policy decisions?
  Would the United States respond militarily if a conflict erupted in 
Europe following the passage of this legislation?
  Does an ill-defined, poorly executed, and ineffective policy in the 
Balkans have a direct negative effect on our military and our remaining 
military obligations around the world?
  I think the answers, my colleagues and critics, is yes to all of 
those questions.
  In fact, I think it is a bit condescending or paternalistic, if not 
outright arrogant, to suggest, as some have stated, that without direct 
U.S. participation--we are talking about ground troops now, not 
logistics, not airlift, not intelligence--that the European military 
would be unable to maintain the peace and war will spread to 
neighboring nations.
  Those of us who are privileged to serve on the Senate Armed Services 
Committee have met repeatedly with our foreign counterparts to learn 
repeatedly that the European Union members are developing a rapid 
deployment force with defensive capability--they call it the ESDI--that 
they say will be, or is right now, capable of maintaining the peace in 
the Balkans. Are they wrong? We have 17 months to really try to figure 
that out.
  As an aside, would our peacekeepers assume a combat role? Do I recall 
press accounts where Americans are no longer permitted to come to the 
assistance of other peacekeepers in other sectors, in certain 
situations, following a skirmish in the German sector?
  So let me get this right. We are peacekeepers, but we cannot withdraw 
because of a possible problem that could break out; but we are not 
allowed to go to other sectors to assist if a problem breaks out? 
Something is wrong here.
  Do the opponents of this legislation actually think that because of 
this provision, the United States will in fact become isolationists? Do 
opponents think by passing this provision, it signals an end to our 
participation in NATO or in Europe? That argument is absurd. I think 
the opponents know it. That is not the issue.
  Aside from fulfilling our constitutional obligations, the issue is 
this: The U.S. military is being deployed all over the world by this 
administration at rates far above that seen in regard to the cold war. 
We must ensure that we have the forces to be able to respond to threats 
to our vital national security interests.
  The point is not to debate whether we should have gone to war in 
Kosovo--those 20-20 hindsight lessons learned are still in progress, 
and they should be--but rather to decide how long we will keep draining 
limited U.S. resources when we still cannot define what our long-term 
objectives in Kosovo are, or when the Europeans are fully capable of 
performing the peacekeeping mission again, and they have committed to 
providing the reconstruction resources and the resources for 
humanitarian relief.
  This legislation is, in fact, in concert with the new Combined Joint 
Task Force mechanism adopted by NATO during the Washington summit. That 
is the summit that was held last spring. In this regard, we all left 
town and the NATO ambassadors stayed here. They adopted a new Strategic 
Concept. I doubt if many Senators have read the new Strategic Concept. 
I did.
  I am a little concerned about our mission in that regard. I even had 
an amendment, that was adopted, that asked the President to certify 
whether we had obligations and responsibilities on all these new 
missions in regard to the Strategic Concept.

  In that Strategic Concept, passed last fall, largely at the request 
of our European allies, the task force allows NATO members to utilize--
listen up, my colleagues--the task force allows NATO members to utilize 
noncombat NATO resources in support of an operation that is conducted 
by a coalition of willing nations without requiring all alliance 
members to participate in it.
  That is the concept. That is what this legislation does.
  There is no reason this CJTF plan would not allow the United States 
to continue to provide--as the distinguished chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee said over and over again in this debate--airlift, 
logistics, intelligence, and, yes, peacekeeping support.
  What is the end game here? Not only are there no clear objectives 
that would end our involvement in Kosovo, but there is no 
understanding, at least from this Senator's standpoint, of what 
constitutes ``winning the peace.'' I would like somebody to tell me.
  I would like somebody to tell me, after years of discussion and 
hearings, especially in the Intelligence Committee and Armed Services 
Committee, the President, Secretary Albright or National Security 
Adviser Berger or Gen. Wesley Clark, who is back in Washington after a 
very tough duty assignment that he conducted so well, or my colleagues 
who are so critical of this amendment: What is it that winning the 
peace in Kosovo means?
  Is it harmonious coexistence of the Serb and the Albanian population 
in

[[Page S4124]]

some yet to be defined autonomous or semiautonomous region called 
Kosovo? Is it when the level of violence, Serb on Albanian, Albanian on 
Serb, Albanian on Albanian or Serb on Serb or any combination of those, 
has been reduced to a point that CNN no longer covers it? Or is it when 
the western nations have kept the peace long enough for generations to 
pass and the great grandchildren of the combatants no longer remember 
the atrocities they inflicted on one another?
  I am all for winning a peace. I don't know of anybody who is not. But 
I am concerned, and I am afraid the reality is that the U.S. cannot 
afford to wait. We are not talking about now. We are talking about 
October from October, 18 months. I say this not out of a lack of 
compassion for the inflicted innocents of Kosovo--those who I met and 
whose pleas I have heard and the memories of which I will carry 
forever--but because our U.S. military is stretched and strained and 
growing hollow once again, and our world commitments are too great to 
allow us to stay in Kosovo indefinitely.
  Some time ago, June 19, 1998, Senator Cleland and Senator Snowe 
passed an amendment calling for a report from the Executive, what clear 
and distinct objectives guide the activities of the United States in 
the Balkans, what the President has identified on the basis of those 
objectives as the date or set of conditions that define the end point 
of the operation. That was 2 years ago.

  There are findings here that pretty well underscore the concern and 
the frustration we have had, all of us, in a bipartisan way. We have a 
May 3, 1994, Presidential Decision Directive 25 declaring that American 
participation in the United Nations and other peace operations will 
depend in part--this was before Kosovo; this is Bosnia--on whether the 
role of the U.S. forces is tied to clear objectives and an end point 
for U.S. participation can be identified.
  I think the distinguished chairman's amendment and that of Senator 
Byrd is commensurate with the Presidential directive. I had an 
amendment, as I indicated, to the Defense appropriations bill, saying: 
None of the funds appropriated on or otherwise made available, et 
cetera, could be obligated or expended for any additional deployment of 
forces--this is before Kosovo and the bombing, all of that--until the 
following questions were answered: The reasons why the deployment is in 
the national security interests of the United States; the number of 
U.S. military personnel; the mission and objectives, et cetera; the 
exit strategy.
  About 6 months to a year later, we finally got a response. I can tell 
you that the mission has changed dramatically. Then we all wanted to 
safeguard the return of the refugees and provide a safe haven and end 
the fighting. Today, I am not sure if we can define ``winning the 
peace.''
  A GAO report that just came says: On the eve of the Senate vote to 
set a deadline for withdrawing American troops from Kosovo. A GAO 
report released today said that prospects for lasting peace in Kosovo 
are bleak. It says it will take another 5 years. Maybe we should have 
an amendment by those opposed to this amendment simply stating that the 
GAO indicates there is going to be another 5 years and simply to go 
ahead and say that, that we tell the truth in regards to how long it is 
going to take.
  Last week in our foreign policy dialog, Senator Lugar asked the 
question: Are we committed to NATO, after the lessons hopefully learned 
following the isolationist policies of World War I and all we have 
worked to achieve in the 50 years since World War II? Are we still 
committed to Europe in that their security involves our security? The 
answer is yes. His point is well taken. That is not the issue.
  I submit the conduct of foreign policy is just as important as the 
alleged or stated goal. And there is the rub for this Senator. Some day 
I hope to pull together all of the information and reports I have 
stacked up in my office and address the concern, the frustration, in 
regard to the planning, the intelligence, the conduct, the law of 
unintended effects of the Kosovo and Bosnia operations, but now is not 
the appropriate time.
  Upon returning from Kosovo and talking with one of the colonels in 
charge, who was a member of the Airborne, I asked him what he did from 
the time he got up in the morning until the end of the day, other than 
the briefing we had. He indicated there was some progress being made.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be granted 
another 2 minutes to close.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I assume that comes off their time?
  Mr. ROBERTS. That is correct.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I asked the colonel what he was proud of, what kind of 
progress he had made. That was the trip that we had in February to 
Kosovo. He indicated that finally they had found somebody who agreed to 
serve as a schoolbus driver for the Serb children. Unfortunately, there 
were no Serb schoolchildren in Urisivic, and they would not have been 
allowed to attend the Kosovar school had they been there. In addition, 
there would have had to have been a separate curriculum and separate 
teachers. But they found a schoolbus driver who was willing to drive 
the schoolbus if, in fact, there was schoolchildren.
  These troops were guarding six Serb families in what was called Serb 
Alley. They were escorted by armored vehicles to shop and get groceries 
once a week. These families are staying with the hope that their 
youngsters would return some day, if they are, in fact, still part of 
Serbia, and so they could continue their businesses.
  I could go on with example after example. Basically, we asked him 
what he spent most of his time on. He said, Albanian violence on 
Albanian. The basic question is, within the next 18 months that we 
figure out if, in fact, Europe has the capability to conduct the 
peacekeeping operations. This is not a pullout. This is not an 
automatic retreat. All this is, is for the Congress of the United 
States to assume its constitutional responsibility at the end of 18 
months, if the President requests it and says it is in our vital 
national interests, that we vote to stay. I, for one, would vote to 
stay if, in fact, the President looked me in the eye and said that was 
the case. I think under the circumstances I have made my point.
  I yield back the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, under the standing order, the vote on this 
issue will occur at 2:30, give or take a few minutes on either side. 
Senator Levin has, under his control, 2 hours 45 minutes. The Senator 
from Virginia has roughly an hour and a half or less, of which 1 hour 
is reserved to our distinguished colleague, Mr. Byrd of West Virginia. 
Thus far, the Senator from Virginia is desirous of trying to 
accommodate those who wish to speak in support of the amendment. I have 
the names of Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Gregg, Mr. 
Burns, Mr. Inhofe, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Thomas, and Mrs. Hutchison of Texas. 
I am going to be right here to do the very best I can to accommodate 
all.
  Time is going to move very swiftly, and I hope Senators will contact 
the managers and indicate the times convenient for them to speak.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if my good friend will yield for a 
question as to whether we might be able to schedule----
  Mr. WARNER. On your time because my clock is ticking.
  Mr. LEVIN. It will be brief and on my time. Senator Lautenberg is 
scheduled to go next under the unanimous consent agreement. Can we 
schedule a speaker on your side, perhaps?
  Mr. WARNER. Yes, Senator Inhofe will be seeking recognition, and 
perhaps 10 minutes would be agreeable. Would that be agreeable?
  Mr. INHOFE. I would like to have 12, if I could.
  Mr. WARNER. We will give the Senator 12.
  Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent that Senator DeWine be recognized 
for 10 minutes immediately after Senator Inhofe, and then does the 
Senator know who would be ready on his side?
  Mr. WARNER. I reserve 8 minutes for a Senator in support of the 
amendment.
  Mr. LEVIN. After that, Senator Kerry of Massachusetts could go on our 
side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. DeWine). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

[[Page S4125]]

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I add that following Senator Kerry, I will 
have a speaker for about 7 minutes. I thank the Chair and my colleague.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized, 
under the previous order, to speak for up to 20 minutes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I thank Senator Levin for the courtesy 
of being able to speak at this time. I believe very strongly in the 
issue which is before us. I am in opposition to section 2410 in the 
military construction appropriations bill, which in the view of most, I 
think it is fair to say, effectively terminates the U.S. military role 
in Kosovo. I opposed this amendment when it was offered in committee, 
and I am proud to join with Senator Levin in offering an amendment to 
strike it here in the full Senate.
  Last year, the Armed Forces of the U.S., our NATO allies, and other 
countries, valiantly fought to stop the killing in Kosovo. They ended 
Slobodan Milosevic's brutal campaign of ethnic cleansing against the 
Albanians and prevented his genocidal warfare from being carried out to 
its full extent.
  Like many of my colleagues, I have made many visits to the area. I 
watched with admiration and awe when I saw our fliers flying out of 
Aviano, Italy, to the front in Kosovo. That flight--in a fighter plane 
there is not much room--typically would take up to 8 or 9 hours to 
complete. It also needed four to five refuelings in the air to keep 
that pilot and that equipment going. It was an incredibly well-done 
campaign. Our pilots' morale and commitment was second to nothing I 
have ever seen. I served 3 years in World War II, so I have seen war 
directly before. I remember even then, when everybody was so committed, 
how sometimes the morale would flag after a period of time. But these 
pilots would get in those planes almost daily and exhaust themselves in 
carrying out their missions. They were at high, high risk.
  Fortunately, with good planning, skilled pilots, skilled crews and 
ground personnel, we only had one plane go down, and the rescue of that 
pilot is something that will live in the annals of military history--
how they scooped him up in the middle of the night in a carefully 
planned evacuation. They got him and brought him home safely. When I 
met him a couple of days later, he wanted to fly again and was ready to 
go back and do his duty.

  In Kosovo, we watched hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of 
people being uprooted from their homes--men, women, and children. A few 
men they would take away.
  Even before the air campaign, I met a family in Albania where they 
lifted grandpa up to cross the mountains along with lots of little 
kids--about five of them--to cross the mountains to try to protect 
themselves. It was a sad story they related. They got to Albania to 
their relatives and slept on the floor and thought they were in heaven.
  This was a genocidal act, if we have ever seen one. It was a brutal 
massacre involving the worst crimes that one could imagine--mutilation, 
rape. It was a terrible situation. We were compelled sometimes by our 
heartstrings more perhaps than our planning to intervene, and to say to 
the world you can't do that kind of killing while civilized nations 
exist around the world. We violated that, if we look at Africa. But we 
had a direct interest there.
  When we think now of just pulling out--and I will say arbitrarily. I 
hate to disagree with two very distinguished and good friends in this 
Senate, the distinguished Senator from Virginia, chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee--I don't like to argue with him. He is too smart. He 
has too much knowledge--and the Senator from West Virginia, not in a 
different category. But I disagree with them on this very important 
decision that is about to be made.
  In my view, and in the view of the Senate in the past, the United 
States and our allies were right to act last year in Operation Allied 
Force. And we were right to stay in Kosovo to accomplish our goals in 
Operation Joint Guardian.
  We won the war. Now we have to ensure that victory by maintaining the 
peace.
  Mr. President, the discussion and the debate on this provision since 
the Appropriations Committee markup has shed considerable light on the 
Byrd-Warner amendment and its consequences.
  Most immediately, it ties our military presence in Kosovo to burden-
sharing criteria for European reconstruction and humanitarian aid. They 
are doing it.
  It has been my belief for a long time that our allies must do more 
burden-sharing. I talked about it with Japan; I talked about it with 
Saudi Arabia; I talked about it with South Korea--that there has to be 
burden sharing by our allies. I believe that the European countries 
should fulfill their broad commitment to take the lead in the 
reconstruction of Kosovo, as well as their specific aid pledges.
  But I don't think threatening to reduce our peacekeeping presence is 
a constructive way to speed up European aid disbursement.
  More importantly, I don't think anyone can predict with any certainty 
that the President will be able to meet the burden-sharing 
certification requirements by July 15 as this bill requires. July 15, 
2000, is not very far away. Administration people--top people at OMB--
say it is unlikely that it can be done. They are saying it certainly 
cannot be done now, and I know some of my colleagues who supported the 
amendment in the committee had a different understanding about whether 
or not the certification of the allies meeting their obligation could 
be done at this time. It can't be.
  If the Europeans fail to meet even one of the yardsticks, U.S. funds 
for military operations could only be used to withdraw U.S. forces.
  This provision could force U.S. troops to withdraw from Kosovo this 
July, 2 months from now. I think even some of the sponsors of the 
measure would consider this highly undesirable.

  But let us suppose the Europeans do indeed fulfill their aid pledges 
as is required, after the first phase, which is July of this year, 
2000. What happens then?
  Section 2410 in this bill is quite clear on this point: Unless the 
President gets explicit congressional authorization in the form of a 
joint resolution, the next President will have to pull our troops out 
of the NATO-led peacekeeping mission in Kosovo by July of next year at 
the latest.
  Just a reminder: The Second World War ended in August of 1945. We had 
troops stationed in Germany and Japan. We still have troops stationed 
in Europe and Japan as a result of that war. After more than 50 years, 
we still have troops there. We still have troops in South Korea as a 
result of that war. Why? Because we have determined we are better off 
keeping the peace than fighting another war.
  I believe that is the attitude that ought to dominate. We were never 
asked permission to keep those troops there. Two-hundred thousand 
Americans have been stationed around the world--in Japan and Germany, 
in the Pacific and European theaters. We were never asked if it was OK 
to continue. It is automatically thrown into the budget. Why, I ask, 
isn't that question raised? Why doesn't someone say, hey, if the 
burden-sharing falls behind--mind you, there was a time when it was way 
behind, and I fought very hard to get that up to date--why don't we 
write legislation that would say, should one of those countries--Japan, 
South Korea, or Germany--fall behind in fulfilling their share of the 
burden, pull our troops out arbitrarily? Just pull them out. One would 
never dare think of that.
  It has been 9 years since we concluded the war in the Persian Gulf. 
We have 9,000 troops stationed there in harm's way. We have lost a 
bunch of our people during the last 2 years because of an attack on a 
barracks. But we still have 9,000 people there monitoring the no-fly 
zones and making sure we have reserve troops to move in in case Iraq 
gets frisky and attacks again. I do not hear anybody saying, OK, look, 
done with; let's get out of there. The reason we don't do it is common 
sense. It is military sense. It is foreign policy sense.
  We are leaders because of the actions we take. That is the position 
America is in. This debate, I think, is a real tough one because there 
are two very popular Senators who are offering this amendment. I know 
they don't want to win this battle based on their popularity, I am 
sure, but the fact of the matter is this is a very important policy 
decision. Proponents of this measure argue that they are upholding the

[[Page S4126]]

role of the Congress in deciding when and where to send our troops into 
harm's way.
  I just gave you a list of some places where we have troops. We all 
know that South Korea is on the border with North Korea, and our troops 
could very easily be in harm's way.
  The President asked Congress to support his decision for U.S. Armed 
Forces to participate in the NATO air campaign against Yugoslavia. 
Unlike the House, the Senate, on March 23, 1999, on the eve of the 
first air strikes, adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 21 authorizing 
U.S. participation in the NATO air campaign.
  The issue now is not authorization for offensive military action but 
continued deployment of U.S. troops in a peacekeeping mission that is 
carried out with our NATO allies and other nations.
  Congress has in the past used the constitutional power of the purse 
to support or to end U.S. participation in peacekeeping missions. For 
example, in 1993, the Senate adopted an amendment offered by the 
Senator from West Virginia to cut off funding for the U.S. 
participation in peacekeeping operations in Somalia after the tragic 
death of U.S. marines. The Congress has never passed a joint resolution 
authorizing deployment of U.S. troops in a peacekeeping mission and has 
never before required the President to seek one.

  In fact, Congress has generally supported U.S. deployments abroad by 
providing funding. In my view, that is what we should do right now for 
Operation Joint Guardian in Kosovo.
  Historically, when our armed forces have prevailed in war, we have 
counted on our armed forces to remain deployed to consolidate our 
victory, to keep the hard won peace, to ensure that our values of 
democracy and human rights are respected.
  The distinguished Senator from Virginia knows that. He was in the 
military for some time. He headed one of our most important divisions 
of the military. He knows after a conflict is over, we don't just walk 
away, pack up our bags, fold the tent, and go home. That is impossible.
  Remember, this whole military engagement started late because we 
couldn't get agreement among our NATO allies. It was in March of last 
year, just over a year ago. We are being asked to continue this 
operation. We ought not put strings on it that impair the ability of 
the President to make decisions.
  After more than half a century, in the war in which I was honored to 
serve, we still have the troops in Europe. I haven't heard my 
colleagues demanding we withdraw from those situations unless 
explicitly authorized by a joint resolution in the Congress. In fact, 
in all of my years in this body, I have never been asked to authorize 
the deployment of United States forces in Germany, Japan, Korea, or 
many other places, other than by authorizing and appropriating funds to 
continue those deployments.
  The alternative in this bill would not really leave it to the next 
President to decide whether to continue the deployment of U.S. troops 
in Kosovo, as the sponsors have asserted. Rather, section 2410 requires 
that the pullout by July 1, 2001, essentially be a done deal during 
President Clinton's term of office.
  Do we want to do that? I have a short term remaining, and I share the 
same schedule as the President. I am out of office in just a few 
months. To say that my successor ought to do exactly what I have done, 
Heaven forbid, we would never consider that. Do we want to tie the 
hands of the next President of the United States? We don't even know 
which party that President will come from.
  Under section 2410, this President, President Clinton, must ``develop 
a plan, in consultation with appropriate foreign governments, by which 
NATO member countries, with the exception of the United States, and 
appropriate non-NATO countries, will provide, not later than July 1, 
2001, any and all ground combat troops necessary to execute Operation 
Joint Guardian or any successor operation in Kosovo.''
  This President, President Clinton, must submit ``an interim plan for 
the achievement of the plan's objectives'' to Congress by September 30, 
2000. That means President Clinton has to plan for a pullout and 
prevail upon our allies to pick up the slack within the next few 
months.
  I am not trying to protect President Clinton's initiatives. I am 
trying to protect the President's initiative, whoever that President 
may be. Whether it is Al Gore or George W. Bush, our next President 
would have to reverse course to fulfill our small share of the burden 
to keep the peace in Kosovo, to keep the soldiers, the brutes from 
attacking the men and women. By the way, that could be from the 
Albanians to the Serbs, or the Serbs to the Albanians.
  Kosovo is a tinderbox. In my view, this part of the bill puts a fuse 
on that tinderbox. If we pass it, we will light that fuse.
  I hope my colleagues now understand the issue posed by section 2410 
of this bill.
  It is not about burden-sharing. We don't need to threaten to pull our 
troops out to make a point that the Europeans need to fulfill their 
commitments to take a lead in the reconstruction effort.

  This is not about the prerogatives of Congress. We can exercise our 
rights by providing or denying funds to continue to deploy. We have 
every right to do that.
  This is not about presenting the next President with a decision on a 
national security issue, since it would instead present the next 
President with a fait accompli, a done deal.
  The issue now before the Senate is whether to force the President, 
this President, to withdraw U.S. troops from Kosovo in this year, or at 
the latest by July of 2001, hoping our allies will go on without us. If 
they fail to, are we ready to bring those pilots back and assemble our 
armada, when we could avoid that? It is a mission that carries some 
danger, there is no doubt about it. Our brave men and women are there 
to do that. They are well trained and ready to take on the obligation.
  The issue we are deciding in the Senate is about policy and about 
making policy. What we do is immediately strap the hands of the 
President and the military leaders in our country, a pretty bright 
group. We strap their hands behind their backs and say: Sorry, we've 
decided to subject this to a perhaps appropriate political or power 
discussion.
  The policy now codified in this bill is against the national security 
interests of the United States.
  Why should we support the continued deployment of U.S. forces in the 
peacekeeping mission in Kosovo? Let me give you some reasons.
  First, leadership. U.S. leadership in Europe and around the world 
does not just mean having modern and effective armed forces backed by a 
nuclear deterrent. U.S. leadership does not mean just defending our 
territory, our citizens at home, or our supply of foreign oil. U.S. 
leadership means standing up for our interests and values and standing 
up for those who cannot themselves prevent genocide, as we have done 
and should continue to do in Kosovo.
  The second reason is burden-sharing. United States aircraft, the best 
technology flown by the best pilots, flew most of the missions in the 
air campaign against Yugoslavia, but many of our allies were there with 
us providing aircraft, bases, and other critical resources.
  The Europeans have agreed to bear most of the burden of peacekeeping 
and reconstruction in Kosovo, and while some assistance has been slow 
in coming they are unquestionably doing the lion's share of the tasks 
we now face.
  The United States contributes fewer than 6,000 of more than 45,000 
NATO troops deployed in Kosovo for Operation Joint Guardian. This is 
more than a token presence; we have accepted responsibility for 
security in a sector of Kosovo and have the robust force necessary to 
do the job right without unnecessary risk. But this limited role shows 
our allies that we understand the importance of doing our part to 
achieve a common interest.
  The third reason is peace and stability in the Balkans and in Europe. 
Maintaining a significant U.S. presence in a robust, NATO-led force 
lets the Serbs and the Kosovar Albanians know that the future of Kosovo 
and its people will not be determined by renewed ethnic violence. Over 
time, and with a strengthened civilian effort, this should open the way 
to development of civil society and self-government in Kosovo and a 
negotiated solution on its international status.

[[Page S4127]]

  Maintaining peace in Kosovo helps prevent a wider war which could 
otherwise draw in NATO allies as combatants. In contrast, withdrawal of 
U.S. forces would likely weaken Operation Joint Guardian. The Kosovar 
Albanians and the Serbs would instead rearm and prepare to resume 
fighting for control of territory once our allies join us on the 
sidelines. The killing we intervened to stop would eventually resume, 
with devastating consequences.

  The fourth reason we should continue our limited role in Operation 
Joint Guardian is credibility.
  If we show the world that we don't have the resources or the 
political will to stay on the ground in Kosovo, then all our potential 
enemies will believe they can prevail simply by waiting us out. We were 
far too reluctant to use ground forces or even helicopters to stop the 
killing in the first place. Do we really want to cut and run now?
  Finally, we should maintain our forces in the peacekeeping mission in 
Kosovo to maintain the NATO alliance which is vital to our national 
security.
  The nations of the European Union, in trying to deepen their unity, 
are developing a European Security and Defense Identity, or ESDI. We 
are at a critical juncture in the evolution of the NATO, as we work to 
give the European Union a stronger identity and more autonomy within 
the alliance rather than dividing it. Failing to stay on the ground to 
address a threat to European security would reinforce calls for Europe 
to make unilateral decisions on the use of military force.
  We must not undermine the unity of purpose and unity of action that 
has been the strength of an alliance which has been a mainstay of our 
national security for more than half a century.
  Mr. President, I hope my colleagues will look at this in the context 
of other decisions we have made about our military presence and its 
necessity. We will look at it in terms of whether or not in this 
Chamber, in these offices, we are making decisions that should be 
reserved for the military. Let's hear from them. We heard from General 
Clark, one of the brightest leaders we have had in the military in the 
history of this country. He said this could be disaster. Montenegro and 
other nearby countries could explode with Milosevic's ambition; he has 
been looking at Montenegro, salivating for the opportunity to get in 
that small division of Yugoslavia and absorb it.
  So to maintain the strength of NATO, to preserve our own credibility, 
to keep the peace in the Balkans and Europe, to uphold our commitment 
to burden-sharing, and to demonstrate United States leadership, the 
United States Senate should reject Section 2410 of the Military 
Construction Appropriations bill. Instead we should support our Armed 
Forces deployed in Kosovo by voting for the Levin amendment.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. I ask unanimous consent to speak for 2 minutes on my 
time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Bunning). The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague. We 
have been privileged to serve together for many years. The Senator 
draws on personal experience, having served in World War II in the 
concluding chapters of the war in Europe. The Senator's opinion, in my 
judgment, is to be respected. I regret we are on different sides.
  As I listened very carefully to the speech, the theme time and time 
again was, our allies, our allies. And that is important. Senator Byrd 
yesterday recounted the history from World War I and World War II. Time 
and time again, we have always been in partnership with the allies for 
that portion of Europe. We will do so in the future.
  We have 100,000 in NATO. Time and time again, I get the feeling that 
people who are trying to strike this provision have no confidence in 
the ability of the Congress of the United States, acting at the 
direction and request of the next President, to make a proper decision 
for national security.
  Those who select a vote to take this out, think about your 
constituency: $2 billion of taxpayers' money expended on Kosovo; yet 
there is no conclusion as to how this is going to be spent over the 
years, how long we will be there. What we are trying to do is put some 
discipline in the Congress of the United States to assume its 
responsibilities and to involve itself in a coequal way with the 
President of the United States. That is not asking too much for 
hometown America which is supplying these dollars and supplying the men 
and women who proudly wear their uniform.

  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Under the previous order, the Senator from Oklahoma is recognized for 
12 minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, as our chairman, Chairman Warner, I 
listened to the distinguished Senator from New Jersey talk about this 
issue. While I do have the utmost respect for him, I would have to say 
that one of the problems we had, getting into this mess to start with, 
was the grossly exaggerated figures that were used. I believe the 
Senator used the number 100,000--100,000 has been batted around quite 
often. I am going to read into the Record at this point from Robin 
Cook, the Foreign Secretary--this is October of 1999. He is under 
pressure to answer claims that ministers misled the public on the scale 
of deaths of civilians in Kosovo:

       At the height of the war, western officials spoke of a 
     death toll as high as 100,000. President Bill Clinton said 
     the NATO campaign had prevented ``deliberate, systematic 
     efforts at ethnic cleansing and genocide''.

  Emilio Perez Pujol, a pathologist who led the Spanish team looking 
for bodies in the aftermath of the fighting, said:

       I calculate that the final figure of dead in Kosovo will be 
     2,500 at the most.

  The U.N. report came out and said the figure is closer to 2,000. 
There is a big difference between 2,000 dead and 100,000. I am involved 
in West Africa. I can assure you, as I said on the floor back during 
this debate, for every one killed there through ethnic cleansing and 
otherwise, 100 were killed in Sierra Leone. That seemed to be the 
excuse that was used for our intervention into that area.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. INHOFE. No, I will not yield unless I yield on your time.
  I would like to have a better solution than the solution that is in 
front us. Frankly, I think we should have done this some time ago, but 
this seems to be the only vehicle in town. There are reasons we should 
not have been involved in Kosovo. It is not in our vital national 
security interests. There is no clear mission objective or schedule to 
accomplish it. There is no exit strategy.
  The thing that really concerns me more than anything else, as 
chairman of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Readiness, is 
what this has done to our state of readiness. I have been saying since 
before we sent the cruise missiles into Kosovo that the United States 
is in the most threatened position we have been in as a nation in this 
Nation's history. I have been saying that for a long time. It finally 
was redeemed the other day--our chairman will remember this--when we 
had George Tenet, Director of Central Intelligence, before our 
committee. I made that statement. I asked him to respond live on C-
SPAN. He said, yes, we are in the most threatened position we have been 
in as a nation in the history of this country.
  Why is that? It is because of three things. First of all, we are at 
one-half the force strength that we were in 1991 during the Persian 
Gulf war. Second, we do not have a national missile defense system. We 
were to have one deployed by fiscal year 1998, and through the 
President's veto and his veto messages saying he is not going to put 
more money into a national missile defense system, in spite of the fact 
that in July of last year we passed a bill that he signed into law with 
a veto-proof margin saying that is our No. 1 concern, we still do not 
have one.
  But the third reason is all these deployments that have nothing to do 
with our national security interests. I can remember the first one that 
came along. It was Bosnia. I went up to Bosnia. I knew the President 
was bound and determined to send our troops into Bosnia. I knew we did 
not have the spare troops to send in, that we could not respond to a 
crisis in the Middle East or North Korea if we were to continue to make 
these deployments, so I went up to the northeast sector. I remember 
this so well because I was the

[[Page S4128]]

first American, civilian or military, up there. I went up there with a 
British General named Rupert Smith, a colorful guy. He and I really 
enjoyed that trip, going up, talking about what the President promised 
the American people.

  If you remember, we had a resolution of disapproval to stop the 
President from sending troops over there and getting involved. We lost 
it only by three votes. We lost it because the President said all the 
troops they would send there, in December of 1995, would be home for 
Christmas 1996. This is not an approximation. This is the commitment 
the President made to the American people.
  We knew that was not going to happen. So we tried this same thing 
before. We tried at that time to say let's just draw a line in the sand 
at June of 1996; then June of 1997. We had the same debate at that 
time. ``No, they are going to come back, but all in good time.''
  There is no end in sight in Bosnia. They are still there. So here we 
have our people involved in an area with the Croats and Serbs and 
Muslims. Then you have the various other groups such as the Arkan 
Tigers and Black Swans. The only thing all these groups have in common 
is they all hate us, hate that we are over there. We lost our 
resolution of disapproval by three votes.
  I have tried to determine how much we have spent in Bosnia alone. The 
most conservative figure will be $13 billion. When you consider 
everything that has to go with it in terms of ground logistics support, 
it is considerably more than that.
  Then along came Kosovo. I knew the same thing was going to happen. 
This President has an obsession for sending our troops into places 
where we do not have any national security interests. So I went over to 
Kosovo. It is not a hard place to go across; it is only 75 miles 
across. I went by myself, one individual with me. As I went across 
Kosovo, I only saw one dead person, and that was a Serb, a Serb soldier 
who had been killed by an Albanian.
  I rounded one corner and looked down the barrel of a rocket launcher, 
and it was held by an Albanian. Of some 92 mosques that are there, only 
1 was burning. CNN had pictures of it from every angle. When you got 
back to the United States, you thought every mosque in Kosovo was 
burning. It was a propaganda effort deliberately to make the American 
people believe things were going on there that were not going on there.
  What has happened since then, I might add, speaking of us, on this 
Senate floor I showed pictures and documented, since the Albanians are 
now on top, they have burned to the ground a minimum of 52--and we have 
pictures of all 52--Serb Christian Orthodox churches, most of them 
built prior to the 15th century. If you do not have any sensitivity to 
the religious aspect of this, look at the historic aspect. Nonetheless, 
this is the propaganda effort that got us over there.
  I can remember one of my many trips. I have to say, I believe I have 
been in the Balkans, both places, more than any other Member has. 
Normally I am by myself, to really try to determine what is going on 
there. I remember being in Tirana. Tirana is where all the refugees 
showed up. They were all pretty well dressed, but they were all upset 
with us. They said to me, ``When are you going to do something about 
this?'' I said, ``Why should we do it?'' They said, ``It's your fault 
we had this ethnic cleansing.''

  I will quote out of the Washington Post of March 31 of last year. 
They wrote:

       For weeks before the NATO air campaign against Yugoslavia, 
     CIA Director Gen. Tenet had been forecasting that Serb-led 
     Yugoslavian forces might respond by accelerating ethnic 
     cleansing.

  Then Bill Cohen said:

       With respect to Director Tenet testifying that the bombing 
     could in fact accelerate Milosevic's plans, we also knew 
     that.

  This was live on Tirana television. They said: When are you--and I 
was the only American in the group--going to do something about our 
plight? Because it is your fault we had the ethnic cleansing.
  Anyway, I think one of the bigger issues is the fact we are diluting 
our scarce resources. I will quote the comments by Henry Kissinger. He 
said at that time:

       Each incremental deployment into the Balkans is bound to 
     weaken our ability to deal with Saddam Hussein and North 
     Korea.

  He said:

       The proposed deployment to Kosovo does not deal with any 
     threat to American security. . . .
       Kosovo is no more a threat to America than Haiti was to 
     Europe.

  So I know a lot of lies got us into this thing. I remember they 
rewrote history, saying if we do not go in there, we are going to have 
another world war because that is the way World War I started and that 
is the way World War II started.
  Again quoting from Kissinger's book:

       The Second World War did not start in the Balkans, much 
     less as a result of its ethnic conflicts.

  He wrote:

       World War I started in the Balkans not as a result of 
     ethnic conflicts but for precisely the opposite reason: 
     because outside powers intervened in a local conflict. The 
     assassination of the Crown Prince of Austria--an imperial 
     power--by a Serbian nationalist led to a world war because 
     Russia backed Serbia and France backed Russia while Germany 
     supported Austria.

  That is exactly what we are doing. We have rubbed Russia's nose in 
this thing because we have gotten involved in this thing, creating 
another serious problem facing our Nation. We are now down to where we 
have diluted the forces. General Richard Hawley, who at that time, in 
1999, headed the Air Combat Command, said:

       The Air Force . . . would be hard-pressed to handle a 
     second war in the Middle East or Korea.

  Hawley said that 5 weeks of bombing Yugoslavia have left the United 
States munitions stocks critically short, not just of air-launched 
cruise missiles as previously reported but also of another precision 
weapon, the Joint Direct Attack munition, that is JDAM, dropped by the 
B-2 bombers.
  If my colleagues go to the 21st TACOM in Germany, right down the road 
from Ramstein, they will find--that is where they handle the ground 
logistics--that even before we went into Kosovo, we were at 100-percent 
capacity. I asked the question: What would happen if we had to respond 
to a serious problem in the Persian Gulf where we do have national 
security interests?
  The response was: We would be 100-percent dependent upon Guard and 
Reserve.
  What has happened to our Guard and Reserve as a result of all these 
deployments? We have critical MOSs, military occupational specialities, 
because they cannot be deployed 180 and 270 days out of a year and keep 
the jobs they have at home.
  Finally, I want to read one paragraph of an article written by Henry 
Kissinger which says:

       President Clinton has justified American troop deployments 
     in Kosovo on the grounds that ethnic conflict in Yugoslavia 
     threatens ``Europe's stability and future.'' Other 
     administration spokesmen have compared the challenge to that 
     of Hitler's threat to European security. Neither statement 
     does justice to Balkan realities.

  I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of my remarks the 
article be printed in the Record.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I thank my colleagues for this time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. INHOFE. I want to have a better solution, but this is the only 
solution there is. I urge my colleagues to support this for the state 
of readiness of our Nation.

                               Exhibit 1

               [From the Washington Post, Feb. 22, 1999]

                          (By Henry Kissinger)

No U.S. Ground Forces for Kosovo--Leadership Doesn't Mean That We Must 
                        Do Everything Ourselves.

