Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, today, May 25, in the year of our Lord 2000, marks the 213th anniversary of a monumental event, the most monumental event that ever occurred in American history. It was on May 25, 1787, that a sufficient number of State delegations convened in Philadelphia to begin their deliberations ``to form a more perfect Union.'' Fifty- five delegates labored through that long, hot summer in Independence Hall in the very room where the Declaration of Independence had been signed 11 years earlier. By September 17 of that year, when they adjourned sine die, they had produced a remarkable document, the most remarkable document of its kind that was ever written, the Constitution of the United States. I place only the King James version of the Holy Bible above this document, the Constitution of the United States. That is the remarkable document that established our Federal Government, that provided for a U.S. Senate, that provided for the equality of the small States with the large States. That is the document that made it possible for tiny, mountainous West Virginia to have two votes, to be equal to the great State of New York, to be equal to the great States of California, Florida, Illinois, Ohio, Indiana in the Senate. If it were not for this document which I hold in my hand, the Constitution of the United States, we wouldn't be here today. I wouldn't be here. The distinguished Presiding Officer who comes from the State of Illinois would not be here. He would not be presiding in that chair. These would not be the United States of America. In all likelihood, they would be the ``Balkanized States of America.'' This remarkable document has established our Federal Government. It is fitting, therefore, that we pause today, and I thought it fitting that someone take the floor to remark about the importance of this day in history and the importance of this document. It is fitting that we pause to reflect on what those men who met at the Constitutional Convention hoped to accomplish and to remark on what they achieved. The fledgling United States was in dire straits in 1787. There were no automobiles. There were no airplanes, no diesel motor trains, no electric lights, no sulfa drugs, no antibiotics in 1787. It had become painfully apparent that the first National Government under the Articles of Confederation was not working. Having thrown off the yoke of royal rule during the Revolution, Americans at first had been reluctant to establish another strong central government. Not many people, I wager, in this country remember much, if anything, about the Articles of Confederation, our first Constitution, but our forebears had created a Government under the Articles of Confederation that represented little more than a loose association of 13 States, with the States retaining the real power. Those States were the former Colonies. The National Government consisted of a single legislative body. Most of the governments in the world today consist of unicameral legislative bodies, one legislative body. But there are 61 governments in the world today that have bicameral legislatures. Most of the larger countries have bicameral legislative bodies. There are 61 of them. And in only two, the United States and Italy, are the upper chambers not subordinate to the lower chambers. Each State, under the Articles of Confederation, regardless of size-- whether it was Pennsylvania, New York, tiny Delaware, Rhode Island, or Georgia--each State, regardless of size, had a single vote in the Congress, in that one body. Under the Articles of Confederation, Congress could raise money only by asking the States for it. Congress had no power to force a State to pay its share. At times, Congress lacked the funds to pay its soldiers' salaries and faced the threat of mutiny. General George Washington faced that threat of mutiny. The Nation's international credit remained weak because of its war debts, which went unpaid due to wrangling between and among the States. This discouraged foreign investments--as one could imagine--and further complicated the efforts to fund the Government operations. As economic conditions worsened, a band of farmers in western Massachusetts, led by the Revolutionary War veteran, Daniel Shays, shut down the State courts to stop their creditors from foreclosing on their lands. I wonder what Senator Ted Kennedy would think of that today. How would Senator John Kerry feel about that--Shays' Rebellion? And not only did they close down the courts to stop their creditors from foreclosing on their lands, but they also attacked the Federal arsenal at Springfield. When Massachusetts appealed for assistance, Congress had neither an adequate army nor adequate funds to suppress Shays' Rebellion. George Washington, who had retired to his estate at Mount Vernon after commanding American forces during the Revolutionary War, feared for the survival of his country and predicted ``the worst consequences from a half-starved, limping Government, always moving upon crutches and tottering at every step.'' That was George Washington, the first President and the greatest President ever of the United States. In 1785, a dispute over navigation rights on the Potomac River prompted the States of Virginia and Maryland to set up a meeting to settle their differences. Maryland's delegation went to Alexandria, VA, only to find that Virginia's delegates had not yet arrived. They had no interstate