       President Clinton's announcement that some 4,000 American 
     troops will join a NATO force of 28,000 to help police a 
     Kosovo agreement faces all those concerned with long-range 
     American national security policy with a quandary.
       Having at once time shared responsibility for national 
     security policy and the extrication from Vietnam, I am 
     profoundly uneasy about the proliferation of open-ended 
     American commitments involving the deployment of U.S. forces. 
     American forces are in harm's way in Kosovo, Bosnia and the 
     gulf. They lack both a definition of strategic purpose by 
     which success can be measured and an exit strategy. In the 
     case of Kosovo, the concern is that America's leadership 
     would be impaired by the refusal of Congress to approve 
     American participation in the

[[Page S4129]]

     NATO force that has come into being largely as a result of a 
     diplomacy conceived and spurred by Washington.
       Thus, in the end, Congress may feel it has little choice 
     but to go along. In any event, its formal approval is not 
     required. But Congress needs to put the administration on 
     notice that it is uneasy about being repeatedly confronted 
     with ad hoc military missions. The development and 
     articulation of a comprehensive strategy is imperative if we 
     are to avoid being stretched too thin in the face of other 
     foreseeable and militarily more dangerous challenges.
       Before any future deployments take place, we must be able 
     to answer these questions: What consequences are we seeking 
     to prevent? What goals are we seeking to achieve? In what way 
     do they serve the national interest?
       President Clinton has justified American troop deployments 
     in Kosovo on the ground that ethnic conflict in Yugoslavia 
     threatens ``Europe's stability and future.'' Other 
     administration spokesmen have compared the challenge to that 
     of Hitler's threat to European security. Neither statement 
     does justice to Balkan realities.
       The proposed deployment in Kosovo does not deal with any 
     threat to American security as traditionally conceived. The 
     threatening escalations sketched by the president--to 
     Macedonia or Greece and Turkey--are in the long run more 
     likely to result from the emergence of a Kosovo state.
       Nor is the Kosovo problem new. Ethnic conflict has been 
     endemic in the Balkans for centuries. Waves of conquests have 
     congealed divisions between ethnic groups and religions, 
     between the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic faiths; between 
     Christianity and Islam; between the heirs of the Austrian and 
     Ottoman empires.
       Through the centuries, these conflicts have been fought 
     with unparalleled ferocity because none of the populations 
     has any experience with--and essentially no belief in--
     Western concepts of toleration. Majority rule and compromise 
     that underlie most of the proposals for a ``solution'' never 
     have found an echo in the Balkans.
       Moreover, the projected Kosovo agreement is unlikely to 
     enjoy the support of the parties for a long period of time. 
     For Serbia, acquiescing under the threat of NATO bombardment, 
     it involves nearly unprecedented international intercession. 
     Yugoslavia, a sovereign state, is being asked to cede control 
     and in time sovereignty of a province containing its national 
     shrines to foreign military force.
       Though President Slobodan Milosevic has much to answer for, 
     especially in Bosnia, he is less the cause of the conflict in 
     Kosovo than an expression of it. On the need to retain 
     Kosovo, Serbian leaders--including Milosevic's domestic 
     opponents--seem united. For Serbia, current NATO policy means 
     either dismemberment of the country or postponement of the 
     conflict to a future date when, according to the NATO 
     proposal, the future of the province will be decided.
       The same attitude governs the Albanian side. The Kosovo 
     Liberation Army (KLA) is fighting for independence, not 
     autonomy. But under the projected agreement, Kosovo, now an 
     integral part of Serbia, is to be made an autonomous and 
     self-governing entity within Serbia, which, however, will 
     remain responsible for external security and even exercise 
     some unspecified internal police functions. A plebiscite at 
     the end of three years is to determine the region's future.
       The KLA is certain to try to use the cease-fire to expel 
     the last Serbian influences from the province and drag its 
     feet on giving up its arms. And if NATO resists, it may come 
     under attack itself--perhaps from both sides. What is 
     described by the administration as a ``strong peace 
     agreement'' is likely to be at best the overture to another, 
     far more complicated set of conflicts.
       Ironically, the projected peace agreement increases the 
     likelihood of the various possible escalations sketched by 
     the president as justification for a U.S. deployment. An 
     independent Albanian Kosovo surely would seek to incorporate 
     the neighboring Albanian minorities--mostly in Macedonia--and 
     perhaps even Albania itself. And a Macedonian conflict would 
     land us precisely back in the Balkan wars of earlier in this 
     century. Will Kosovo then become the premise for a NATO move 
     into Macedonia, just as the deployment in Bosnia is invoked 
     as justification for the move into Kosovo? Is NATO to be the 
     home for a whole series of Balkan NATO protectorates?
       What confuses the situation even more is that the American 
     missions in Bosnia and Kosovo are justified by different, 
     perhaps incompatible, objectives. In Bosnia, American 
     deployment is being promoted as a means to unite Croats, 
     Muslims and Serbs into a single state. Serbs and Croats 
     prefer to practice self-determination but are being asked to 
     subordinate their preference to the geopolitical argument 
     that a small Muslim Bosnian state would be too precarious and 
     irredentist. But in Kosovo, national self-determination is 
     invoked to produce a tiny state nearly certain to be 
     irredentist.
       Since neither traditional concepts of the national interest 
     nor U.S. security impel the deployment, the ultimate 
     justification is the laudable and very American goal of 
     easing human suffering. This is why, in the end, I went along 
     with the Dayton agreement in so far as it ended the war by 
     separating the contending forces. But I cannot bring myself 
     to endorse American ground forces in Kosovo.
       In Bosnia, the exit strategy can be described. The existing 
     dividing lines can be made permanent. Failure to do so will 
     require their having to be manned indefinitely unless we 
     change our objective to self-determination and permit each 
     ethnic group to decide its own fate.
       In Kosovo, that option does not exist. There are no ethnic 
     dividing lines, and both sides claim the entire territory. 
     America's attitude toward the Serb's attempts to insist on 
     their claim has been made plain enough; it is the threat of 
     bombing. But how do we and NATO react to Albanian 
     transgressions and irredentism? Are we prepared to fight both 
     sides and for how long? In the face of issues such as these, 
     the unity of the contact group of powers acting on behalf of 
     NATO is likely to dissolve. Russia surely will increasingly 
     emerge as the supporter of the Serbian point of view.
       We must take care not to treat a humanitarian foreign 
     policy as a magic recipe for the basic problem of 
     establishing priorities in foreign policy. The president's 
     statements ``that we can make a difference'' and that 
     ``America symbolizes hope and resolve'' are exhortations, not 
     policy prescriptions. Do they mean that America's military 
     power is available to enable every ethnic or religious group 
     to achieve self-determination? Is NATO to become the 
     artillery for ethnic conflict? If Kosovo, why not East Africa 
     or Central Asia? And would a doctrine of universal 
     humanitarian intervention reduce or increase suffering by 
     intensifying ethnic and religious conflict? What are the 
     limits of such a policy and by what criteria is it 
     established?
       In my view, that line should be drawn at American ground 
     forces for Kosovo. Europeans never tire of stressing the need 
     for greater European autonomy. Here is an occasion to 
     demonstrate it. If Kosovo presents a security problem, it is 
     to Europe, largely because of the refugees the conflict might 
     generate, as the president has pointed out. Kosovo is no more 
     a threat to America than Haiti was to Europe--and we never 
     asked for NATO support there. The nearly 300 million 
     Europeans should be able to generate the ground forces to 
     deal with 2.3 million Kosovars. To symbolize Allied unity on 
     larger issues, we should provide logistics, intelligence and 
     air support. But I see no need for U.S. ground forces; 
     leadership should not be interpreted to mean that we must do 
     everything ourselves.
       Sooner or later, we must articulate the American capability 
     to sustain a global policy. The failure to do so landed us in 
     the Vietnam morass. Even if one stipulates an American 
     strategic interest in Kosovo (which I do not), we must take 
     care not to stretch ourselves too thin in the face of far 
     less ambiguous threats in the Middle East and Northeast Asia.
       Each incremental deployment into the Balkans is bound to 
     weaken our ability to deal with Saddam Hussein and North 
     Korea. The psychological drain may be even more grave. Each 
     time we make a peripheral deployment, the administration is 
     constrained to insist that the danger to American forces is 
     minimal--the Kosovo deployment is officially described as a 
     ``peace implementation force.''
       Such comments have two unfortunate consequences. They 
     increase the impression among Americans that military force 
     can be used casualty-free, and they send a signal of weakness 
     to potential enemies. For in the end, our forces will be 
     judged on how adequate they are for peace imposition, not 
     peace implementation.
       I always am inclined to support the incumbent 
     administration in a forceful assertion of the national 
     interest. And as a passionate believer in the NATO alliance, 
     I make the distinctions between European and American 
     security interests in the Balkans with the utmost reluctance. 
     But support for a strong foreign policy and a strong NATO 
     surely will evaporate if we fail to anchor them in a clear 
     definition of the national interest and impart a sense of 
     direction to our foreign policy in a period of turbulent 
     change.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio, under a previous order, 
is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I seek 50 seconds. I thank the Senator 
from Oklahoma. Underlying this is clearly the readiness issue. It is 
not just the Kosovo operation, but it is how our troops are spread 
throughout the world. We are speaking in this amendment to a discipline 
that could well apply to the next mission, wherever it may be, or an 
existing mission. It is simply the accountability of the Congress of 
the United States in the expenditure of these funds to exercise a 
voice. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized for 10 
minutes under a previous order.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator will yield 30 
seconds to the Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. DeWINE. I will.
  Mr. LEVIN. Parliamentary inquiry: Is the time just used by my good 
friend from Virginia taken from the other side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is taken from the time of the Senator from 
Virginia.

[[Page S4130]]

  Mr. WARNER. I advised the Chair when I arrived this morning that all 
my comments will be charged to the Chair.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I say in response to the commentary of 
the Senator from Oklahoma, I talked of hundreds of thousands. If the 
Senator listened carefully, I talked about displacement, and I talked 
about movements. I did not talk about deaths. We can get the number of 
deaths from the records. I want to make sure that is clearly 
understood.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. DeWINE. Mr. President, I rise today to express my strong support 
for the Levin amendment which would strike the Byrd-Warner provision 
regarding U.S. troop withdrawal from Kosovo. As my colleagues know, the 
Byrd-Warner provision includes language designed to ensure our allies 
in NATO provide their fair share of the peacekeeping burden in Kosovo. 
This certainly is an important goal, and I understand the Europeans 
right now are meeting the requirements outlined in the Byrd-Warner 
provision.
  Frankly, I believe a great deal of the credit for this great 
accomplishment goes to my friend and colleague from Virginia, Senator 
Warner. He has demonstrated unfailing dedication and commitment to this 
very important burdensharing issue. Senator Warner traveled to Kosovo 
in January of this year and saw firsthand that the Europeans needed to 
share a larger portion of the burden in the Balkans. Because of his 
efforts in the short time since his visit to Kosovo, the proportion of 
European involvement has changed considerably. In fact, currently U.S. 
troops now make up 5,900 of the 39,000-member NATO peacekeeping force. 
U.S. involvement accounts for 15 percent of the overall peacekeeping 
effort, and the Europeans are carrying the bulk of the effort on the 
civilian side. This is a victory for Senator Warner. I believe we have 
to pause for a moment today to congratulate him on a job very well 
done.
  I also agree with the Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, and the 
distinguished ranking member of the Appropriations Committee, Senator 
Byrd, that Congress needs to assert itself more in foreign affairs. 
Congress can and Congress should engage more in the kinds of debate 
over foreign policy issues such as the one we are having today and 
should work harder to shape U.S. defense and foreign policy. The last 7 
years of drift in foreign affairs has demonstrated the need for 
Congress to reassert its constitutional role in shaping American 
foreign policy.

  I also share the very legitimate concerns expressed by the 
distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator 
Stevens, about the way the current administration funds our 
peacekeeping activities. We find ourselves repeatedly in a situation in 
which the administration draws funds and resources away from important 
defense activities to pay for its peacekeeping operations.
  For example, the administration knew before the end of last year when 
we were negotiating the remaining appropriations bills that they were 
planning to keep our forces in Kosovo for the duration of the fiscal 
year. They knew it but did nothing in the budget about it, except to 
put a number of readiness and operational projects on hold at reduced 
funding levels. That practice has become the standard practice in 
recent years. That practice needs to change. We should debate the cost 
of operations before the operations. We should debate the cost before 
the beginning of each fiscal year and not do this back-door funding.
  I do understand the motives of the proponents of this provision. I 
understand what they are trying to accomplish. They have good reason to 
be frustrated, but this is not a debate about motive but, rather, one 
about method. It is the method that will be employed under this 
language that deeply troubles me. What concerns me most about this 
provision is that it sets an arbitrary deadline for the withdrawal of 
U.S. forces from Kosovo. The deadline is not based on any goals that 
would make it possible for the reduction of forces in the region. This 
arbitrary deadline signals to the Albanians the limits to our 
commitment for providing for their protection. This, in turn, could 
give them cause to rearm and prepare to protect themselves from what 
they would view as an inevitable Serbian reentry. In essence, this 
provision would undermine our current efforts to achieve stability in 
the region and could give the despotic Milosevic the victory he could 
not achieve on the battlefield.
  The fact is, in the delicate and complex world of foreign affairs, 
one thing should always be clear: As a nation, we should demonstrate to 
our allies the certainty of our resolve, and we must demonstrate that 
same resolve to our enemies, while at the same time making our enemies 
uncertain as to how and when we will exercise that resolve.
  Unfortunately, what this provision does is just the opposite. It 
makes our allies uncertain and signals to our adversaries what we will 
do and what we will not do.
  The proponents of this provision have argued this is really all about 
process. Respectfully, I disagree. This debate is about whether 
Congress will use sound judgment in the exercise of power. I believe 
the Byrd-Warner provision is not a wise use of congressional power. By 
voting for this provision, we will be exercising our power arbitrarily 
and setting ourselves on a course toward the removal of U.S. troops in 
Kosovo in 14 months.
  The next President would be placed in the position of having to 
convince Congress to change the policy, to act. We have sadly found 
many times that to get this Congress to act is very difficult.
  The current administration, for example, could not convince the House 
of Representatives to authorize airstrikes over Serbia. There simply 
are no guarantees that Congress will act in 14 months.
  Congressional inaction over the next year could result in a dramatic 
change in policy that would create uncertainty and undermine our 
credibility with NATO and with our own troops. Fostering that kind of 
uncertainty about U.S. resolve is not what is intended but that, sadly, 
could be the result. That result, that uncertainty, will, I believe, 
create a more dangerous situation for our troops for the next 14 
months.
  The fact is that our credibility as a leader in the international 
community is predicated on a shared commitment to the stability and 
growth of democracy and free markets on the European continent.
  We cannot reach these goals through arbitrary, unilateral deadlines. 
We cannot reach these goals by placing the next administration in the 
position of shaping foreign policy in response to a congressionally 
imposed deadline rather than on current and future world events. In 
essence, we cannot allow our foreign policy to run on autopilot.
  I say to my colleagues, if they believe we should withdraw our 
troops, there is ample opportunity to have an up-or-down vote on that 
at any time. We could do it today. We could do it in 14 months. We 
could do it in July of the year 2001. That is the right way for us to 
exercise our power.
  I believe this is the wrong action because what this does is, in 
essence, say that Congress may never directly vote on this issue. 
Members can vote for this language which would provide that our troops 
would automatically have to come out in July of the year 2001 if 
Congress took no action. Members could vote for this, and then Congress 
could take absolutely no action and we would never have a direct vote 
on the issue.
  I believe that is the wrong way to approach this issue. I believe 
that if Members believe our troops should be withdrawn, they have ample 
opportunity to have an up-or-down vote on this at any time they wish to 
do it.
  I believe the uncertainty that will be created over the next 14 
months by the insertion of this language into law will create a very 
difficult and untenable position for our troops and for our country in 
the conduct of American foreign policy.
  I thank my colleague for the time and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I, again, thank my distinguished colleague for his contribution to 
this very important debate, and particularly to his thoughtful 
references to this humble Senator, but I must say that I respectfully 
disagree.
  The time has come when we have to speak to the people of the United

[[Page S4131]]

States who are constantly giving us this money--to expend $2 billion in 
this instance--to provide for the men and women in uniform, who march 
off in harm's way. This is simply a procedure by which to speak on 
behalf of this constituency and not just always our allies abroad. But 
I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I also yield myself 30 seconds to thank my 
good friend from Ohio for a very thoughtful statement. He has put his 
finger on the heart of the matter, which is that Congress, by acting 
now, putting on automatic pilot a withdrawal of forces a year from now, 
unless action is taken later on, creates a very dangerous year of 
uncertainty which threatens the success of this mission as well as our 
alliance.
  It was an extremely thoughtful statement, which I hope all of our 
colleagues had an opportunity to hear. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I believe the distinguished Senator from 
New Jersey is to be recognized for a period on my time of 8 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized for 
8 minutes.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia for 
yielding the time. I commend the Senator from Virginia and my 
colleague, Senator Byrd from West Virginia, in bringing this issue 
before the Senate.
  Before discussing Kosovo, or the provisions of the NATO treaty, there 
is something more paramount that should come before the Senate. It is 
not a treaty with a foreign nation or obligations in another land but 
our own Constitution and our own responsibilities in this country.
  For too long, the foreign policy and military powers of the Congress 
have been yielded to the executive. This Congress has not been a 
jealous guardian of its own constitutional prerogatives.
  Under our system of government and its Constitution, the military and 
foreign policy powers are shared between the executive and the 
legislative branches. By necessity, the Commander in Chief must have 
the ability to deploy troops and make command decisions in emergencies. 
Often there is not time to consult, certainly not time to receive 
permission. But the power remains shared because we have the 
responsibility for the resources of the Government.
  The unfolding events in Kosovo that threaten to go not a matter of 
months but many years--even more than a decade--does not require 
emergency powers. There is no shortage of time. There is an opportunity 
for our Constitution to function and for the President to return to 
this Chamber.

  We are now having the debate in this Chamber. The Bundestag had 
theirs in Berlin a year ago. The British Parliament gave its assent. 
The National Assembly in Paris and the Italian Parliament have had 
their debate. This Congress, unlike the great democracies in Europe, 
has remained silent. Is our Constitution less? Do our people exercise 
less powers through their elected representatives than those in Germany 
or Italy or France?
  Many Members have risen to talk about Kosovo. I rise to talk about 
the United States. There has been great concern for the NATO treaty. As 
did my colleagues from Virginia and West Virginia, I rise because I am 
concerned about our Constitution.
  I believe there is a legitimate role for the United States in Kosovo. 
I strongly believe in the NATO treaty. The United States has met its 
responsibilities under the NATO treaty.
  Strictly defined, that treaty was for the defense of Western Europe 
from external threats. By necessity, it was properly expanded at the 
end of the cold war to include legitimate internal threats to European 
order.
  The United States was not a participant in dealing with that threat. 
We were a leader. Not a single European soldier would have been in 
Kosovo or Bosnia but for the U.S. Air Force. None of it could have been 
supported but for the U.S. Army. None of it would have been viable but 
for the U.S. Government. Our responsibilities were met.
  But expanding the NATO treaty to include internal threats to Europe 
was one thing--legitimate, in my judgment--but expanding the NATO 
treaty to deal with permanent control of order and peacekeeping is 
another.
  I believe we have met our responsibilities. I believe it is incumbent 
upon a new administration, next year, to return to this Congress and 
make the case, if it is possible, that it is necessary on an ongoing 
basis to have a near-permanent presence in Kosovo--no longer a crisis--
now maintaining order.
  It is not too much to ask the administration to make that case or 
this Congress to meet its responsibilities and act affirmatively upon 
the judgment. It will, in truth, not be an easy case to make.
  Kosovo is a nation of a mere 2 million people. This long after the 
war in Kosovo, it must be made in a case to this Congress that 300 
million Europeans, with a gross national product larger than the United 
States, with combined government resources in excess of the United 
States, are unable to maintain these modest numbers of troops to 
maintain order within their own borders, on their own continent, for 
their own purposes. It is not a question of our unwillingness to 
respond to crises or threats, but to learn to separate the crisis 
response from the near permanent presence to maintain order.

  The final point made against this amendment is the most extraordinary 
of all, that our credibility is at issue. Who could rise to challenge 
the credibility of the U.S. Government to international security or the 
defense of freedom--which of our NATO allies? Fifty-five years after 
the close of World War II, tens of millions of American young men and 
women have served in western Europe. Our presence remains, at an 
expenditure of hundreds of billions of dollars. Who among our NATO 
allies could rise and say that our credibility is in question? But for 
the United States, there would have been no operation in Bosnia or in 
Kosovo. It was made possible by the U.S. Government.
  This Government's credibility is not at issue. Fifty years after the 
war in Korea, we and we alone remain on the line to defend freedom. A 
decade after the war in the Persian Gulf, often we and we alone remain 
resolute in defiance of Saddam Hussein. Twelve years after the 
destruction at Lockerbie, we alone have to convince our allies to 
remain strong against Libya. We alone often maintain vigilance against 
those few remaining Communist states where freedom is eclipsed. The 
credibility of the U.S. Government is not at issue.
  What is at issue is the constitutional prerogatives of this 
institution. It remains a question of Europe meeting responsibilities 
not for crisis response, which we share under NATO, but for maintaining 
order on a near permanent basis. It is not an issue of credibility.
  There is a fourth issue. Kosovo is not the last crisis this 
Government is going to deal with in international order or maintaining 
peace and stability.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. May I have another 30 seconds?
  Mr. WARNER. I yield the Senator another minute.
  Mr. TORRICELLI. A future American President is going to have to 
factor in, in responding to a crisis in Asia or North Africa or the 
Middle East, that American ships and planes are on station supporting 
operations in Kosovo, not dealing with a crisis but on a police patrol. 
The number of forces may not be great, but, indeed, our resources are 
very strained. Is it fair to this country, the security of the United 
States, that we will have to at some point forgo defending interests 
elsewhere because our forces are substituting what Europe should be 
doing in Kosovo?
  No, Mr. President, our credibility is not at issue, nor our resolve. 
Whether or not this generation of Senators and Members of the House 
defend its prerogatives under the Constitution is at issue.
  I commend the gentleman from Virginia for bringing this before the 
Senate.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  I thank the distinguished Senator from New Jersey. This clearly shows 
this is a bipartisan issue. It is not a political issue. We are not 
directing anything at our President. We are directing it solely, as my 
distinguished colleague said, at fulfilling our duties

[[Page S4132]]

under the Constitution. I am grateful for his pointing out that the 
United States, in the Korean conflict, where we have had a large number 
of nations, stands alone today. In Iraq, we stand alone with Great 
Britain containing that situation, after a dozen allies in 1991 helped 
us with that conflict.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and the Senator from 
Michigan.
  In the 16 years I have been here, I have debated a number of these 
issues with my colleague from Virginia. We have debated a number of 
different incursions in various countries, involvement of U.S. troops 
abroad. There are few people in the Senate I respect as much or have as 
much affection for as the Senator from Virginia, whose knowledge and 
patriotism are absolutely unquestionable on subjects such as this.
  I, as a veteran of Vietnam and as somebody who came back from that 
war to argue about Congress's capacity and prerogatives to make 
judgments about our involvement there, have nothing but respect for the 
position he espouses today about congressional prerogative. It exists. 
We should respect it. It is a critical component of the balance of 
power in this country. It is entirely appropriate that Senator Byrd and 
Senator Warner ask the Senate to make a judgment about our troops. We 
should do no less. We owe the American people that judgment. That is 
one of the great prerogatives of the Senate.
  What they are asking the Senate to do is, in effect, to make the 
judgment today that we have reached our limit with respect to the 
current involvement in Kosovo and we are going to set up a structure 
for withdrawal. They argue: not at all; there is a vote down the road 
as to whether or not we will appropriate money. But in point of fact, 
the way this amendment is structured, the message is clear: The vote is 
now; the choice is whether or not we believe we should continue to be 
involved.
  I do not question that there are aspects of this involvement that I 
think are not necessarily well thought out even today. I think there 
are divisions between the ethnic parties in Kosovo that we have not 
properly thought through as to how we resolve them in the long run. 
There are aspects of the risks we are asking young American troops, 
male and female, to bear with which I am uncomfortable.
  I am not suggesting there aren't ways to strengthen our approach to 
this, both our responsibilities and European responsibilities. But--
here is the ``but''--I ask my colleagues to look at the law as it is 
set forth in the language of S. 2521. It says: None of the funds 
appropriated or otherwise made available shall be available for the 
continued deployment of U.S. combat troops in Kosovo after July 1, 
2001, unless and until the President does something.
  What does the President have to do? He has to submit a report to 
Congress asking for the money to be spent but, most importantly, 
describing the specific progress made in implementing a plan.
  What is the plan the President has to describe to Congress on which 
he is making progress? The plan refers to a subsection (b). If we turn 
to it, it says very specifically:

       The President shall develop a plan, in consultation with 
     appropriate foreign governments, by which NATO member 
     countries, with the exception of the United States, and 
     appropriate non-NATO countries will provide, not later than 
     July 1, 2001, any and all ground combat troops necessary to 
     execute Operation Joint Guardian or any successor operation 
     in Kosovo.

  That means, according to the plan he must now begin to put into 
effect, he must report to us how far along we are in getting out. There 
are quarterly target dates that that plan requires us to establish, 
with 3-month intervals, achieving an orderly transition. There is an 
interim plan for achieving the objectives not later than September 30, 
2000, and then there is the final plan.
  We are, in effect, being asked to vote today on a plan for 
withdrawal. We are stating our intention that, absent a future vote at 
some later time, which has been met with a succession of interim stages 
of withdrawal, we will have a vote on appropriations.
  I say to my colleagues, that is not the way to deal with foreign 
policy generally. It is certainly not the way to deal with this 
specific issue. Why is it not the way to deal with this specific issue? 
Well, effectively, we are being asked to vote today as to whether or 
not we think the investment we made in the war itself is worthwhile.
  On March 23, 1999, I joined with 57 of our colleagues to vote that we 
thought there was something worthwhile doing in Kosovo. And we voted to 
support a resolution that authorized the President to conduct military 
operations against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. I did so because 
I believed then, as I believe now, that the U.S. national interest and 
stability throughout Europe is unquestionable and that the oppression 
and thuggery of the Milosevic regime not only threatened that stability 
throughout Europe, but it posed an unacceptable challenge to the 
humanitarian values of the American people.

  Mr. President, this Nation committed 50 years and trillions of 
dollars to protecting the security of Europe through the Marshall Plan. 
Half a million American troops served in Europe to preserve the peace 
won by our fathers and grandfathers in World War II. I respectfully 
suggest that the Senate effectively decided, when we voted to do those 
military operations, that we were not willing to walk away from the 
ethnic cleansing in Kosovo because that would have been walking away 
from the very investment in peace and freedom for which we paid so 
dearly. It troubles me, then, to say that today some of the most 
stalwart supporters of our efforts in Kosovo only a year ago would now 
say that we should effectively put into gear the process of walking 
away from whatever responsibilities may remain in terms of how we 
adequately finish the job.
  I share the frustration of my colleagues that our European allies, 
whose own stability is so closely tied to peace in the Balkans, have 
not met their obligations to the Kosovo peacekeeping effort as swiftly 
and as deftly as we would like. I want to underscore that I think the 
efforts of Senator Byrd and Senator Warner have helped to place that 
responsibility squarely in front of them.
  Let me ask a simple question of my colleagues. If restoring the peace 
in Kosovo was in our interest 1 year ago, isn't preserving the peace in 
Kosovo in our interest today? I don't believe you can separate those 
obligations. I think the answer is resoundingly yes, it is in our 
interest today. Some people may rethink their vote, and that is 
perfectly legitimate. Some people may believe that they misinterpreted 
that national interest, and they should explain it as such. But I don't 
understand how this country can clearly define its interest in Europe 
for the 50 years since World War II and maintain hundreds of thousands 
of troops in Europe in order to make clear our determination to stay 
with that peace effort and not be willing to keep 5,000-plus troops in 
Kosovo, which we all deem to be a component of our European interests. 
I don't understand that.
  Are we suggesting that we are not willing to bear any of those risks? 
Now, I understand as well as anybody the post-Vietnam syndrome and the 
sort of nervousness people have about putting troops in harm's way. But 
I am confident that most of my colleagues who have worn the uniform 
will share with me the belief that that is what you put it on for, and 
that being in the military is not a cakewalk to get your GI bill so 
that you can ride on the benefits for the rest of your life; it is 
assuming certain risks. Sometimes in the national interest of our 
country--maybe not the vital security interest, but in a security 
interest, or some level of interest--there are sometimes risks that we 
have to be willing to bear to achieve our goals.
  The price of leadership that we have spent so much of our treasure 
earning is not cheap. You can't fulfill the obligations that we have in 
the world on the fly. You can't do it on the cheap. I know there are 
certain questions of readiness and other questions, but there are many 
choices we make with respect to the entire military budget, national 
missile defense, and others

[[Page S4133]]

that bear significantly on where we spend money and how we spend money. 
I believe that we won an enormously important victory in terms of the 
values that drive our foreign policy and on which this country is 
founded. I think 5,000 troops, the lack of losses, and the 
extraordinary accomplishments we have gained in this region over the 
last years say to us that even with the difficulties, this is a policy 
that, measured against the risk to our troops, is worth pursuing.

  I ask my colleagues to measure very carefully whether or not they are 
prepared today to send a message to Milosevic, as well as our allies, 
that we are not willing to stand the test of time with respect to those 
obligations and responsibilities.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the next speaker will be the distinguished 
Senator from Montana, Mr. Burns, for 7 minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for 30 seconds, I 
thank the Senator from Massachusetts for the contribution he just made, 
pointing out with extreme accuracy that, No. 1, this is not an issue of 
the prerogative of the Senate--we have the prerogative to do this if we 
choose to exercise it--but raising the question: Is it wise this year 
to set a deadline for the withdrawal of troops next year and the 
dangers that will ensue in the interim both to the troops, the 
alliance, and to the cause for which they fought? His experience, both 
in war and in peace, has been invaluable and his contribution this 
morning is very clear. I thank him for that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana is recognized.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, We are setting an all-time record for 
spending Senate time on the military construction bill this year. Never 
has it taken this long to pass military construction. Since this bill 
is under my management, I am not real happy about the precedent that we 
are setting.
  I do want to rise in support of the Byrd-Warner amendment. This 
debate today is not about withdrawal, or even the continued deployment, 
of our troops in Kosovo. What it is about is more important: the role 
of Congress and its relationship with the executive branch of this 
Government under our Constitution.
  Congress has a constitutional responsibility to vote on long-term 
military commitments, especially when they are offensive and not 
defensive in nature. Kosovo is not a defensive response to an armed 
attack against the United States or its allies. There is no pressing 
emergency requiring the President to act with dispatch. In such cases, 
it is very important for Congress to act on its role. It is easy to see 
the need for the exercise of Congressional responsibility in the case 
at hand since the administration has already spent $21.2 billion since 
1992 in the Bosnia/Kosovo area.
  Contrary to the rumors, and even as stated by my good friend from 
Massachusetts who has interpreted this as a step to withdraw, the Byrd-
Warner amendment makes specific provisions for Congress to continue 
American presence beyond July 1, 2001. The process outlined is orderly 
but it will require planning by the administration and the type of 
public debate expected in a democracy.
  Without the Byrd-Warner amendment, the administration is taking 
congressional appropriations as a tacit approval by the Congress for 
American involvement in Kosovo. In these circumstances, by approving 
emergency supplemental funding to continue our presence in that area, 
Congress can be seen as avoiding its responsibilities under the 
Constitution.
  In the first place, we are not properly exercising our Constitutional 
responsibility for the power of the purse as vested in the Congress. 
United States presence in Kosovo, without congressional scrutiny and 
affirmative endorsement, does not meet our duties to the American 
people that their voices be heard through congressional representation.
  Administration officials have repeatedly spent defense funds for 
these deployments. Afterwards, they come back to the Congress and ask 
us to pay bills that are improperly--and some would say illegally--
incurred. This process must stop.
  Our effort to uphold the Constitution will not undermine the troops 
in the field. There is ample time under the amendment for rational 
implementation while still imposing the accountability required by our 
laws.
  Some opposed to the Byrd-Warner amendment say we should not even have 
this debate, and that the timing is wrong. But when is it a good time 
to intercede? The Congress has been patient with the administration in 
Kosovo. But we, too, have responsibilities under the Constitution, 
especially when it comes to spending money. Today is the day we step up 
to the plate to face those responsibilities.
  The amendment shifts the responsibility for determining our future 
involvement in Kosovo to the next administration.
  I think the American people should also understand one other thing. 
We are not just talking about cents or dollars. I repeat that we are 
talking about $21.2 billion spent in this area since 1992. In addition, 
we currently have over 5,000 troops there participating in peacekeeping 
operations in Kosovo.
  The primary responsibility of the peacekeeping force is to act as 
escorts for Serbs and Albanians. That is not what our troops were 
trained for. And administration officials wonder why our recruitment 
and retention in our military services is lagging.
  Senator Torricelli of New Jersey had it right when he called upon our 
NATO allies to provide their share of resources in this operation. That 
is what this amendment does. It is not because the Europeans don't have 
the resources or cannot get the resources. This debate has gone on, and 
they have been willing to let the United States of America shoulder the 
majority of the costs of the operation. As long as somebody in the 
administration stands up and says we will always do it, then we will 
always have to do it. But, we cannot be the police force for the world 
community.
  It is time to give our good friends, the European allies, the 
opportunity to demonstrate to the world their support for true 
democracy in the face of a dictator that was overstepping his bounds in 
the region of the Balkans.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is well thought 
out, and needs our full support.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we are alternating between those who wish 
to strike the provision and those who wish to retain it.
  I see Senator Levin is prepared to accept a speaker from his side.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, we would be happy for their side to go 
forward. We have many other speakers, but they are still on their way.
  Mr. WARNER. We are trying to conduct this in an orderly debate. I 
hope some from their side will begin to appear.
  Mr. LEVIN. We are going to have too many on our side to speak with 
little time to do it.
  Mr. WARNER. We have the same situation. Senators Feingold, Thomas, 
and Cleland are on the floor waiting to speak in support of the Byrd-
Warner amendment.
  I yield the floor. I yield to Senator Feingold 7 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Levin 
amendment and in support of the Warner-Byrd amendment to the military 
construction appropriations bill.
  The Warner-Byrd amendment to the Military Construction Appropriations 
bill. The Warner-Byrd amendment, which was accepted in committee, would 
require Congressional authorization for the continued presence of U.S. 
troops in Kosovo beyond July 1, 2001. In other words, it would require 
this Congress, finally, to debate and to decide on the issue of U.S. 
troops in Kosovo, as I believe that we are required to do under the War 
Powers Resolution.
  I am sure that some opponents of this measure will paint a picture of 
a power-hungry Congress, eager to wrest authorities away from the 
executive in an attempt to gain leverage over the White House.
  But this is about more than power, Mr. President. It is about 
responsibility. Approximately 5,900 U.S. troops are currently serving 
in an apparently open-ended operation in Kosovo. Fifty-

[[Page S4134]]

nine hundred Americans are operating in often dangerous conditions in 
the pursuit of a policy that this Congress has not authorized. Fifty-
nine hundred families are sacrificing. We cannot continue to suggest to 
the American people, to our constituents, that this is none of our 
business. Congressional approval is essential to the commitment of U.S. 
troops in dangerous situations abroad.
  Still other opponents of this measure paint a grim picture of the 
consequences that will follow should Congress insist on authorizing a 
large-scale deployment like that in Kosovo. Because they believe that 
Congress would act irresponsibly, they prefer that Congress not act at 
all.
  Again, this is a simply unacceptable abdication of responsibility. 
What does it say about the state of the this body that we do not trust 
ourselves to make tough decisions? What kind of leadership do we 
exercise when we dodge accountability for a policy of such critical 
importance to this country?
  The decision that this legislation would force upon the Congress--a 
decision to either remain in or withdraw from Kosovo--is exactly the 
kind of choice that we are here to make. It, Mr. President, is our 
responsibility. I urge my colleagues to shoulder it with care, as 
fifty-nine hundred dedicated men and women are counting on us to do our 
duty.
  The Warner-Byrd amendment would also mandate the burden-sharing that 
was supposed to be at the heart of the U.S. approach to Kosovo. The 
U.S. bore the lion's share of the burden in NATO's military campaign of 
last year. I did not agree with that policy; I believed then and I 
believe now that the leading role was Europe's to fill. But I was 
heartened by the promise that Europe would take the lead when it came 
to securing the peace, and that Europe, and not America, would provide 
the vast majority of the resources required to meet Kosovo's enormous 
needs.
  There have been a lot of suggestions that this legislation does a lot 
more than it actually does.
  All this legislation does, Mr. President, is hold our valued friends 
and allies to their word. Kosovo's reconstruction and return to civil 
authority cannot be allowed to become a U.S.-led project. Certainly, 
Mr. President, while the U.S. fails to intervene in equally compelling 
crises around the globe, we make the case--and it is, in my view, a 
very strong case--for regional leadership in regional conflicts. 
African solutions to African problems--that is often our prescription 
for the conflicts and challenges of that troubled continent. In East 
Timor, we stood back, allowed a regional force led by Australia to take 
the lead, and then played a supporting role in that effort. This, Mr. 
President, is the most promising recipe for U.S. engagement in the 
world today. And it should be followed when it comes to Kosovo.
  But there have been problems, Mr. President, with the timely delivery 
of Europe's pledges. This amendment makes the U.S. position crystal 
clear--our allies must fulfill their responsibilities if they are to 
continue to count on U.S. support. This is the right message and the 
right thing to do, and Mr. President, I hope that my colleagues will 
remember how right this is the next time the tables are turned and it 
is our country that is failing to honor our international commitments, 
be it at the U.N. or elsewhere.
  So I urge my colleagues to face up to our shared responsibility when 
it comes to the U.S. involvement in Kosovo, and to insist that our 
allies do the same. The fifty-nine hundred American men and women in 
Kosovo cannot dodge reality or duck responsibility. Neither should our 
European allies, and neither should we.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, I rise in opposition to the Levin 
amendment on the military construction appropriations bill. Of course, 
the Levin amendment is designed to strike the Byrd-Warner provision, 
which I support.
  I suspect that most of the things that could be said have been said. 
We find ourselves saying them again, perhaps in other ways, or simply 
committing ourselves to our views with regard to this issue.
  Clearly, it seems to me, there are two issues involved.
  One is the role of Congress. What is the responsibility? What is the 
obligation? What is the authority of the Congress in terms of 
committing troops for long terms in places around the world?
  The other, of course, is a policy question of an exit strategy for 
Kosovo. That has been a question in a number of places where we have 
been recently.
  It comes, I suppose, as no surprise to my colleagues that I view the 
Kosovo foreign policy as sort of an oxymoron--that it actually has not 
been a policy. We went in. Indeed, that was one of the things that 
concerned me the most in the beginning. There was not a strategy. We 
did not have a plan for where we would go. Indeed, that has proven to 
be the case. We didn't articulate the goals as to where we were, nor 
what the responsibilities would be among our allies, and, of course, 
the length of time to be there complicates that.
  We have seen an unbridled passion for involving the United States in 
peacekeeping operations around the world. I believe that has begun to 
overtax our military capacity. We have military people deployed in many 
places.
  There is no better or worse example of that than Bosnia and Kosovo. 
There we have not had a strategy as to when we complete our job and 
who, in fact, takes the leadership role. I agree with the Senator from 
Wisconsin. We had an example in East Timor where we shared the 
responsibility with others in the region. Indeed, in that case, 
Australia took the lead. We were very supportive, as we should be.
  The idea we need to have a major role both in the activity as well as 
the financing in each of these areas is one that needs some specific 
examination. Certainly the European Community has done some work there. 
They are very capable. It is not as if we are talking about Third World 
countries. We are talking about two of the world's most vibrant 
economies.
  Another reason I question the involvement, again, as a member of the 
Foreign Relations Committee, we asked questions when this first came up 
and we were told certainly we would not be in Bosnia more than 18 
months. How many years have we been there? We were told we were not 
going to be in Kosovo.
  We have to come to some decision. The question arises, What is the 
role of the Senate? I believe the Senate is responsible in terms of 
spending the money, in terms of authorizing long-term commitments. We 
should step up to the post and express our views. We now have the 
opportunity to do that. We could also question, as I mentioned, the 
whole idea of our level of involvement in places where we are with 
allies. We would certainly have the capacity to do much.
  I am concerned about the constitutional implications of the 
President's actions. Clearly, the President should have, and does have, 
the authority to move when there is a case of an emergency. That is as 
it should be. But the fact is, in both Bosnia and Kosovo, we didn't 
have the opportunity. Did we vote? Yes, we voted after the troops were 
there. Certainly no one is going to vote against the support for troops 
who are already committed. I remember meetings held in Ohio and the 
original talk about Bosnia and Kosovo. We asked: What will we do? They 
said: We can't tell you yet; we have to go to Europe and have a meeting 
there. We asked: What is our commitment? Well, we can't tell you yet. 
Before the Congress had an opportunity to do anything, the troops were 
there. We were committed. Clearly, we were going to support them.
  This idea of an exit strategy, and certainly the idea that we have a 
role as Congress, as a responsibility to the people of the United 
States, to do that, is the question. I am not concerned that we are 
making a judgment ahead. That is not the case at all. We are setting 
guidelines. We say if those guidelines are not appropriate in that 
time, then the President can come--whomever the President might be--to 
the Congress and say there have been changes; here is what I am 
supporting, and with the support of Congress can go forward with 
something different.
  Byrd-Warner gives a clear plan to work with the European Community 
and, in fact, turn some of the full responsibility over to the European 
Community whenever it is appropriate. Byrd-Warner gives us that. We 
need to ensure that the community is not reneging on its promises 
regarding its

[[Page S4135]]

share of reconstruction funds. That is important. That should be done.