highways. They had no great bridges that spanned the river. They had no airplanes. There was no airport over at National in those days. There were only horses and buggies. As I say, Maryland's delegation went to Alexandria, VA, only to find that Virginia's delegates had not yet arrived. Anxious for the conference not to fail, George Washington graciously invited the delegates to Mount Vernon. There the two delegations discussed tolls and fishing rights on the Potomac. Where does the Potomac rise? It rises in my State, in West Virginia. Of course, there was no West Virginia in those days, but there was Virginia. And other questions were raised that went beyond their immediate disputes. When the Virginia delegates submitted their report to the Virginia Assembly, it went to a committee chaired by James Madison, Jr. Convinced that larger issues remained, Madison persuaded the assembly to pass a resolution calling for a convention in the States to deal with interstate commerce. In the fall of 1786, that convention met in Annapolis, MD. You see, if it were today, Senators Barbara Mikulski and Paul Sarbanes would be there. But it was long before their time. That convention could do nothing, since only 6 of the 13 States sent representatives. Spurred by Madison of Virginia and Alexander Hamilton of New York, the Annapolis convention called for another convention the following year in Philadelphia to go beyond commercial disputes and consider creating a Federal Government strong enough to meet the needs of the new Nation. On May 14, 1787, the date set for that convention to open, a quorum could not be attained. Not until May 25--213 years ago today--did delegates from a majority of the States arrive. That was an important day--the day that a quorum of delegates arrived. Eventually, all but Rhode Island would send delegates. With a quorum established, they got down to business by unanimously electing George Washington as their Presiding Officer. Talk about a great President, one that all the subsequent Presidents--I am sure most of them--have tried to emulate, there was the greatest President of all, George Washington, first in the hearts of his countrymen. His great prestige, the delegates knew, would help to quiet public suspicion of the convention's intent. That convention closed its doors. They didn't open the doors to the public. They locked the doors and established sentries at the doors and conducted its proceedings in secret. That was a good thing. According to James Madison's notes from May 25, Washington, ``in a very emphatic manner . . . thanked the convention for the honor they had conferred on him, reminded them of the novelty of the scene of business in which he was to act, lamented his want of better qualifications, and claimed the indulgence of the House toward the involuntary errors which his inexperience might occasion.'' The convention then elected a secretary and appointed a committee to prepare its standing rules. The convention knew the importance of standing rules. The convention had learned that from the colonial legislatures, the State legislatures, and from Parliament in the motherland. Several of those forebears came from England, Scotland, and Ireland; they were all subjects of Great Britain, of course. They knew about Parliament. So, they prepared standing rules. Over the next 3 months, the delegates crafted an entirely new Federal Government for the United States. Ever fearful of tyranny, they solved the problem of concentration of power by dividing responsibilities among three equal branches of Government. O, that more of our people today would study American history! I am not talking about social studies; I am talking about history--American history. O, that more of our Members would refresh their memories concerning American history! How many times have I reminded ourselves of the importance of the checks and balances, the separation of powers, the fact that there are three equal and coordinate branches of Government? As pragmatists who doubted the perfectibility of human beings, they assumed--those delegates at the convention--that strong individuals and groups would always grasp for more power--and they were right--which would be dangerous, even if meant for good purposes. They, the delegates, believed that government evolved from the people and, indeed, they began their document with the words: ``We the People.'' But they also anticipated that public opinion would swing wildly--swing like a pendulum--wildly at times, and that public passions could get swept away in the frenzies of the moment. Some people glibly refer to our form of government as a democracy. When you hear someone say that form of government is a democracy, mark that person as not knowing what he is talking about. That person does not know what he is talking about when he says that this Government is a democracy. It is not. Rather than a democracy, the Framers created a representative government, a republic, with elaborate checks and balances. If we want to understand the difference between a democracy and a republic, let James Madison explain the difference in Federalist No. 10 and Federalist No. 14. As James Madison later explained in the Federalist: ``If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.'' Mr. President, because the U.S. Constitution still functions essentially the way its authors intended, and because it has been amended only 27 times in the past two centuries, that Constitutional convention has sometimes been celebrated as the ``Miracle at Philadelphia,'' and the delegates praised by none less than Thomas Jefferson as ``demigods,'' suggesting that their work was divinely inspired. In point of fact, the convention was a long, hard, bitterly- debated ordeal that on several occasions came close to collapse. They did not have air-conditioning in those days. Those summers were just as hot as they are now, I suppose. The delegates needed to reach several crucial compromises before enough of them would agree to the new constitution. One of these compromises--known as the Great Compromise-- created the U.S. Senate as a means of satisfying the smaller states' demands for equality, while the House of Representatives would grant more votes to the larger states by apportioning on the basis of population. Another pivotal compromise--the Three-Fifths Compromise-- addressed the emotional issue of human slavery, by permitting slaves to be counted as three-fifths of a person for purposes of taxation and representation. Without the agreement, the Southern states would not have ratified the new constitution. Yet, it left in place the peculiar institution of slavery that eventually would tear the nation apart in civil war. In other words, Mr. President, as remarkable as was the Constitution that emerged from Philadelphia in 1787, and as much as it solved the problems that had festered under the Articles of Confederation, it was not a finished document. Despite the towering presence of George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, Madison, Mason, and other wise and trusted leaders at the Constitutional convention, there remained deep public suspicion over this new government, which after all had been debated entirely in secret session. Some delegates refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked protection of individual rights. This omission proved a major obstacle to the ratification of the Constitution, leading Madison to pledge his support for a series of amendments while the ink on the Constitution was still wet. During the First Congress, as a member of the House of Representatives, Madison proposed the first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, and two other amendments not ratified at the time (one of which more recently resurfaced as the 27th amendment) and which we remember in our own time here in the Senate. The late Justice Thurgood Marshall once commented that he could not admire the framers' decision to compromise with slavery, and that, therefore, he preferred to celebrate the Constitution as ``a living document, including the Bill of Rights and other amendments protecting individual freedoms and human rights.'' Several amendments to the Constitution were more administrative in scope, designed to fix flaws in the Electoral College, change the calendar for congressional sessions and presidential inaugurations, and permit the levying of a federal income tax. But most of the amendments dealt with expanding democratic rights and freedoms, from the abolition of slavery to the extension of the right to vote to blacks, women, and 18-year-olds, and even for the right of the people to directly elect their United States senators. These few amendments have improved the original document. Yet, in so many respects the Constitution remains unchanged. Today, each branch of the government retains essentially the same powers it was given in 1787--albeit magnified to meet the challenges of subsequent centuries. Ours, as Justice Thurgood Marshall reminded us, is a living Constitution. If the Holy Bible were small enough, I would carry that with me, too. This is the Constitution of the United States. Fortunately, it is a small document. It is a compact document that fits comfortably inside my shirt pocket, and several Senators in this body carry the Constitution in their pockets. It is far shorter than most State constitutions, including my own West Virginia Constitution. It does not take long to read. But each time one reads it, one will find something new in that Constitution--some thought that did not occur to that individual before. It does not take long to read, and yet opinion polls show that many Americans have either never read it or have forgotten most of what they learned about it in school. That may also go for a good many of the Members of this body, and the other body. It would be very well if all Members of the Senate and House reread the Constitution from time to time. It is vital that all Americans familiarize themselves with this document so that they know their constitutional rights and their constitutional responsibilities. Let me suggest, therefore, that May 25, marking the anniversary of the day the Constitutional Convention got down to business, would be an appropriate day for all of us to once again read the Constitution and to appreciate the framers' efforts ``to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.'' This coming Monday is Memorial Day, May 29. On that day, Edmund Randolph, Governor of the State of Virginia, presented his 15 resolves, his 15 resolutions to the convention. The debates in those ensuing days largely centered around Randolph's resolutions, or the so-called Virginia plan. So, I say to my colleagues, remember this coming Monday. That was the day when the convention first heard about the Virginia plan. Long live the memories of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution!