  Finally, it puts us on a track, a flexible track, for exit and moving 
our troops out of that situation. That is what we ought to do. 
Certainly, it was mentioned on the floor that preserving peace in 
Kosovo is important. That is not the issue. The issue is how do we do 
that. Everyone knows it is important to have peace there. I think we 
can do that through this system. It will solve both the constitutional 
question and the question of direction.
  I urge my colleagues oppose the Levin amendment and support the Byrd-
Warner amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Thomas). The Senator from Georgia is 
recognized.
  Mr. REID. If the Senator will yield, it is my understanding Senator 
Cleland is taking time off the other side.
  Mr. WARNER. That is correct. I say with some dismay, we have been 
trying to alternate. If the tactic here is to hold those in opposition 
until the end, I think an element of fairness in this debate may be 
slipping away.
  Mr. REID. I say to my friend from Virginia, there is no reason to be 
suspect of anything. We had a speaker lined up who you persuaded not to 
speak. It threw us out of queue. We have Senator Cleland ready to 
speak.
  Mr. WARNER. I had to make that case.
  Mr. LEVIN. Regarding that change, we are happy to have two or three 
of our speakers in a row when the Senator from Georgia is finished.
  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I echo the marvelous remarks of the 
distinguished Senator from Wyoming, and my seatmate, the great 
distinguished Senator from Wisconsin, and others who support the Byrd-
Warner amendment.
  The question is, simply put: Will the Congress of the United States 
step forward and help this Government articulate an exit strategy of 
our military might out of Kosovo and out of the Balkans ultimately or 
will we not?
  I just got back from a trip to Western Europe, particularly to 
Kosovo. I visited Brussels. I talked to NATO leaders. I visited the 
Aviano Air Base in Italy where I met with some who flew the incredible 
air missions in the war. I went to Macedonia and saw the areas where 
more than 100,000 refugees were, and into Kosovo itself and up on the 
Serbian border. We then exited through London. I came back with a 
definite impression that unless this country articulates its own exit 
strategy, particularly for our military forces, there will be no exit 
strategy. Our allies are quite willing for us to stay there forever and 
ever and ever.
  I met with the distinguished Deputy Secretary General of NATO in 
Brussels. He looked at me and said: I can't count on one hand the 
number of years NATO will have to be in Kosovo. People in the United 
States have to accept that you are a European power whether you like it 
or not, both in Europe and the Balkans.
  I believe very strongly that we have borne the brunt of war. Seventy 
percent of the air missions in that war in Kosovo were ours. It was 
American airpower and American mobility and technology that actually 
won that war. I supported that. I voted on the floor of this great body 
for air and missile strikes against Milosevic. I have also voted for 
the accession of the Czech Republic, Poland, and Hungary to come into 
NATO. I, by no means, want to abdicate the role of the United States in 
filling the power vacuum in Eastern Europe left by the fall of the 
Soviet Union. By the same token, I came back with a couple of clear 
senses that I carry in my mind of what our American role should be. 
First, before we went in a helicopter into Kosovo, an Army colonel 
said: Look out the windows. There is a Roman aqueduct. I thought: I'm 
flying over terrain where Alexander the Great and his father, Philip 
II, made wars in Macedonia and that part of the world in 300 B.C. Then 
the Romans were there. Later the Turks were there. And now we are 
there.
  I respectfully submit, what thousands of years of foreign occupation 
have failed to do to that area, we will fail to do. So I specifically 
support the Byrd-Warner language which allows 75 percent of the more 
than $2 billion contained in the supplemental appropriations title for 
Kosovo operations to be released immediately and unconditionally for 
such operations.
  I do support these operations now. But the remaining 25 percent would 
be withheld pending a certification by the President, due by July 15 of 
this year, that our European allies are making significant progress in 
meeting their overall commitments for economic reconstruction, 
humanitarian assistance, administrative expenses, and police forces for 
Kosovo.
  I understand our European allies did not have the capability, in 
terms of technology or maneuverability or mobility, to mass in an 
offensive attack against the forces of Milosevic. But I also understand 
they do have the ability to provide economic reconstruction aid. As a 
matter of fact, the European Union is stepping forward with $2.3 
billion. I applaud that. They have the capability for humanitarian 
assistance, and that is forthcoming. They do have the ability to 
provide police forces for Kosovo. These are things our European allies 
can do and should do.
  Furthermore, the amendment requires the President to develop and 
report to the Congress a plan to turn over all peacekeeping operations 
in Kosovo to those allies by July 1, 2001. This is the plan that is due 
by July 1, 2001, not the withdrawal of American forces. But at least 
this is a plan; it is an exit strategy.
  How do we get to this point? The U.S. Constitution says the Congress 
declares war. The Congress raises money for our Army and our Navy. It 
is the Congress that is the ultimate, final authority on whether young 
men and women are committed in harm's way.
  Finally, by that day, July 1, 2001, the Byrd-Warner language requires 
the termination of funding for the continued deployment of U.S. ground 
combat troops in Kosovo unless the President seeks and obtains specific 
congressional authorization for a continuation of such deployment.
  I am open to reasoned argument by any President on our role there, 
but I think the Congress ought to make that decision.
  As Senator Warner said in explaining the authors' intent, the Byrd-
Warner language reflects two concerns:

       the indefinite commitment of our troops into the Kosovo 
     situation and that indefinite commitment not being backed up 
     by the affirmative action of the Congress of the United 
     States which has a clear responsibility to act when we send 
     young men and women in harm's way.

  I have just returned from a trip to Brussels and Kosovo where I met 
with key military leaders from the U.S., European nations and NATO. On 
that trip, I was discussing the role of the United States in Europe 
with the Deputy Secretary of NATO, Sergio Balanzio, when he told me 
that the United States is, ``a European power whether you like it or 
not--not only in Europe but in the Balkans too.'' I responded that it 
is one thing to be on the point of the spear and to bear the heavy load 
in certain cases, as the U.S. did in Bosnia and Kosovo, but quite 
another to always be called upon to ride to the rescue, even in Europe 
itself.
  A large portion of the military operation in Kosovo was supplied by 
the United States, and I believe it is now time to ``Europeanize'' the 
peace in Bosnia and Kosovo. While the soldiers I spoke with at Camp 
Bondsteel certainly displayed high morale, reflected in the excellent 
job they have done, if we stay in the Balkans indefinitely, with no 
clear way out, I believe we run an increasing risk of further 
overextending our military thus exacerbating our recruitment and 
retention problems and lessening our capability to respond to more 
serious challenges to our vital national interests. The Byrd-Warner 
amendment will help Europeanize the peace, unless and until a 
compelling and vital American interest can be identified which would 
justify our continued deployment of ground forces, and I will be 
pleased to support it.
  However, I must add that, while this amendment does indeed address 
our military problem in Kosovo and does indeed reassert the 
constitutional responsibilities of Congress with respect to that 
problem, it does not address the underlying situation in Kosovo and is 
silent on the similar problem right across the border in Bosnia. From 
my perspective, the basic problem in the Balkans today is political, 
not military, and requires a political rather than military solution. 
And, in the

[[Page S4136]]

same way as the United States took the lead in military operations, it 
is now time for the U.S. to lead in finding a political solution. 
Essentially, at this point in time, the various communities wish to 
live apart and exercise self-determination along ethnic lines. I would 
agree that such a development is unfortunate and not in keeping with 
our American view of the way the world should be. However, for any 
solution to the current situation to be acceptable to the parties 
directly involved--and thus durable--this inescapable fact must be 
taken into account.
  On June 30 of last year, the Senate accepted by voice vote my 
amendment to the foreign operations appropriations bill which expressed 
``the sense of the Senate that the United States should call 
immediately for the convening of an international conference on the 
Balkans'' to develop a final political settlement of both the Kosovo 
and Bosnia conflicts.
  I ask unanimous consent that the full text of my amendment be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Amendment No. 1163 to S. 1234, Fiscal Year 2000 Foreign Operations 
                             Appropriations

      (Adopted by the Senate by unanimous consent, June 30, 1999)

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. SENSE OF THE SENATE REGARDING AN INTERNATIONAL 
                   CONFERENCE ON THE BALKANS.

       (a) Findings.--The Senate makes the following findings:
       (1) The United States and its allies in the North Atlantic 
     Treaty Organization (NATO) conducted large-scale military 
     operations against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
       (2) At the conclusion of 78 days of these hostilities, the 
     United States and its NATO allies suspended military 
     operations against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia based 
     upon credible assurances by the latter that it would fulfill 
     the following conditions as laid down by the so called Group 
     of Eight (G-8):
       (A) An immediate and verifiable end of violence and 
     repression in Kosovo.
       (B) Staged withdrawal of all Yugoslav military, police, and 
     paramilitary forces from Kosovo.
       (C) Deployment in Kosovo of effective international and 
     security presences, endorsed and adopted by the United 
     Nations Security Council, and capable of guaranteeing the 
     achievement of the agreed objectives.
       (D) Establishment of an interim administration for Kosovo, 
     to be decided by the United Nations Security Council which 
     will seek to ensure conditions for a peaceful and normal life 
     for all inhabitants in Kosovo.
       (E) Provision for the safe and free return of all refugees 
     and displaced persons from Kosovo and an unimpeded access to 
     Kosovo by humanitarian aid organizations.
       (3) These objectives appear to have been fulfilled, or to 
     be in the process of being fulfilled, which has led the 
     United States and its NATO allies to terminate military 
     operations against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
       (4) The G-8 also called for a comprehensive approach to the 
     economic development and stabilization of the crisis region, 
     and the European Union has announced plans for $1,500,000,000 
     over the next 3 years for the reconstruction of Kosovo, for 
     the convening in July of an international donors' conference 
     for Kosovo aid, and for subsequent provision of 
     reconstruction aid to the other countries in the region 
     affected by the recent hostilities followed by reconstruction 
     aid directed at the Balkans region as a whole.
       (5) The United States and some of its NATO allies oppose 
     the provision of any aid, other than limited humanitarian 
     assistance, to Serbia until Yugoslav President Slobodan 
     Milosevic is out of office.
       (6) The policy of providing reconstruction aid to Kosovo 
     and other countries in the region affected by the recent 
     hostilities while withholding such aid for Serbia presents a 
     number of practical problems, including the absence in Kosovo 
     of financial and other institutions independent of 
     Yugoslavia, the difficulty in drawing clear and enforceable 
     distinctions between humanitarian and reconstruction 
     assistance, and the difficulty in reconstructing Montenegro 
     in the absence of similar efforts in Serbia.
       (7) In any case, the achievement of effective and durable 
     economic reconstruction and revitalization in the countries 
     of the Balkans is unlikely until a political settlement is 
     reached as to the final status of Kosovo and Yugoslavia.
       (8) The G-8 proposed a political process towards the 
     establishment of an interim political framework agreement for 
     a substantial self-government for Kosovo, taking into full 
     account the final Interim Agreement for Peace and Self-
     Government in Kosovo, also known as the Rambouillet Accords, 
     and the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity 
     of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the other countries 
     of the region, and the demilitarization of the UCK (Kosovo 
     Liberation Army).
       (9) The G-8 proposal contains no guidance as to a final 
     political settlement for Kosovo and Yugoslavia, while the 
     original position of the United States and the other 
     participants in the so-called Contact Group on this matter, 
     as reflected in the Rambouillet Accords, called for the 
     convening of an international conference, after 3 years, to 
     determine a mechanism for a final settlement of Kosovo status 
     based on the will of the people, opinions of relevant 
     authorities, each Party's efforts regarding the 
     implementation of the agreement and the provisions of the 
     Helsinki Final Act.
       (10) The current position of the United States and its NATO 
     allies as to the final status of Kosovo and Yugoslavia calls 
     for an autonomous, multiethnic, democratic Kosovo which would 
     remain as part of Serbia, and such an outcome is not 
     supported by any of the Parties directly involved, including 
     the governments of Yugoslavia and Serbia, representatives of 
     the Kosovar Albanians, and the people of Yugoslavia, Serbia 
     and Kosovo.
       (11) There has been no final political settlement in 
     Bosnia-Herzegovina, where the Armed Forces of the United 
     States, its NATO allies, and other non-Balkan nations have 
     been enforcing an uneasy peace since 1996, at a cost to the 
     United States alone of over $10,000,000,000, with no clear 
     end in sight to such enforcement.
       (12) The trend throughout the Balkans since 1990 has been 
     in the direction of ethnically based particularism, as 
     exemplified by the 1991 declarations of independence from 
     Yugoslavia by Slovenia and Croatia, and the country in the 
     Balkans which currently comes the closest to the goal of a 
     democratic government which respects the human rights of its 
     citizens is the nation of Slovenia, which was the first 
     portion of the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia to 
     secede and is also the nation in the region with the greatest 
     ethnic homogeneity, with a population which is 91 percent 
     Slovene.
       (13) The boundaries of the various national and sub-
     national divisions in the Balkans have been altered 
     repeatedly throughout history, and international conferences 
     have frequently played the decisive role in fixing such 
     boundaries in the modern era, including the Berlin Congress 
     of 1878, the London Conference of 1913, and the Paris Peace 
     Conference of 1919.
       (14) The development of an effective exit strategy for the 
     withdrawal from the Balkans of foreign military forces, 
     including the armed forces of the United States, its NATO 
     allies, Russia, and any other nation from outside the Balkans 
     which has such forces in the Balkans is in the best interests 
     of all such nations.
       (15) The ultimate withdrawal of foreign military forces, 
     accompanied by the establishment of durable and peaceful 
     relations among all of the nations and peoples of the Balkans 
     is in the best interests of those nations and peoples.
       (16) An effective exit strategy for the withdrawal from the 
     Balkans of foreign military forces is contingent upon the 
     achievement of a lasting political settlement for the region, 
     and that only such a settlement, acceptable to all parties 
     involved, can ensure the fundamental goals of the United 
     States of peace, stability, and human rights in the Balkans;
       (b) Sense of the Senate.--It is the sense of the Senate 
     that--
       (1) The United States should call immediately for the 
     convening of an international conference on the Balkans, 
     under the auspices of the United Nations, and based upon the 
     principles of the Rambouillet Accords for a final settlement 
     of Kosovo status, namely that such a settlement should be 
     based on the will of the people, opinions of relevant 
     authorities, each Party's efforts regarding the 
     implementation of the agreement and the provisions of the 
     Helsinki Final Act;
       (2) The international conference on the Balkans should also 
     be empowered to seek a final settlement for Bosnia-
     Herzegovina based on the same principles as specified for 
     Kosovo in the Rambouillet Accords; and
       (3) In order to produce a lasting political settlement in 
     the Balkans acceptable to all parties, which can lead to the 
     departure from the Balkans in timely fashion of all foreign 
     military forces, including those of the United States, the 
     international conference should have the authority to 
     consider any and all of the following: political boundaries; 
     humanitarian and reconstruction assistance for all nations in 
     the Balkans; stationing of United Nations peacekeeping forces 
     along international boundaries; security arrangements and 
     guarantees for all of the nations of the Balkans; and 
     tangible, enforceable and verifiable human rights guarantees 
     for the individuals and peoples of the Balkans.

  Mr. CLELAND. Mr. President, I truly believe that such an approach is 
best, if not the only, way to resolve the difficulties in Bosnia and 
Kosovo--allowing our troops eventually to come home but avoiding an 
unacceptable security vacuum in southeast Europe--and is definitely in 
the best interest of the United States and Europe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague from 
Georgia. He is on the Senate Armed Services Committee. He just 
exemplifies duty, honor, and country in every respect. I hope our 
colleagues take to

[[Page S4137]]

heart the message from this distinguished Senator and soldier-citizen 
of America.
  I will yield the floor after one procedural matter. As I understand 
it, the distinguished Senator from Oregon, Mr. Smith, will next address 
the Senate--if, after that, we could have our colleague from Texas for 
6 minutes?
  Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator will yield?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. As we indicated before, we had a number of Senators on the 
way. If we could have, now, two of ours, since my colleague had two or 
three of his in a row, it would be, I think, better order.
  Mr. WARNER. We were trying to rotate. Our colleague from Texas has 
been here about an hour.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I make an inquiry of the distinguished Senator from 
Michigan how long the next two would be, so I can determine if I could 
stay that long.
  Mr. LEVIN. I do appreciate that. Senator Smith would be 10 minutes 
and Senator Hagel 12 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. How does that convenience or inconvenience our colleague 
from Texas?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. After 22 minutes? If we could put that in stone?
  Mr. WARNER. We will just have that understood. I put the unanimous 
consent request.
  Mr. HAGEL. Mr. President, if it is a convenience to the distinguished 
Senator from Texas, I would be very happy to go after the Senator from 
Texas, if that helps her schedule.
  Mr. LEVIN. We don't have to etch the stone, then.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I am happy to wait beyond the Senator from Oregon for 
10 minutes and the Senator from Nebraska for 12 minutes. Then if we 
could get a unanimous consent, I would go next?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent we go in that 
order: Senator Smith for 10, Senator Hagel for 12, and then the Senator 
from Texas.
  Before the Senator from Georgia leaves, if I could just take 30 of my 
seconds to thank him for his constant contribution to the debates and 
to this body. While we disagree on this particular issue, it is not 
very easy for me; he always makes a major contribution, and we are 
grateful for it.
  Mr. WARNER. Will the Chair act on the unanimous consent request, and 
now with 7 minutes for the Senator from Texas?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair, without objection, enters the 
unanimous consent. There will be 10 minutes for the Senator from 
Oregon----
  Mr. WARNER. If I could take 20 seconds of my time just to advise 
Senators that the time remaining under the control of those proponents 
of keeping the amendment, namely Senators Byrd and Warner, has now 
diminished to the point where the time Senator Byrd and I have 
allocated between ourselves--that is, the time of the Senator from 
Virginia has all but expired, and the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia has, under a previous order, 1 hour remaining under his 
control. I just wish to advise the Senate of that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will observe there is a unanimous 
consent order that gives the opportunity to the Senator from Oregon to 
speak for 10 minutes, to be followed by the Senator from Nebraska for 
12 minutes. Is someone propounding another consent to change that 
consent?
  Mr. WARNER. I did not hear that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, it is my understanding part of the unanimous 
consent request is the Senator from Texas would follow Senator Hagel 
for 7 minutes. So there would be some order here, the Senator from 
Virginia could follow the Senator from Texas?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I will make a revised unanimous consent 
request, after talking with Senator Robb who just came in, and with 
gratitude to Senator Hagel. I ask unanimous consent for this order of 
speakers: Senator Smith of Oregon, then Senator Robb for 6 minutes, 
then Senator Hutchison, and then Senator Hagel.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Oregon is recognized.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, frankly, I am pleased, as we alternate back and forth, 
there are Republicans and Democrats not crossing on party lines but 
arguing a very important issue of what they feel, what they think, and 
how they perceive America's interests to be best served.
  I realize that many of my colleagues have spoken eloquently about the 
consequences that will result if the United States Senate supports the 
Byrd-Warner amendment. And though I may repeat some of their arguments 
this morning, I think it is critical that those of us who oppose this 
language state loudly and clearly that this is the wrong way to go.
  I spoke last week on this matter Mr. President. I said then that 
there may come a time when it is appropriate for the U.S. to withdraw 
from Kosovo--but that time is not now. We face enormous worldwide 
responsibilities, and I agree with those that feel the burden sometimes 
seems rather heavy. But that is not a reason for us to seriously 
jeopardize the most important and most successful Alliance in history.
  We are a European power. It is in our interests to maintain American 
leadership in Europe. And we have seen what happens when the U.S. 
chooses to come home after a bitter conflict has ended. I am confident 
that if the U.S. pulls out of Kosovo, as this legislation requires if 
the Congress does not authorize continued participation, we will be 
forced to return--under circumstances that will certainly not be as 
favorable as we face today. We have managed to create a situation where 
our troops certainly face threats in Kosovo, but the risks are 
relatively limited.
  By our action, by setting up the conditions under which American 
troops would withdraw from Kosovo next summer, we could trigger the 
very instability in Kosovo that we have managed to forestall thus far. 
I am not going to whitewash what is happening in Kosovo today. We have 
our work cut out for us in establishing a functioning administration 
there that respects the rights of minorities. But the situation is 
relatively stable, after over 10 years of disorder. We can only 
speculate, of course, as to what would transpire if we were to pull 
out. But there is a real possibility--one can almost say a 
probability--that the Kosovar Albanians would feel compelled to prepare 
for another assault by Serbian henchman directed by Slobodan Milosevic. 
Could our European allies adequately protect the Kosovar Albanians from 
this assault? I can not answer that definitively, but I will tell you 
that the Kosovars think that the answer is no. So we withdraw, the 
Kosovars rearm, Milosevic feels emboldened, and we are back where we 
started before the NATO air campaign began. Is that why we fought this 
war?
  Why do we want to jeopardize the peace? The 5,900 American soldiers 
that are participating in KFOR are making a critical contribution to 
maintaining peace in Kosovo. Our troops comprise approximately 15% of 
the total of KFOR. That seems to me to be a reasonable percentage for 
the U.S. to contribute. The European forces are making a difference in 
Kosovo--they are doing their job. But we should be willing to do ours 
as well.
  Mr. President, let me return to my principal concern with this 
amendment--the threat that it poses to U.S. leadership in Europe. I 
have met with five different Foreign Ministers from Europe over the 
past several weeks, and in these meetings I have emphasized the 
importance of maintaining the trans-Atlantic link. Our security is 
directly related to European security, whether we like that or not, and 
for us to signal to our Allies that we are unwilling to participate in 
securing the peace in Kosovo--when they are contributing 85% of the 
troops--inherently divides us from our Allies. I have criticized them 
for seeking to establish a separate defense structure that is not tied 
in with NATO at every step of the way.
  We should not encourage them in these efforts by indicating that we 
are an unreliable ally that cannot be counted on to stay the course. I 
do not think this should be an endless commitment, however, there 
should certainly be a drawdown in our forces as circumstances warrant 
and as Europeans do more in Kosovo. But we

[[Page S4138]]

should not make the determination now as to what our troops should do 
next year.

  I realize that the supporters of this amendment say that they are not 
calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Kosovo--that they are 
simply asking for an authorization. But Mr. President, with all due 
respect for my colleagues, their amendment forces the withdrawal of our 
forces unless positive action is taken by the Congress. I do not 
quibble with their complaints that the President did not ask for 
Congressional authorization for this mission. I agree with them: he 
should have done so. But is it in our interests to tie the hands of the 
next President? To force him to adopt a course of action because of a 
lack of Presidential leadership today? I think not.
  I am reminded of the early, tragic days of the war in Bosnia. As you 
recall, Mr. President, European troops were on the ground in Bosnia as 
part of the UN mission, but no American troops were there. As a result 
of the dramatically different risks we faced at that time, the U.S. and 
our Allies supported different approaches to deal with that conflict. 
We lost valuable time trying to coordinate our strategy--time when 
Bosnians of all ethnic groups were slaughtered. A strong Alliance is 
one where benefits and risks are shared, and that is the direction that 
we should be going now.
  Let me say, that I agree with my colleagues who have complained about 
unequal burdensharing. The Europeans were incredibly slow in approving 
their contributions to the Kosovo Consolidated Budget, their 
humanitarian and reconstruction assistance, and getting their police 
forces on the ground. I commend Senator Warner for his successful 
efforts at ensuring they get the picture. We have the right to expect 
that our European allies do their fair share consolidating the peace in 
Kosovo, particularly given the unequal burden borne by the U.S. during 
the war. And I believe that thanks to the distinguished Chairman of the 
Armed Services Committee, the Europeans now understand this and are 
taking steps to correct the problem.
  Mr. President, we must maintain American leadership in Europe. We 
should do our part in solidifying the progress we have seen in Kosovo. 
I urge my colleagues to support Senator Levin's motion to strike the 
Byrd-Warner language.
  Mr. President, I admire Senator Warner, the chairman of the Armed 
Services Committee. He is a great American and a great man. While I am 
not with him on this issue, it is a privilege to be with him on most 
issues.
  Also, I believe Senator Byrd, the other author of this amendment, is 
a man who stands uniquely among us as a defender of the prerogatives of 
the Senate. I appreciate that, I admire him for that, and I thank him 
for that.
  I believe it is Senator Warner's desire to protect our armed 
services, as is his charge, and I believe it is Senator Byrd's desire 
to protect the prerogatives of the Senate that has motivated this. I 
respect that. I say to them that they have already achieved much of 
what they hoped to do with this amendment, so this debate, this effort, 
is not in vain. I tell them respectfully now why I am not with them on 
this issue.
  I know that many Americans are weary of our involvement abroad, and I 
know that many would like to just go home. I actually believe the right 
political vote in this case would be to vote for a date certain with my 
colleagues on the other side to get out of Kosovo. I say to every 
American who cares about foreign policy or our standing in the world, 
this is not the right way; this is not the right instrument; this is 
not the right time for this branch of Government to interject itself 
with this kind of an amendment.
  I happen to have traveled to the Balkans at the height of the Kosovo 
conflict. I was privileged to travel with Senator Hutchison of Texas in 
her codel where we visited many of the surrounding countries of Kosovo. 
I remember when we went to Hungary, we were standing on the balcony of 
the Foreign Ministry of Hungary, and the Foreign Minister came up to 
me--this is a beautiful setting, overlooking the Danube--and he said: 
Senator Smith, I did not realize when we were admitted to the NATO 
alliance that we would be at war a few days later, but we are thrilled 
to be a member of NATO, and we are proud to stand with the United 
States of America.

  I drew him out and said: Why do you say that, Mr. Foreign Minister?
  He said: We are proud to stand with the United States because the 
United States is a nation uniquely positioned in world history; that we 
are unique in that we have the capacity to fight for values and not 
just to fight for somebody's treasure or somebody's territory.
  I was proud of my country when he said that.
  I found myself a few days later in Macedonia. When we were there, we 
were at the point where, coming out of Kosovo through a pass in the 
mountains, literally tens of thousands of refugees were pouring into 
two camps. We went to the second camp. There were 50,000 people there. 
It was arranged that each of the Senators would have an hour there with 
interpreters.
  We went through the camp talking to the refugees, examining the 
conditions of the people, and hearing their concerns. I became aware 
about halfway through my visit that there were three little girls 
following me around as though I was from Mars. They looked at me with 
some degree of awe and wonder.
  Before we boarded the buses, I decided to try and engage them in a 
conversation. I was delighted to find that one of the little girls who 
was 10 years old could speak reasonably good English. I said to her: 
Would you like to go home?
  She said: I'd love to go home, but I can't; there are very scary 
people there.
  Then I said to her: Well, if you can't go home, would you like to go 
to America? And her eyes lit up with sparkles.
  She put her hands to her face and said: Oh, to be a little girl in 
America.
  I will never forget that expression. I thought of my own little girl 
all the way home. I wonder what has happened to that little girl. She 
did not come to America, but she was able to go home because the United 
States was there.
  The United States is in Europe. The world is better because after the 
Second World War, the United States learned from a mistake and did not 
repeat the mistake of the First World War. We did not go home. We 
stayed there as a beacon of stability that Europe has needed and I 
believe still needs.
  The Europeans are beginning to feel a need for more security of their 
own. I have cautioned them: Be careful as you set up these European 
defense identities that you do it within the context of NATO or you 
will begin to decouple the United States from NATO. Be careful about 
this.
  My concern is heightened because as they talk of setting up these new 
structures, they are all cutting their defense budgets. It appears to 
me they are setting up a paper lion.
  We made a commitment to go into Yugoslavia. If anything should be 
criticized, it may be we should not have gone into Bosnia. We have 
elections for a reason. We elected a President of the United States, 
not of my party, but a President who decided it was in the America's 
interest as the leader of the NATO alliance to go into Bosnia, and we 
went. That job was complicated because Mr. Milosevic continued his 
mischievous ways, his murderous ways in a fashion that was unthinkable 
to the Western World that we should do nothing. In view of our own 
troops, we were watching people being exterminated.
  In the end, I decided to support President Clinton at this next level 
because I did not want to have to answer why, in the face of mass 
murder, I did not do anything.
  Lest Americans think it is all in vain, it is not. Things are not 
great in Kosovo, but they are much better than when we found them.
  The benefit of Senator Warner's work is in this: The Europeans were 
slow off the mark in meeting their commitments financially and in 
troops, but they are now. They are putting in the resources, and they 
are manning 85 percent of the burden there. We have 15 percent, a 
little over 5,000 troops, there. Is that in vain? Is it appropriate for 
us now to set an arbitrary cutoff time and, with the blunt instrument 
of the budget, to say we have had enough, we are going home? I say with 
all respect, if we do that, we will somewhat be saying to the Europeans 
what they are saying to us; that

[[Page S4139]]

we are ready to delink the United States and NATO.
  I do not want to do that yet. The day may come when we can say it is 
time to go home, and the Europeans will be in a position where they can 
handle it on their own. I do not believe that day has yet arrived.
  I tell my colleagues and I plead with all Americans to understand 
that while we can take for granted the peace, the security, and the 
prosperity of this land, most of the world looks to us as an example 
and with some envy and some hope that they may someday have what we now 
enjoy. If America says we are going home, I believe that vacuum will be 
so enormous, it will be filled not with an ideology but with a whole 
bunch of tyrants.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. If I may have but a few more minutes, I will 
conclude.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 2 additional minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Oregon. I do not want to see that vacuum filled by 
people who do not share the values of Western Civilization as we know 
it in Western Europe and in the United States of America. I believe the 
Europeans are beginning to do their duty and we ought to continue to do 
ours.
  I also would like to conclude with an anecdote from campaigning with 
Governor Bush on Tuesday in Oregon, in which he assured me his 
opposition to this was not about getting America's withdrawal from 
Yugoslavia but to do it in a reasoned way, in a bipartisan way, and in 
a way that does not compromise the long-term security interests of the 
United States, which is now inseparably linked to Europe.
  So I plead with my colleagues to vote for the McCain-Levin amendment 
to strike. I believe this is in the country's interests, in the world's 
interests, and certainly in the interests of Kosovo.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia has 6 minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. Would the Senator yield?
  Mr. ROBB. Of course.
  Mr. LEVIN. I will take 30 seconds, on my time, to thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Robb from Virginia, I believe, 
according to the unanimous consent agreement, has 6 minutes at this 
time.
  Mr. ROBB. I yield to the distinguished Senator from Michigan on his 
time, as requested.
  Mr. LEVIN. I take 30 seconds, on my time, to thank the Senator from 
Oregon for his very thoughtful and very heartfelt statement, based on a 
tremendous amount of study of Europe.
  I also ask unanimous consent that Senator Voinovich be recognized 
after the conclusion of Senator Hagel's remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be given 1 
minute prior to Senator Robb.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my colleague for his kind remarks. 
But I want to draw the attention of the Senate to the fact that we--the 
U.S. taxpayers--have already spent $4.5 billion on this Kosovo 
operation. The President did not ask for any money for the year 2000. 
That is why we are faced with this supplemental of another $2 billion. 
So $4.5 billion plus $2 billion is $6.5 billion. Then the authorization 
bill, which we are now working on, and the appropriations for the next 
fiscal year, has another $1.6 to $1.7 billion.
  Wake up, colleagues. We are shoveling money out of here as fast as we 
can swing our arms, without giving, I think, due consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. WARNER. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I join my distinguished colleague from 
Michigan in recognizing the eloquence of the statement just made, very 
much from the heart, by the Senator from Oregon. I concur in his 
remarks.
  Once again we are on the floor of the Senate debating the strength of 
the U.S. commitment to peace and stability in the Balkans, and once 
again we are being asked to weigh the benefits and costs of our current 
commitments.
  I do not like to find myself at odds, especially on national security 
matters, with my friend and senior colleague from Virginia. We share so 
many of the values that shape our view of the world and the critical 
role of the United States in that world. We also share an unshakeable 
conviction in the importance of the moral and physical leadership of 
the United States in a dangerous world and the belief that a strong 
United States is the best guarantor of peace.
  Likewise, I have enormous respect for the other coauthor of the 
amendment which is currently incorporated in the military construction 
appropriations bill we are now considering. There is no other Member of 
this body who is more knowledgeable, when it comes to the history of 
our Constitution, or who has fought harder to uphold the constitutional 
role of the Congress and of this body in relation to the executive 
branch than the senior Senator from West Virginia.
  I understand and share our colleagues' frustration with the costs of 
our commitments in the Balkans, not just in terms of dollars but also 
the wear and tear on our armed forces around the world.
  I understand and share our colleagues' frustration with the glacial 
pace of progress toward reconstruction in Kosovo and the establishment 
of a capable civil police force. But we knew the risks going into this 
effort to stop the killing and give peace a chance to take hold in this 
troubled land. We know from experience that these types of efforts defy 
deadlines. We know from experience the consequences of setting 
conditions that let other countries control our destiny.
  Each time we have debated deadlines, I have argued against them. Each 
time we have proposed statutorily binding deadlines, I have voted 
against them. I believe the provisions in this bill establishing a 
deadline for the withdrawal of ground troops from Kosovo undermine U.S. 
leadership around the world and raise understandable anxiety about our 
commitment to peace and stability in the Balkans. They play directly 
into the hands of those in the region who depend on conflict and chaos 
to achieve their ends.
  The situation in Kosovo defies a simple calculus for withdrawal of 
U.S. forces. The situation in Kosovo defies a simple calculus for those 
whose burdens are greater or smaller, fair or unfair.
  We know from experience that the requirement of our physical presence 
and our relative share of the burden will shift with changing 
conditions on the ground--either through reduced threats or improved 
stability.
  Setting statutory deadlines now, in my judgment, will only undermine 
the confidence of our allies. Setting statutory deadlines now will only 
shake the world's confidence in our leadership. Setting statutory 
deadlines now will only encourage those who oppose peace and stability 
in the region.
  The deadline framework established by this provision in the military 
construction bill tells our adversary what combination of actions or 
manipulation of conditions by which he can ``control'' U.S. and NATO 
policy.
  Although the authors argue that this provision has no automatic 
triggers and that there are escape clauses allowing the Congress to 
undo what this provision would do, the advantage of knowing the limit 
of our commitment transfers the advantage and the leverage to our 
adversary.
  Under this provision, July 1 becomes a magic date--either this year 
or next; or some other date, if it happens to be switched in 
conference--against which he can plan, organize, and execute efforts to 
pursue regional destabilization.
  Under this provision, in the mind of our adversary, we trade the 
certainty of our commitment to stability, and our military capability 
to enforce it, for the certain knowledge of our limited determination 
and the eventual unhinging of the political and military cohesion of 
our coalition.
  I am concerned that regardless of when the deadlines may be set in 
this provision, our perceived lack of will could put at risk militarily 
our coalition troops on the ground in Kosovo.

[[Page S4140]]

  I have been proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with my friend and 
senior colleague on many issues involving our Nation's national 
security interests. But I cannot do so on this issue because I believe 
it would undermine our position of world leadership and place us in an 
untenable position regarding the Balkans.
  In support of our men and women in uniform in the field, and of 
America's enduring open-ended commitment to peace and stability, I 
must, therefore, oppose the provision currently included in the bill 
and urge our colleagues to support the motion to strike offered by the 
ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
  With that, Mr. President, I believe my time has expired. If not, I 
reserve any remaining time.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield myself 60 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague for his kind personal references. 
Indeed, we have worked together as a team. On this one, we divide.
  Regarding his concluding remarks on world leadership, in this debate 
we are constantly talking about our allies. I am concerned about the 
hometowns in Virginia that are shoveling out taxpayer funds, billions 
and billions of dollars. I have already added it up--well over $6 
billion.
  There has really been no debate or action in this Senate. We have an 
obligation in the Congress to speak before we shovel these funds out in 
incredible sums. It is from the towns and villages in our State and 
other States from whence we get these brave young men and women, who 
put on these uniforms, as the Senator and I have in the past, and march 
forth from the shores of our country into harm's way. I think Congress 
has to stand up and be accountable in those decisions and support the 
President. I have no fear that this institution will support the next 
President of the United States in his request, if he comes forward and 
says: It is my intention not to just leave this indefinitely but here 
is my plan to keep our troops over there.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 15 seconds to 
respond to my colleague.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am happy to yield 15 seconds to the 
Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished senior colleague. 
We agree on so many things. Sometimes we have to consider the cost of 
doing nothing as opposed to the cost of doing what we are doing. It is 
in that context that I view this particular dilemma we face. I 
certainly share my distinguished senior colleague's commitment to 
finding a way to maintain our commitments to peace in the world.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas is recognized.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I have been on the floor for a long 
time this morning. I will address two major points I keep hearing 
because it is important that we refute those points.
  First, we are not setting a deadline. We are not withdrawing troops. 
The Byrd-Warner amendment says we are voting to make the decision, 
after plenty of time for the President and our allies, consulting with 
Congress, to make a plan. We are setting a timetable in which we would 
have the opportunity to set a plan, and that timetable will probably be 
October or December of next year. Then after we have a plan from the 
President, we will have a vote on that plan and on the long-term 
strategy.
  Every time Congress exercises its responsibility to do what it is 
required to do under the Constitution, which is declare war and support 
the Army and the Navy, the administration and many on the other side 
say: What kind of signal does that send? What kind of signal does that 
send to our allies? What kind of signal does that send to that terrible 
tyrant Milosevic?
  No. 2, they say setting a deadline is irresponsible. I will answer 
both of those questions.
  We are sending a message. We are sending a message to our allies and 
to President Milosevic. It is a clear message, and it says, America is 
going to lead. America is going to come in and bring all the parties to 
the table, and we are going to formulate a policy. We are going to 
lead.
  It says, our goal is a lasting peace in the Balkans, not an unending 
morass of indecision that wears out our troops, debilitates our own 
national security, and does not help our allies or the Serb people at 
all. It says to Milosevic, we are serious and we are going to formulate 
a plan. The President of the United States should take the lead and 
consult with our allies and consult with Congress, as is required in 
the Constitution.
  Our policy in the Balkans has been drifting. Ever since I came to 
Congress 7 years ago, it has been drifting because the administration 
has never come to Congress and said: This is my plan; will you approve 
it? Instead, he spends money from the Defense budget with no 
authorization and then comes in and asks for emergency funds to 
replenish the Department of Defense. Of course, we are going to vote 
yes. Of course, we are going to replenish the funds that have already 
been spent so our troops will be paid and our equipment will be 
updated. Is this Senate going to allow our troops to be deployed on a 
mission that has never been laid out? Is that a responsible action of 
the Senate? The answer is no. The Byrd-Warner amendment is taking the 
responsible action for the Senate.
  I will answer question No. 2: Setting a deadline is irresponsible. 
This is the bait and switch. This is what they say every time. If you 
set a deadline, you are irresponsible. How could you do that and cut 
and run from our allies? But if you say, OK, we are not setting a 
deadline, we are going to say, 1 year from now, we have a timetable 
that begins the process for a plan and then, once you have the plan on 
the table, you have an orderly process to implement that plan.
  This is not a vote to withdraw troops. It is not a vote to cut and 
run. It is not a vote to even have a deadline. It is a vote to take the 
responsibility to approve a plan for a lasting peace in the Balkans. 
This is a vote to be a responsible and strong ally and a formidable 
enemy. It is a vote that asks the same of our allies in return, that 
they be strong and reliable allies.

  It is a vote to take the responsibility in the Senate for our own 
national defense. I ask the question of my colleagues: If we do not 
take the responsibility for our national security, if we do not take 
the responsibility when we see that we cannot recruit and retain 
members of our armed services today, if we don't take the 
responsibility for addressing that problem, who will? Which of our 
allies will step up to the line and say, we are worried about your 
national security deteriorating? Which of our allies is going to step 
up to the line and say, I am concerned that you are not providing the 
nuclear umbrella that we must have and that only you can provide?
  The buck stops here. The Byrd-Warner amendment says we are up to the 
task. We will defend our own troops in the field, to give them a 
mission and a timetable and a responsible plan under which they can 
operate. We will be a strong, reliable, and stable ally for all of our 
friends. We will formulate a plan that is responsible as a superpower 
should. We will no longer have emergency funds that refill coffers of 
money that have already been spent on a mission that is not spelled 
out. We will no longer be irresponsible. We will take the 
responsibility that has been put on our shoulders by the people of our 
States.
  A vote for the Byrd-Warner amendment will do exactly what we were 
elected to do; that is, take the responsibility for our country and our 
allies.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized for 12 
minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield myself 20 seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. I compliment my distinguished colleague from Texas. It is 
very important that we get the type of message she has delivered today 
in the debate. I thank her.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized for 12 
minutes.
  Mr. HAGEL. I thank the Chair.

[[Page S4141]]

  Mr. President, I rise today to support the McCain-Levin amendment. 
Kosovo is complicated. It is frustrating, dangerous, and fragile.
  But I believe Kosovo and the Balkans are very clearly in the 
legitimate sphere of American security. As I listened to the debate 
last night and this morning--good, committed, informed debate--I 
believe we are not debating the congressional constitutional 
responsibility or authority in foreign policy. I don't think that is 
the issue. It seems to me that the issue which, in my opinion, comes 
down two ways, is: Is this action a wise and correct action at this 
time? Two, what are the consequences of this action?
  Make no mistake, there will be consequences. We are always confronted 
with imperfect choices. Conflict, peacekeeping, war, how you deal with 
these problems always represents an imprecise business. We don't know 
the answers. We don't know the outcomes. We don't know all the dangers 
and complications. These don't come in tidy little boxes, or wrapped up 
in easy-to-figure-out little equations. There are many unknowns. That 
is one of the reasons why it is very unwise and very dangerous to set 
arbitrary deadlines. They never work.
  Now, we have heard a lot this morning and last night about what our 
European allies have not done. Well, in the fairness of this debate, I 
think we should again remind those listening that, currently, America's 
ground troops in Kosovo represent less than 15 percent. Less than 15 
percent of all ground troops in Kosovo are American. That means 85 
percent of the ground troops are European--including, by the way, the 
Russians.
  I think something else that is relevant to this debate is the fact 
that we have been there in Kosovo in this capacity, a peacekeeping 
responsibility, for less than 1 year. If we want to take this to the 
logical conclusion of lack of congressional authority as to when, 
where, how, and how long we are going to commit our peacekeeping 
forces, then I suggest that we go back and have a good debate on Korea, 
and on Japan, and on Europe.
  We did have a debate on Kosovo last year, and we had a rather 
significant vote on moving forward in supporting the President's 
military action. Now, it stands to some reason that if we made that 
investment and we had that vote and the American public was tuned in, 
informed, educated, and their representatives were representing them in 
this body, they had some sense of where we were going with this. Are we 
going to walk away from what we achieved and have been achieving? It is 
messy, yes; uncertain, yes; fragile, yes; complicated, yes; but that is 
a very relevant point to this debate. Then what is connected to that 
question is, what happens next?
  Does anybody in this Chamber believe that the Byrd-Warner amendment, 
planning to plan to withdraw, is a policy? Withdrawal is not a policy. 
Why are we doing it now--less than 6 months before America elects a new 
President? We all of a sudden are quite agitated and excited about 
Kosovo. We have had some time to deal with this. So we will ask our new 
President to take office in a matter of months, at the same time 
forming a new national policy team, new security, foreign policy, 
working with new leaders, the Congress, the nuances and relationships 
that are all part of that, and imposed upon him, encumbering him, is 
this arbitrary deadline and this plan to withdraw. I don't think that 
is responsible. We leave this new President little latitude, little 
flexibility.
  What about the magnitude and seriousness of this debate? If this is 
so important, why has it not been brought before the Foreign Relations 
Committee? Certainly, the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate 
should have some responsibility in this debate. We have not had 1 
minute of debate on this. This came up in an Appropriations Committee 
meeting, with no formal notice, and boom. This is responsible 
policymaking? I don't think so. This is not a thoughtful approach to 
something this serious.

  We need to listen to those who have responsibility for our troops on 
the ground. General Clark and others have had the interest of our young 
men and women as their main responsibility. What do they say about 
this? They have said it is irresponsible, with dangerous consequences. 
A heavy, dark cloud of dangerous uncertainty hangs over this debate. 
What are the other consequences? Yes, there will be a vacuum. But there 
are connecting rods as well here. Does anybody doubt, if we would pass 
this, that this would not have an effect on Milosevic and others like 
him, and their interpretation, and their waiting game, and all that 
they would do to wait us out? Of course not.
  Let's get real. Let's get real in this body. This isn't theory. Does 
anybody doubt that this would not have a responsible consequence to our 
relationship with our NATO allies, at the very time we are trying to 
convince our NATO allies to go with us on a national missile defense 
system--and we will need that concurrence and cooperation with our NATO 
allies if we are going to, in fact, go forward with a ground-based 
national missile defense system because we will need some radar sites. 
Does this have an effect on that? Of course. Does it have an effect on 
our new relationship with the President of Russia? Of course it does. 
Does it have an effect on how the Chinese and the Taiwanese see 
America's commitment to its allies? Of course it does. These are big 
issues out here, Mr. President. We better understand the bigger 
picture. There will certainly be consequences in the Balkans. Do we 
think if we do leave, we plan to leave the Balkans better than we found 
it? I don't think so.
  America's word means something. America's commitment means something. 
I believe stability in Europe, stability in the Balkans is in the 
interest of America. There is legitimate debate on the other side, 
maybe, but I think it is in our interest. America has always 
represented hope, a better life, a better world. We have made the world 
better. Yes, we can debate all of our military conflicts, involvements, 
and engagements since World War II--Vietnam, Korea, Kuwait. Have we 
made mistakes? Yes, we have. But, generally, is the world better off, 
more peaceful, more prosperous, with more hope today because of 
America? Of course it is.
  There is one other thing we tend to forget: As the leader of the 
world, we will always be asked and be required to carry a heavier 
burden than any other nation. We may not like that; it may be unfair, 
but it is a fact. One of the reasons America is the greatest Nation on 
earth, in the history of man, is because we have had the unique ability 
to control our own destiny. How have we done that? We have done it 
because we were engaged; we were vigilant; we were strong. We anchored 
our country and our beliefs on principles, trusts, and values. Others 
have responded to that.
  These are all part of the dynamics of this debate.
  I do not want my 9-year-old daughter and 7-year-old son to inherit a 
world where America does not lead, if for no other reason, the next 
great power in the world may not be as benevolent or judicious as 
America has been with its power over the last 200 years. All of these 
dynamics are part of this equation. This body must be very serious in 
understanding that.
  Let Americans speak in November. Let our people speak. Elect a new 
President. That new President will begin a new, productive, positive 
relationship with the Congress. We can together work on a foreign 
policy that makes sense in a timely, effective way. That is the answer. 
That is a wiser course of action. That is a more responsible course of 
action than voting for the Byrd-Warner amendment.
  I might say before I end that it is because of Chairman Warner's 
efforts and leadership. That has been recounted last night and today. 
The Europeans have in fact stepped up each day, each month, to more and 
more responsibility to their obligations. And I thank the chairman for 
that. Rarely do I disagree with him, but in this case I do.
  I strongly encourage my colleagues to support the Levin amendment.
  I yield the floor. Thank you.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Ohio is to be recognized.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask for 60 seconds on my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague for his 
very important contribution to the debate.

[[Page S4142]]

It has been one of the best debates on foreign policy we have had in 
the Senate I think this year. I appreciate his references to the 
Senator from Virginia.
  We have accomplished much of what we set out to do in this amendment. 
I bring to the Senator's attention that yesterday there were 263 votes 
in the House of Representatives in support of the principles that are 
embodied in the Byrd-Warner amendment. The other body spoke just 
yesterday. But I say to my dear friend that I am willing to calculate 
we have spent close to $20 billion in Bosnia and Kosovo. I will place 
it in the Record.
  This is, in a sense, handing out another blank check for $1.8 billion 
in this supplemental for Kosovo with no clear, decisive action for the 
Congress requiring a strategy as to when our troops can hopefully be 
considered along with others to be withdrawn.
  I say to my good friend, how many of my colleagues are calling back 
home today to get the sentiments of hometown America and put them 
against----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia has consumed 1 
minute.
  Mr. WARNER. The sentiments expressed so fervently by those wanting to 
strike on behalf of our allies? There are 350-plus years of history, 
going back before World War II, of our steadfast alliance to our 
allies, and they can anticipate another 50 years. But on this, it is 
time for Congress to speak.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I ask unanimous consent I be allowed to speak for 1 minute 
on my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first I thank Senator Hagel for a statement 
which is very meaningful because of the broad picture he drew, and also 
the interrelationship between what we are voting on and the whole host 
of other issues that are connected to it and impacted by it, as well as 
for the life experience and the life study he has brought to these 
questions.
  In response to the good Senator from Virginia, I can only say what 
was voted on in the House yesterday is dramatically different from what 
we will be voting on. In addition to the funds that he made reference 
to that we have spent to avoid a wider war, even greater expenditures 
of funds have been well spent, in my judgment. And, indeed, the good 
chairman of our committee has been very supportive of those efforts.
  We should not pull back from the success which has been achieved 
because the American people have made a commitment to stability in the 
Balkans to avoid a much broader problem in Europe and around the world.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, we are approaching the one year 
anniversary of the end of the NATO air campaign in Kosovo. But just 
like a year ago, we find ourselves debating U.S. military involvement 
in Kosovo and what the U.S. mission in southeastern Europe should be.
  With respect to southeastern Europe, I believe the Byrd-Warner 
language that has been included in this Military Construction 
Appropriations bill is the wrong approach at the wrong time. In 
addition to our direct national security interests in Europe that would 
be threatened by this provision, our efforts to encourage the 
establishment of the rule of law, universal respect for minority rights 
and market economies throughout southeastern Europe would be devastated 
by the Byrd-Warner language.
  In the aftermath of the air war over Kosovo, we have an opportunity 
to work with the international community to integrate the nations of 
the region into the broader European community; an action I believe 
will help avoid the continuation of the bloodshed and destruction we've 
seen over the last decade. To effectively threaten a troop pull-out--
which the Byrd-Warner language does--jeopardizes our efforts to take 
advantage of the worldwide interest in the region, and our ability to 
make an historic positive change for the future in southeastern Europe.
  Mr. President, we have American military resources on the ground and 
in the skies in southeastern Europe with the specific intent of 
bringing peace and stability to the region.
  Unfortunately, the Byrd-Warner amendment will be viewed by friend and 
foe alike in the region as a unilateral troop pull-out of Kosovo and an 
end to the commitment the United States of America has made to our 
European allies to help bring peace to the war-torn Balkans.
  The Byrd-Warner language requires the next president to make a 
difficult determination on American presence in Kosovo soon after his 
election--a time when he should be working to establish and implement 
his foreign policy agenda for our nation with his senior management 
team including his National Security Advisor, Secretary of State, 
Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
  It will be a period when he will need to measure his allies and 
become intimately familiar with a myriad of foreign policy challenges. 
His decisions will have a wide national security impact and must not be 
made hastily, but that is what the Byrd-Warner language does.
  Mr. President, if we are to succeed in opposing aggression around the 
globe, we need to work with our allies. However, what the Byrd-Warner 
language would do is show our NATO allies that as far as peace and 
security in Europe is concerned, particularly in southeastern Europe, 
it is Congress' intention to extricate ourselves. I don't believe that 
is the message that the U.S. wants to convey.
  For those of my colleagues who are interested in seeing Europe take 
on more responsibility in southeastern Europe, the issue is, does the 
Byrd-Warner language help or hurt?
  I believe it would hurt, because I know that the Europeans have made 
the commitment, and are continuing to make the commitment, to their 
southeastern European neighbors.

  This past February, I was in Brussels to make my feelings known on 
the subject of fair-share burdensharing to the leadership of the 
European Union. I was pleasantly surprised to learn that the Europeans 
basically understand that unless the Balkan region is fully integrated 
into the broader European community, the region will ``Balkanize 
Europe.'' I was further pleased to see the Europeans taking the 
necessary steps that will eventually include the nations of the region 
in the EU and NATO.
  Of the total financial support committed to Kosovo by the 
international community, including humanitarian, development, economic 
recovery and reconstruction assistance, the U.S. has pledged 15 
percent, while the rest of the world has pledged 85 percent.
  Of the total amount pledged for the operations of the UN Mission in 
Kosovo, UNMIK, the EU and its member countries have pledged 74 percent, 
and the U.S. 13.2 percent.
  In addition, at the Stability Pact conference in Brussels this past 
March, four dozen countries and three dozen organizations pledged $2.3 
billion--well above the $1.7 billion goal to fund regional economic 
development and infrastructure projects in southeast Europe over the 
next twelve months. I believe this commitment represents one of the 
first positive steps that has been taken since the end of the air war 
towards restoring peace and stability to the region.
  What I am saying is: on the whole, the Europeans are meeting the 
challenge. They are supplying the funds and they understand the 
importance of involvement in the region. They are surpassing the 
thresholds established in the Byrd-Warner language.
  What the U.S. needs to do is encourage them. For those nations that 
are responding to the challenge, pat them on the back. And for those 
that aren't, coax them into contributing. We should be working with our 
allies in a cooperative fashion and not a confrontational one.
  We need to understand that while the Europeans are handling the bulk 
of the spending in the region, we must also be willing to come to the 
table to provide leadership and a little bit of a financial commitment. 
When I was in Brussels, the importance of the United States to provide 
leadership was underscored by members of NATO and the EU alike.
  In addition, our leadership is absolutely desired and sought by the 
benefactors of the Stability Pact. Just last week, I received a letter 
from the Bulgarian Minister of Foreign Affairs,

[[Page S4143]]

Nadezhda Mihailova, who reiterated the need for the United States to 
stay at the table. She said:

       . . . the importance of U.S. leadership in southeastern 
     Europe during reconstruction and beyond cannot be 
     overestimated--it is critical to the future success of the 
     region.

  It is imperative that we stay focused and interested in what happens 
in this region of the world.
  We should try to imagine what actions Slobodan Milosevic will take if 
he knows that the United States has given up its commitment to 
restoring peace in Kosovo. Imagine the last U.S. plane, the last 
armored personnel carrier, the last U.S. soldier leaving Kosovo. How 
confident can we be that Milosevic will not renew his reign of terror 
against the people of Kosovo in an effort to solidify his power. What 
if he moves aggressively into Montenegro to quell the Djukanovic threat 
in the vacuum created by the American withdrawal. What will the United 
States do then?

  We are also trying to get the Kosovo Albanian community, especially 
former members of the KLA, to support the rule of law and help 
establish a governmental framework to make it work. Can any of my 
colleagues imagine the psychological blow to this cause if they believe 
that the U.S. is pulling the plug and leaving? There is no way they 
will disarm. And, as a matter of fact, without U.S. support, the 
moderate factions could be swept-up into the arms of the zealots.
  Can you also imagine what the prospect a U.S. pull-out will have on 
the Kosovo Serbs who have not fled; who chose to stay and try to live 
in peace with the Kosovo Albanians? What about those we encouraged to 
stay to help be a part of the interim government? With Milosevic's 
campaign of ethnic cleansing still fresh in the minds of many Kosovo 
Albanians, what will become of the Kosovo Serbs without the protection 
of the United States? What will become of the fragile peace and the 
fledgling government that we are trying to establish? It is my belief 
that even the possibility of departure will destroy any chance for 
stability in Kosovo, as well as end the prospect of reconciliation in 
Kosovo.
  And what about extremist factions throughout the region, in Bosnia, 
Macedonia, Croatia, etc.--factions that have remained relatively 
dormant due to the U.S. presence? I think about Mr. Arber Xhaferi in 
Macedonia, one of the key leaders of the Albanian community there, 
who's working with President Boris Trajkovski to create a truly multi-
ethnic Macedonia. President Trajkovski's democratically elected 
government has made it clear that the ethnic Albanian community, which 
makes up roughly 25 percent to 30 percent of the population, is an 
integral and respected component of society.
  However, there is evidence of an extremist element within the ethnic 
Albanian community. These individuals are willing to resort to violence 
in order to destabilize the government of Macedonia, and put in its 
place a government run by Albanians, for Albanians. There is genuine 
concern in Macedonia, as well as other nations, that if the United 
States leaves southeastern Europe, the deterrent factor on the 
extremist elements will have been removed, allowing for further 
regional instability.
  Mr. President, I have the greatest respect for my distinguished 
colleagues, Senators Warner and Byrd, but their amendment to this bill 
puts us on a course that will unravel the prospect of a peaceful 
integration of southeastern Europe into the whole of Europe.
  We have the ability to help keep the peace in southeastern Europe, 
and I believe we should continue to provide our leadership and our fair 
share of the costs during the next several years as we deal with the 
transition in Kosovo and the fall from power of Slobodan Milosevic. We 
should ensure the countries of the region that we do care about their 
future, and that we understand how fragile the political situation is 
in countries like Bulgaria, Macedonia, Romania and Croatia. We need to 
let them know that we understand how important it is to support their 
new democratic leadership as they transition to multi-ethnic societies 
that respect human rights, the rule of law and which embrace market 
economies.
  A commitment on the part of the United States to the Balkans on all 
of these items will help ensure stability for generations to come. I 
believe by working together--Congress and the White House--we can come 
up with a solution that will allow for the United States to continue to 
live up to such a commitment in southeastern Europe.
  Our allies are willing to stay the course; they have made a 
commitment to southeastern Europe and have put their money where their 
mouth is. It's no time for us to leave them high and dry. It is not in 
the interest of our national security, our economic interests or the 
cause of peace in the world.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Levin amendment.
  Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will speak for a minute awaiting Senator 
Levin's appearance on the floor.
  As we approach the desk for this historic vote, and it will be a 
historic vote, I point out to my colleagues we have in the past 
contributed, in fiscal year 1999, $4.5 billion for this action in 
Kosovo. We are about to vote on, in a sense, another blank check, for 
$1.85 billion. In the bill I am working on and will bring to the floor 
hopefully next week and pass on to the appropriators, there is 
authorization for another $1.65 billion for a total of up to $8 billion 
for Kosovo.
  I think we have an obligation to the people of our Nation in hometown 
America who are paying this through their taxes, who are sending forth 
the young men and women into harm's way beyond our shores. We have an 
obligation to them. If we are going to vote to strike the Byrd-Warner 
amendment, in essence we are saying Congress is out of it. It is 
another blank check. Add up Bosnia; it is about $11 billion to $12 
billion. We are approaching $20 billion for U.S. participation in this 
critical part of the world.
  I certainly agree it is in our security interests to have been with 
NATO in Bosnia, then with NATO in Kosovo. We did the bulk of the 
fighting in the 78-day war. How proud we are of the men and women of 
the Armed Forces. Now we have an obligation to those serving today. For 
an indefinite commitment, there is no one who can come forth in this 
Chamber--and I ask anyone to come forth in this Chamber--and give any 
time expectation as to when this commitment terminates.
  The Byrd-Warner amendment, within the confines of the constitutional 
responsibility of the Congress, is trying to lay down a strategy and 
some information for the American people who are paying the bills and 
sending forth the troops. To strike this language is back to business 
as usual, blank checks which will total, just in Kosovo alone, $8 
billion.
  Then the section about our allies. They fought bravely with us to the 
extent they had the air assets, the lift assets, the highly technical 
guided ammunitions. They fought bravely. This is no disrespect to any 
soldier, sailor, airman, or marine of any nation that fought in that 
the 78-day war.
  In a sense, we are fighting for their own interest in knowing how 
long they are going to be there. No one can come to this floor and 
controvert the Senator from Virginia saying in January and February and 
March of this year they were falling behind in their commitments they 
made following that war to provide economic assistance, humanitarian 
assistance, police.
  We got their attention. I thank Senator Stevens, Senator Inouye. It 
was a bipartisan effort. Many Members came to the floor and laid in the 
Record the intention to bring this issue on the first legislative 
vehicle we could. That is before the Senate today, the requirement for 
our allies to fulfill their commitments. They are doing that. I am 
confident that the President can make the certification as required in 
a section of this amendment and certify that the allies have at long 
last met their commitments.
  This is a historic vote. It affects not only our commitments in this 
worldwide and important place in the Balkan region but all the other 
commitments. It will set a standard by which the Congress will have 
said that we are going to enter our decision power under the 
Constitution as we send forth men and women of the Armed Forces into 
harm's way and expend the taxpayers' money in such enormous sums.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?

[[Page S4144]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Fitzgerald). The Senator from Michigan has 
69 minutes and there is a total of 63 minutes for Senators Byrd and 
Warner.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself 1 minute.
  I happen to agree with the Senator and fought very hard with him to 
get the Europeans to do more. We have succeeded. They are not up to 85 
percent of the combat forces, which is exactly what we wanted them to 
do. They are coming across with more police because of the pressure we 
put on them. Senator Warner, I, and others put pressure on the 
Europeans to do more to carry through with their commitments. I think 
that pressure is useful.
  The language before the Senate has two parts. The first part says if 
they don't meet specified targets in a certain date, we are out of 
there--unless, of course, Congress decides to change its mind. What we 
are putting in place on automatic pilot, we are out of there unless 
certain, specific, commitments can be kept.
  The head of the Office of Management and Budget, by the way, has gone 
through the items and has said those specific items at this moment 
can't be certified, at least three out of four, for some very technical 
reason. But there is a second part to this. Even if the Europeans do 
all that is required by this amendment in the first half of it --or in 
half of it--we are pulling out anyway. The second part of the amendment 
says unless Congress changes its mind by next July, we are pulling our 
forces out of there.

  This is a totally inconsistent message in the language before us. 
Half the message is: You have to do certain things by certain dates, 
Europeans. The second half of the message is: Even if you do that, we 
are out of there. We need a plan, and unless the President requests and 
Congress authorizes, our troops are out of there. Those are 
inconsistent directions. It seems to me wrong for many reasons which 
have been outlined.
  I notice the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from West 
Virginia are on the floor. I do not know if the Senator from 
Connecticut is ready, and I do not know if the Senator from West 
Virginia is ready. But I inquire, perhaps of both of them, if I could, 
whether or not they both wish to proceed at this time. Could I ask the 
Senator from West Virginia?
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, I hope the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Mr. 
Lieberman, will proceed.
  I have a question, if I might ask the Senator.
  Mr. LEVIN. Would this be on the Senator's time?
  Mr. BYRD. No, it will be on the time of the Senator from Michigan. It 
is a very brief question. I am alluding to something the Senator said.
  Is the Senator under an impression that there has been no previous 
occasion when Congress has laid down a certain date and said after that 
date there would be no further moneys unless the President comes back 
and requests them and Congress authorizes?
  Mr. LEVIN. My guess is, and I could be wrong on this, that happened 
on two recent occasions at least. We properly, in my judgment, said 
troops must be out of Somalia by a certain date; troops must be out of 
Haiti by a certain date, period. We approved that and I supported that. 
This language is very different from that.
  Mr. BYRD. In what respect?
  Mr. LEVIN. This language says that we are deciding now that next year 
the troops must leave, unless--unless--later on Congress changes its 
mind. It is on automatic pilot. If the President does not request in a 
year, and unless the Congress authorizes in a year--in other words if 
the Congress does nothing, if the Congress does not change its mind--we 
are saying now that the troops are out of there in a year. That creates 
a year of very dangerous uncertainty, according to our recent 
commander, according to the head of NATO, according to the Secretary of 
Defense. It is that year of dangerous uncertainty which is being 
created here.
  This is not a question, if I may say on my time, of the power of 
Congress. I could not agree with the Senator from West Virginia more. 
We have the power to do what is being proposed. There is no doubt about 
it. We can set deadlines. We can set conditional deadlines. We can set 
deadlines which are going to take place unless something else happens.
  The question here is the wisdom--the wisdom of doing what is being 
proposed here, of deciding now that troops are going to come out of 
Kosovo, that they must be withdrawn unless, a year from now, the 
Congress changes its mind and decides to authorize it following a 
request from the President. What that precipitates is a year of very 
dangerous uncertainty, of wavering commitment to an alliance, and this 
is what both General Clark, the head of NATO, and our Secretary of 
Defense have outlined for us.

  Again, the question is not the power of the Congress to do what is 
being suggested by my good friend from West Virginia. That is 
indisputable. If that were the issue--does Congress have the power to 
do this--this vote I hope would be 100-0, that we have the power to do 
this. The question is its wisdom. What is the impact of the 
uncertainty, the trumpet that is unclear and uncertain, when we have 
just been successful in Kosovo with NATO allies? We are now asking NATO 
allies to do more--and they are doing more; now up to 85 percent of the 
ground forces. The question is the wisdom then to put into place 
language which says unless Congress changes its mind a year from now we 
are out of this?
  And if I can quote, since I am on my time, this is the main objective 
of the language. According to the sponsors' Dear Colleague letter, the 
provision has three main objectives. First, it terminates funding for 
the continued deployment of U.S. ground combat troops in Kosovo after 
July 1, 2001, unless the President seeks and receives congressional 
authorization to keep troops in Kosovo. In other words, a year from now 
something happens automatically unless we reverse ourselves.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. I will be happy to yield.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, we said the same thing on October 14, 1993, 
with reference to Somalia. Let me read what the language said:

       . . . Provided further, That funds appropriated, or 
     otherwise made available, in this or any other Act to the 
     Department of Defense may be obligated for expenses incurred 
     only through March 31, 1994--

  Remember, we are talking on October 14, 1993--

       . . . That funds appropriated, or otherwise made available, 
     in this or any other Act to the Department of Defense may be 
     obligated for expenses incurred only through March 31, 
     1994,--

  Several months away--

       for the operations of United States Armed Forces in 
     Somalia: Provided further, That such date may be extended if 
     so requested by the President and authorized by the Congress. 
     . . .

  That is what we are doing here exactly, precisely. So what is so new 
about it?
  I thank the Senator for yielding.
  Mr. LEVIN. The question is whether it is wise to do this when we have 
just been successful in Kosovo. In Somalia, we had determined to 
withdraw. The sponsors of this language suggest we are not exactly 
determining to withdraw; we are sort of planning to withdraw and we can 
change our mind. That was not the case in Somalia. In Somalia, we had 
decided--and I very strongly supported the decision--to withdraw. It 
was time to withdraw and we made that decision. It was the right one. 
It was wise in the circumstances. We decided to pull our forces out.
  Here it seems to me that is the question: Do we want to pull our 
forces out now? To say now that a year from now our forces are out of 
there? It seems to me that is the question, not the power of Congress.
  The constitutional question, if put to this body, I hope would have a 
100-0 vote that we have the power to do what is being proposed. But on 
whether it is wise when we have just been successful--part of a 
coalition fighting together for the first time, putting pressure on our 
allies to do more; succeeding in that pressure, they responded with now 
up to 85 percent of the ground forces--in that same language to say we 
are planning now on getting out a year from now, that is the question. 
It is the wisdom of this language, not the power of Congress to pass 
it.
  I thank my good friend from West Virginia and yield up to 20 minutes 
to the Senator from Connecticut.

[[Page S4145]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Chair and my friend from Michigan and my 
friend from West Virginia for his courtesy allowing me to go forward.
  Mr. President, I rise to support the motion to strike, and in doing 
so I join colleagues before me who have expressed what is clearly our 
very sincere respect for the two cosponsors of the part of the 
underlying bill which we seek to strike with our motion. There honestly 
are two no more distinguished Members of this body. May I say there are 
no more patriotic citizens that I have ever met than the Senator from 
West Virginia and the Senator from Virginia. So I go forward with a 
certain sense of awkwardness but certainly with a profound sense of 
respect for the two of them, even as I disagree with the provision 
regarding Kosovo that they have added to this appropriations bill 
before us.
  Much has been said on both sides. I will try to either say it quickly 
or add a few new thoughts. It seems to me we have to begin here by 
looking backwards; in some senses, way backwards. By coincidence, last 
night I was reading a new biography of President Woodrow Wilson.
  One of the chapters begins with a description of the election of 
1912. The opening line says that as people were going to vote in the 
United States in 1912--and the great choices were Wilson, Teddy 
Roosevelt, and Taft--no one had in mind or could have imagined that 2 
years later an event would occur in the Balkans that would eventually 
draw almost 2 million people into combat in that far away quarter--
World War I.
  We have struggled with, been affected by, lost lives as a result of 
conflict in the Balkans which spread throughout Europe and which has 
always eventually engaged us because of our intimate relationship with 
Europe. We are a nation that, at the outset, was formed by children of 
Europe, by people who left Europe to come to these shores. We, of 
course, are much broader and more multicultural than that now, but that 
was our origin.
  Today our military and economic ties, our security and cultural ties 
with Europe are deep and they are broad. We may in the push and pull of 
the moment be drawn to other parts of the world. We are a global power 
today. But the base of our strength and the most comprehensive economic 
relationships we have and the heart of our international security 
posture has always been in Europe and is today. What happens in Europe 
matters to us today as it did in the second decade of this century, 
bloody as it was, which began with conflict in the Balkans.
  Again, as the ``third world war'' of the last century concluded--and 
I say that referring to the cold war--and new alliances began the 
movement of people, conflict broke out in the Balkans and threatened to 
go further and engage our European allies and threatened the stability 
of that region so important to us.
  I begin this way because what I want to suggest, and I hope I can 
convince people, is that what happened in Kosovo--the outbreak, again, 
of barbarism, aggression against the people by force and what became 
cosmetically described as ethnic cleansing--was a singling out of 
people because of their ethnicity, coincidentally their religion, and 
they were subjected to mass forced movement, exile from their country, 
murder, rape, and torture.
  The fires were burning again in the Balkans, and this time, having 
more recently confronted a similar threat in Bosnia, we waited, in my 
opinion, too long to get involved. We and our NATO allies acted on an 
immensely successful air campaign a little more than a year ago which 
stopped the barbarism, stopped the aggression, stopped the killing, and 
allowed more than a million refugees to return to the homes from which 
they had been brutally forced.
  All of this is by way of saying that what happened in Kosovo that led 
to the peacekeeping in which we are involved--and which is threatened 
by the underlying amendment offered by the Senators from West Virginia 
and Virginia--was a great victory. It was a great victory.
  General Clark recently returned from his position as SACEUR, our 
Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, a historic position, a position of 
great importance. He has been quoted frequently on the floor. In 
conversation with him, one of the things he said to me a week ago was 
that the reaction to what happened in Kosovo from the European public 
and the American public, including particularly the American political 
elite, was so remarkably different. In Europe, there was a sense of 
extraordinary pride about the course of events as they concluded last 
year in Kosovo, that stability, that freedom, that human rights had won 
a victory in Kosovo. Here General Clark worried the reaction was not so 
clear, that there was not the sense of pride that should have been felt 
because of a pivotal leadership role the United States of America 
played in ending the barbarism and aggression in Kosovo.
  I mention this today because it is perhaps that differing attitude 
that leads us in the Senate to consider the Byrd-Warner amendment to 
this Appropriations Committee bill, and also now we have witnessed the 
House take similar action on the question of whether our European 
allies are doing enough. Maybe we in this country never appreciated the 
significance of what we did.

  I believe history will show, when historians look back at the 1990s 
and judge what occurred, the United States and NATO interventions in 
Bosnia and Kosovo was a turning point, as an example that we and our 
allies had learned the lessons of the 20th century, the most bloody in 
history, unfortunately. One of the lessons is, if you turn your back on 
aggression and genocide, in the end it will find you; it will force you 
to turn your face to it; and you will face carnage and will be drawn 
into it at a cost that is ultimately so much greater.
  We achieved a great victory. I support this amendment to strike 
because the language in the underlying bill that it would strike I 
fear, I say respectfully, will snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. 
It will shake our alliance. It will send a message to Mr. Milosevic, as 
has been said over and over: Just wait it out; the United States is not 
a resolute power; it doesn't understand what it did in Europe.
  It would encourage, unfortunately, those in Kosovo, particularly the 
Albanians I fear, to a certain extent the Serbs, to worry we are about 
to leave and to begin to take up arms again, the very arms, as part of 
this peace we are helping to enforce, they gave up. The Kosovo 
Liberation Army turned over its arms to the peacekeeping authorities.
  I know those who have sponsored the underlying amendment have said it 
is not their intention to cut and run, to undercut NATO, to encourage 
Milosevic, but I fear that will be the effect of this proposal, 
notwithstanding the intentions of its distinguished sponsors.
  If, as has been said by proponents of the underlying provision, this 
is just a message to our allies in Europe to meet their commitments, if 
it is just giving an opportunity to the incoming President next year, 
whomever it may be, whichever candidate it may be, to offer a plan to 
make a decision, then let's do that. Let's not put America on a course 
to withdraw, which is what this underlying proposal does, to literally 
cut and run. Let's leave it to the next President to make those 
decisions.
  I was quite struck and appreciative of the statement Governor Bush 
has made on this. It is a statement that is made in the national 
interest. I hope all of us will heed it because it means the two major 
party candidates, Vice President Gore and Governor Bush, both have said 
they feel the underlying amendment would not only be bad for America's 
national security interests but is something they do not want because 
it will hamstring whomever is privileged to occupy the White House in 
January of next year.
  Much has been said about the effects of this amendment. I want to 
just add this in addition to the way in which it will encourage 
Milosevic. Europe is stable now and yet not fully stable. A new 
Government has come to power in Russia. It is a Government that we are 
hopeful about and yet uncertain.
  The people of Central and Eastern Europe, who lived under Soviet 
domination for, oh, those four and more decades, in some cases, are now 
beginning to stretch, to be free, to develop market-based economies, 
self-government,

[[Page S4146]]

national independence. Some of them--three--now have joined NATO; a 
whole other group--I believe it is nine--have been put in line. This is 
a historic development and the most extraordinary and enormous victory 
for the forces of victory and freedom that won the cold war.
  I want to suggest to my colleagues that putting us on a course to 
withdraw our forces from Kosovo, from the peacekeeping effort, to 
withdraw our financial support for the economic and humanitarian 
reconstruction, will send a message of faithlessness, if I can say 
that, of irresoluteness, of lack of concern by the world's superpower--
the beacon of hope for those who yearn for freedom and now have 
achieved it post-cold war in Central and Eastern Europe--that perhaps 
our commitment there is not firm, and that as they begin to enjoy the 
sunlight of liberty, we may be pulling back and not worried if the 
clouds begin to come over them again.
  Our presence in Kosovo, important as it is to keeping the peace in 
Kosovo, is clearly more broadly important to the ongoing march of 
freedom for which we fought and won the cold war. In that sense, too, 
we would begin to be snatching defeat from the jaws of the great 
victory we won in the cold war.
  The same is true for places of conflict throughout the world where 
this kind of American irresoluteness--what will appear to be, whether 
it is intended or not, a cut-and-run approach--will encourage the 
enemies of freedom, the enemies of the United States, to take action, 
with the hope that the United States does not care anymore, that we 
have grown either so comfortable or so isolationist that we have taken 
a shorter range of view and are not prepared to exercise the political, 
strategic, and moral leadership on which I continue to believe the 
world depends.
  Much has been said here about the question of what our European 
allies have done or not done. I was at the annual security conference 
in Munich in February. We were battling with our European allies about 
whether they kept this $35 million commitment they made. They had not 
kept it then. They have done it now.
  But as has been said over and over again--I will not belabor it--the 
Europeans are paying more than their fair share, which is to say they 
are paying the overwhelming majority of the costs of the military and 
the humanitarian operation.
  Although the numbers are very difficult to be totally comfortable 
about as to who has given what--and I have tried very hard, working 
with the Congressional Research Service, the World Bank, the European 
Commission, and the Department of Defense, to pin these down--it does 
seem to me that, overall, an argument could be made not just that the 
Europeans are paying 80 or 85 percent of the costs of these operations 
in Kosovo but that they have met the terms thereby of the Warner part 
of the Byrd-Warner amendment. But the accounting can be difficult.
  I think the amendment, if it is put in place, becomes meddlesome and 
troublesome because it sends a message of doubt about our support and, 
on a technical accounting basis, actually could put us in a position 
where the President could find it difficult, on the technicalities, to 
certify that the Europeans have done what this amendment requires them 
to do. Therefore, we would be on the road to withdrawal, with all the 
consequences I have described.
  Surely there are better ways for us to express to our allies in 
Europe that we believe they are not meeting their commitments than this 
blunt instrument, putting this amendment on this appropriations bill. 
It is for that reason I support so strongly this motion to strike.
  I will just add two general points. The first is from a very 
interesting column from the Washington Times by Mr. Tod Lindberg on 
Tuesday, May 16, in which he, quite correctly, points to the 
ambivalence Congress has expressed regarding Kosovo, an ambivalence 
which is so inconsistent; it reminds us that although Congress has the 
power of the purse, that is why we elect Presidents and we call them 
Commanders in Chief and why we expect them to make the foreign and 
military policy of our country, because with 535 of us, it would be 
hard for us to get together and do what we need to do to protect our 
national interests with the kind of authority a Commander in Chief can 
have.
  Of course, we have the power of the purse, and we can exercise it. 
But we have tended, too often, to go in different directions. As Mr. 
Lindberg points out:

       Kosovo, more or less from the moment the issues there 
     became critical in the fall of 1998, has not exactly been 
     Congress' finest hour. The nadir, perhaps, came a year ago 
     during NATO's air campaign itself, [while our pilots' flying 
     actions endangered themselves over the Balkans] when the 
     House of Representatives voted within a short span not to 
     support the campaign and to double funding for it.

  Remember the words from the Bible: If the sound of the trumpet is not 
clear, who will follow into battle? And 535 voices often find it hard 
not to sound a clear trumpet. I think that has been the case here. It 
will be the case if we do not strike this provision from this bill.
  Mr. Lindbergh finally, at the end of the column, makes a few points 
which I also would like to quote. He thinks what is expressed in this 
underlying amendment that we now seek to strike is not just concern 
about whether the Europeans are keeping their financial commitments, 
but I believe a strong argument could be made that they are; clearly, 
we are paying only a minority of the costs of this operation. That is 
undeniable.
  What is at work here, Mr. Lindberg says--I think, correctly--is not 
just the constitutional question that we have an obligation to exercise 
our judgment and decide whether we should stay or not--and, again, I 
say the way to do that is not to put us on a march to withdrawal when 
we are succeeding--but, he says, this amendment ``also serves for some 
as a false flag flying over isolationist sentiment--an opportunity to 
vent discontent with a whole range of American commitments without 
openly stating the general case. For some, setting a deadline for the 
withdrawal of U.S. troops from Kosovo has nothing whatsoever to do with 
Kosovo; it's just the opportune application of a general principle of 
disengagement to a particular case.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 20 minutes have expired.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I ask unanimous consent to have 2 more minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I do think we have to ask ourselves--I 
do not make any accusations here, of course, with respect to all my 
colleagues. Lingering behind some sentiments is not just specific 
concern about Kosovo but what Mr. Lindberg calls, in the Washington 
Times, ``the opportune application of a general principle of 
disengagement. . . .''
  If it is that, it is extremely consequential. We have been tempted 
over our history and have fought the impulse of isolationism and 
disengagement from the world, and every time we have succumbed it has 
come back to cost us dearly.
  I sat with our colleague from Nebraska, Senator Kerrey, a week or two 
ago, discussing this very issue. Perhaps he has told this story on the 
floor. But he reminded me, on the 25th anniversary of the end of the 
Vietnam war, a newspaper asked him, because he is a distinguished and 
honored veteran of that conflict, whether he would write his thoughts 
about it. He said one of the thoughts that came to his mind is that 25 
years after the end of the first war--which I referred to at the 
opening of my remarks--in 1943, the sons and some of the daughters of 
those who fought in the First World War, which ended in 1918, in 1943, 
were training for and beginning to go to war in Europe.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's additional 2 minutes have 
expired.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask the Chair for up to 5 more 
minutes. I hope not to use them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan controls the time.
  Mr. LEVIN. I ask the Chair how much time remains on our side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Thirty-seven minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 3 additional minutes.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. The powerful point of the Senator from Nebraska, Mr. 
Kerrey, our distinguished colleague, was that, because the world and 
America did not learn the lesson of engagement after World War I, 25 
years later

[[Page S4147]]

the sons and daughters of those who fought in World War I were again 
entering an even bloodier conflict, World War II. Twenty-five years 
after the end of Vietnam, because America had learned the lesson, had 
not turned isolationist, had been engaged, the sons and daughters of 
those who fought in Vietnam were not heading in massive numbers into a 
bloody world conflict. The price of that difference is involvement in 
potential conflicts which can grow into conflagrations, such as those 
in Kosovo.
  Mr. Lindberg closes his op-ed piece by saying:

       The deadline in the Byrd-Warner amendment seems clear 
     enough. But a deadline for withdrawal is not a policy. It's 
     an anti-policy. It says that as of the date specified, we 
     don't care what happens. If that sentiment is ever powerful 
     enough to override a presidential veto, we are going to have 
     a world of trouble on our hands.