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Presiding Officer. Mr. President, I may have to lengthen that. I ask unanimous consent at this time that I may speak up to 30 minutes, if I need to.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, has an order been entered for me to be recognized at this time?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have sought recognition at this time to commend the chairman of the subcommittee, Senator Bennett, and the ranking member, Senator Feinstein, for their efforts in bringing out of the Appropriations Committee and out of their subcommittee prior thereto, a bill which I know that all Senators can support. As noted by the Chairman and Ranking Member, the allocation to the Legislative Branch Subcommittee here in the Senate was substantially larger than the amount allocated to the Subcommittee's House counterpart. That increased allocation was distributed fairly throughout the Legislative Branch. In particular, as has been noted by Chairman Bennett and Senator Feinstein, the bill as reported by the Committee recommends a substantial increase for the Capitol Police. I commend these two very able Senators for their excellent work in recommending this increase for the Capitol Police and for the increases they recommended throughout the legislative branch. It should be kept in mind something that Members of this body often forget, perhaps at least temporarily, that the Legislative Branch is the people's branch. I stand here on this floor time after time to say that again and again that this is the first of the three branches of our Government mentioned in the Constitution, article I. We should adequately fund the legislative branch. I believe this bill does so. We certainly bend over backwards time and time again to fund the executive branch, and the executive branch includes in its budget on every occasion that a budget that comes here, additional persons for various segments of the executive branch. In many instances, few questions are asked, if any. So the executive branch adds to its numbers by the hundreds, from time to time. Yet we respond quite niggardly with appropriations for the legislative branch. We are always pinching pennies when it comes to the legislative branch. The Legislative Branch Appropriations bill, as reported by the House Appropriations Committee, contains major cuts throughout the legislative branch, including the appropriation for the Capitol Police. Rather than recommending an increase sufficient to continue the growth in the Capitol Police force that we approved two years ago as a result of the tragic shooting that took the lives of Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson, the bill, reported by the other body requires dramatic reductions in the Capitol Police force. Through a combination of the regular Fiscal Year 2000 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act and the additional funding that had already been provided in the Omnibus Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999, sufficient resources have been provided for 1,511 Capitol Police personnel. That increase in personnel was carefully considered as part of an overall plan to improve security of the U.S. Capitol complex. It was to be a multi-year effort with these additional forces being brought on board as quickly as the new hires could be trained. Yet, that is not what has been recommended in the bill as reported in this year's bill by the House Appropriations Committee. That recommendation provides only $70 million, a cut of almost $39 million below the budget request, and provides for a level of only 1058 personnel, a reduction of 453 positions! Think about that. We all talk about how strongly we support reducing crime throughout the Nation. Let's start right here in the Nation's Capitol, right now! We have put 100,000 cops on the beat across the Nation. A number of years ago, Senator Gramm of Texas and I offered an amendment which was subsequently enacted to establish a Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund. I was chairman of the Appropriations Committee in the Senate at that time. Since that time, tens of billions of dollars have been appropriated over the years from that trust fund. As a result, we have seen a marked improvement in the statistics on violent crime all across this Nation. When the tragic shooting of Officer Chestnut and Detective Gibson occurred in the Nation's Capitol in the summer of 1998, we all quickly rushed forward with promises of increased funding for the security measures for the Capitol complex. I have seen this happen time and time and time again over the 48 years I have been virtually an inhabitant of this building. The distinguished Senator from Illinois said a moment ago he first came to this building 38 years ago. Mr. President, I came to this building my first time almost 70 years ago. I was a boy scout from the coal fields in southern West Virginia. Of course, it was never meant that I should ever become a Member of this body, not from the lowly beginnings from which I sprang. Upon that