  With all respect, this is a momentous vote the Senate will cast 
today. I urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to strike. I thank 
the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 61 minutes.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent that the last 15 
minutes of my remarks be reserved until just prior to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, I wonder if the Senator 
from West Virginia would allow the proponents to conclude, since we 
have to carry the burden here. Senator Daschle also wants to speak. If 
the Senator could speak his last 15 minutes, say, from 2 to 2:15, 
allowing the proponents to wind up, I think that would be the fair way 
to break this down.
  Mr. BYRD. Well, I don't know. I think as good an argument could be 
made for those who have established an amendment here and who want to 
defend it at the end. I would like 10 minutes. I certainly understand 
Mr. Daschle's situation. He has time of his own. He has leader time he 
can use.
  Mr. LEVIN. I wonder if the Senator from West Virginia might then 
reserve the last 10 minutes of his remarks from 2:10 to 2:20, allowing 
Senator Daschle to conclude by 2:30, so we could have the vote at 2:30.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, that is fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the distinguished Senator from Michigan says 
this vote is not about power. He says it is about the wisdom of taking 
a vote on this matter. I hope I am not mischaracterizing his statement.
  I say to him that this matter is about power. It is about the 
arrogance of power and a White House that insists on putting our men 
and women in harm's way and spending their tax dollars without the 
consent of their elected representatives. Where is the wisdom in that 
course? Where is the wisdom in allowing a policy of indefinite drift in 
the Balkans with no end strategy and no clearly defined goal?
  We have heard a great deal of impassioned, occasionally inflammatory, 
debate over Kosovo in recent hours, the first such debate we have had 
since U.S. ground troops entered Kosovo 11 months ago as part of a NATO 
peacekeeping operation.
  I welcome this debate. It's about time. And I am glad that so many 
Senators are engaged in this debate. But before we bring this 
discussion to a head, I think that we need to address some of the more 
outrageous claims that have been made about the Byrd-Warner provision. 
To hear some speak, this amendment will mean the end of civilization as 
we know it. Hardly. Hardly. I appreciate the usefulness of hyperbole in 
speech making as much as anyone, but it is time to bring this debate 
back to the realm of reality.
  I have also heard, over and over again, that this provision is a slap 
in the face of our allies; that they are already shouldering the lion's 
share of the peacekeeping and reconstruction burden in Kosovo, and that 
what we are doing is tantamount to abandoning NATO. I simply don't buy 
that. I believe that Congress has every right to demand an accounting 
from the President on the level of effort that all the participants are 
expending in Kosovo. That to me is not a slap in the face of the 
allies; that is basic bookkeeping.
  I read carefully the letter that General Wesley Clark, former Supreme 
Allied Commander of NATO forces in Europe, sent to Senator Levin. I was 
frankly shocked at his conclusions. Gen. Clark wrote: ``In fact, these 
measures''--referring to the Byrd-Warner provision--``would invalidate 
the policies, commitments and trust of our Allies in NATO, undercut 
U.S. leadership worldwide''--how ridiculous--``and encourage renewed 
ethnic tension, fighting and instability in the Balkans. Furthermore, 
they would, if enacted, invalidate the dedication and commitment of our 
Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines, disregarding the sacrifices 
they and their families have made to help bring peace to the Balkans.''
  The Byrd-Warner provision is directed squarely at the institutional 
and constitutional responsibilities of Congress. Contrary to so much of 
the rhetoric that we have been hearing, the Byrd-Warner provision does 
not establish, as General Clark suggested, ``a de facto deadline for a 
U.S. pullout'' from Kosovo.

  Those are strong words. Unfortunately, they wrongly characterize the 
Byrd-Warner provision. Our language does not establish a ``de facto 
deadline for U.S. pullout'' from Kosovo. The only deadlines our 
amendment establishes are directed at the President.--who may be Mr. 
Bush or Mr. Gore--and require him to seek congressional authorization 
to continue the deployment of U.S. ground combat troops in Kosovo.
  Yes, I believe that U.S. ground combat troops should be withdrawn 
from Kosovo, in a safe, orderly, and phased withdrawal.
  Our provision gives the administration a year to come up with an exit 
strategy. We don't have one. Is it too much to ask that we have one? It 
requires that two plans outlining a withdrawal be submitted to 
Congress--an interim plan to be submitted by the current President, Mr. 
Clinton, and a final plan to be submitted by the next President, be it 
Mr. Bush or Mr. Gore.
  Moreover, our provision explicitly directs this President and the 
next President to develop their plans in consultation with our NATO 
allies, and to ensure that the plans provide for an orderly transition 
to an all-European ground troop element in Kosovo. We are not pulling 
the rug out from under our NATO allies. We are not discouraging them 
from seeing the job through. We are encouraging them to take full 
responsibility, in terms of ground combat troops, for the security of 
the Balkans. We are encouraging our allies to meet their commitments in 
Kosovo. We are encouraging them to demonstrate that the United States 
does not always have to be the lead dog in a NATO operation.
  I have heard it said that the Byrd-Warner provision could deal a 
death blow to NATO; that the alliance will crumble if the United States 
brings a few thousand men and women home from Kosovo. That kind of talk 
is reckless; it is demoralizing to our allies. The NATO alliance will 
not collapse if the United States does not have ground combat troops in 
Kosovo. And if by some chance the allies are so shaky that the Byrd-
Warner Kosovo provision would cause it to disintegrate, then I think we 
need to give some thought as to why we are lending such a major amount 
of support to such a paper tiger. I believe the United States is the 
strongest member of NATO, but I do not believe for a moment the United 
States has to prop up NATO at every step of the way.
  Let me return for a moment to the notion that the Byrd-Warner 
provision sets a de facto deadline for a pullout of troops from Kosovo. 
Let me assure you that if Senator Warner and I wanted to set a deadline 
for a pullout of forces from Kosovo, we would set it, and we would set 
it in stone. We do not do that. The Byrd-Warner provision does not 
mandate a troop withdrawal from Kosovo. Yes, it anticipates such a 
possible outcome, but it does not mandate it. If, in the wisdom of the 
next President, it is necessary to continue the deployment of U.S. 
ground combat troops in Kosovo, or if events in that troubled region of 
the world so dictate, our provision provides explicit direction for

[[Page S4148]]

the consideration, under expedited procedures, of a joint resolution 
authorizing the continued deployment of U.S. ground combat troops in 
Kosovo.
  The intent of our provision is not to micromanage the Pentagon or the 
State Department. The intent of the provision is to restore 
congressional oversight--restore congressional oversight--to the Kosovo 
peacekeeping operation. By its inaction, Congress has allowed the 
executive branch to usurp Congress' constitutional authority in this 
matter. That is our fault, but it need not be our fault. We need not 
continue to let that happen.
  The Founding Fathers vested in Congress alone the power of the purse. 
The Constitution is very clear on this matter. Article I, section 9 of 
the Constitution states:

       No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in 
     Consequence of Appropriations made by Law. . . .

  Yet what are we seeing? We are seeing in Kosovo, as we have seen in 
so many other peacekeeping operations, a bastardization of that 
process. Instead of Congress appropriating funds for expenditure by the 
executive branch, the executive branch has adopted the practice--
arrogant practice--of spending the money first. That is what they have 
done here--spending the money first and then asking Congress after the 
fact to pay the bills.

  I wonder if my colleagues can see the pattern here: Buy now, pay 
later. Spend the money first, borrow from the military readiness 
accounts, and then give Congress no alternative but to reimburse the 
money. That is what has happened here. Trust me, this is not what the 
Founding Fathers had in mind when they created the Constitution of this 
Nation.
  As heir to that wisdom, every Senator has a duty to guard vigilantly 
the rights bestowed on Congress by the Constitution, and no such right 
is more central to the separation of powers on which our system of 
Government is built than the vesting in Congress alone the power of the 
purse.
  The issue is not only what policy the United States should be 
following in Kosovo; the issue is also whether the Congress is 
upholding its authority, its powers, its rights and responsibilities 
under the Constitution. I submit that by allowing the executive branch 
to de facto determine the expenditure of appropriated funds, we are 
not.
  It was reported some months ago that the United States is building--
hear this--semipermanent military buildings at Camp Bondsteel in 
Kosovo. These so-called C-huts are designed to last 5 years before 
major repairs are required. According to a report in the Washington 
Times on March 1, the Army is putting up 300 of these structures at a 
cost of about $175,000 each. Well, you can do the math yourself. It 
adds up to a $52.5 million investment in military construction in 
Kosovo. This sounds to me like the U.S. military is putting down 
serious roots, long-time roots, deep roots, in Kosovo.
  The fiscal year 2001 military construction appropriations bill is the 
matter pending before the Senate today. Scores of needed infrastructure 
projects that must be funded by this bill have gone begging because 
there is not enough military construction funding to go around. The 
$52.5 million being spent to construct those C-huts in Kosovo would go 
a long way toward funding some of the backlog of projects that we have 
in this country. Mind you, I believe that if the United States chooses 
to send its men and women in uniform on missions to far-flung parts of 
the world, they deserve a decent standard of living.
  My question is: Why is the administration planning for a 5-year or 
more stay in Kosovo without bringing the matter to Congress? That is my 
question. Why are you, down there at the White House, and at the 
Pentagon--why are you, in the executive branch, planning for a 5-year 
stay or more in Kosovo without bringing the matter to Congress and 
getting Congress to authorize this? Should Congress not have a voice in 
the expenditure of the people's money? Should Congress not have a say 
in such deployments? Should the American people not have a voice in 
whether they support such a deployment, such a long-term deployment? I 
have read where some generals in NATO say it will be 5 years or it will 
be 10 years. Others have said it will be a generation. I believe 
Congress and the American people should--no, not should, but must--have 
a say in how the United States is deploying its increasingly scarce 
military resources.
  We hear they have recruitment problems in the services, in all of the 
services, except perhaps for the Marines. They are having recruitment 
problems, we are spreading our forces thin all over the globe.
  Time after weary time, we have had the same gambit from 
Administrations, both Democratic and Republican. Send the troops in, 
and Congress will not have the fortitude to pull the plug. Once we get 
the men in harms way, so the argument always goes, it is dangerous to 
talk about pulling them out. It is especially dangerous to set a date 
certain for them to leave. Heaven help us. Never do that. Don't set a 
date certain. How many times have we heard that same old tune? It turns 
logic on its head. Just as we went into Bosnia, they said we will just 
be there about a year. Now we are in the fifth year. That is the 
administration leading us in and then believing that Congress won't 
have the fortitude to pull the men and the women out. That kind of 
logic asks us to believe that pulling troops out of harm's way is 
potentially more dangerous than leaving them in harm's way.
  The Executive Branch is much more inclined to use our military might 
to accomplish various policy objectives, such as nation building--
policy objectives which may not be supported by the American people or 
their elected Representatives in the Congress. We have lately seen the 
use of American boys and girls to enforce objectives authorized only by 
U.N. Resolution, which raises a serious question of national 
sovereignty in the mind of this Senator. I have perused the 
Constitution very carefully over the years, and I see no reference to 
conflict by U.N. Resolution or NATO Resolution. It is the Congress and 
the Congress alone which the Framers entrusted with the awesome 
decisions to send America's sons, and now her daughters as well, into 
situations which might mean their death.
  No armed conflict can succeed without the support of the American 
people. It didn't succeed in Vietnam because it didn't have the support 
of the American people. It is their sons and daughters which we send to 
fight and to possibly die. It is their tax dollars which pay for the 
missiles and the tanks and the bullets. We enter into armed conflict at 
our peril if there is no consensus among the people to take that 
course. And the best way that this Senator knows to achieve such a 
consensus is for such matters to be debated and debated thoroughly on 
the Floors of the Senate and the House of Representatives, and then for 
a vote to be taken that reflects the people's will. The most solemn 
duty which we have as legislators and as sworn representatives of the 
people who sent us here is to decide whether to ask young Americans to 
put their lives at risk. To abdicate that duty to a President--to any 
President, a Democrat President or a Republican--to abdicate that duty 
to any chief executive is wrong. It circumvents the Constitution, it 
bypasses the people, and it short changes the nation because the 
people's will is never even known, never even known much less 
considered until the body bags start coming home. There are those who 
will say that this Kosovo provision sets up a process which is too 
cumbersome. Some will say that Congress cannot be asked to declare war 
every time there is a skirmish in the world. Well, of course, Congress 
should not have to frame an official declaration of war for each and 
every conflict. But, it should have to authorize in some way the 
conflict, and agree or disagree with its objectives.

  Of course, the Administration will not like it. They never like it. 
They do not want to see the Congress exercise its constitutional duty 
in matters of this kind. They don't want Congress to lift a hand. They 
do not want Congress to say a word. Congress needs to be quiet. They 
want a free hand. The administration wants a free hand to participate 
in military adventurism whenever and wherever they please. And they do 
not brook interference by the Congress, the elected representatives of 
the people, the directly elected representatives of people, unlike the 
President who is indirectly elected by the people. Presidents are 
elected by the electors who are elected by the people. If they can 
avoid it, they don't

[[Page S4149]]

want the Congress to even whimper--just do not hear a peep, not a peep, 
out of Congress. But this is not the way it ought to be.
  The military is not a plaything or toy, subject to the whim and 
caprice of a chief executive. The title ``Commander in Chief'' does not 
make any President a king, free to send America's men and women in 
uniform wherever he may bid them to go, free to commit America's 
resources to battle or to police actions or to peacekeeping without 
brooking any interference by Congress. Congress is not just the place 
that pays the bills although the executive branch would like that. They 
would like the Congress to be only the place to pay the bills. That is 
all. But Congress is not just a place to pay the bills. The legislative 
department is an equal and coordinate department with the executive, 
even though it is sometimes hard for the executive branch to fully 
understand that.

  As to the war powers, these are meant to be shared between the 
President and the people's elected Representatives in Congress. Let 
there be no doubt: The Framers intended for the Congress, in the final 
analysis, to hold the upper hand and have the final say.
  That is why the framers vested the power over the purse in Congress. 
Let us take a look at the Constitution. I hold it in my hand.
  These are the powers of Congress. Congress shall have the power ``To 
declare War.'' Congress shall have the power to ``grant Letters of 
Marque and Reprisal.'' Congress shall have the power to ``make Rules 
concerning Captures on Land and Water.''
  Hear me. This is the Constitution speaking.
  Congress also has the general power ``To raise and support Armies.''
  Congress shall have the power ``To provide and maintain a Navy.''
  Congress has the power ``To make Rules for the Government and 
Regulation of the land and naval Forces.''
  Congress shall have the power ``To provide for calling forth the 
Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and 
repeal Invasions.''
  Congress shall have the power ``To provide for organizing, arming, 
and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as 
may be employed in the Service of the United States.'' Add to these 
powers contained in this Constitution the power ``to exercise exclusive 
legislation . . . over all places . . . for the erection of forts, 
magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings . . .''.
  Congress has the power ``To lay and collect Taxes'' to defend this 
country.
  Congress shall have the power to ``provide for the common Defense.''
  That is what this Constitution says.
  Congress shall have the power ``To borrow money on the credit of the 
United States.''
  That is what the Constitution says.
  Congress shall have the power ``To make all Laws which shall be 
necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing 
Powers.''
  And finally, this Constitution says, Congress has the greatest power 
of all. Congress is given the power in section 9, article I: ``No money 
shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations 
made by law.'' Thus, the scope of the warpower granted to Congress is, 
indeed, remarkable. The intent of the framers is clear.
  Now let us examine the war powers that flow from the Constitution to 
the President of the United States. In section 2, article II, the 
Constitution states: ``The President shall be Commander in Chief of the 
Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several 
States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.''
  That is it. That is it, lock, stock, and barrel, except the 
Constitution says that the President ``shall Commission all the 
Officers of the United States.'' But that is it.

  So compare what the Constitution says with respect to the powers of 
the Congress when it comes to warmaking, when it comes to the military, 
with the powers the Constitution gives to the President:
  The title, Commander in Chief, was given by the Framers to the 
President for a number of reasons. As Hamilton said in Federalist #74, 
the direction of war ``most peculiarly demands those qualities which 
distinguish the exercise of power by a single head.'' The power of 
directing war and emphasizing the common strength ``forms a usual and 
essential part in the definition of the executive authority.'' That has 
to be by a single head. This clause of the Constitution also protects 
the principle of civilian supremacy.
  It says that the person who leads the Armed Forces will be a civilian 
president, not a military officer.
  Consider the language in the Constitution: ``The President shall be 
Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of 
the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service 
of the United States.'' With respect to the Army, the Congress, not the 
President, does the raising and the supporting; with respect to the 
Navy the Congress, not the President, does the providing and 
maintaining; with respect to the militia, when called into the actual 
service of the United States, Congress, not the President, does the 
calling.
  So, the President is Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, but 
without the power of Congress, there can be no Army and Navy to 
command, and the President's title would be but an empty title.
  Thus, we should clearly see that the Constitutional Framers took 
Blackstone's royal prerogatives and gave them either to Congress 
exclusively or assigned them on a shared basis to Congress and 
President. This Administration and most of the recent Administrations 
that have immediately preceded it seem never to have understood this 
salient fact that the President's warmaking powers are not omnipotent 
as were those of the King of Great Britain. The Framers gave the 
political compass a 180 degree turn. The delegates at the Philadelphia 
Convention repeatedly emphasized that the power of peace and war 
associated with the monarchy would not be given to a President of the 
United States. Charles Pinckney, one of the delegates to the convention 
from South Carolina, supported a vigorous executive. Pinckney was 
afraid Executive powers of [the existing] might extend to peace and war 
&c which will Render the Executive and Monarchy, of the worst kind, to 
wit an elective one.' John Rutledge endorsed a single executive, `tho' 
he was not for giving him the power of war and peace.' Roger Sherman 
looked upon the President as an agent of Congress, and considered `the 
Executive majesty as nothing more than an institution for carrying the 
will of the Legislature into effect, that the person or persons ought 
to be appointed by and accountable to the Legislature only, which was 
the depositary of the supreme will of the Society.'

  What about James Wilson of Pennsylvania?

       James Wilson endorsed a single executive, but did not 
     consider `the Prerogatives of the British Monarch as a proper 
     guide in defining the Executive powers. Some of these 
     prerogatives were of a Legislative nature. Among others that 
     of war & peace &c.'

  How about Alexander Hamilton from the great State of New York?
  Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist #69, differentiated between the 
power of the monarchy and the power of the American President. Hamilton 
stated that the President, under the Constitution, has ``concurrent 
power with a branch of the legislature in the formation of treaties,'' 
whereas the British King ``is the sole possessor of the power of making 
treaties.''
  Control over the deployment of military forces was vested in 
Congress, as we can see from reading the Constitution. Madison 
emphasized that the Constitution ``supposes, what the History of all 
governments demonstrates, that the Executive is the branch of power 
most interested in war, and most prone to it.'' We have seen that to be 
the case. ``It has accordingly with studied care, vested the question 
of war in the legislature.''
  On the power of declaring war, from Madison's notes, an incisive 
colloquy occurred at the Constitutional Convention on August 17, 1787. 
I now read from Madison's notes: ``Mr. Madison and Mr. Gerry moved to 
insert `declare,' striking out `make' war; leaving to the Executive the 
power to repel sudden attacks.
  ``Mr. Sherman thought it stood very well. The Executive should be 
able to repel and not to commence war. `Make' better than `declare' the 
latter narrowing the power too much.

[[Page S4150]]

  ``Mr. Gerry never expected to hear in a Republic a motion to empower 
the Executive alone to declare war.
  ``Mr. Ellsworth. There is a material difference between the cases of 
making war and making peace. It should be more easy to get out of war, 
than into it. War also is a simple and overt declaration. Peace 
attended with intricate and secret negotiations.''
  What about George Mason?
  ``Mr. Mason was against giving the power of war to the Executive, 
because not safely to be trusted with it; or to the Senate, because not 
so constructed as to be entitled to it. He was for clogging rather than 
facilitating war; but for facilitating peace. He preferred `declare' to 
`make.'
  ``On the motion to insert declare - - in place of make, it was agreed 
to.''
  Louis Fisher comments on the reaction taken at the Philadelphia 
Convention: ``The Framers empowered the President to repel sudden 
attacks in an emergency when Congress was not in session. That power 
covered attacks against the mainland of the United States and on the 
seas. The President never received a general power to deploy troops 
whenever and wherever he thought best. When Congress came back in 
session, it could reassert whatever control on military activity it 
considered necessary.
  James Wilson expressed the prevailing sentiment that the system of 
checks and balances ``will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to 
guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a 
single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important 
power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large.''
  Madison insisted that the Constitutional liberties could be preserved 
only by reserving the power of war to Congress. Madison stated: ``Those 
who are to conduct a war cannot in the nature of things, be proper or 
safe judges, whether a war ought to be commenced, continued, or 
concluded. They are barred from the latter functions by a great 
principle in free government, analogous to that which separate the 
sword from the purse, or the power of executing from the power of 
enacting laws.''

  When Jefferson saw the draft Constitution, he praised the decision to 
transfer the war power ``from the executive to the Legislative body, 
from those who are to spend to those who are to pay.'' The 
Administration, and all Senators who may be prone to advocate an all-
powerful executive, should take note.
  I have already referred to General Clark's letter, to which our 
attention was called by Senator Levin last week. That letter brings to 
mind another letter to which I shall refer. Presidents, of course, are 
in a position to deploy forces in military environments before Congress 
has a chance to deliberate and decide what policies should be followed, 
and Presidents often do that. The potential for engaging the country in 
war was demonstrated by President Polk's actions in 1846, when he 
ordered General Zachary Taylor to occupy disputed territory on the 
Texas-Mexico border. His initiative provoked a clash between American 
and Mexican soldiers, allowing Polk to tell Congress a few weeks later 
that ``war exists.'' Although Congress formally declared war on Mexico, 
Polk's actions were censured in 1848 by the House of Representatives 
because the war had been ``unnecessarily and unconstitutionally begun 
by the President of the United States.'' One of the members of the 
House of Representatives who voted against Polk was Representative 
Abraham Lincoln, who later wrote to William H. Herndon:
  Much ado has been made of General Clark's letter to Senator Levin. 
Let's read Abraham Lincoln's letter to William H. Herndon:

       Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation, 
     whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and 
     you allow him to do so, whenever he may choose to say he 
     deems it necessary for such purpose--and you allow him to 
     make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit 
     to his power in this respect, after you have given him so 
     much as you propose. If, today, he should choose to say he 
     thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the British 
     from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, 
     ``I see no probability of the British invading us'' but he 
     will say to you ``be silent; I see it, if you don't.'' The 
     provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to 
     Congress, was dictated, as I understand it, by the following 
     reasons. Kings had always been involving and impoverishing 
     their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, 
     that the good of the people was the object. This, our 
     Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all 
     Kingly oppressions; and they resolved to so frame the 
     Constitution that no one man should hold the power of 
     bringing this oppression upon us.

  I wonder what Lincoln's advice would be to us today as we reflect 
upon the Administration's actions in Kosovo? Now that Congress has 
spent many months of complacent quietude before mounting a challenge to 
the Administration's continued usurpation of Congress' share in the war 
powers, we learn that the Administration fiercely opposes the Byrd-
Warner Amendment. Why so? Is it too much to ask of the Administration 
that it come up with an exit strategy over the next year? Is it too 
much to ask of the Administration that it develop plans, in 
consultation with our NATO allies, for an orderly transition to an all-
European ground troop element in Kosovo? Is it too much to ask that, if 
there is a necessity for the continued deployment of U.S. ground troops 
in Kosovo after July 1, 2001--or October 1, 2001 which we hope to make 
the date and will make it in conference--the President must request 
specific authorization for such continued deployment of U.S. ground 
combat troops in Kosovo, and that Congress must enact a joint 
resolution specifically authorizing the continued deployment of United 
States ground combat troops in Kosovo?
  Is it too much to ask that the peoples Representative--people out 
there, their Representatives--be allowed to speak? What is wrong with 
that? Why is the Administration so suddenly very hysterical about this 
amendment? Very hysterical? They are panic stricken. They sent their 
big guns to Congress. They have even sent General Clark up to address 
the Democratic conference. What business does he have in the Democratic 
conference? Here we have in this Constitution, we have civilian control 
over the military, but here we find General Clark in the Democratic 
conference, trying to tell Senators what the intent of the Byrd-Warner 
amendment is, trying to tell Members of Congress what their 
constitutional duty in this institution is.
  Does the Administration believe that the possible justification for 
the continued deployment of U.S. ground combat troops in Kosovo after 
July 1 of next year would be so weak that the Administration dare not 
face the risk of a vote by Congress in this regard?
  I say to my colleagues in the Senate: Each of us has taken an oath to 
support and defend the Constitution of the United States and we take 
that oath because this Constitution requires Senators and Members of 
the House of Representatives to take that oath. Now is the time to live 
up to that oath. We must insist that the war powers that devolve upon 
Congress, under the Constitution, be preserved and protected against 
usurpation by this or any other administration. Nobody is talking about 
a declaration of war in references made to the powers and 
responsibilities of Congress in this situation. Nonetheless, any 
careful reading of the Constitution should make it as clear as the 
noonday sun in a cloudless sky that when American combat troops are 
deployed in a foreign country under circumstances where the lives of 
those troops are put in jeopardy by possible combat in a potential 
battlefield situation, the Congress is not required to remain silent. 
Remaining silent can become a habit. Congress can sleep on its rights 
until it can no longer claim those rights. And let us remember that it 
is also the people's rights on which we sleep.
  As the late Justice of the Supreme Court, George Sutherland said in 
Associated Press vs. NRIB:

       For the saddest epitaph which can be carved in memory of a 
     vanished liberty is that it was lost because its possessors 
     failed to stretch forth a saving hand while yet there was 
     time.

  The supporters of the Byrd-Warner amendment are stretching forth a 
saving hand while yet there is time. I hope that all Senators will take 
this occasion to assert the rights and powers of the legislative branch 
to which you belong, to which I belong, in respect to the conduct and 
use of the American military while there is yet time. If we allow the 
continued encroachment of these powers, which were meant by the Framers 
to be shared by the legislative

[[Page S4151]]

branch, future generations of Americans will not rise up and call us 
blessed.
  Whether the next President comes up with a strategy to turn the 
ground troop element of the Kosovo peacekeeping operation entirely over 
to the Europeans, or whether Congress authorizes the continued 
deployment of U.S. ground troops in Kosovo, we will have taken 
affirmative action. We will have protected the people's rights--the 
people's rights--and exercised our responsibilities under the 
Constitution. We will have done our duty, as we have all solemnly sworn 
before God and man to do.
  Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 8 minutes remaining, plus the 
10 minutes that has been reserved at 2:10.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator has no more time under his 
control. The Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, has control. If there is 
not another speaker, I see no other recourse but to put in a quorum 
call.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thought we agreed on a schedule--perhaps 
I am mistaken--that Senator Byrd would be going from 2:10 p.m. to 2:20 
p.m.; that then Senator Daschle would go from 2:20 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. Am 
I correct there are 22 minutes remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. We would precede Senator Byrd with our 22 minutes. That 
means Senator Byrd has 8 minutes left. I thought that was going to be 
used at this time. If Senator Byrd does not use that time now--at least 
my understanding was we either go to Senator Warner or Senator Byrd 
before Senator McCain and I use our 22 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we have had an orderly debate. We started 
last night at 5 o'clock. We have moved along. This will be the first 
quorum call in the 10 hours scheduled for this debate. We have tried to 
be as cooperative as we could all the way along. I have no more control 
of the time. I suggest there be a quorum call placed, since no one 
seeks recognition, and it be charged equally to both sides.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. REID. Objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have 8 minutes remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield 2 minutes of my 8 minutes to Mr. Warner, I yield 4 
minutes of my 8 minutes to Mr. Levin, and that leaves me 2 minutes of 
the 8 to add to the 8 that I will have later.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it had been my hope as cosponsor of the 
bill to have the opportunity to make some rebuttal arguments to those 
who are about to speak. Since that will not be possible, I will take my 
2 minutes to sum up the manner in which I view this entire debate of 
those who have come to strike the Byrd-Warner inclusion in this 
appropriations bill.
  I am reminded of the immortal words of a great President, Franklin 
Roosevelt, when he said: The only thing this Nation has to fear is fear 
itself. Underlying the debate of those who are considering striking 
this language is the fear that the next President will be unable to 
convince the Congress to do what is right for America. That is what it 
is--fear.
  I say to those who have fear, if there is not a simple majority, but 
51 votes, to support the next President, then logic says to me that the 
continuation of those deployments in Kosovo are not in the public 
interest or the national security interest of this country. It is as 
simple as that. If there are not 51 votes for it, we should not be 
there, and we may as well stand up and face the world and say that this 
body, with coequal responsibility, has exercised its voice.
  I committed earlier in this debate and I commit now that if the next 
President makes a strong case, he will have the Senator of Virginia 
voting and supporting him. I have confidence in this institution to 
make the right decision, and in this Senator's heart, he has no fear. I 
yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Michigan, 
Senator Levin, for his leadership on this issue. This has been an 
excellent debate, probably what we should have a lot more of in this 
body on a variety of issues that confront the Nation and, therefore, 
call us to our duties as the Senate and the Congress.
  I agree with Senator Byrd when he quoted Congress should not remain 
silent. Unfortunately, we passed a law some years ago called the War 
Powers Act. That act--and I believe Senator Byrd was here at the time 
of its passage--has been largely ignored, both by the executive branch 
and by the legislative branch.
  On numerous occasions, I have approached leaders on both sides and 
said we are violating the law called the War Powers Act, and we 
blithely ignore that law. Yet when we pass laws that affect our fellow 
citizens, we do not allow them to ignore the laws we pass.
  It is a bit disgraceful, really, that we have a law on the books 
which we fail to address, particularly since this law is concerning an 
issue of no small importance; in fact one can argue, I think 
persuasively, of the most importance, and that is when and under what 
circumstances we send young men and women into harm's way.
  Since we ignore the War Powers Act, the power that the Congress has, 
which I respect, revere, and believe is entirely appropriate under our 
constitutional responsibilities, is the ability to cut off funding for 
any military enterprise in which this Nation enters. I think that is 
clear. I do not think there is any argument about that.

  If the Byrd-Warner amendment was about cutting off funds for further 
deployment of U.S. military forces in Kosovo, I would be much more 
comfortable about this debate and what it is all about, but what we are 
doing is very unusual. I have not been here as long as some of the 
other Members of this body, but I have never seen an issue of this 
import placed on a military construction appropriations bill which 
generally is a routine piece of legislation, except for a few of us who 
come over and complain about the pork-laden aspects of it. But it is a 
routine piece of legislation.
  Now it is a vehicle for debate and decision over an issue of grave 
importance, in the view of certainly General Clark, certainly Secretary 
Cohen, certainly the Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty 
Organization. We are talking about an issue that can impact the issue 
of war or peace in the center of Europe. And what have we done in the 
Senate? We have placed it on the military construction appropriations 
bill. This legislation should have been the subject of hearings in the 
Foreign Relations Committee and the Armed Services Committee. It should 
have had a legislative vehicle that proceeded through both committees 
and then came to the floor of the Senate. In an incredibly bizarre 
fashion, both committee chairmen and ranking members, in my view, have 
abrogated their responsibilities as committee chairmen and the 
oversight of issues of this grave importance.
  What is more bothersome is the fact that we are conditioning this 
vote on another vote that will take place sometime--which may be 
changed by the sponsors of the bill. On what are we voting? We are 
voting to propose a situation which would then require another vote.
  As I have said, I have not been here a long time, but I have not seen 
anything quite like this. Our responsibility is not to have a vote on 
an issue that at a time certain requires another vote which, if 
affirmative, would allow the President of the United States to carry

[[Page S4152]]

out his duties as President of the United States. What this vote should 
be about is funding, yes or no. Do we want to fund further operations 
in Kosovo or do we not? We have enough information to make that 
decision. Members of this body have been informed.

  When the distinguished Senator from West Virginia, for whom I have 
the greatest respect and admiration, says Congress should not remain 
silent, my answer is, Congress should not speak in this fashion. 
Congress should not be speaking in this fashion. Congress should be 
speaking, as is its constitutional responsibility, to fund this 
operation or not to fund it.
  I am concerned about burden sharing. I have been concerned about it 
all my days here in the Senate and before that in the other body. I am 
concerned about what are the rules of engagement. I am concerned about 
the role of our European allies. All of those things should be taken 
into a context in which Members should make a decision as to whether we 
stay or go.
  With all due respect, we are taking a vote to put off a vote which 
would have profound consequences. The Congress, in my view, is not 
fulfilling its responsibilities when it addresses this issue in this 
fashion.
  In the 1980s, I was in the minority and my party held the Presidency 
of the United States. All through the 1980s, there were attempts at 
micromanagement of U.S. foreign policy, particularly in Central 
America. Some of the bitterest debates I ever observed in the House of 
Representatives and here in the Senate concerned our involvement, our 
support for certain elements, our support for freedom and democracy in 
Central America.
  I, as did many of my colleagues on this side of the aisle--who I 
understand are now supporting this resolution--opposed that very same 
kind of micromanagement on the part of Congress when the other party 
was in control of the White House.
  I am very pleased to see the nominee of my party, Gov. George Bush, 
with whom I had a very spirited contest over the previous year, step 
forward forthrightly and say this is an ``overreach of congressional 
authority.''
  Governor Bush has it right. President Clinton has it right. Secretary 
Cohen has it right. And every objective observer that I know has it 
right.
  The Washington Post of May 11, 2000, states:

       But the Senate measure is the wrong answer to these 
     legitimate concerns.

  We did not have to get into Kosovo. It was through the ineptitude of 
this administration where they tried to impose an agreement, called the 
Rambouillet agreement, which Mr. Milosevic could not accept. Then we 
carried out, in my view, one of the more immoral military actions in 
the history of this country. I say that because of the tactical way we 
conducted it: Flying our airplanes around at such high altitudes that 
our planes would not be shot down but we needlessly inflicted civilian 
casualties. That is a shameful kind of operation on the part of the 
U.S. military.
  The Washington Post says:

       But the Senate measure is the wrong answer to these 
     legitimate concerns. By establishing a de facto deadline for 
     a U.S. pullout, it would actually discourage U.S. allies--who 
     are, after all, providing the lion's share of the ground 
     forces already--from seeing the job through as Sen. Warner 
     and others wish. It tells the enemies of a democratic, 
     multiethnic state in Kosovo--Serb and Albanian--that they can 
     wait out the Americans.

  That is really what the message, if we adopt this resolution over a 
clear Presidential veto, would be: We can wait you out. We can wait you 
out, Americans, because we know you're going home.
  The Secretary General of NATO, a man who is respected by all of us, 
sent us a letter.
  I quote from that letter:

       In my view, while ensuring proper burden-sharing is 
     important, we should not let that issue distract us from our 
     larger policy objectives. The NATO presence in Kosovo needs 
     to be decided on the merits of our being there--the job that 
     we are doing and that we need to finish.

  That is the key. As critical as the burdensharing issue is, we should 
be deciding this issue solely on the basis of whether or not it is in 
the U.S. national security interests to have a military presence in the 
middle of Europe in Kosovo.
  Burden sharing is an important issue. We now hear, even from the 
cosponsor of the legislation, Senator Warner, that he is pleased with 
the increase in the burdensharing responsibility that has been taken up 
by our European allies. But this issue should not be based on burden 
sharing; it should be based on where our national security interests 
lie.
  The Secretary General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization goes 
on to say:

       I believe that we owe it to ourselves, if not the people of 
     that region, to finish the job we began. As Secretary General 
     of NATO, I will pursue that goal with the utmost vigour. I 
     hope I can count on continued U.S. support, even recognizing 
     that the European Allies must continue carrying the largest 
     share of the load at this stage.

  The Secretary General of NATO does not just speak for himself, and 
even the NATO alliance, but I think he speaks for all of Europe when he 
says: ``I hope I can count on continued U.S. support.''
  Since 1945, the United States has had a military presence in Europe. 
Any objective observer will tell you, our victory in the cold war was 
due to our steadfast presence.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. McCAIN. I ask unanimous consent for an additional 30 seconds.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield an additional minute to the Senator.
  Mr. McCAIN. It is an important debate. It is an important issue. Will 
the forces of isolationism and withdrawal prevail or will the United 
States continue to hold its rightful position as the military and 
economic leader of the world?
  The language currently in the bill represents not just bad policy, 
but bad law. Its inclusion in the Military Construction Appropriations 
Bill is highly inappropriate. The Congressional committees that oversee 
the Armed Forces and our nation's foreign relations should have the 
opportunity to review and debate national security matters of such 
consequence. The Kosovo withdrawal language in the Military 
Construction Appropriations bill is unprecedented and will certainly 
prompt a veto by the President. For these reasons, it is imperative 
that we move to strike Section 2410 by voting in favor of the Levin-
McCain amendment.
  The requirement in the bill for a withdrawal of ground forces unless 
Congress passes a joint resolution authorizing their continued 
deployment is precisely the kind of provision that Congress should 
never impose upon any Chief Executive. Congress has within its 
constitutional authorities the power of the purse--the legislative 
means to terminate funding for an ongoing military operation. It is 
historically reluctant to exercising that authority, even when the 
majority oppose the operation in question. But we should never impose 
the kind of statutory burden on any President that this bill seeks to 
impose.
  Clearly, this Administration could have--and most definitely should 
have--dealt more forthrightly with Congress and the American public 
from the beginning. Had it done so, it likely could have avoided this 
kind of exercise. As with Bosnia, however, its arrogance and ineptitude 
left many in Congress with a sense of having to act lest its rightful 
place in the debate over the U.S. role abroad would be completely 
ignored. The result is the damaging language currently in the bill.
  Congress has been down this road many times before. The propensity of 
the Administration to deploy American military forces with seemingly 
wanton abandon on ill-defined missions of indeterminate duration is 
repeatedly met with efforts by Members of Congress to legislate the 
terms of those deployments. We can, and most assuredly will, revisit 
the question of separation of powers on national security again and 
again. The Founding Fathers built into our system of constitutional 
government certain tensions designed to prevent a potentially dangerous 
shift in the balance of power between branches of government.
  We last debated the issue of war powers and the U.S. role in Kosovo 
in March 1999. The War Powers Resolution, which many view as 
unconstitutional, ironically proved to be the vehicle by which both 
Houses of Congress finally consented to debate the issue in its 
totality, including my failed effort to authorize the use of ground 
forces in

[[Page S4153]]

Kosovo during Operation Allied Force. That debate was illuminating for 
the degree to which it illustrated the depth of opposition on the part 
of many senators to the military operation. That opposition, of course, 
is what lies behind the language on Kosovo in the bill before us today.
  I am fully supportive of measures designed to improve the burden-
sharing arrangements under which we operate alongside other nations, 
especially in contingencies that should never have required U.S. 
military involvement in the beginning. For this reason, I am not 
opposed to the burden-sharing language in the bill, although the 
frequency of the reporting requirements are somewhat excessive. I take 
issue, however, with the draconian measures the bill mandates should 
the answers we receive from the President not meet our expectations.
  And make no mistake. When I refer here to the President, I refer to 
the Office of the Presidency, for the language in this bill will have 
far-reaching and damaging consequences for all future occupants of the 
Oval Office. Funding cutoffs and mandatory troop withdrawals that must 
occur based on future circumstances absent congressional action, such 
as are reflected in this legislation, represent Congress at its worst. 
By requiring enactment of a congressional joint resolution authorizing 
the continuation of our current role in Kosovo, we are establishing a 
very dangerous precedent that will seriously weaken this nation's 
ability to conduct foreign policy long after many of us have left this 
most august of bodies.