occasion when I sat up in the galleries, I said to the scoutmaster: I'm coming back here one day; I'm going to be a Member of this body. How little did I know that that might come true, really, when I came to this Capitol almost 70 years ago. I was a Member of the other body when the shooting occurred in the gallery of that body. I was sitting on the opposite side, on the Democratic side, from where the shooting took place. The shooting occurred from the galleries just over the Republican side of the aisle. At first, I thought it was a demonstration of some kind, perhaps some firecrackers or some blank bullets. I saw--I believe it was one of the Members named Jensen. I saw other Members fall. I saw one fall right in the center of the floor, towards the front of the House Chamber. I saw Members running to the Cloakroom. A Member from Tennessee had sat in a chair to my left. If I were located in the House Chamber right now, he sat just over to my left. He was called to go out to the Cloakroom to take a telephone call. While he was out, that shooting occurred and a bullet pierced the very center of the chair in which he had sat. The bullet would have gone through his heart. A Member of the House who sat just directly behind him was from Alabama, and that Member suffered a wound in his leg. I remember going up to the galleries after they had taken the demonstrators out. There was a TV camera there. They asked me what I thought about it. I said, ``It just shows what a cockeyed old world this has come to be.'' The world hasn't improved any. As a matter of fact, it has gotten worse. I can remember some years ago when there was an explosion on the next floor below us in the Capitol. A bomb exploded right down here where the old barber shop was, where the Senators used to get haircuts. We were criticized so much because we got haircuts in the Capitol that we closed down the room, the barber shop. But in one of the little restrooms just outside the premises of that barber shop a bomb exploded. Then, a few years later, a bomb exploded right here near the Senate Chamber, beyond the Republican Cloakroom, out in the corridor there. I was the Democratic leader at that time, and I had an office just a few feet away from where that bomb was deposited behind a bench where one of those Vice Presidential busts is now located. That blast occurred at 11 o'clock at night. As Howard Baker stated the next morning, it could very well have killed a Republican Member or Members in that Republican Cloakroom that night. The explosion was directed toward the Republican Cloakroom. Nevertheless, that explosion blew off the huge doors to my office in S- 208. It blew those doors over on the desks where members of my staff worked. As I say, fortunately, it was at 11 o'clock at night, but it just filled my offices with dust. It broke the picture window in that beautiful office. I have been around this Capitol 48 years, and I know these things happen, and they will happen again. They will happen again. One of these days there may be a major catastrophe in this Capitol. And every time there is a rush to improve the security, and then after a few days or weeks or months, that subsides and the security lapses. This is the most beautiful Capitol in the world, bar none, with Brumidi's paintings. Brumidi came to this country in 1855 and he died in 1880. He painted these beautiful frescoes in the Rotunda. I have my office now in his old studio down on the next floor. It is in this Capitol that Webster and Hayne had their famous debate. It was not in this Chamber but in the Old Chamber down the hall. Webster and Clay, and Calhoun--where the old Senate sat from 1810 to 1859; the Senators in 1859 moved to this Chamber. Ah, what history here--history, the history of the greatest Republic that was ever created--history fills these Halls. If you walk in these Halls at night, you can almost hear the words of Webster and Clay and Thomas Hart Benton of Missouri. Yet, this Capitol is put in danger by reductions of this kind in appropriations. Senator Bennett and Senator Feinstein have performed a great deed for the Nation, for the men and women of yesterday, for the citizens of today, and for our posterity--those who will walk these Halls in future years and gaze with wonder at the beauty of this Capitol. A lot is expected of the men and the women who serve on the U.S. Capitol Police Force. We expect them to be highly professional, highly skilled, and highly motivated individuals who perform their duties well at all times. They must be courteous to the many thousands, the millions of people who visit this Nation's Capitol while at the same time being alert to the dangers that can arise at any time with little notice or without notice. Members of the House and Senate, our staffs--Jim English, others on the staff of the Appropriations Committee who sit on this side, and staff people who sit across the aisle and aid Senator Bennett; there are thousands of them who work in and around this Capitol--their lives are at stake, their lives and the lives of the tourists who come here from