  I would ask supporters of Section 2410 what they believe would be 
accomplished by the provisions limiting funding pending presidential 
certification with regard to allied burden-sharing. Burden-sharing is a 
legitimate issue for discussion. To threaten funding cut-offs for 
troops in the field in the middle of an ongoing operation over the 
issues of equitable distribution of workload and financial commitment, 
however, is irresponsible in the extreme.
  The strategic ramifications of Section 2410 should not be 
underestimated. The United States has important national security and 
economic interests around the world that are affected by what we do 
here in Congress. By mandating a troop withdrawal from an ongoing 
operation, we threaten those interests by emboldening our adversaries. 
Slobodan Milosevic is a calculating and ruthless individual with a 
record of responding to outside pressures and inducements, retreating 
when necessary; conducting brutal campaigns when the opportunity avails 
itself. A precipitious withdrawal of U.S. ground forces while Kosovo 
remains unstable and the potential threat to Montenegro looms over the 
horizon will undermine our interests in Europe and around the world. 
That is a path down which we do not want to go.
  Additionally, the implications for NATO must be considered. The 
United States has a very definite stake in the evolution of a European 
Security and Defense Identity, as manifested in the efforts by our 
allies to establish the so-called Eurocorps. It is not in our interests 
for such a unit, should it take shape and mature into a viable force, 
to act independent of U.S. influence--influence that would be severely 
undermined by a unilateral action of the kind contemplated in this 
bill.
  Clearly, the failure of our European allies to deploy the numbers of 
police officers necessary to accomplish the mission of pacifying the 
region without the continued use of military personnel untrained in 
such activities has been very troubling. And I would be hard-pressed to 
defend the conduct of the operation in light of internal U.S. military 
disagreements regarding the deployability of U.S. troops from their 
sector to areas like Mitrovica where tensions and the propensity for 
violence remain high. This has not been a well-conceived mission. But 
there are worse alternatives, and the approach represented in this bill 
is one such example.
  A far better approach, I would suggest, would dispense with the 
automatic funding cut-offs currently in the bill. Rather than automatic 
cut-offs in the event presidential certifications fall short, Congress 
would still be free to offer legislation terminating the U.S. role in 
this operation. A vote by Congress to act affirmatively to cut off 
funding, while I would oppose it, is less damaging to U.S. foreign 
policy than is a triggering mechanism written into law--the object of 
the authors of the current language. And we would avoid establishing a 
very dangerous precedent that I would like to think few among us 
actually wish to see materialize.
  Mr. President, you do not have to be a supporter of the manner in 
which the operation in Kosovo has been conducted in order to have 
serious problems with this language. It is a peacekeeping operation in 
a region where the commitment to peace remains tenuous.
  Many in Congress and the public we represent want out of Kosovo. We 
should never have had to go there to begin with, but for the 
unwillingness of our European friends and allies to act swiftly and 
decisively to prevent a brushfire from becoming a raging inferno. But 
we should not willingly commit untold damage to our future ability to 
conduct foreign policy when alternatives may exist. And we should never 
undercut our forces in the field out of pique that other countries are 
failing to shoulder their share of the load--especially when the 
burden-sharing issue has devolved primarily to one centering around the 
deployment of police officers.
  We had every right to be angered by what Generals Clark and Reinhardt 
referred to as the hollowing-out of allied force contingents. The 
quiet, almost surreptitious withdrawal of soldiers by key allies was 
not their finest hour. But forceful diplomacy, not congressionally-
mandated troop withdrawals, is the answer to such problems. The 
language in this bill is counterproductive and damaging to U.S. foreign 
policy. We should not compliment a questionable policy with even worse 
legislation. I urge my colleagues to support the removal of Section 
2410 from the bill and vote yes on the Levin-McCain amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wonder if I might ask Senator Byrd for 
50 seconds.
  Mr. BYRD. I yield the Senator 2 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. I say to my good friend from Arizona, we respect his 
judgment, his long association with the U.S. military, and indeed his 
depth of knowledge as it relates to security and foreign affairs. While 
I respectfully differ, I nevertheless think it has been a constructive 
and important part of this debate.
  May I also, at this time, congratulate the Senator on 20 years of a 
great marriage, which he celebrated last night.
  Mr. McCAIN. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank my good friend from Arizona for his statement and 
for the clarity and passion he brings to this issue, as he does on so 
many important issues confronting this Nation, including our security, 
and thank him for his longstanding involvement and contribution to this 
Nation's well-being. His voice in this debate is an exceedingly 
important one. I hope all Members have had a chance to listen to his 
remarks today.
  Mr. President, I wonder if I could ask what the time situation is. 
How many minutes do I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan has until 2:10.
  Mr. WARNER. I yield 3 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I have gone back and forth on this 
question. Let me start by making a couple of quick points.
  First of all, I would be more than pleased to test this question 
about whether or not we should have a peacekeeping force in Kosovo. I 
would be more than pleased to have an up-or-down vote on the Kosovo 
peacekeeping operation today or this week. Frankly, I think that is the 
way we should do it. That would be a true test of accountability.
  I have a high doctrine of War Powers and have always insisted on 
appropriate congressional authorization of the use of troops in 
situations where they might face hostilities or imminent hostilities. I 
think that is required by our Constitution and by our system of checks 
and balances.
  But I think there is a subtle difference here between that kind of 
situation and this peacekeeping operation

[[Page S4154]]

in Kosovo. Kosovo is a peacekeeping and peace enforcement effort. Our 
troops are playing a security role there, but they are not now, nor do 
I expect them to be, involved in combat with organized hostile Serb or 
other forces in Kosovo. If that changes, of course, we in Congress 
would likely reconsider the role of these peacekeepers in light of the 
risks, what is at stake, and make a judgment then.
  But in the current situation, these peacekeepers deserve a chance to 
stay and to do their jobs as they have been asked to do, without the 
prospect of their funding from the United States getting cut off if our 
European allies do not meet the somewhat arbitrary standards set out in 
this bill, some of which many in the administration say may not be able 
to be met in terms of the current timetable.
  Mr. President, it is with some regret that I oppose this provision to 
effectively impose a deadline for Kosovo peacekeeping efforts, and to 
support efforts by Senator Levin to strike it from the bill. While I 
support many of the foreign policy goals which Senators Byrd and Warner 
have identified in this debate, I believe the amendment itself would 
likely put at serious practical risk the peacekeeping operation in 
Kosovo which, while not without its flaws, is one which I support.
  I regret that I am not able to support this effort not only because 
of the respect and admiration I have for these two men, but also 
because I do share some of their concerns, most especially about 
ensuring our appropriate and constitutionally-mandated congressional 
role in decisions regarding war and peace. But while it is clear that 
we need to intensify the dialogue between the Administration and 
Congress on the larger questions about the circumstances under which we 
enter into peacekeeping commitments, and the criteria by which we 
decide that issue, this set of complex foreign policy questions should 
not be decided in this way, on this bill, in a way which potentially 
undercuts our peacekeeping efforts on the ground in Kosovo.
  I support what I believe are the key underlying goals of the 
amendment: prompting a comprehensive debate on the Kosovo peacekeeping 
operation, its successes and failures; ensuring fair burden-sharing by 
our European allies, including on civilian police; and intensifying 
executive-congressional consultation on future decisions made regarding 
peacekeeping and peace enforcement operations in the region.
  Of course we in Congress must continue to keep a close watch on the 
situation there, and intervene--forcefully and directly, if necessary, 
through the power of the purse or otherwise--if we believe the 
administration is going in the wrong direction. And I know that both 
Senator Warner and Senator Byrd have pressed the administration on the 
burdensharing issue for many months, and have had some real success in 
helping to ensure a fairer proportion of U.S. to European assistance.
  The fact is that we have about 5,900 of the approximately 39,000 
troops in the region now; overall we are providing, according to the 
Administration, only about 15 percent of the troops and reconstruction 
aid for this effort. While it is important to continue to press to make 
sure the Europeans follow through on their commitments of resources and 
police personnel, I do not think fifteen percent is too much for us to 
bear to help our allies keep the peace in this troubled region. 
International peacekeeping must be a joint effort, with shared burdens, 
shared responsibilities and shared risks.
  That is why I think it would be in a way more honest, more 
responsible, for those who wish to test the question, to simply prompt 
a debate by calling for a vote up or down on the Kosovo peacekeeping 
operation. If there are those who want to press that question, that 
would be a test of true accountability. We could vote on that this 
week. But I think most of us suspect that if the question were posed 
that starkly, many who might end up supporting this resolution, with 
its elaborate formula and framework for a potential withdrawal, would 
not vote to pull out our troops. They would not want to so grossly and 
suddenly undercut our troops, our allies, and those in Kosovo, Albania, 
and elsewhere in the region whom we have labored so mightily to protect 
in the past two years.
  On the whole, our peacekeepers, and those of our allies, have done a 
remarkable job of enforcing, in a difficult and tense environment, an 
uncertain peace. Their presence has clearly helped to avoid a return to 
the horrendous violence that we all witnessed in Kosovo, and that NATO 
fought so hard to stem. Let's not forget that the ethnic cleansing that 
prompted our presence in the first place has been stopped, and that a 
return to the fighting has been prevented by the peacekeeping forces on 
the ground. Given the fragility of the current peace, it seems to me a 
likely result of our withdrawal would be a withdrawal by our allies, 
followed by a return to such fighting.
  I share some of the frustration expressed about the Kosovo operation. 
While it is clear that some functions of this force could have been 
handled better, and that all parties involved could strengthen 
efforts--by the administration, by civilian police on the ground, by 
the UN bureaucracy, by those nations who have sent sometimes inadequate 
aid, or who have failed to live up completely and a timely way to their 
commitments--the peacekeeping forces have done a good job, under 
harrowing circumstances, and we should not undercut them, directly or 
indirectly, by passing this amendment. The fact that there has been 
less long-term progress than had been hoped for toward the development 
of a multi-ethnic state in Kosovo is not the fault of these 
peacekeepers.

  I have a high doctrine of War Powers, and have always insisted on 
appropriate congressional authorization of the use of troops in 
situations where they might face hostilities or imminent hostilities. I 
think that's required by our Constitution, by our system of checks and 
balances.
  But I think there is a subtle difference here between that kind of 
situation of imminent or real hostilities and the current peacekeeping 
operation in Kosovo. Kosovo is a peacekeeping and peace enforcement 
effort; our troops are playing a security role there, but they are not 
now, nor do I expect them to be, involved in combat with organized 
hostile Serb or other forces in Kosovo. If that changes, of course we 
in Congress would likely reconsider the role of these peacekeepers in 
light of the risks, what's at stake, and make a judgment then.
  But in the current situation, these peacekeepers deserve a chance to 
stay, and to do their jobs as they've been asked to do, without the 
prospect of their funding from the U.S. getting cut if our European 
allies don't meet the somewhat arbitrary standards set out in this 
bill, some of which the Administration says aren't likely to be met 
under this particular timetable.
  Some oppose the Kosovo peacekeeping operation outright, and would 
simply turn it over completely to the Europeans. That's a legitimate 
view, but not one I share. We cannot send a signal to our allies that 
we will help out in difficult and complex situations like this, but 
only if they bear all the risks of peacekeeping.
  Others have raised the issue of the U.S. looking irresolute to our 
allies within NATO, and to Milosevic. Or the concern that Milosevic 
might, if he knows there's an almost certain date set for our 
withdrawal, he'll likely instruct his troops to simply wait us out--or 
worse, instruct his radical Serb allies to foment violence to influence 
Western opinion, and even future votes in Congress, on whether to keep 
the peacekeepers there. These are legitimate concerns, but I think a 
more fundamental question is posed.
  Will we shoulder our responsibilities, along with our NATO allies, to 
continue to help bolster and build a stable peace in Kosovo, to give 
them a chance at reconstruction, or will we start to scale back our 
effort now, and then pull out down the road, even after all the blood 
and treasure that's been spent to secure that peace, signaling to our 
allies and adversaries in the region alike that we're not firmly 
committed to seeing through the job that we started? I hope not. And I 
hope that we'll not start down that road by voting for a year of 
questions and uncertainty about our commitment in Kosovo.
  That is not to say the administration must not push harder our 
European allies to accelerate their assistance to the reconstruction 
effort. It is not to say the President should not intensify his 
consultations with Congress on his plans and intentions regarding the 
peacekeeping force. He absolutely must

[[Page S4155]]

do those things. But I do not think that this amendment is the way to 
ensure those results. And so I will vote for Senator Levin's amendment 
to strike this language from the bill, and I hope my colleagues will 
join me in voting to support our peacekeeping efforts in Kosovo, and 
against this provision which, in its current form, could do that effort 
real harm.
  Mr. President, again, I have great respect for my colleagues on the 
other side of this question. I would be pleased to have an up-or-down 
vote on the peacekeeping operation. I would be pleased to be held 
accountable. I would love for the Senate to deal with this question 
right now and vote up or down on the peacekeeping operation. To me, 
that is checks and balances. I would vote for the peacekeeping 
operation, and that is why I will support Senator Levin's initiative.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, a little over a year ago, I rose in this 
Chamber to address the crisis in Kosovo. At that time, I had just 
recently returned from a trip to the refugee camps of Macedonia, where 
I witnessed firsthand the pain and suffering of displaced people in the 
troubled Balkan peninsula. During that visit, I was struck by the sight 
of 45,000 people living in tents in an area half the size of The Mall. 
Families were lined up for food and medicine and used ditches as 
latrines. Some individuals told me stories of being brutalized by the 
Serbian military and police in Kosovo and others of being evicted from 
their homes and separated from their families. Mr. President, I have 
seen a lot of hardship in my time, but nothing I have ever seen comes 
close to what I saw in the Balkans.
  I returned from that trip determined to convince my colleagues that 
the United States had an integral role to play in the alleviation of 
suffering that the people of Kosovo had been subjected to by Serbian 
President Milosevic. At that time many in this body agreed that the 
United States had a moral obligation to join with our European allies 
in stopping Serbian aggression and creating the conditions to allow 
Kosovars to return to their homes.
  Now it is a year later. Some things have changed. The international 
community stood up to the bully--Milosevic, and like most bullies he 
backed down and withdrew his forces from Kosovo. However, he left the 
province in total devastation--both physically and psychologically. 
Many of those displaced by the conflict returned to find their homes 
and livelihoods in ashes. Rebuilding from the rubble has been 
difficult. Particularly as just across the provincial border, President 
Milosevic still rules, a million people are still displaced from their 
homes and families, and lasting peace has not been achieved.
  The United States, in partnership with our friends and allies, has 
attempted to assist Kosovars in picking up the pieces and restoring 
some semblance of law and order to the province. There has been some 
progress in that direction, but much remains to be done. Yet, despite 
the unfinished business that remains the legislation before us today, 
if it becomes law, would establish a date certain--next July--for 
ending United States participation in restoring democracy in Kosovo.
  I remember well, that prior to the commencement of NATO bombing in 
March of last year many in this body criticized the President for 
sitting on his hands while ethnic Albanian Kosovars were being 
subjected to gross human rights violations under the direction of 
President Milosevic and Serbian security forces. I hope that those 
individuals are not now going to turn around and support an effort to 
mandate the full and complete withdrawal of U.S. ground troops from 
Kosovo.
  Even if the United States were to decide to withdraw from the region, 
which, let me state, is not what I believe we should do, it is 
incredibly foolhardy to announce the exact date to the enemy. Knowing 
of imminent United States withdrawal from the Balkans, President 
Milosevic will have no incentive to step down or improve his human 
rights record at all, and the timing of the withdrawal, July 2001, 
follows far too quickly the inauguration of a new President here in the 
United States.
  If there is any doubt in anyone's mind about whether U.S. presence is 
warranted in Kosovo, I promise my colleagues that had they been with me 
in Kosovo last year and seen what I saw, there would be absolutely no 
debate in this Chamber about whether or not we are taking the right 
course of action. Our efforts to restore people to their homes, bring 
an end to conflict, and save the lives of thousands are assuredly the 
right things to do.
  Rather than send out more mixed signals, I hope that Slobodan 
Milosevic will hear from this Chamber--That we are not going to second 
guess the President or Secretary of Defense in deciding when the 
appropriate time has come for the United States to withdraw its forces 
from the Balkans--That the United States is determined to remain in 
Kosovo until the wounds have healed and civil society is strong enough 
to support democratic governance of all the people of Kosovo, including 
its Serbian minority--And that we are proud of the American service men 
and women who are deployed in Kosovo and who are committed to getting 
the job done. They know why they are there and understand the 
seriousness and importance of their mission. We do them a disservice by 
suggesting otherwise.
  Mr. President, the Senate will be acting irresponsibly if it approves 
legislation mandating an end to our participation in Kosovo. I would 
urge my colleagues to support an amendment to strike this provision 
from the bill and renew our commitment to assist the people of Kosovo 
in the months ahead as they try to rebuild their lives and those of 
their loved ones.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I am going to vote for the Levin amendment 
to the military construction appropriations bill, which would strike 
the Byrd-Warner amendment concerning Kosovo.
  As a strong supporter of NATO, I have long advocated efforts to 
strengthen the European pillar of the alliance. The air war in Kosovo 
highlighted a great technical disparity in U.S. and European 
capabilities, and reopened long-standing debates of burden sharing 
within the Alliance.
  I fully understand and support the motivation behind the authors and 
supporters of this provision. While it is true the Europeans are 
contributing over 80 percent of the peacekeeping forces that make up K-
For, they have yet to fully live up to their commitments to NATO 
Peacekeeping, UNMIK, and the funds that make up the civilian and 
military dimensions of the peace effort.
  However, this provision undercuts our incentives to the Europeans to 
meet those goals because it contains a ``de facto'' withdrawal date of 
July 1, 2001. It signals to our allies that the United States will 
withdraw regardless of any improved European efforts to meet their 
commitments.
  This bill will effectively constitute a decision to withdraw forces 
at a given date. That is not the authors' stated intent, but that is 
how this amendment will be viewed. That is a message that will embolden 
Milosevic. That is a message that we will communicate an absence of 
commitment to our NATO allies.
  American General Wes Clark, the former Supreme Allied Commander 
Europe and the former highest ranking military officer in NATO, has 
warned,

       These measures, if adopted, would be seen as a de facto 
     pull-out decision by the United States. They are unlikely to 
     encourage European allies to do more. In fact, these measures 
     would invalidate the policies, commitments and trust of our 
     Allies in NATO, undercut US leadership worldwide, and 
     encourage renewed ethnic tension, fighting and instability in 
     the Balkans. Furthermore, they would, if enacted, invalidate 
     the dedication and commitment of our Soldiers, Sailors, 
     Airmen, and Marines, disregarding the sacrifices they and 
     their families have made to help bring peace to the Balkans. 
     In fact, these measures would invalidate the policies, 
     commitments and trust of our allies in NATO, undercut US 
     leadership worldwide, and encourage renewed ethnic tension, 
     fighting and instability in the Balkans.

  While I, and many others, have had concerns about how the Kosovo 
operation has been conducted by the current administration, the 
solution to these concerns are not a withdrawal, or another debate on 
whether or not to withdraw. The solution is to establish a definition 
of goals we hoe to achieve with regard to Kosovo, how we intend to 
accomplish our goals, and work more effectively with our European 
allies in achieving those goals. When our next President takes office 
in January,

[[Page S4156]]

under the Byrd-Warner provision he would be burdened not only with 
addressing the current administration's shortcomings in establishing a 
Kosovo policy, but also with a congressionally-imposed fixed date for 
United States withdrawal from Kosovo.
  So for these reasons, while I support the goals of this provision, I 
cannot support the means used to achieve that goal and I will vote for 
the Levin amendment.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to address the Levin 
amendment to the military construction appropriations bill, which 
strikes the provisions of the Byrd-Warner amendment on Kosovo which was 
attached to the bill in committee.
  Unfortunately, for an issue of such importance, this amendment came 
up very quickly in committee without, I think, due consideration and 
study.
  Since the committee markup last week I have had a chance to further 
consider and study this issue and I have had the opportunity to discuss 
this issue, at length, with senior members of the Administration, with 
Secretary Cohen, with Jack Lew, Director of the OMB, and with General 
Wesley Clark, the former supreme NATO commander. As a result of these 
discussions, I have some serious concerns about the potential impact of 
the Byrd-Warner amendment
  During the committee markup, proponents of this amendment asserted 
that the certifications called for by the amendment could be made 
``tomorrow'' without delay. According to Mr. Lew, however, the 
certifications can not be met by July 15 of this year. The reason why 
these certifications can not be made, he has stated, is not because our 
European allies are not making efforts to meet their commitments--they 
are and in many cases they have--but for technical reasons.
  So we could very well find ourselves in a position whereby we have 
accomplished the policy goals of the Byrd-Warner amendment but, because 
technical reasons prevent Presidential certifications, we are forced to 
withdraw U.S. forces from Kosovo.
  Both Senator Byrd and Senator Warner have given assurances that these 
shortcomings will be fixed in conference. I very much appreciate these 
assurances. But I have reason to believe that it is not a simple fix, 
but that a number of issues needs to be addressed, and this may well 
prove difficult to accomplish.
  In addition, as General Clark has made clear, by setting in motion an 
automatic mechanism for complete withdrawal by 2001 that will telegraph 
our troop deployments and our policy, and which ties the hand of the 
next President, the Byrd-Warner amendment has an impact far beyond that 
originally anticipated in that it complicates and makes more difficult 
the U.S. role in Kosovo. I cannot ignore the conviction of General 
Clark that passage of this amendment would run the risk of destroying 
the NATO mission in Kosovo.
  As General Clark stated in his May 11 letter to Senator Levin, ``This 
action will also undermine specific plans and commitments made within 
the Alliance. At the time that U.S. military and diplomatic personnel 
are pressing other nations to fulfill and expand their commitment of 
forces, capabilities and resources, an apparent congressionally 
mandated pullout would undercut their leadership and parallel 
diplomatic efforts.''
  Or, as Secretary Cohen said in a discussion I had with him just a 
short time ago, ``if the Senate passes this, it will weaken the allies' 
resolve rather than strengthen it.''
  As General Clark concludes in his May 11 letter, ``A U.S. withdrawal 
could give Mr. Milosevic the victory he could not achieve on the 
battlefield.''
  Because of these concerns, I find that I must vote in favor of the 
Levin motion to strike the Byrd amendment, and urge my colleagues to do 
the same.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Voinovich). The Senator from Michigan is 
recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Byrd-Warner provision would make the 
decision that U.S. ground troops must pull out of Kosovo starting in 
August of this year if the Europeans don't meet certain specified 
percentages of their financial and civilian police commitment, unless 
the Congress changes its mind and decides otherwise.
  It did decide, in any event, that even if the Europeans do meet their 
commitments, even if they do meet the commitments we have been urging 
them to meet--and they have been making progress--even if they meet 
those commitments, next year, in any event, our troops are coming out 
of Kosovo, unless Congress changes its mind. It is all self-executing. 
If Congress does nothing from this point on, if we adopt the Byrd-
Warner language, next year, in the middle of the year, our troops must 
come out of Kosovo.
  Now, the issue here isn't whether we have the power to set a 
withdrawal date and to enforce it with the power of the purse. That is 
not the issue. I think all of us would support the right of this Senate 
and this Congress to set a withdrawal date for our forces from 
anywhere. We have exercised that power. We exercised it in Somalia and 
in Haiti. The issue before us is the wisdom of setting a withdrawal 
date today, putting it on automatic pilot, and saying that a year from 
now, unless Congress reverses its position, those troops must come out. 
That creates a dangerous period of uncertainty, a destabilizing period 
of uncertainty, which we have been urged not to set in motion by our 
Secretary of Defense, by the Secretary General of NATO, and by the 
recent commander of our forces in Kosovo.
  First, Secretary Cohen, on May 11, said:

       I strongly believe the Kosovo language in the supplemental 
     is counterproductive to peace in Kosovo and will seriously 
     jeopardize the relationship between the U.S. and our NATO 
     allies.

  I ask unanimous consent that Secretary Cohen's letter be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                     The Secretary of Defense,

                                     Washington, DC, May 11, 2000.
     Hon. Ted Stevens,
     Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Ted: I appreciate your efforts to secure as quickly as 
     possible the Supplemental appropriations for our peace-
     keeping operations in Kosovo. As you know, however, I am 
     deeply troubled by the Kosovo provision in the bill. While I 
     appreciated the opportunity to discuss this provision with 
     Senator Byrd and Senator Warner prior to the mark up, I feel 
     compelled to express in writing my concerns with this 
     amendment.
       I have worked hard to reinforce the message to our European 
     allies that they must carry the lion's share in winning the 
     peace in Kosovo. While certainly more could be done, we 
     should not lose sight of the fact that the Europeans are in 
     fact carrying this burden. The U.S. accounts for only about 
     15 percent of peacekeeping forces in Kosovo. The Europeans 
     are also carrying the bulk of the effort on the civilian 
     side, as appropriate.
       While strong messages from Congress on the importance of 
     burden-sharing can be helpful, I strongly believe the Kosovo 
     language in the Supplemental is counterproductive to peace in 
     Kosovo and will seriously jeopardize the relationship between 
     the U.S. and our NATO allies. For instance, unilateral 
     actions by the U.S. regarding Kosovo will seriously undermine 
     our efforts to discourage unilateral action by our NATO 
     allies with regard to the European Strategic Defense 
     Initiative (ESDI).
       I believe that the Kosovo provision, as presently written, 
     will force me to recommend that the President veto this 
     legislation. Such an outcome will only further delay a badly 
     needed infusion of funds for the DoD budget and most 
     particularly the Army.
       Finally, I once again urge you to fully fund the 
     supplemental appropriations request for International Affairs 
     (Function 150) Kosovo. The requested funds support essential 
     civilian infrastructure that would facilitate a prudent exit 
     strategy for Kosovo and achievement of long-term stability in 
     the Balkans.
       I look forward to discussing this critical matter with you 
     further.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Bill Cohen.

  Mr. LEVIN. The Secretary General of NATO, on May 16, in a letter that 
has been referred to by Senator McCain, said the following in a 
different paragraph--one that he didn't read, but which I think is also 
significant:

       If this language is adopted, it would point toward a single 
     policy outcome to the withdrawal of U.S. forces.

  Then he went on to say:

       As Secretary General, the prospect of any NATO ally 
     deciding unilaterally not to take part in a NATO operation 
     causes me deep concern. It risks sending a dangerous signal 
     to the Yugoslav dictator Milosevic that NATO is divided and 
     that its biggest and most important ally is pulling up 
     stakes.

  This is the Secretary General of the greatest alliance in world 
history--one that we have been a leader of--who is

[[Page S4157]]

saying the adoption of this language risks sending a dangerous signal 
to Milosevic that NATO is divided and that its biggest and most 
important ally is pulling up stakes.
  General Clark, recently the commander of our forces in Kosovo, wrote 
the following:

       These measures, if adopted, would be seen as a de facto 
     pullout decision by the United States. They are unlikely to 
     encourage European allies to do more. In fact, these measures 
     would invalidate the policies, commitments, and trust of our 
     allies in NATO, undercut U.S. leadership worldwide, and 
     encourage renewed ethnic tension, fighting, and instability 
     in the Balkans.

  So the issue here isn't our power. We have it. Everyone in this body 
will protect it--I hope. As long as I am here, I will be fighting for 
the same power Senator Byrd so eloquently talks about that the Congress 
must have--the power of the purse, the power to set a deadline, should 
we choose, such as the power we exercised in Somalia to set a deadline 
and to force our troops out.
  We have, at times, exercised that power. At times, we have shown, in 
my judgment, the wisdom not to exercise that power. We have not 
exercised it in Iraq. We are not exercising it in Korea. We are not 
exercising it in Bosnia at this point. We have not authorized those 
engagements to continue. We have not determined that we are going to 
put an end to them. So we have exercised judgment both ways, in our 
wisdom. We have the power to put an end to our presence in Iraq, or in 
Bosnia, or in South Korea. We have the power, but we have decided, in 
our wisdom, not to exercise that power.
  I hope that today, in our wisdom, for the reasons set forth by Mr. 
Cohen, General Clark, and the Secretary General of NATO, we will not 
create this period of dangerous uncertainty if we today decide that a 
year from now we are going to withdraw troops unless Congress changes 
its mind. It is the wrong message for our troops, for the reasons 
General Clark gives. It is a terrible message to our European allies 
because in one part of this amendment it says we want you to meet 
certain standards, but in the other part of the Byrd-Warner language it 
says even if the Europeans meet their standards and their commitments, 
nonetheless, unless Congress changes its mind in the next year, our 
troops are going to be withdrawn. It is on automatic pilot. It is self-
effectuating. If no action is taken further by the Congress, our troops 
must be withdrawn.
  Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, on March 23, 1999, I voted against the 
initial Senate resolution to authorize air attacks in Yugoslavia. More 
than 420 days have passed since I cast that vote, and I could not be 
more confident in my initial decision.
  I argued in 1999 that the United States was foolishly injecting and 
engaging the brave men and women of our Armed Forces into a civil war 
that I dare say may never be resolved. Furthermore, the Administration 
had then not proposed, and to date has not yet recommended an exit 
strategy for the occupation of Kosovo. In reaching my decision, I 
questioned the mission's objectives, the implication of a long-term 
U.S. commitment in Yugoslavia, and most importantly I argued that our 
vital national interests did not warrant a full scale war in the 
Balkans.
  In less than two months after the Administration was authorized to 
enter the war in the Balkans, Congress faced an $11 billion taxpayer 
commitment to the endeavor. Once again I voted against the U.S. 
commitment to the civil war in Kosovo, citing the same concerns.
  And what has resulted from the U.S. and NATO engagement in Kosovo? 
NATO's thrust into the Balkans has fostered the creation of an entirely 
new class of refugees; the U.S. military has been required to police 
the region for an undetermined and unspecified amount of time; our own 
NATO allies' financial and military obligation to the endeavor remains 
questionable; ethnic related violent incidents in the region have 
increased; commitment by the region's leaders to embrace reconciliation 
efforts are conspicuous by their absence; and now Americans and 
Congress are being asked to provide nearly $2 billion in additional 
funding for contingency operations in Kosovo.
  Just this week, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) released its 
report on the U.S. involvement in the Balkans. The report is critical 
of not only the U.S. and NATO participation in the region, but provides 
further doubt about the long-term prospect for peace in Kosovo. The 
report points out that the security situation remains highly volatile, 
that political and social reconciliation efforts are unsuccessful, that 
the wartime goals of the factions remain intact, and that NATO has 
failed to prepare for the transition of security responsibilities to 
the United Nations.
  In addition, the GAO reports that between 1992 and 2000, U.S. 
military and civilian costs for operations in Bosnia and Kosovo have 
cost the American taxpayer more than $18 billion. This figure includes 
commitments by the State Department, DoD, the U.S. Agency for 
International Development, U.S. participation in UN peacekeeping 
missions, the Department of Transportation, and the U.S. Treasury.
  GAO also concluded that between 1991 and 1999, more than 4.4 million 
people have been displaced as a result of the wars in Kosovo, Bosnia, 
and Croatia. A large share of these people remain in refugee camps. 
These displaced, war torn individuals have lost their homes, and have 
few prospects to regain them.
  In spite of such a massive financial and political commitment, the 
report also concludes that should NATO withdraw, unrest is inevitable. 
Political leaders have not embraced change, people who have tried to 
return to their homes have been attacked, the peace process has been 
continuously obstructed by ethnic groups, the economy remains flat, and 
efforts to advance the formulation of a multiethnic society have 
failed.
  Our asserted goals are a multiethnic Kosovo as a part of Yugoslavia; 
the Kosovars want independence and the expulsion of all Serbs.
  With all of these negative forces at play against the peace process, 
how long does the United States intend to police the region? How many 
more taxpayer dollars will be spent on security issues in Kosovo that 
appear to have little or no possibility of reformation? What is the 
price for peace, if peace is even attainable?
  One of the reasons that I opposed the war in Kosovo from the 
beginning was not the risk that we were going to lose the war but the 
consequences of winning. We now have ``won'', we have won most of what 
we asked for in the beginning, but the consequences of winning is that 
we are putting thousands of our troops into Kosovo without any thought 
of when they will return.
  I am convinced that a U.S. presence may continue in Kosovo for a 
generation or so. We have, and most likely will expend billions of 
dollars in an out of the way place that has never been important to our 
national security, and we are doing it in a way in which most of the 
destruction that we are going to pay for in the future was caused by 
us. Most Americans are going to find that Kosovo was much easier to get 
into than it was to get out of.
  I intend to vote against the Fiscal Year 2001 Military Construction 
Appropriations bill because of my deep concern over the U.S. commitment 
and participation in the Balkan conflict. It is time to leave it to the 
Europeans. Even though the State of Washington, home to the most 
efficient, strategically positioned, and significant Army, Navy and Air 
Force bases stand to inherit valuable military construction funds by 
the passage of this legislation, I cannot in good conscience support 
another financial commitment to an unresolvable conflict in the 
Balkans.
  Those brave and courageous men and women of the U.S. military who 
have been tasked with implementing this Kosovo intervention, and those 
serving in the Armed Forces in the State of Washington, have my 
admiration and support. But in the goal of attaining peace in the 
Balkans, of the Administration's questionable leadership in this 
endeavor, and the long-term commitment that is expected of the American 
taxpayer, I have no confidence at all.
  Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise today in strong support of the 
Fiscal Year 2001 military construction appropriations bill and to 
commend my colleagues Senator Stevens, Senator Byrd, Senator Burns, and 
Senator Murray for their leadership in bringing this most important 
spending bill

[[Page S4158]]

before the Senate. This bill provides critical funding for military 
construction projects as well as Department of Defense related 
emergency supplemental funding for fiscal year 2000.
  Other colleagues have already spoken on the merits of the military 
construction aspect of this bill and the importance of those projects 
to the men and women of our armed forces and their families. So today, 
I am going to focus my remarks on the critical provisions contained in 
the Byrd-Warner amendment and why I believe those provisions are as 
important to these same men and women and their families.
  By including emergency supplemental funding in this bill, and fast 
tracking its passage, the Congress will be supporting the loyal men and 
women of our armed forces who are participating in contingency 
operations overseas. But, Mr. President, support of our troops is not 
always ``sending money,'' sometimes we support them best by ensuring 
that they are not overextended in missions that appear to have no end. 
And that is why I commend Senator Byrd and Senator Warner for their 
leadership by including these provisions that will force the debate 
about open-ended obligations.
  For example, on May 1, 2000, the top U.S. commander in Kosovo, 
Brigadier General Ricardo Sanchez told reporters that he predicts that 
NATO peacekeepers will have to remain in the Balkans for ``at least a 
generation.''
  In testimony before the Senate just this last April, Secretary of 
Defense Bill Cohen acknowledged that U.S. troops may not be pulled out 
during his final months in his cabinet position, and possibly not 
during the time of his predecessor. Our airmen performed superbly 
during the 78-day air war. Now, a year has passed and we have more than 
5,500 troops on the ground in Kosovo, having spent more than $2 billion 
on the air campaign, and by September of this year estimates are that 
the U.S. will spend upwards of $5.9 billion in support of stabilizing 
the peace in Kosovo. And, as the policy currently stands, there is no 
end in sight.
  We have learned through our experience in Bosnia that rhetoric alone 
will not expedite mission accomplishment and bring our troops home. In 
1996, the U.S. sent 22,500 soldiers to the Balkans, in support of the 
Dayton Accords for an operation that was to last until December 16th of 
that year. We have made great progress there, but, four years later, 
the U.S. still has a significant force there and no deadline for 
withdrawal. So here we are Mr. President, four and one half years since 
the signing of the Dayton Accords in Bosnia, we have more than 4,300 
troops in Bosnia and another 3,000 support personnel committed in the 
region and no deadline for withdrawal, no end in sight.
  In Kosovo we won the peace in June 1999 with our air campaign and a 
year later we are providing more then 5,500 troops to support an 
operation that is becoming increasingly more threatening.

  In this bill, Mr. President, with the leadership of Senator Byrd and 
Senator Warner, the Senate is taking action to establish some way of 
getting to an end in Kosovo. Provisions in this bill provide a 
limitation of funds for U.S. ground combat troops in Kosovo. Section 
2410 of this bill terminates funding for the U.S. presence in Kosovo 
after July 1, 2001, unless and until the President submits a report to 
Congress containing a request to specifically authorize continued U.S. 
ground troop deployment and Congress enacts a joint resolution 
specifically authorizing such continued deployment. I must note, that 
this provision does continue the support of non-combat troops in Kosovo 
who can provide limited support to the continued NATO peacekeeping 
operation.
  The provision further requires the President to develop a plan, in 
consultation with appropriate foreign governments, by which NATO member 
countries, with the exception of the U.S., and other non-NATO countries 
will provide all ground combat troops necessary to execute peacekeeping 
operations in Kosovo. Again, we are looking for a plan--something that 
this Administration has not been able to do. The plan is to establish a 
schedule or target dates, at three month intervals, for achieving an 
orderly transition to a non-U.S. force in Kosovo.
  Mr. President, it is also in this spirit that I must express my 
disappointment in the lack of support for operations in Kosovo by the 
European Commission, the European Union, and the European member 
nations of NATO and why I strongly support the provisions of the Byrd-
Warner amendment.
  In Kosovo, the U.S. has taken the lead toward ending the ethnic 
violence and establishing civil law with the intention of turning the 
responsibility for long term development and revitalization over to the 
European community. However, the European community has not stepped 
forward as a unified body to assume this responsibility, and appears 
unwilling to take a leadership role.
  In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 
29th, General Clark, then Commander-In-Chief of the U.S. European 
Command stated that ``despite our progress in missions assigned to the 
military, civil implementation has been slow and in Kosovo today, civil 
government structures are lacking.'' He further stated that ``the pace 
of contributions to the manning and resources of UNMIK [United Nations 
Mission in Kosovo] have resulted in sporadic and uneven progress toward 
civil implementation goals'' and concluded his testimony by saying 
``the hardest part of securing peace in Kosovo lies ahead.''
  A well-publicized area where the lack of European support for civil 
implementation is readily apparent is the European's lack of support 
for the Kosovo Police Force. The United Nations has stated the 
requirement for 4,718 police and at this point the United States has 
provided 97% of the 550 police we have pledged, yet our European 
partners have only mustered 63% of the 1288 police they had pledged. 
Mr. President, I call on the leadership of our allies to meet their 
commitments!
  Let me remind my colleagues that in the last decade we anticipated 
reaping the benefits of the peace dividend. Many touted that the end of 
the Cold War would allow us to draw down our military forces and spend 
less money on defense. Well we have drawn our forces down, and they are 
deployed more now than ever anticipated in the post-cold-war era, and 
we are paying for it. In the period 1999 through 1999, U.S. taxpayers 
will have spent more than $23.6 billion for contingency operations. Mr. 
President, we just cannot afford to unilaterally deploy troops and 
provide monetary support to each global hot spot for an indefinite 
period of time, with tepid and inconsistent support from the UN, NATO, 
and our other allies.