the mountains of West Virginia and the level plains of the Midwest, the prairies, from the Rocky Mountains and the sunny shores of California. They come here to see this Capitol and to marvel at it, to gaze in awe. How many times a day I see those tourists come in here and look about these halls; they just gaze in awe. They seem to be entirely unaware that somebody else is walking by. They are entranced by what they see in this Capitol. These visitors deserve no less from our U.S. Capitol Police Force. But if we are to have the kind of police force that exhibits these qualities and these skills, we cannot subject these men and women to the specter of having their jobs eliminated in massive numbers on the heels of initiating a program to substantially increase their numbers. It would be unwise in the extreme to cut security personnel at the Capitol complex, so I will join Chairman Bennett and Senator Feinstein and other members of our committee in defending the funding levels recommended in the Senate bill for the U.S. Capitol Police. I trust we will succeed in convincing our counterparts on the other side of the Capitol of the need for that increase. I congratulate Senator Mikulski, too, on the resolution which she has offered, which she was kind enough to allow me to cosponsor. That is a good amendment and this is a good bill which, I believe, deserves the support of every Senator. I again congratulate Senator Bennett and Senator Feinstein. I again thank them. The Senate is in their debt. The Congress is in their debt. The people of the country are in their debt because this is the people's Capitol. This is the people's branch. These two Senators have done excellent work in bringing recommendations to the Senate. I salute them, thank them, commend them, and say: Long may the great God who is the Judge of us all and in Whose hands rests the destiny of the Nation continue to bless this great country and this great Capitol of the United States.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD. The Senator was talking about how the Capitol Police are careful to search our briefcases and to be on the alert for all people who walk through the doors. A couple weeks ago, after I reached my house one evening, I got to looking for something, and I decided I left it on my desk in my office. I said to my wife: I am going back up to the Capitol. She said: Do you want me to go with you? I said: Yes. She and I are going to be married, by the way, this coming Monday, 63 years. As I said, she said: Do you want me to go with you? Anyhow, she came up here with me. I had already changed clothes. I had an old slouch rainhat on. I had some old wear-around-the-house trousers and some scuffy-looking shoes. I came up here with a slouch sweatshirt and had it outside my trousers. I walked in down here and went through the magnetometer. I guess I am the only Senator who goes through the magnetometer. I don't know. But I do. I do that so the police and others who may get some complaints from some people who go through that magnetometer can say, Senator Byrd, who has been around this floor longer than any other Member of the House or Senate, who has been around here longer than any staff member on this Hill, goes through that. So I went through that magnetometer. And there were two policemen standing there. They were not the regular attendants at the door. And they did not see any ID card on me with a chain around my neck. So one of them said to me: Sir, are you a staff member? And I laughed. I said: No, I'm not a staff member. I just want to compliment you on doing the kind of job you are supposed to do. No, I'm not a staff member. So they were on the alert. They did what they were supposed to do. I salute them for it. I thank the Senator for yielding.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. In what respect?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

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.

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. BYRD. Yes, that is fine.

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 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 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. ``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 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?

Mr. BYRD. I yield the Senator 2 minutes.

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 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. BYRD. Mr. President, would the distinguished majority leader like to go ahead? I have 3 minutes. Do I?

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. 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. BYRD. Yes, I hope the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, will proceed. I have a question, if I might ask the Senator.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator 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. BYRD. I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

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. 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.