  In the four years of the Bosnia Operation, more Army reservists have 
been activated than in the entire Vietnam War, and I am concerned that 
our involvement in Kosovo will mirror our involvement in Bosnia. I tell 
you this first hand, because these reservists include men and women of 
the 112th Medical Company from the Army National Guard and members of 
the 101st Air Refueling Wing from my home state of Maine who were 
called up or volunteered to serve in Bosnia.
  And we are paying for these extended deployments in more than just 
dollars. At a time when the Department of Defense is meeting only 92 
percent of its active duty recruiting goal, 88 percent of its Reserve 
recruiting goal and is struggling to retain the highly trained people 
that are currently serving, we in Congress and in the Administration 
need to be mindful of the message that we are sending to the American 
people. They need to know that we are aware that we are closely 
watching, and that we are ready to step in to protect the best 
interests of the U.S. and our men and women in uniform.
  Although military members reference the high operational tempo as a 
consideration for leaving the military, it is difficult to quantify the 
exact effect those contingency operations have had on the recruiting 
and retention of personnel. It is, however, easy to determine the 
monetary effect. As we marked-up the Fiscal Year 2001 Defense 
Authorization Act, we were forced to look for ways to find money to 
fund new equipment to modernize our forces, money to improve housing 
and the quality of life, and money to improve healthcare for our men 
and women in uniform, as well as their families and our often forgotten 
retirees. We continue to uphold our commitments, just as we are 
upholding our commitment to this operation in Kosovo--to the detriment 
of our readiness to fight and win if there was a

[[Page S4159]]

major theater war--while our European allies remain in the shadows.
  Now this Senate is considering the addition of $1.85 billion in 
supplemental appropriations to support overseas contingency operations. 
But this bill is different in that the Byrd-Warner amendment limits the 
amount that can be obligated to 75 percent of the total Kosovo 
appropriation until the President certifies that four specific 
conditions have been met; at which time the remaining 25 percent would 
be released. These conditions stipulate that the European Commission, 
the European Union and the European member nations of NATO must provide 
a third of the assistance for reconstruction that they pledged, 75 
percent of the funds promised for humanitarian assistance, 75 percent 
of the amount pledged for the Kosovo consolidated budget, and 75 
percent of the personnel pledged for the Kosovo Police Force.
  These provisions provide specific, tangible steps toward the 
fulfillment of the commitment promised by these countries. This does 
not require these countries to provide something that they do not have 
or something that they are not capable of supporting. It is merely a 
means of holding them accountable for that to which they have already 
committed.
  If, however, our allies continue to go back on their pledged 
commitment, and the President cannot certify that those four conditions 
have been met by July 15th of this year, then the remaining funds must 
be used for the planned, phased, and safe withdrawal of U.S. troops 
from Kosovo. The details and time line for this withdrawal will be left 
to the President and his advisers, with these plans to be fully 
developed by the 30th of September.
  So, as our troops in Kosovo valiantly conduct 1,321 security patrols 
each week and provide around the clock security at 48 checkpoints and 
62 key facilities, we must support them in every way, beginning with 
holding our allies in Europe to the fiscal and personnel support they 
pledged to provide when the U.S. decided to support the air offensive 
in Kosovo.
  I know, that as a result of the leadership of Senators Stevens, Byrd, 
Burns, and Murray, the FY2001 military construction appropriations bill 
is good legislation that provides our men and women in the armed forces 
the support they need as they go about their business of protecting our 
long-term national interests.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, new revelations from 
``Newsweek'' and ``Inside the Pentagon'' show that the air war against 
Serbia was inaccurately portrayed. These reports allege hyper-inflating 
of reports of damage done by allied bombing.
  Now we are awakening to the realization that we expended a small 
fortune in precision munitions with very little effect--but the 
administration felt it necessary to exaggerate grossly the results of 
the air campaign in an attempt to buy public support for the war.
  This is shameful--and the individuals involved in this deceit ought 
to be reprimanded.
  The bombing triggered a refugee crisis--that was its main result. 
There was never any threat to NATO from the conflict in the Balkans.
  In fact, the real threat to NATO is that it has abandoned its 
traditional role of being a defensive alliance, and under this 
administration has blundered and contorted into a post-cold war crisis 
management agency with a lost sense of mission.
  NATO's bombing killed innocent civilians and raised regional 
tensions.
  Like Haiti and Somalia before, the war in Kosovo has cost the 
taxpayers billions, exhausted and demoralized our men and women in the 
armed forces, and accomplished nothing, yet damaged our image in the 
region as a nation that believes in democracy and justice.
  As a result of demonizing Milosevic in Serbia, we have become tacit 
allies with the Kosovo Liberation Army, a group in the recent past 
acknowledged to be an organization which commits terrorist acts and 
which appears to be supported by the Albanian mafia, which is said to 
be a major supplier of heroin in the European market.
  In our zeal to ``stop the killing'' in the Balkans, we, as a result, 
aligned ourselves with a terrorist mob with links to drug traffickers 
and killed a lot of innocent people. This is peacekeeping run amok, and 
it has to be brought to an end as quickly as possible.
  I support the Byrd-Warner amendment, not that it goes far enough. It 
does not. We should have never gotten involved in the Balkans, and we 
should have gotten out long ago recognizing that our intervention was 
damaging, and like too many other missions from which we have failed to 
learn any lessons, open-ended, and lacking any clear objectives.
  We are using our young men and women in uniform as police officers, 
something which they are not trained to be and which they 
understandably resent.
  They are not policemen, they are soldiers. If they had wanted to be 
police, they could have signed up in their local towns and at least 
have been home with their families at night.
  I want to make one thing perfectly clear. I am tired of hearing those 
who support the Balkan blunder say that we are ``undercutting'' our 
troops by seeking authorization for the mission's continuation.
  I believe that sending our armed forces into harm's way into a 
conflict in which we have no identifiable national security objectives 
undercuts our troops.
  I believe that wasting our precious military resources in a futile 
peacekeeping mission undercuts the troops.
  I believe that we undercut the troops when we plunge into a conflict 
without Congress making a declaration of war. Did we learn anything 
from Vietnam?
  Finally, I warn my colleagues that rather than admitting to a 
colossal mistake in Kosovo, which this administration would never be 
willing to do, it is likely that it will blunder more deeply, possibly 
into Montenegro, even if the Byrd-Warner amendment were to pass the 
Congress.
  General Wesley Clark's latest comments, as well as a reading of 
Agence France Press and some of the other foreign news sources, 
including comments by some of Europe's war hawks, reveal that 
Montenegro and the Presovo Valley might be the next jumping off point.
  In fact, the KLA can read between the lines. If they create yet 
another provocation, and force the Serbs to respond, creating an 
atmosphere charged with allegations of atrocities or another 
humanitarian crisis, it will give NATO the excuse it needs to blunder 
more deeply into the Balkan quagmire.
  We need to start pulling down our forces in Kosovo and winding down 
this operation. We need to be able to admit to a mistake when we make 
it.
  Our military forces are stretched as thin as they have ever been. 
This year, the services' unfunded requirements list was in the realm of 
$15 billion.
  We cannot afford to squander our limited military dollars in Kosovo.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The hour of 2:10 has arrived, and Senator Byrd 
is to be recognized. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, the Senator from Michigan says this vote is not about 
power.
  I say to the distinguished Senator that this matter is about power. 
It is about the arrogance of power in a White House that insists on 
putting our men and our women in harm's way, and spending their tax 
dollars without the consent of their elected representatives.
  Where is the wisdom in that course? Where is the wisdom in allowing a 
policy of indefinite drift in the Balkans with no end strategy, no exit 
strategy, and no clearly defined goals?
  We keep hearing it said that we are endangering our men and women. I 
say we are endangering the lives of our men and women in the military 
by failing to make the case up front for putting them in harm's way. We 
are endangering the lives of our men and women in the military when we 
neglect to be sure that the American people support taking those risks 
before we put those men and women in harm's way. We are endangering the 
lives of our men and women in the military when we budget for dangerous 
missions in emergency bills after the fact that cannot provide for a 
long-term investment in those missions. We are endangering the lives of 
our men and women in the military when we have no clear-cut achievable 
goals and when we have no exit strategy. No ground has been

[[Page S4160]]

plowed for this mission, with no explanation of our goals and 
objectives, except some vague nebulous shibboleths.
  Let me say this in closing. We are hearing from everybody but the 
people who pay the bills; the people who send their sons and daughters 
off to foreign lands to shed their blood. We hear from General Clark. 
We hear from the Secretary General of the United Nations. We hear from 
Secretary Cohen. We hear from everybody but the people.
  I know what it is. I have been in Congress 48 years. I have seen a 
lot of these things happen before.
  When we come here we have our picture taken with the Commander in 
Chief. My first picture that was taken after I came to Congress 48 
years ago was with General Eisenhower, President Eisenhower. We go down 
to the White House. We get wined and dined. We have pictures taken with 
the brass over at the Pentagon. And we hear the people who live in the 
white towers, the political pundits, the media, and we forget about the 
people who send us here. We get all swollen up by virtue of these 
contacts that we have, and the people who are telling us what they 
think, the so-called commanders in chief, Presidents of the United 
States, and so on. We forget about the people, and we forget about the 
Constitution.
  They may say this Constitution was all right for yesterday. They may 
say it is old, that it was all right 200 years ago, or that it was all 
right 100 years ago.
  I say to you, my colleagues, if it were not for this Constitution, 
you wouldn't be here. There wouldn't be a Senate of the United States. 
There wouldn't be a Senate in which the small States of the Union have 
the same voice that the largest States have in this Union if it were 
not for this Constitution. If it were not for this Constitution, we 
wouldn't have the United States of America. We would probably have a 
``Balkanized States of America.''
  So let's remember this Constitution. We take an oath to support and 
defend this Constitution.
  That is what Senator Warner and I and the supporters of this 
amendment are trying to do. We believe that the main warpowers are 
concentrated in the Congress, and that the main absolute top warpower, 
the power of appropriating the money, is vested here.

  Let's stop listening to these dreamings of distempered fancies--by 
the great generals, the Secretaries General, Defense Secretaries, and 
Presidents of the United States. Let's listen to the people of the 
United States. What do they think? They send their men and women to 
foreign fields to shed their blood. The people of the United States, 
the people who are listening in through that electronic eye up there, 
are the people we should be talking about. They are the people whom we 
should be listening to--not some far away Secretary General, not some 
Secretary of Defense, not some Commander in Chief. They are only here 
for a day, or for a term, or 4 years. But the people are out there 
yesterday, today, and forever. And we are their elected 
representatives.
  Let's regain our voices and no longer be standing in awe of someone 
who wears the title of Commander in Chief. He is here only temporarily. 
He will be gone in a short time. There will be a new Commander in 
Chief. What does he think? We want to give the new Commander in Chief a 
voice.
  Oh, they say: Why not vote today? That would be highly irresponsible. 
Vote today to take them out is not what Senator Warner and I are 
saying. We are not saying take them out. We are not saying take them 
out today. We are not saying take them out tomorrow. We are saying, lay 
down a plan in consultation with the allies, whereby in due time the 
allies will take over the ground troop responsibility. We will leave 
our air support. We will leave our intelligence support.
  But let's regain our senses here. Let's just try to remind ourselves 
that we are not here to represent the Commander in Chief. I am not. I 
am not here to represent a Commander in Chief. I am here to represent 
the people of West Virginia. I am not here to represent the Secretary 
General of NATO. I am not here to represent the Secretary of Defense. I 
respect these people. I respect them. But they cannot tell me what this 
Constitution means. They cannot tell me what the intent of the 
Constitution is. I have my own eyes. I have my own ears. I have my own 
conscience, and I will be driven by my conscience and by this 
Constitution as long as I stay here.
  May God continue to bless this country--one nation, one Constitution, 
one destiny.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am proud to come to the floor once again 
to defend and explain the Kosovo amendment which I have sponsored with 
the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, and 
other, well-respected, conscientious colleagues--despite the 
accusations of some to the contrary. That amendment is now part of the 
bill before the Senate.
  Several weeks ago, Senator Byrd and I joined forces to draft a plan 
of action that would lead to a vote or votes on the continued 
deployment of U.S. troops in Kosovo. For almost a year now, thousands 
of U.S. troops have been patrolling the streets of Kosovo as part of a 
NATO-led peacekeeping operation--with no end in sight. The Congress has 
been silent; that must end. Congress is about to appropriate, pursuant 
to a request by our President, almost 2 billion U.S. taxpayer dollars 
for military operations in Kosovo without any knowledge of when our 
troops will come home.
  The purpose of our legislation is twofold. First, it requires the 
Congress to fulfill its co-equal constitutional responsibility, with 
the President, to make decisions--by vote--that are in the best 
interest of the nation, and particularly the men and women of the Armed 
Forces deployed in the Kosovo operation. This is a responsibility that 
the Congress has consistently failed to exercise for many years with 
respect to other military operations. Second, the legislation sends the 
message that other nations and organizations must follow through on 
their commitments of assistance for Kosovo if U.S. troops are to remain 
a part of the military force in Kosovo.
  The legislation that is before the Senate today has three main 
objectives. First, it terminates funding for the continued deployment 
of U.S. ground combat troops in Kosovo after July 1, 2001, unless the 
President seeks and receives Congressional authorization to keep troops 
in Kosovo. Second, the legislation requires the President to develop a 
plan, in consultation with our allies, to turn the ground combat troop 
element of the Kosovo peacekeeping operation entirely over to other 
nations by July 1, 2001. Third, related to today's operations in 
Kosovo, and to signal to the Europeans the need for them to fulfill 
their commitments for implementing peace and stability in Kosovo, the 
legislation withholds 25 percent of the emergency supplemental funding 
for military operations in Kosovo until the President certifies that 
our allies are making adequate progress in meeting the commitments they 
made to the Kosovo peacekeeping process. If the President does not make 
that certification by July 15 of this year, the funding held in reserve 
can only be used for the safe, orderly and phased withdrawal of U.S. 
troops from Kosovo, unless Congress votes otherwise.
  While I expected opposition to this legislation, I am, quite frankly, 
surprised by the misleading statements which are being used to describe 
our effort. Those of us who support this legislation are being accused 
of endangering the lives of U.S. troops, providing aid and comfort to 
the enemy--Milosevic, and sounding the ``death knell'' of NATO. 
According to General Clark, the measures contained in this legislation, 
``are unlikely to encourage our European allies to do more. In fact, 
these measures would invalidate the policies, commitments and trust of 
our Allies in NATO, undercut U.S. leadership worldwide, and encourage 
renewed ethnic tension, fighting and instability in the Balkans.'' 
There is simply no basis in fact for making such statements. Why is the 
Administration so afraid of letting the Congress have a voice, by vote, 
on our continued military presence in Kosovo? We are elected by the 
people of our nation to speak and vote in their best interests.

  Have the opponents really looked at this legislation? It is not a 
``cut and run'' from Kosovo. We are not deserting our allies. Nowhere 
in this legislation is there an automatic, mandated withdrawal of U.S. 
troops from Kosovo

[[Page S4161]]

on a date certain. In every case, what we have done is make the 
continued U.S. ground combat troop presence in Kosovo subject to a vote 
by the Congress. We are requiring a Congressional affirmation of a 
Presidential decision that affects the security of our nation and the 
welfare of the men and women of the Armed Forces deployed overseas and 
their families here at home. That was the intention of the Framers of 
the Constitution in giving the Congress co-equal power for such 
decisions.
  I point out to our critics that this legislation was carefully 
crafted to impact only the ground combat element of our presence in 
Kosovo. Even if the Congress decides, over a year hence, not to support 
our continued military presence in Kosovo, the U.S. would still be able 
to provide support elements to the NATO-led mission in Kosovo, and 
would be able to respond to an emergency situation with combat units.
  General Clark has pointed out that other nations--primarily our NATO 
allies--contribute 85 percent of the troops that make up the Kosovo 
operation. To now say that the possible elimination of only part of the 
remaining 15 percent U.S. forces would mean that ``the sky is falling'' 
calls into question the importance of the allied contribution to this 
effort. Is General Clark really saying that the 85 percent of the 
troops in Kosovo are of such little consequence, little effectiveness, 
in the effort to achieve peace and stability in that troubled region? I 
would hope that is not his message to our allies.
  One of the main reasons we are proceeding with this legislation is 
out of a deep sense of concern for the safety and security of our men 
and women in uniform in Kosovo. They are making sacrifices, they are 
facing daily risk to their personal safety. We, as their elected 
representatives, with co-equal responsibility under the Constitution 
for deploying troops into harm's way, must fully examine and debate 
this issue and--ultimately--vote on whether or not U.S. troops should 
remain in Kosovo. That is our responsibility, and we owe our brave 
servicemembers no less. We cannot--we must not--allow the situation in 
Kosovo to drift on endlessly, as we stand idly by, unwilling to act.
  Over the past decade, as our military has been reduced by a third, 
U.S. troops have been involved in overseas deployments at an 
unprecedented rate. According to General Hugh Shelton, the Chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs, ``Two factors that erode military readiness are the 
pace of operations and funding shortfalls. There is no doubt that the 
force is much smaller than it was a decade ago, but also much busier.'' 
The increasing frequency of these contingency operations--which involve 
extensive, repeated separation from family and home--is one of the 
major causes for the problems the military is having in recruiting and 
retaining quality personnel. The United States has far too many 
commitments around the world, our military is stretched too thin; we 
cannot have an open-ended, decades-long military deployment to the 
Balkans. It is time for Congress to act.
  I was very troubled by what I discovered during my January trip to 
Kosovo. I was a supporter of our military involvement in Kosovo; in 
fact, I was a principal sponsor of the resolution for authorization by 
the Congress of the air war. But I was disturbed by what I saw in 
January.
  I found U.S. troops running towns and villages--acting as mayors, 
police, and jailers; I found U.S. troops--in groups of 2 or 3--guarding 
individual houses and churches, escorting Serb families to market; I 
found U.S. troops concerned with the slow pace of the UN's effort to 
rebuild the region, and frustrated by the seemingly endless and 
mindless cycle of ethnic violence in Kosovo--Albanian on Serb, Serb on 
Albanian, and Albanian on Albanian.

  When I visited Bernard Kouchner, the UN Administrator in Kosovo, I 
found a man frustrated with the level of progress he had been able to 
achieve; I found a man pleading for help from the international 
community. ``I have no money'' was a phrase I heard over and over as we 
sat in KFOR Headquarters in Pristina, in one of the few buildings in 
the city with power--but no running water--as most of Kosovo was cold 
and dark during the winter. He told me that many pledges and 
commitments of assistance had been made at international conferences, 
but he could not pay the government workers or fix the power supply 
with pledges. He needed money.
  Until he, and others, are able to make progress, our troops will 
continue to be policemen and mayors and mediators--targets of the 
frustration of the people of Kosovo, and increasingly at risk. We saw 
some of the danger that our troops face during the violence in 
Mitrovica. That will only increase if an adequate economic and security 
infrastructure does not quickly materialize in Kosovo.
  I returned from that trip in January determined to do something to 
change the situation I found in that troubled region. I could not turn 
a blind eye to what I had seen. The legislation before the Senate is 
the result. Some may not agree with the approach, but I strongly 
believe that it is the proper course of action.
  Let me address some of the charges that have been leveled against the 
proponents of this legislation. The one that most troubles me is the 
charge that we are putting U.S. troops at risk because of this 
legislation. Who among us really believes that Senator Robert Byrd, 
Senator Ted Stevens, Senator Daniel Inouye, and the many others who 
have either cosponsored or voted for this amendment--15 of whom are 
veterans--would do anything to put U.S. troops at risk? We have devoted 
our careers to fighting for the well-being or our troops. I say to 
those who make this charge, we are trying to take action to address the 
risks our troops in Kosovo face everyday--which we must no longer 
ignore.
  My office recently received a communication from a soldier in Kosovo 
describing a recent confrontation with local citizens. I would like to 
quote parts of this e-mail so that my colleagues can understand the 
day-to-day reality of our troops in Kosovo:

       The entire village went out into the street, erected a 
     barricade and as the squad (of my soldiers) came out they 
     were pelted with rocks and other debris . . . As we moved in 
     people were hitting us with sticks and actually hitting us 
     with their fists . . . By the time of the linkup I was 
     punched in the face, hit with a stick and got in a wrestling 
     match. . . . Several hundred moved up the hill and started 
     throwing rocks, tree limbs, fire wood, and everything else 
     they could get their hands on. After getting hit in the head 
     by a large rock and getting smashed across the back with a 
     tree limb I gave the order for the soldiers to open fire with 
     nonlethal munitions.

  How long will it take until one of these incidents turns deadly? 
Those who vote against this amendment vote to leave our troops in these 
situations indefinitely.
  I would like to address a particular issue raised in the letter which 
General Clark sent to Senator Levin concerning this legislation; that 
is, General Clark's contention that this legislation ``is unlikely to 
encourage European allies to do more.'' On this, General Clark, there 
is already evidence to the contrary. In the several months since I 
first began discussing my original amendment--which is now incorporated 
in the Byrd-Warner amendment--there has been progress. I quote from a 
March 18, 2000, letter from Dr. Kouchner, in which he details results: 
``I very much appreciate the efforts that you have made so far which 
have been instrumental in improving our budget situation. Existing 
donor pledges have now been honored. The next challenge will be to get 
new donor pledges and to ensure that the pledges for the reconstruction 
budget of 17 November 1999 do materialize.'' Dr. Kouchner, we are 
continuing our efforts to help.

  I would like to address one other issue, one that was raised in a 
recent editorial by the Ranking Member of the Foreign Relations 
Committee--an editorial in which he accused the supporters of this 
legislation of being isolationists, a new charge for most of us. In 
this editorial, Senator Biden states, ``Some would even condition U.S. 
assistance on actions of the European Union, an abdication of our 
prerogatives in decision-making that ought to horrify conservatives.'' 
Since that is directly aimed at the certification requirement which I 
contributed to this legislation, I will respond. I point out to my 
colleagues that our President has already conditioned ``U.S. 
assistance''--that is, U.S. troops--on the actions of others. I remind 
my good friend from Delaware that the exit

[[Page S4162]]

strategy for our troops in Kosovo--as it is for our troops in Bosnia--
is directly linked to the actions of the UN, the EU, the OSCE, and 
others in achieving civil implementation goals. As Secretary Cohen 
stated in an October 15, 1999 letter to the Congress, ``The duration of 
the requirement for U.S. military presence (in Kosovo) will depend on 
the course of events . . . The military force will be progressively 
reduced based on an assessment of progress in civil implementation and 
the security situation.'' This legislation uses the same link--the same 
tie to the actions of others--already adopted by the Administration. If 
this logic is good for one side in this debate, I say to my good 
friend, then it is good for the other side as well.
  I encourage my colleagues to read this legislation carefully; examine 
it for what it does, and especially for what it does not do. Consider 
the well-respected, conscientious group of supporters. And judge for 
yourself what is the best course of action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I make a parliamentary inquiry: As I 
understand it, Senator Daschle will be recognized at 2:20. Is that 
correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. The time between now and 2:20 
is under the control of the Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, would the distinguished majority leader like 
to go ahead? I have 3 minutes. Do I?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, was it the intention of the distinguished 
senior Senator from West Virginia to yield back his time?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have no desire to take any more time. I am 
very happy to listen to the distinguished minority leader. I have said 
all I intended to say. I am ready to vote.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I thank the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for 
his graciousness, as is so often the case.
  I begin by commenting on our two colleagues, Senators Warner and 
Byrd. Some of the finest security thinkers this Senate has ever 
produced have chaired the Senate Armed Services Committee.
  I think of the names Russell, Stennis, Nunn, Strom Thurmond. They 
have all made significant contributions to this Nation's debate on 
national security. Although he has chaired the Armed Services Committee 
for less than 2 years, Senator Warner has demonstrated many of the 
traits that made his predecessors so successful. I have great respect 
for him.
  What can one say about Senator Robert C. Byrd? This is a rare and 
unique occasion for me. I can't remember the last time I was on the 
opposite side of an issue with Senator Byrd. I admire him immensely.
  No Member, past or present, has ever displayed a greater love or 
respect for this institution than has Robert C. Byrd. No Member enjoys 
greater respect and admiration from his colleagues. No Member is more 
reluctant than this Member to come to the floor and disagree with 
Robert C. Byrd.
  There is another reason this is difficult, besides the high regard I 
hold for him. The other reason I find this difficult is that I share 
many of the concerns that led Senators Warner and Byrd to draft this 
resolution in the first place.
  As we close this debate, I compliment our extraordinary member, the 
ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Levin, for the 
outstanding job he has done in presenting the arguments over the course 
of this debate and providing us his leadership. We owe him a major debt 
of gratitude.
  I think he shares my view that this debate is not about a number of 
things. It is not about whether the U.S. military commitment to Kosovo 
or any region of the world should be open-ended. Supporters of this 
amendment agree with the supporters of the Byrd-Warner amendment. Every 
U.S. commitment should be examined regularly by Congress and the 
President to ensure that it remains in our national interest. This 
debate is not about whether the U.S. commitment to Kosovo or any other 
region of the world should be open ended.
  This debate is not about whether our NATO allies should pay a fair 
share of any joint operation. We all agree. We have great difficulty 
reaching unanimity in many areas these days, but we are not in 
disagreement over that fact. Our allies should be sharing the burden, 
and, in fact, they are.
  As my colleagues have already noted in several of their excellent 
presentations to this body, they are supplying 85 percent of the 
peacekeeping forces in Kosovo today. They are shouldering the vast 
majority of the effort on the civilian side. That is not the debate 
either.
  We agree that they should pay more than we are paying, and they are. 
Eighty-seven percent of their pledge to Kosovo's budget has been made 
by our NATO allies; 63 percent of the pledge to the civilian police 
force has now been fulfilled by our NATO allies; 75 percent of their 
pledge on humanitarian assistance has been fulfilled by our NATO 
allies. They have begun to step up their commitment on reconstruction 
assistance.
  Third, this debate is not about whether Congress has a responsibility 
to exercise its constitutional duties over the power of the purse. I 
heard the eloquence once more of Robert C. Byrd. We all understand the 
importance of this responsibility. No one is more adamant and eloquent 
in pointing out that responsibility than is he. Anyone who does not 
understand the significance of this responsibility should simply spend 
a moment or two, an hour or two, a day or two, with Senator Byrd to 
discuss our founders' deliberations over the importance of vesting the 
power of the purse in the people's representatives, and all doubts will 
disappear.
  This debate is not about whether the Byrd-Warner amendment is 
constitutionally permissible. This debate is about whether the course 
of action it espouses is in our Nation's best interest. As much as I 
respect the two authors of the provisions incorporated in this bill, I 
join Senator Levin, our Secretary of Defense, our senior military 
leaders, this administration, and many others who have concluded that 
it is not.
  I am deeply concerned about the effect this amendment would have. 
First and foremost, it would increase the risk to U.S. forces. There is 
a fragile peace in Kosovo today and no one has spoken more powerfully, 
eloquently, or compellingly about the ramifications of setting a date 
certain for a withdrawal of U.S. forces from Kosovo than Wesley Clark. 
General Clark has said that setting a date certain for withdrawal would 
trigger instability throughout the region and increase violence in the 
area.
  I hope everyone will listen, regardless of whether or not he is a 
constituent of ours; he is the expert. If we do anything as we make 
these decisions, I think we need to listen to those who are expert in 
their fields. Triggering instability throughout the region and 
increasing violence in the area is something about which all Members 
ought to be concerned.
  Second, this action rewards Slobodan Milosevic for his ethnic 
cleansing campaigns and would greatly strengthen him and his supporters 
in the region. Again, according to General Clark:

       A U.S. withdrawal would give Mr. Milosevic the victory he 
     could not achieve on the battlefield.

  What a remarkable statement, that a U.S. withdrawal would give Mr. 
Milosevic a victory he could not achieve on the battlefield.
  Third, this would rupture NATO. Passing this amendment would 
jeopardize the strength and the cohesion of our NATO alliance by 
casting doubt about the reliability of the United States as a partner. 
Again, according to General Clark:

       Our allies would see this as a universal, adverse move that 
     splits 50 years of shared burdens, shared risks, and shared 
     benefits in NATO.

  Don't just listen to General Clark. NATO Secretary General Lord 
Robertson put it more directly:

       The prospect of any NATO ally deciding unilaterally not to 
     take part in a NATO operation causes me great concern. It 
     risks sending a dangerous signal to the Yugoslavian dictator 
     --Milosevic--that NATO is divided and that its biggest and 
     most important ally is pulling up stake.

  Finally, this action would undermine the U.S. position as a global 
leader. Unilaterally withdrawing our troops

[[Page S4163]]

from Kosovo would call into question our relations with Europe and the 
world. Many will question the willingness of the United States to play 
a role in bringing democracy and prosperity to troubled regions of the 
world.
  I know Senator Byrd and Senator Warner share some of these concerns 
because they tried to modify their language yesterday. Under other 
conditions, these concerns would not be insurmountable. Unfortunately, 
this amendment comes to the Senate in such a way that they are just 
that. Why? Because Members, under the rules now established by the 
majority, are prohibited from trying to offer any amendments, 
alternatives, or substitutes. All we can do is accept this amendment in 
whole, or reject it in whole. This is not the proper way for the Senate 
to deal with such an important issue.
  Supporters of this amendment say it will not force withdrawal of U.S. 
troops from Kosovo. They argue that the President can prevent a 
withdrawal by simply certifying by July 15--roughly 8 weeks from now--
that our allies have met a series of rigid, numeric burden-sharing 
tests.
  Unfortunately, the Director of the OMB disagrees. Yesterday, in a 
letter to me he said:

       Despite progress, the targets are not yet met, nor can I 
     provide assurances that they will be met by July 15th . . . 
     Certification required by the amendment . . . is currently 
     not possible.

  Listen to the Director of the OMB. He has indicated certification 
today, tomorrow, or for the foreseeable future is not possible.
  And even if the burden-sharing requirement of this amendment does not 
force immediate withdrawal of troops, it sets the stage for withdrawal.
  Make no mistake, if we pass this amendment, we are lighting a fuse. 
We may be able to extinguish it in time, but no one in this Senate can 
guarantee that. Why would we create such a crisis at this point? 
History shows that lighting a fuse in this region can produce an 
explosion that engulfs the entire world. That is not ancient history; 
that is recent history.
  Even if we are somehow able to extinguish the fuse, in the meantime 
our troops and our allies are left with the uncertainty about whether 
we are going to keep our commitment. History also shows that winning 
the peace can often take some time.
  Peace is a fragile plant whose roots need time to take hold. Mr. 
President, 55 years after the end of World War II, 100,000 troops 
remain in Europe. Never once in 55 years has Congress felt it necessary 
to ratify that decision. What would have happened had we pulled our 
troops out of Europe less than 1 year after that war--as this amendment 
would have us do today in Kosovo? We know Europe would look 
significantly different today. The probability is the second half of 
the 20th century would have looked like the first half--in which we 
fought two World Wars.

  NATO, the most successful military alliance in the history of the 
world, would not exist. The emerging new democracies of Eastern Europe 
would still be behind the Iron Curtain. Congress did not even approve 
the Marshall Plan until 1947. Why should we be so impatient now? Why 
should we be so unwilling to give peace and democracy time to take firm 
root in Kosovo.
  For 50 years we fought a cold war to bring peace, stability, and 
democracy in all of Europe. We have finally won that peace. It seems to 
me that 5,900 troops in Kosovo is a small price to pay to keep it.
  Just over 1 year ago, leaders from 18 countries came to Washington to 
celebrate the 50th anniversary of NATO. On that occasion, Senator 
Warner eloquently said:

       [NATO] must remain. It must be strong, and U.S. leadership 
     in NATO is absolutely essential.

  Senator Warner's words were right then and they are right now. If we 
are to achieve these worthy ends we must strike the Byrd-Warner 
language.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield myself time under my leader time.
  Mr. President, I know Senators expect to vote at 2:30. I know there 
are meetings that are going to be occurring momentarily. I will not 
delay that, but I do just want to make three or four points.
  No. 1, I want to say what an instructive and constructive debate I 
think this has been. I listened to a good bit of it last night. Some of 
it I came and sat on the floor and listened to; I engaged in some of 
that discussion; I watched some more of it later on on television; and 
I listened to various parts of it this morning. I think it has been a 
very healthy debate. I congratulate all who have been involved on both 
sides of the issue on both sides of the aisle.
  I also want to pay a particular tribute to Senator Byrd--it is always 
an education when he speaks about the Constitution, about why he 
believes that Congress should step in to deal with an issue such as 
this--and, of course, Senator Warner. They have both done an 
outstanding job. They have been convincing to me.
  Also, I think it should be noted that as sponsors of the language 
that is in the bill, they have indicated a willingness to compromise in 
the conference, to make some changes if Members think that is 
necessary, on dates, or to see if the administration could work with 
them on language that could be acceptable. I think that is the way to 
approach it.
  Those things have really made the difference for me. We have no long-
term plan for Kosovo. We do not know how long we are going to be there. 
We do not know how much it is going to cost. We do know our allies have 
not been meeting their commitments. Progress is being made in that 
regard, but I give credit to Senator Warner and Senator Stevens and 
others, talking about this amendment and pointing out that those 
commitments were not being fulfilled in terms of people, troops, 
police--or in terms of money. That is unacceptable. But I think there 
is a little bit of an attitude: If we don't do it, the United States, 
the sole remaining world power, will take care of it. That is not right 
for the American people. It is not right for the taxpayers of America. 
So I think we need to have a better understanding about fulfillment of 
commitments and what is the long-term plan. How long are we going to be 
there? Under what conditions would we ever get out?
  It should be noted, even with these amendments, the Byrd-Warner 
package being adopted, we would still be able to provide logistics 
support, intelligence--a number of other facets. We are dealing with 
war troops on the ground who would be affected by this.
  Here is the most important point of all. For years we have been 
through this debate about constitutional requirements--what the 
Congresses do, the President's prerogatives. Clearly we have been 
abdicating ours. The language under the Warner provision says to our 
NATO allies No. 1: Fulfill your commitments. And, No. 2, we in the 
Congress should vote to authorize this action.
  For those who say Congress would not authorize this involvement next 
year, the presence of combat troops in Kosovo, I do not believe that. I 
do not think we know yet. I certainly would listen to the debate. I 
voted to use U.S. combat troops in various parts around the world, in 
Republican administrations and in Democrat administrations, and, quite 
frankly, against it sometimes in both of them. I do not think this is 
risky. I think there has been a lot of exaggeration as to the result. I 
am prepared to vote for keeping the language in the bill, and I think 
we can go forward from there. But whatever happens, Congress needs to 
fulfill its responsibility.

  I ask for the yeas and nays, Mr. President.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment (No. 3154).
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber who 
desire to vote?
  The result was announced, yeas 53, nays 47, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 105 Leg.]

                                YEAS--53

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Chafee, L.
     Cochran
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feinstein
     Frist
     Graham

[[Page S4164]]


     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith (OR)
     Thompson
     Voinovich
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--47

     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Lott
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Warner
  The amendment (No. 3154) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I say to my colleagues, Mr. Warner and all 
those who supported the amendment, in the words of the Apostle Paul; we 
fought a good fight; we finished the course; we kept the faith. Thank 
you.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to join my distinguished colleague 
in thanking the Senate for one of the finest debates we have had on 
this floor this year on an issue that affects every one of us and our 
constituents back home. The vote was rendered by the Senate, and the 
Senate spoke. Now we must continue to lead.
  I yield the floor.


            Amendments Nos. 3146, 3156 through 3163, En Bloc

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I send a series of amendments to the desk. 
They have been cleared on both sides.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Montana [Mr. Burns] proposes amendments 
     numbered 3146, 3156 through 3163, en bloc.

  The amendments are as follows:


                           AMENDMENT NO. 3146

 (Purpose: To make available $220,000,000 for the Navy for fiscal year 
                    2000 for ship depot maintenance)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

                    Operation and Maintenance, Navy

       Out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise 
     appropriated, there is appropriated for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2000, for expenses, not otherwise 
     provided for, necessary for the operation and maintenance of 
     the Navy and the Marine Corps, as authorized by law, 
     $220,000,000: Provided, That the amount made available by 
     this heading shall be available for ship depot maintenance; 
     Provided further, That the entire amount made available by 
     this heading is designated as an emergency requirement under 
     section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(b)(2)(A)).
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3156

  (Purpose: To provide emergency resources to address needs resulting 
 from the catastrophic wildfire at Los Alamos National Laboratory, New 
                                Mexico)

       On page 44 line 6, strike ``$136,000,000'' and replace with 
     ``$221,000,000''; and on page 44 line 12, strike 
     ``$136,000,000'' and replace with ``$221,000,000''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3157

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       Sec.   . Notwithstanding any other provision of law, none 
     of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this 
     or any other Act may be used to allow for the entry into, or 
     withdrawal from warehouse for consumption in the United 
     States of diamonds if the country of origin in which such 
     diamonds were mined (as evidenced by a legible certificate of 
     origin) is the Republic of Sierra Leone, the Republic of 
     Liberia, the Republic of Cote d'Ivoire, the Democratic 
     Republic of the Congo, or the Republic of Angola.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3158

       On page 26, at line 15, strike, ``$74,859,000'', and insert 
     in lieu thereof, ``$542,859,000''; and
       On page 27, at line 7 and 8, strike, ``: Provided'', and 
     insert in lieu thereof, ``; Acquisition of six C-130J long-
     range maritime patrol aircraft authorized under section 
     812(G) of the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act that 
     are capable of meeting defense-related and other elements of 
     the Coast Guard's multi-mission requirements, $468,000,000: 
     Provided, That the procurement of maritime patrol aircraft 
     funded under this heading shall not, in any way, influence 
     the procurement strategy, program requirements, or down-
     select decision pertaining to the Coast Guard's Deepwater 
     Capability Replacement Project: Provided further''.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 3159

  (Purpose: To provide $5,700,000 for testing under the Tactical High 
                Energy Laser (THEL) program of the Army)

       On page 35, between lines 17 and 18, insert the following:

              RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION

           Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, Army

       For an additional amount for ``Research, Development, Test, 
     and Evaluation, Army'', $5,700,000 for continued test 
     activities under the Tactical High Energy Laser (THEL) 
     program of the Army: Provided, That the entire amount is 
     designated by Congress as an emergency requirement pursuant 
     to section 251(b)(2)(A) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 
     Deficit Control Act of 1985.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 3160

  (Purpose: To allow the designation and use of Department of Defense 
 facilities as polling places for local, State, and Federal elections)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. USE OF DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE FACILITIES AS POLLING 
                   PLACES.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, the Secretary of Defense shall not prohibit the 
     designation or use of any Department of Defense facility, 
     currently designated by a State or local election official, 
     or used since January 1, 1996, as an official polling place 
     in connection with a local, State, or Federal election, as 
     such official polling place.
       (b) Effective Date.--The prohibition under subsection (a) 
     shall apply to any election occurring on or after the date of 
     enactment of this section and before December 31, 2000.
                                  ____



                           AMENDMENT NO. 3161

    (Purpose: To postpone the effective date of certain enforcement 
provisions until 6 months after the publication of final electronic and 
                   information technology standards)

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC. ____. ELECTRONIC AND INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY.

       Section 508(f)(1) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 
     U.S.C. 794d(f)(1)) is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``Effective'' and all 
     that follows through ``1998,'' and inserting ``Effective 6 
     months after the date of publication by the Access Board of 
     final standards described in subsection (a)(2),''; and
       (2) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``2 years'' and all 
     that follows and inserting ``6 months after the date of 
     publication by the Access Board of final standards described 
     in subsection (a)(2).''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3162

       At the appropriate place, insert the following:

     SEC.   . FLOOD MITIGATION NEAR PIERRE, SOUTH DAKOTA.

       Section 136(a)(3) of title I of division C of the Omnibus 
     Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 
     1999 (112 Stat. 2681-596), is amended by adding at the end 
     the following:
       ``(C) Determination of economic justification.--
       ``(i) In general.--A determination of economic 
     justification under subparagraph (A) shall be based on an 
     assumption that the Federal Government is liable for ground 
     water damage to land or property described in paragraph (1).
       ``(ii) Effect of clause.--Clause (i) does not impose on the 
     Federal Government any liability in addition to any liability 
     that the Federal Government may have under law in affect on 
     October 20, 1998.''.
                                  ____



                           amendment no. 3163

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert:
       ``Sec.   . Section 8114 of the Department of Defense 
     Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 105-262) is amended--
       ``And other SOFA claims'' to be inserted following `` `. . 
     . the funds made available for payments to persons, 
     communities, or other entities in Italy for reimbursement 
     property damages . . .'.''


                           amendment no. 3146

  Mr. ROBB. Mr. President, the Navy's ship maintenance problem is 
large--and growing larger. Scheduled heavy maintenance for fifteen 
ships has already been canceled this fiscal year. Without the funds 
provided by this amendment, the Navy will either cancel or drastically 
reduce work scheduled for eighteen more. The individual cases are 
striking:
  The amphibious assault ship Bataan should be undergoing $17 million 
of work at Norfolk Naval Shipyard. Instead she is deployed to Puerto 
Rico.
  The amphibious transport dock ship Shreveport ran aground recently 
and was repaired overseas for $1.5 million

[[Page S4165]]

just to get her home. Her subsequent $6 million shipyard availability 
has been canceled.
  The backlog of work for the fast combat support ship Detroit--
declared ``unsafe for underway operations'' by Navy inspectors last 
August--climbed to $68 million, nearly twice previous estimates.
  All of this unprogrammed funding must come out of this fiscal year's 
budget.
  The Pacific Fleet canceled $20.6 million of work on the amphibious 
assault ship Bonhomme Richard and $13 million on the amphibious 
transport dock ship Denver. They may have to skip availabilities for 
three aircraft carriers--two of which, the Kitty Hawk and the 
Constellation, are nearly 40 years old.
  Mr. President, we should not be surprised. Since the end of the Cold 
War we have reduced the size of the fleet, yet we are running our Navy 
at unprecedented levels in support of worldwide national security 
requirements--over eighty contingencies just since 1990.
  Ship maintenance challenges have a direct and adverse impact on Navy 
retention rates. Admiral Vernon Clark, Commander of the Atlantic Fleet 
and nominee for next Chief of Naval Operations, routinely points out 
that retention is all about our sailors' quality of life and quality of 
work. Sailors spend valuable time chipping paint; time that should be 
spent training, going to school or enjoying their families.
  Consider this example, just to provide a sense of this retention 
relationship. The anchor and chains of the destroyer USS Briscoe were 
refurbished in 1995 and supposed to last twelve years. Within three 
years, rust was bleeding through. A ten sailor detail was mustered from 
the ship's crew to redo the job. The chains were lowered to the pier 
one link at a time, dragged to a barge, then scraped by sailors with 
vibrating wire needle guns--a total of 1,530 feet of chain. The job 
took ten sailors working six weeks to finish, a job that should not 
have been needed until 2007. Clearly, time-consuming and spirit-sapping 
work. Clearly, the Navy is not getting all the tools, time and parts to 
do the job right.
  Mr. President, there is no question, we are at a crisis point in 
keeping our magnificent fleet safe and ready. The $220 million in this 
amendment will provide some immediate relief for the Navy and our 
sailors around the fleet. The Senate Armed Services Committee, under 
the capable leadership of Senator Warner, and the Seapower Subcommittee 
under Senator Snowe's leadership, have committed to fully fund all of 
the Navy's fiscal year 2001 projected maintenance requirements.
  It is important to recognize, however, that additional funds are only 
a part of controlling our ship maintenance problems.
  The Administration, the Navy and the Congress must address the larger 
issues that will continue to erode our fleet's readiness. Aging ships, 
more deployments, chronic underfunding of maintenance accounts, 
inefficiencies in the maintenance management system, reductions at our 
public and private shipyards, and lower retention rates for sailors 
with maintenance ratings--all compound this situation.
  Mr. President, we have a lot of work ahead of us if we are to set the 
conditions that will ensure the capability and readiness of our Navy 
today and in the years ahead.
  Our shipbuilding rates are too low to sustain the size of the fleet 
necessary to meet our security requirements.
  We need to accelerate the insertion of new and improved ship 
technologies that will reduce maintenance requirements.
  The Navy's maintenance management system needs modernization, 
arguably a new way of thinking of why, how and when ship maintenance is 
scheduled.
  Modern sailors work too hard and are too valuable to waste time 
chipping paint--we need to protect them from mind-numbing heavy 
maintenance that should be done right the first time in the nation's 
shipyards.
  This amendment is only part of what should become a comprehensive 
approach to the challenges of Navy ship maintenance--but it is a 
critical part. We cannot afford to allow the backlog to grow.
  With this amendment and the resources we provide for fiscal year 
2001, we make a national commitment to fully fund our ship maintenance 
requirements, and to keeping our fleet safe and ready.


                           Amendment No. 3156

  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, I rise for the purpose of describing the 
nature of this very important amendment to provide $85 million on an 
emergency basis to begin the process of reopening and restarting the 
Los Alamos National Laboratory in the aftermath of the worst wildfire 
in the history of New Mexico.
  The cost of restoring the laboratory to full operations will 
undoubtably grow as the Lab discovers further conditions upon reopening 
and restarting facilities and buildings. But this amendment is designed 
to provide the first installment of resources to assist the laboratory 
on its road to recovery. The funds will be used for:
  Restart of laboratory operations (including replacement of lost 
scientific equipment, computers, and government vehicles)
  Fire protection (including the replacement of broken or worn fire 
fighting equipment, replacement of destroyed or malfunctioning fire 
alarms, and the expansion of fire alarm coverage)
  Environmental protection (including extension erosion control efforts 
to prevent mud slides; expanded air monitoring and equipment 
replacement; expanded water monitoring of run-off and groundwater)
  Cean-up and infrastructure repair (including clean-up of smoke and 
fire damage, replacement of electrical power lines and transformers, 
repair of water and gas infrastructure, and repair of communications 
systems)


                           Amendment No. 3157

  Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I want to thank Chairman Burns and the 
ranking member, Senator Murray, for their support of my amendment 
combating the illicit trade in diamonds. I also want to acknowledge the 
assistance of the staff of the Treasury-General Government Subcommittee 
and the U.S. Customs Service.
  As the op-ed in today's Washington Post, ``Diamonds Are For 
Killers,'' by Sebastian Mallaby, correctly points out, diamonds are 
fueling the violence in Sierra Leone. The Revolutionary United Front 
(RUF), responsible for so many horrors, is not fighting for a belief, a 
cause, or an idea. They are a criminal gang brutalizing the people of 
Sierra Leone simply to maintain their grip on diamond rich lands. 
Diamonds from Sierra Leone are unusually large and clear, much prized 
by a jewelry industry prepared to pay top dollar with no questions 
asked. The diamonds buy weapons and narcotics, RUF staples. The 
diamonds are transshipped through Liberia and the Ivory Coast, the 
leaders of each taking their cut of the profits. From Africa, the 
diamonds are transported to Amsterdam or London before, in many cases, 
being shipped here.
  My amendment is a simple one. It bans the use of funds for the 
processing of paperwork associated with the importation of diamonds 
from Sierra Leone, Liberia, the Ivory Coast, the Democratic Republic of 
the Congo, or Angola. I have chosen to include the Congo and Angola 
because so-called ``conflict diamonds'' have fueled the bloody civil 
wars in those countries as well.
  Having choked off the RUF's source of revenue, it is my hope that 
forces loyal to the legitimate government of Sierra Leone, fighting 
even now in the outskirts of Freetown, can begin to gain the upper hand 
on the battlefield. Ultimately, it will take more, far more, than 
cutting off the diamond trade to crush the RUF, but the road to victory 
has to begin somewhere. Let it begin here.
  Fellow Senators may not realize that my amendment is based on 
legislation championed by Representatives Hall and Wolf. Clearly, there 
is bipartisan, bicameral support for banning this bloody trade. Few 
would treasure a diamond torn at such terrible cost from the blood-
soaked soil of Sierra Leone. I look forward to working with colleagues 
in both houses to bring the trade in ``conflict diamonds'' to an end.
  I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Mallaby's op-ed piece be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

[[Page S4166]]

                        Diamonds Are for Killers

                         (By Sebastian Mallaby)

       The agony of Sierra Leone demonstrates not only that the 
     West has failed to decide when military intervention is 
     justified. It shows its failure to come to grips with the 
     role of natural resources in provoking conflict. Clausewitz 
     called war ``the pursuit of politics by other means.'' But 
     war is just as often a device for the pursuit of business.
       In Sierra Leone, war is caused by diamonds. The limb-
     chopping rebels of the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) 
     started out in 1991 as a small band. Then they captured the 
     diamond region, got rich and became a very big band. They 
     send the gems to Liberia and other obliging neighbors in 
     exchange for cash and guns. They fight not to win but to keep 
     hold of the diamond trade. They are like the drug warlords 
     who terrorize Colombia.
       The latest outbreak of fighting has shown this yet again: 
     It was provoked when U.N. peacekeepers moved to disarm rebels 
     who control the diamond region. The RUF, which had been 
     content to play its role as part of the government since last 
     year's peace deal, was suddenly content no more. It killed 
     four U.N. soldiers, took a few hundred hostage, and the civil 
     war began again. If Sierra Leone had no diamonds, there might 
     well be no rebels, and certainly not such lethal ones. This 
     goes for Angola too, where Jonas Savimbi's election-flouting 
     guerrillas smuggle diamonds to pay for weapons. In Congo, a 
     shifting cast of armies has overrun bits of the country in 
     hope of gold and diamond loot. In Mozambique, by contrast, 
     there are no gem or other resources to speak of. As a result, 
     the civil war that had been fostered by white South Africa's 
     regime fizzled out when apartheid ended.
       Mozambique is especially telling, because the country has 
     done well out of a peace deal that resembles last year's 
     arrangement in Sierra Leone--an arrangement widely called 
     unworkable. As in Sierra Leone, Mozambique's rebels were 
     notoriously brutal. But after years of serving apartheid's 
     goals, they were brought into the government and proceeded to 
     behave responsibly. Because it has no diamonds, Mozambique 
     became what Sierra Leone can only hope to be: an apparently 
     failed state that confounds the pessimists by attaining a 
     measure of stability.
       This is worth noting in itself, because people tend to pair 
     the term ``failed states'' with a desperate throwing up of 
     hands, as if failure were an inevitable feature of the modern 
     order. But states fail for a reason: gems in Sierra Leone and 
     Angola, cocaine in Colombia.
       It makes no sense trying to broker peace in resource-cursed 
     countries unless the resources are brought under control. The 
     U.N. force in Sierra Leone was given no mandate to halt 
     mining or even gather information about it. Its first step 
     should have been to take over the diamond fields. Instead, it 
     waited nearly a year and then sent a force that was not up to 
     the challenge.
       The international diamond trade needs to be better 
     regulated. Yes, easier said than done. Cocaine traffickers 
     face the ultimate sanction--their product is illegal--and yet 
     they carry on in business. But two peculiar features of the 
     diamond business make regulation seem workable. First, around 
     two-thirds of the market for freshly mined uncut diamonds is 
     controlled by one company, De Beers, which therefore has 
     enormous power to reform the conduct of the industry. Second, 
     diamonds have no intrinsic value; they are all advertising 
     and image.
       These two peculiarities could be mutually reinforcing. The 
     diamond firms know what happened to the fur industry when 
     consumers started worrying about cruelty to animals. Their 
     nightmares feature pictures of girls with stumps instead of 
     arms, captioned with the suggestion that diamonds are not a 
     girl's best friend in certain circumstances. Lovers won't buy 
     gifts that profit psychopaths, and De Beers knows that. So it 
     is desperate to clean up its image.
       Sure enough, De Beers recently promised to buy no more 
     diamonds from conflict regions. Antwerp's powerful diamond 
     exchanges, which are said to buy most of Sierra Leone's gems, 
     have also made reformist noises. The American diamond 
     industry is trying to sound polite about a bill introduced by 
     Rep. Tony Hall this week, which would require diamonds to 
     come with certificates stating their country of origin.
       There is movement, in other words; but not yet enough of 
     it. De Beers has not opened itself to outside inspectors who 
     could vouch for its sincerity. Antwerp has yet to promise to 
     stop buying from Sierra Leone and the countries like Liberia 
     that act as its agents. The industry resists what ought to be 
     the ultimate goal of its reforms: an auditable trail from the 
     mine to the consumer.
       Better accountability is not too much to ask of an industry 
     with annual retail sales worth $56 billion. Western 
     governments can't carry on financing peacekeeping missions 
     while their consumers finance mayhem.


                           amendment no. 3164

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I rise today on behalf of myself and 
Senator Roberts to include an amendment to the foreign operations 
appropriations bill which will benefit both the United States and 
China.
  In particular, Mr. President, our amendment allows United States 
business to include China in the United States-Asia Environmental 
Partnership. The time is ripe for such action, particularly as China 
prepares to enter the rules-based trading system we know as the World 
Trade Organization. China's participation is good news for China and 
better news for United States business.
  Mr. President, the Senate has already shown its support for including 
China in the Asian Environmental Partnership through passage of an 
identical amendment in the 105th Congress. However, such efforts were 
stifled in conference. Now is the opportune time to take up and pass 
this amendment and I urge my colleagues to join Senator Roberts and me 
in this endeavor.


                           amendment no. 3160

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I rise today to make some brief remarks 
about an amendment I offered along with Senator Stevens and Senator 
Warner to the Military Construction Appropriations Bill. This amendment 
temporarily suspends enforcement of a Department of Defense regulation 
prohibiting State and local election officials from operating polling 
places at Department of Defense facilities.
  A few weeks ago, my staff at the Rules Committee began receiving 
calls from elections officials in several states complaining that the 
Department of Defense had directed them to stop using polling places on 
military facilities that had, in some instances, been used for decades. 
Senator Grams, Senator Warner and Senator Stevens also received letters 
and calls from their State election officials expressing concern about 
the impact of the Department of Defense regulation on upcoming 
elections.
  Mr. President, let me spell out some of the real hardships that would 
occur in the absence of our amendment. The Clerk of Franklin County, 
Kentucky, Guy R. Zeigler, wrote saying that the DOD directive 
prohibited voting at an Army Reserve facility that the county had used 
as a polling place for ``15 years.'' He went on to explain: 
``[c]hanging the polling sites for these precincts creates confusion 
for voters trying to locate the new polling place.'' The Franklin 
County Clerk concluded that the ``timing of this directive could not be 
worse . . . a Presidential Election Year.''
  I would also like to share a letter from Minnesota Secretary of State 
Mary Kiffmeyer. Ms. Kiffmeyer wrote that the DOD directive prevented 
voting at military and reserve bases that Minnesota precincts have used 
as polling places ``for several decades.'' She concluded that if these 
traditional polling places were changed this late in an election year, 
then ``many voters, including military personnel, will be 
inconvenienced at best, and deterred from voting at worst, due to the 
loss of these accessible traditional polling places.''
  The impact of the DOD regulation on the State of Alaska was so great 
that the State legislature passed a resolution declaring ``Alaska has a 
tradition since statehood of public voting on military installations 
and proposed changes will cause confusion and extra financial costs.''
  Working with Senator Warner's personal and committee staff, my staff 
was able to elicit a memorandum dated April 19, 2000 from Douglas A. 
Dworkin, Acting General Counsel for the Department of Defense, 
clarifying that DOD's regulation ``does not apply to National Guard 
installations.'' I ask that a copy of this memorandum be printed in the 
Record after my statement.
  Despite this clarification, it is still clear that the McConnell-
Stevens-Warner amendment is necessary to prevent the disenfranchisement 
of men and women in the armed forces as well as citizens residing in 
communities with facilities under DOD's control. The purpose of this 
amendment is to stay enforcement of the Department of Defense 
regulation until after this November's election so that State and local 
election officials who have already designated DOD facilities as 
polling places or have used DOD facilities as polling places since 
January 1, 1996 may do so for this year's primary and general elections 
and not be forced to scramble for alternative sites at this late date. 
The purpose of this amendment is not to allow election officials who 
have not yet designated or recently utilized Department of Defense 
facilities as polling places to suddenly do so now.

[[Page S4167]]

  After this year's elections are over, elections officials and the 
Department of Defense can discuss how to address DOD's concerns about 
operating polling places on military facilities in a manner and at a 
time that does not risk the disenfranchisement of voters through the 
confusion entailed in altering traditional polling places shortly 
before local, State and Federal elections. I would again like to thank 
Senator Stevens, Senator Warner, Senator Grams and their staffs for 
their assistance on this issue, and I am pleased that the Senate is 
protecting the franchise of our men and women in the military and in 
communities near military facilities by delaying enforcement of DOD's 
directive until after this year's election.
  I ask that the letters from Mr. Zeigler and Ms. Kiffmeyer and the 
Resolution passed by the Alaska Legislature be included in the Record.
  There being no objections the letters and the Resolution were ordered 
to be printed in the Record as follows:

                                        Franklin County Clerk,

                                    Frankfort, KY, March 24, 2000.
     Hon. John Warner,
     Chairman, Armed Services Committee, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Warner: I'm writing to seek your help in a 
     matter pertaining to the use of military facilities as 
     polling sites.
       As the Chairman of the Franklin County Board of Elections, 
     I recently received notification that I would be unable to 
     use the local Army Reserve building as a polling place due to 
     a recent Department of Defense directive. Specifically, 
     DTG171731Z DEC 99 from SECDEF Washington DC//OASD-PA/DPL// 
     Subsection E1. This directive causes a serious disruption of 
     our election process as two precincts vote in this facility.
       Locations as suitable as the Reserve building are hard to 
     find. We have used this facility for over 15 years and voters 
     are accustomed to voting there. Changing the polling sites 
     for these precincts creates confusion for voters trying to 
     locate the new polling place.
       Finally, the timing of this directive could not be worse. 
     As you know, this is a Presidential Election year. Turnout is 
     expected to be high and voters all over the United States 
     will be affected.
       Any help that you can give in this matter would be greatly 
     appreciated.
           Sincerely,
     Guy R. Zeigler.
                                  ____



                                 Minnesota Secretary of State,

                                                   March 14, 2000.
     Senator Rod Grams,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Grams: I am writing to alert you to a recent 
     action by the Department of Defense that will prevent the use 
     of military base and reserve facilities as polling sites for 
     elections. I ask for your assistance in urging Secretary of 
     Defense William Cohen to rescind this directive.
       A DOD directive captioned ``DTG 171731Z'', issued by 
     Secretary Cohen's office in December 1999 contains a 
     provision that prohibits the use of bases and reserve 
     facilities as polling sites or voting places (Subdivision 
     E(1)). This action appears to have been taken to prevent the 
     use of such sites for partisan campaigning, a concern that I 
     understand and share. However, those issuing this directive 
     were apparently unaware that for several decades local 
     jurisdictions have been using military bases and reserve 
     facilities as polling places. As a result, many voters, 
     including military personnel, will be inconvenienced at best, 
     and deterred from voting at worst, due to the loss of these 
     accessible traditional polling places.
       I therefore urge you to contact Secretary Cohen to urge 
     that subdivision E(1) of this directive be rescinded 
     immediately, so that this long-standing use of military 
     facilities as sites for nonpartisan official Election Day 
     activity can continue. I feel certain that when Secretary 
     Cohen is fully informed regarding this matter, this well-
     intentioned, but misguided policy will be overturned. Please 
     advise me of Secretary Cohen's response.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Mary Kiffmeyer,
     Secretary of State.
                                  ____

                                        The Department of Defense,


                                        1600 Defense Pentagon,

                                   Washington, DC, April 19, 2000.
     MEMORANDUM FOR ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE (PUBLIC 
       AFFAIRS) PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 
       (RESERVE AFFAIRS)
     SUBJECT: Political Activities Guidance
       This memorandum is in response to questions that have been 
     raised regarding the scope of the Department's policy on 
     political activities on military installations. That policy, 
     reissued each election year, provides among other things that 
     ``installation commanders are advised not to allow their 
     installation facilities to be used for polling or voting 
     sites.''
       The ``installations'' to which this policy refers are all 
     active duty and reserve installations under the jurisdiction 
     of the Department of Defense, including the Military 
     Departments. The policy does not apply to national guard 
     installations that are subject to the jurisdiction and 
     oversight of the governors of the states and territories and 
     the adjutants general in those states and territories, so 
     long as the guard forces remain in state status. Regulation 
     of political activities on guard installations, including the 
     question whether such installations may be used as polling or 
     voting sites, is within the province of the cognizant 
     authorities in each state or territory.
                                               Douglas A. Dworkin,
     Acting General Counsel.
                                  ____


                   House Concurrent Resolution No. 29

       Whereas the United States Department of Defense has issued 
     a directive to prohibit election voting sites at military 
     installations; and
       Whereas this directive would impede the voting process for 
     citizens who live and work at military installations; and
       Whereas the cumulative factors of time, distance, and 
     potentially hostile climate conditions in arctic and 
     subarctic locations increase the risk of accidents; and
       Whereas forcing residents at military installations to go 
     off the installations to vote will tend to lower voter 
     turnout; and
       Whereas elimination of election sites at military 
     installations will exacerbate crowding and waiting at 
     election sites that are outside of military installations; 
     and
       Whereas base commanders may be able to exercise discretion 
     to allow election sites based on local circumstances; and
       Whereas some election sites on military installations are 
     in non-federal facilities such as schools and armories, that 
     are operated by state or local governments; and
       Whereas Alaska has a tradition since statehood of public 
     voting on military installations, and proposed changes will 
     cause confusion and extra financial costs to the state; and
       Whereas the State of Alaska seeks to be a supportive host 
     to our military facilities, and this directive is 
     counterproductive to mutual support between the state and the 
     United States Department of Defense; and
       Whereas the imposition of impediments to the exercise of 
     civil rights for the same people who are sworn to uphold, 
     defend, and sacrifice their lives for those rights is an 
     absurdity and an affront to all Americans; be it
       Resolved, That the Twenty-First Alaska State Legislature 
     respectfully requests the President of the United States and 
     the United States Secretary of Defense to countermand any 
     directive that impedes the rights and practices of American 
     citizens to vote at election sites at military installations.
       Copies of this resolution shall be sent to the Honorable 
     Bill Clinton, President of the United States; the Honorable 
     William S. Cohen, Secretary of Defense; Lieutenant General 
     Thomas R. Case, Commander, Alaskan Command, United States Air 
     Force; Lieutenant General E.P. Smith, Commanding General, 
     U.S. Army Pacific; Major General Dean W. Cash, Commanding 
     General, United States Army Alaska; and to the Honorable Ted 
     Stevens and the Honorable Frank Murkowski, U.S. Senators, and 
     the Honorable Don Young, U.S. Representative, members of the 
     Alaska delegation in Congress.


 amendment no. 3162--FLOOD MITIGATION IN PIERRE AND FT. PIERRE, SOUTH 
                                 DAKOTA

  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, up and down the Missouri River in South 
Dakota, silt is building up on the river bottom as a result of the 
operation of federal dams on the river. Water levels are rising as a 
result, flooding hundreds of homes in the cities of Pierre and Ft. 
Pierre and causing considerable anguish for these families. Two years 
ago, Congress enacted legislation authorizing the Corps to conduct a 
$35 million buyout of affected property to provide much-needed relief 
to these homeowners.
  Today, that project is at a standstill. We could start buying homes 
tomorrow, but the Corps of Engineers is contending that the price of 
moving forward is releasing more water through the Oahe dam, thereby 
generating electricity and revenue that will provide an economic 
justification for the project. City officials in Pierre and Fort Pierre 
have rejected this idea because raising water levels will cause new 
flooding in their towns.
  This problem has been caused because the relocation legislation 
requires that this project be economically justified. I support that 
provision. Some might question why a project intended to provide relief 
to homeowners for damages caused by the federal government must earn 
more than it pays out. Nonetheless, I believe it is important that all 
Corps projects should be justified, and I agreed to language requiring 
an economic justification for this relief project.
  Nonetheless, I am deeply concerned with the way this language has 
been interpreted. The only option considered by the Corps for providing 
an economic justification is raising hydropower revenues. It has 
ignored a far more appropriate way to justify the project: by relieving 
the government of potential liability it faces for damage to these

[[Page S4168]]

homes. In Pierre and Ft. Pierre, groundwater elevations track closely 
with the elevation of the Missouri River. City officials and homeowners 
tell me that sometimes just minutes after the Corps begins releasing 
water from the dam, raising water levels in the river, water begins 
seeping into basements. For that reason, I am offering an amendment 
directing the Corps to take into account its responsibility for this 
damage as part of its economic analysis.
  It flies in the face of common sense to provide an economic 
justification for a flood relief project by flooding new parts of these 
communities. My amendment will put an end to the Corps' insistence that 
it raise water levels, and allow the project to move forward. I am 
continuing to work with the Corps on the language for this amendment, 
and hope that we can reach an agreement that is acceptable to all.
  Time is running short. In April, I hosted a meeting of over 150 
homeowners in Ft. Pierre to discuss this project. They were angry and 
frustrated. One young mother stood before me in tears, at her wit's end 
because she must stay with her home in Pierre while her children grow 
up in another city. She's depending on this buyout to allow her to join 
her children.
  Other families have already placed downpayments on new property based 
upon the Corps' word that this project would begin in April. They now 
risk losing that money unless the project moves forward. And all 
residents are watching the construction season slowly slip away, 
raising the specter that they will be forced to live another year in 
their flood-damaged homes.
  The facts make it clear why we need to start this project 
immediately. My amendment will allow it to move forward. I hope my 
colleagues will give it their support.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that three letters describing 
the link between the Missouri River and groundwater flooding be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                          City of Fort Pierre,

                                     Fort Pierre, SD, May 5, 2000.
     Re: Water Table Levels.
     Peter Hanson,

     509 Hart Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Peter: I have compiled the enclosed information about 
     the water table levels in the Fort Pierre area. The 
     information clearly shows the direct relationship of the 
     water table and the water surface profiles in the river. 
     There a couple of other observations that I made during my 
     own investigation.
       First, the time lag between a rise in the river and a rise 
     in the water table varied along the river. It varied with 
     distance from the river and with geographic area. Some 
     locations received an immediate increase, while others took 
     nearly 12 hours to see a change.
       Secondly, the time required to reduce the level of the 
     water table was much longer than the time it took to increase 
     it. This results in a perched water table. This does make 
     sense when looking at the forces that drive the changes. The 
     photos of the Dunes Golf Course show this.
       I sincerely hope this information is useful and produces a 
     quick conclusion to the quagmire we currently are in. If you 
     have any questions please do not hesitate to call me.
           Sincerely,
                                                    Brad Lawrence,
     Director of Public Works.
                                  ____

                                                Dunes Golf Course,


                                          City of Fort Pierre,

                                                  Fort Pierre, SD.
       Dear Sirs: This letter is in regards to the water table 
     elevations and its effects on our property.
       I live at 1271 Hamilton Court in Fort Pierre, South Dakota. 
     My home is located approximately 750 feet from the west bank 
     of the Missouri River. I have lived here since the Fall of 
     1995.
       I have two small ponds located on my property that extends 
     below the level of the Missouri River during normal 
     discharges. We irrigate our golf course from a pond located 
     approximately 1500 feet from the river bank. We draw 
     approximately 1200 gallons per minute from the half acre 
     lake. With normal river flow, I cannot drain this pond below 
     the intake. The water in the pond completely recharges in 
     about six hours. The second pond is approximately 2,300 feet 
     from the river. I have noticed that the levels in both ponds 
     vary due to the changing levels in the river. The level 
     changes occur approximately two hours after a corresponding 
     change in river elevation. I can pretty much tell what kind 
     of discharge there is just by looking at the water level of 
     the ponds
       In my opinion, the level of the water table is directly 
     related to the level of the water in the river. There is some 
     lag time before the levels are equal, but they do correspond.
       Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
           Sincerely,
     Cullan Deis.
                                  ____



                                          City of Fort Pierre,

                                                  Fort Pierre, SD.
     Re: Water Table Elevations.
       To whom it may concern: I live at 123 E 5th Ave in Fort 
     Pierre, SD. My property is located approximately 350 feet 
     from the west bank of the Missouri River. I have lived there 
     since 1995.
       In 1995 I had only one sump pump in the basement of my 
     home. In 1996 I had to put another sump pump in the west end 
     of my basement due to flooding and had water damage to the 
     carpet and walls of the basement. After several periods of 
     flooding I had to add an additional sump pump in the east end 
     of my basement in an attempt to stop the damage to the 
     basement.
       In 1997 the Corps of Engineers erroneously allowed the 
     reservoir to get too full, putting both Pierre and Fort 
     Pierre in danger of flooding. At this time it became 
     necessary for the Corps of Engineers to sand bag Pierre and 
     Fort Pierre. By running high levels of water, once again my 
     basement was flooded. At that time my sump pumps were running 
     every 60 seconds and water was still coming in the cracks of 
     my basement.
       Today when the Missouri River water level is low my sump 
     holes are empty. When the Corps of Engineers raise the water 
     level my sump pumps run. I can tell you when there is more 
     discharge on the Missouri River by the pumps running more 
     often.
       In my opinion, the level of the water table is directly 
     related to the level of the water in the river. There is some 
     time lag before the levels are equal, but they do correspond.
           Sincerely,
                                                      James Hurst.

  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I urge adoption of the amendments.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the amendments, en 
bloc.
  The amendments (Nos. 3146, 3156 through 3163), en bloc, were agreed 
to.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I thank the ranking member, Senator Murray 
of Washington State, and her staff, and, of course, my staff for 
putting this bill together. It has been a longer than usual military 
construction bill. It goes a long way towards supporting the 
infrastructure of our Armed Forces.
  Mr. REID. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BURNS. Yes.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, the Judiciary Committee will meet 
immediately after this vote right behind us.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I yield to my friend from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I thank Senator Burns and all of our 
staff for doing an excellent job on this bill. I urge its passage. I 
thank you all for your support.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask for the third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed for a third reading and was read 
the third time.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the consideration of H.R. 4425, Calendar No. 554.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The clerk will state the bill by title.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 4425) making appropriations for military 
     construction, family housing, and base realignment and 
     closure for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year 
     ending September 30, 2001, and for other purposes.

  The VICE PRESIDENT. Without objection, the Senate will proceed 
immediately to consider the bill.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I move to strike all after the enacting 
clause of H.R. 4425 and to substitute therefor the text of S. 2521, as 
reported and as amended.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the 
Senator from Montana.
  The motion was agreed to.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The question is on the engrossment of the 
amendment and the third reading of the bill.
  The amendment was ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read the 
third time.
  The bill was read the third time.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, the pending Military Construction 
Appropriations bill provides $8.6 billion in new budget authority and 
$5.1 billion in outlays for Military Construction and Family Housing 
programs and other purposes for the Department of Defense for fiscal 
year 2001.
  A major aspect of this bill is that it is the vehicle for emergency 
supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2000 for U.S. military 
operations in Kosovo, East Timor, and Mozambique

[[Page S4169]]

and for other purposes. Those other purposes include the repeal of 
``pay shifts'' and obligation delays enacted last year, based on 
agreements with the Office of Management and the Budget.
  Because these obligations, amounting to $3.6 billion, will be moved 
from fiscal year 2001 to 2000, there is a resulting negative impact on 
2001 outlays in this bill. The net outlay impact of the bill is reduced 
from $8.6 billion to $5.1 billion.
  This legislation provides for construction by the Department of 
Defense for U.S. military facilities throughout the world, and it 
provides for family housing for the active forces of each of the U.S. 
military services. Accordingly, it provides for important readiness and 
quality of life programs for our service men and women.
  The fiscal year 2000 supplemental provisions of this bill support 
ongoing peacekeeping operations of U.S. Armed Forces, permit the 
payment of past due health care obligations of active duty military 
personnel and their dependents, and provide compensation to the 
Department of Defense for unforeseen increases in fuel costs.
  The bill is within the revised section 302(b) allocation for the 
Military Construction Subcommittee. I commend the distinguished 
subcommittee Chairman, the Senator from Montana, and the Chairman of 
the full committee, the Senator from Alaska, for bringing this bill to 
the floor within the subcommittee's allocation.
  The bill provides an important and necessary increase in budget 
authority above the President's request for military construction in 
2001. Most of the $601 million increase in budget authority funds high 
priority projects that the President's request failed to address. The 
bill also reimburses the military services for the costs already 
incurred for their peacekeeping operations, and it permits these 
operations to continue to the end of the fiscal year. It also fully 
funds healthcare needs and fuel costs that have been left unaddressed 
by the President but must be funded. Because the bill makes important 
additions to the President's requests, supports appropriate full 
funding budgeting practices, and funds highly important programs for 
our armed services, I urge the adoption of the bill.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a table showing the 
relationship of the bill to the subcommittee's section 302(b) 
allocation be printed in the Record.

   S. 2521, MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS SPENDING COMPARISONS
                 [Fiscal Year 2001, dollars in millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          General
                Category                  purpose   Mandatory    Total
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate-reported bill:
    Budget authority...................      8,634  .........      8,634
    Outlays............................      5,063  .........      5,063
Senate 302(b) allocation:
    Budget authority...................      8,634  .........      8,634
    Outlays............................      5,067  .........      5,067
2000 level:
    Budget authority...................      8,352  .........      8,352
    Outlays............................      8,595  .........      8,595
President's request:
    Budget authority...................      8,033  .........      8,033
    Outlays............................      8,588  .........      8,588
House-passed bill:
    Budget authority...................  .........  .........  .........
    Outlays............................  .........  .........  .........
Senate-reported bill compared to:
Senate 302(b) allocation:
    Budget authority...................  .........  .........  .........
    Outlays............................         -4  .........         -4
2000 level:
    Budget authority...................        282  .........        282
    Outlays............................     -3,532  .........     -3,532
President's request:
    Budget authority...................        601  .........        601
    Outlays............................     -3,525  .........     -3,525
House-passed bill:
    Budget authority...................      8,634  .........      8,634
    Outlays............................      5,063  .........      5,063
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Details may not add to totals due to rounding. Totals adjusted for
  consistency with scorekeeping conventions.

  Mr. EDWARDS. Mr. President, we are about to pass the $8.6 billion 
military construction appropriations bill. While I am pleased that this 
bill contains a significant amount of funding for projects in North 
Carolina, I continue to be concerned that despite repeated assurances, 
emergency relief for victims of Hurricane Floyd is still in a holding 
pattern.
  Before we began the appropriations process, we were assured that 
much-needed emergency money for Hurricane Floyd victims would be 
attached to the first--and fastest--moving appropriation bill. 
Obviously, Hurricane Floyd relief is not in this bill, and now, 
thousands of hurricane victims are still waiting on the Federal 
Government to do what's right.
  These people are hurting like they have never hurt before. And I 
guarantee you that the Hurricane Floyd victims spread across the 13 
affected states don't care about the politics that go along with the 
appropriations process. The victims of Hurricane Floyd did nothing 
wrong. They paid their taxes for years, voted in the elections and 
believed us when we told them that this is a government for the people. 
The victims aren't looking for a handout. Most of these people have 
never asked for the government's help, and now that they need it 
desperately, they are caught in a frustrating waiting game.
  I sincerely hope that we can work through the Agriculture 
appropriations request as quickly and fairly as we did with the 
military construction appropriations bill.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I am pleased that two important Minnesota 
projects are being funded in this bill, Phase II of Camp Ripley's 
Combined Support Maintenance Shop (CSMS) and a new Army National Guard 
Training and Community Center (TACC) in Mankato, Both of these projects 
were included in the Department of Defense Future Years Defense 
Program. They are recognized as being good for the Nation, as well as 
good for Minnesota.
  First, in regard to Camp Ripley, the existing CSMS was constructed in 
1949 and has been expanded to three additional warehouse-type 
facilities. All four facilities are undersized and fail to comply with 
modern construction criteria. The configuration and site restrictions 
of the current facilities make it difficult for the personnel to 
produce the quality and volume of work expected at Camp Ripley.
  Due to budget pressures, Congress divided the new CSMS project into 
two phases. Phase I received 1993 authorization and appropriation of 
$7,100,000 and includes administration, storage and allied trade shops. 
Phase II will provide general maintenance workbays, specialty workbays, 
military vehicle parking, service and access areas, and flammable 
materials storage. Without the completion of Phase II, the Minnesota 
Army National Guard's equipment readiness will be degraded and the 
costs of operating multiple facilities will overwhelm Camp Ripley's 
operating budget. Funding Phase II of the CSMA at a level of 
$10,368,000 will allow this project to be completed. I have championed 
this project from the outset, and I am pleased it is coming to 
fruition.
  Second, a new Army National Guard Training and Community Center 
(TACC) in Makato, MN is certainly needed. The 2/135th Infantry's 
current facility was originally built in 1914, although it was torn 
down and rebuilt in 1922. Since that time, the only major modifications 
have been the replacement of the windows and the roof. The condition of 
the facility has deteriorated to such an extent there is approximately 
$246,200 in backlogged maintenance and another $80,000 in construction 
would have been needed just to bring the building up to code. Due to 
health and safety concerns, the Guard currently cannot park its 
military vehicles on location; most are parked at the nearest National 
Guard facility 60 miles away. The current facility's limitations are so 
great the only practical course of action is to build a new TACC. The 
$4,681,000 for the Mankato Training and Community Center (TACC) will 
enable this to happen, and I have no doubt it will increase the 
recruiting and retention abilities of the local Guard unit. Congressman 
Gil Butknecht has shown leadership on this project, and did a stellar 
job sheparding it through the House.
  Mr. President, once again, I am proud to have worked to gain the 
support necessary to fund these projects. I have no doubt the funding 
the Camp Ripley and the Mankato TACC will be good for the readiness of 
the National Guard, and that means it will be good for the people of 
Minnesota and our Nation as a whole.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise in support of the $8.6 billion that 
this bill provides for military construction accounts. This much needed 
funding will ensure that our armed forces have adequate facilities to 
support them in their missions, from training reservists

[[Page S4170]]

stateside to deploying active duty personnel overseas. Additionally, 
this bill finances the construction, improvement, and maintenance of 
military family housing in the United States and abroad. In a time when 
it is becoming increasingly difficult for the armed services to recruit 
and retain qualified personnel, the importance of providing for proper 
housing cannot be overstated.
  Thousands of men and women in uniform report for duty each morning in 
my home state of Connecticut, and this bill will fund improvements 
where they work as well as where they live. First, this bill will fund 
the building of a pier at the New London Submarine Base that will 
greatly contribute to safe and efficient operations at the base's 
drydock. The single pier that presently serves the drydock is 
overburdened and cluttered to such a degree that it unnecessarily 
complicates maintenance work and extends the time required to conduct 
ship repairs. Once the new pier is built, the Navy estimates that it 
will pay for itself in under six years.
  Additionally, this bill provides for the reconstruction of the Air 
National Guard Complex in Orange, CT. The current structure, in which 
the soldiers of the 103rd Air Control Squadron train to control 
aircraft, was built in the 1950s and suffers from several shortcomings 
in terms of fire, health, and safety guidelines. Last year, many of the 
soldiers in this squadron were deployed to Bosnia for 120 days, and 
they did an outstanding job. Today, they continue to train in order to 
be ready to deploy to the corners of the earth in defense of this 
nation's interests. They deserve to work and train in a safe, modern 
facility.
  Also, this bill funds badly needed improvements to 295 homes at the 
New London Submarine Base. The improvements to these nearly forty-year-
old homes include electrical and plumbing upgrades, installation of 
natural gas heating systems, and replacing roofs, windows, and exterior 
siding. The time has come to accomplish these projects, and they help 
fulfill our responsibility to ensure that our armed services personnel 
and their families live in well-maintained homes. I can think of few 
better ways to show our men and women in uniform that we appreciate 
their service and sacrifice on behalf of this nation.
  Finally, I thank the chairman and ranking member of the Military 
Construction Subcommittee, Senators Burns and Murray. They have 
accomplished the important work of prioritizing the military 
construction projects and bringing this bill to the floor. I encourage 
my colleagues to join me in support of these priorities.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. The bill having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall it pass?
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Are there any other Senators in the 
Chamber desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 96, nays 4, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 106 Leg.]

                                YEAS--96

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Roberts
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--4

     Feingold
     Gorton
     McCain
     Thomas
  The bill (H.R. 4425), as amended, was passed.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to 
lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Smith of Oregon). Under the previous 
order, the Senate insists on its amendment and requests a conference 
with the House.
  The Presiding Officer (Mr. Smith of Oregon) appointed Mr. Burns, Mrs. 
Hutchison, Mr. Craig, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Stevens, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Reid, Mr. 
Inouye, and Mr. Byrd conferees on the part of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.

                          ____________________