Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have 8 minutes remaining?

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I am answering the Senator. The Senator is assuming something I don't assume.

Mr. BYRD. Yes, that is what the Senator is leaving out.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I know that the distinguished Senator from South Carolina badly needs to make another appointment. May I say to the distinguished majority leader that I intend, in my speech tomorrow, to lay out in full the constitutional requirements. I intend to respond to his question at that time.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object. I will not further delay, except to say I hope we can work something out. The Senator from Michigan is not going to be able to let us proceed with that part of the request. We will try to work something out. In the meantime, let me say that if we are unable to work out something that will allow us to amend this bill, I want to give those Senators who are concerned in this regard my assurance that in conference I will do everything I possibly can to reduce those certification requirements. I give them my word that we will get that done in conference.

Mr. BYRD. The Senator says, if thus and such.

Mr. BYRD. I think I stated that earlier. May I say to the distinguished Senator, I will try to answer his question. First, I say to the Senator, if he will yield, he has framed it this way: We are out unless we vote to stay in; come next--we hope to make that October 1 in conference; in the bill, it is announced July 1, 2001. We will not let the Senate frame it that way: ``We are out unless we vote to stay in.'' This bill does not say that. This amendment does not say that. The Senator from Delaware, I say most respectfully, is leaving out one very important factor, that being the President of the United States, whoever he may be next October. The opponents of my amendment depend heavily upon the ``Commander in Chief.'' Well, there will be a Commander in Chief at that time, and that Commander in Chief, unless he makes a case, unless he asks to be authorized to continue to deploy American ground troops after that date, and unless Congress then votes to authorize, then they would leave. But the Senator says, ``We are out unless we vote to stay in.'' That is not the case. There is going to be a President there asking. I assume, if he believes we ought to continue to deploy troops after that date, he will be up here asking. He will be requesting them. And then Congress will vote to authorize or not to authorize. It is not that simple, ``We are out unless we vote to stay in.''

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I reserve this right because I have to go to a function tonight and I would like to get 15 minutes in before I go. I am supposed to be there at 6 o'clock.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Since the amendment, which was offered by Senator Warner and myself, was acted upon in the committee and has reached the floor, several Senators have indicated concern with respect to the certification process set forth in that amendment. Out of respect for those who are concerned about that certification process, and in an effort to improve the legislative product, Senator Warner and I have discussed this matter, and we are willing to reduce the numbers set forth in the certification language. We think that would improve the product and would also meet the concerns of Senators who have raised them. I was just seeking to include in the unanimous consent request a request that we might be able to include such an amendment.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, may I explain to my friend from Michigan?

Mr. BYRD. I knew that already.

Mr. BYRD. That is correct. We would continue our air support, our logistical support, and our intelligence support. We would merely withdraw the ground troops, but we would only withdraw them in the event the President did not ask for authorization to continue the deployment, and in the event he asked and Congress voted no. Otherwise, they will be there.

Mr. BYRD. Ten minutes, 15.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am hoping to be able to leave the Senate after making a 15-minute speech of my own.

Mr. BYRD. That is half the picture.

Mr. BYRD. I assume the Senate would certainly debate that.

Mr. BYRD. With all due respect, if we are going to limit half the question, we are not really dealing with the situation. Let me answer the Senator. If the Congress refuses to authorize, of course they are going to come out. But let us not assume that and let us not forget that the Commander in Chief will be making an effort to justify the continued deployment of those troops.

Mr. BYRD. May I say further, what is wrong with that?

Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, Senator Warner and I hope we can offer an amendment to amend our amendment dealing with the commitments that are laid out in that amendment which the allies will be expected to meet. We would like to reduce those commitments. I wonder if we might be able to include such an amendment in the request.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by Senator Daschle to S. 2521. I have come to the floor of the Senate several times to speak about failure of the Juvenile Justice conference to come to an agreement. Our nation is yearning for leadership. I vote for this amendment to once again urge the conferees to move ahead on the Juvenile Justice bill. Craft a common sense bill that will help to break this cycle of youth violence. Show the nation that the Congress can see what is happening outside of the Capitol Building, and that we are capable of working in partnership with all Americans to bring some calm to our classrooms. This legislation does not create dramatic infringements on the right of an informed and responsible citizenry to keep and bear arms. It simply would put in place some common sense provisions to balance public safety and private gun owners' rights. Requiring trigger locks would not jeopardize anyone's Second Amendment rights to own a gun, but trigger locks might prevent children from turning guns on other children. And improving background checks is not a monumental change, either. These additional checks would only serve to prevent those people who should not have access to weapons from getting them. I believe that responsible parents and gun owners would be able to support these common sense provisions. I also support the amendment offered by Senator Lott to S. 2521. I agree that the government can and should do more to enforce the existing laws concerning firearms. I do not believe that we must choose between enacting common sense measures to protect public safety and protecting the rights of gun owners--we can do both. Nor do I believe that we must choose between enacting additional protections for public safety and enforcement of current gun laws. I hope that the conferees working on the Juvenile Justice bill will come to an agreement on legislation that will enhance enforcement of the laws we currently have on the books to keep guns out of the wrong hands. Further delay only increases the chance that another child may die from gun violence before the Congress acts.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may I say to my friend from Delaware, I have a great deal of respect for him. He has had long experience on the Foreign Relations Committee. And he is my friend. I just have to differ with him on this occasion.

Mr. BYRD. He asked a question, Why don't we vote now? I have the answer to that. It would be irresponsible to vote now to take the troops out. My colleague, Senator Warner, and I are not saying take the troops out. We are not saying we should withdraw the troops. Certainly, we would not say vote now to take the troops out. That would be very irresponsible. What we are trying to do is establish an orderly procedure, over a period of more than a year from now, at which time the President, the new President, be it Mr. Gore or be it Mr. Bush, can come to the Congress and ask for authorization to continue the deployment of American troops, if he can make the case, if there is justification for it. There are those of us in the Senate today who are supporting this amendment who, if that case is made, if a good case is made, a persuasive case is made--I do not assume I would vote against it. I might vote for it. But we are trying to lay down an orderly process whereby there will be plenty of time. What we are trying to do is take back the authorities of the Congress which have been usurped by the administration. We have slept on our rights. I do not blame the administration; I blame the Congress. We have slept on our rights. So we are not saying take the troops out. But we do think it would be the wrong thing to attempt to vote to take the troops out now. We don't say that. We do not even say take the troops out, period. We are saying let the next President justify the case for leaving them in after a certain date, if that be the circumstance. Mr. President, it has become startlingly clear over the past several days that the Clinton administration fiercely opposes the Byrd-Warner Amendment. Why does the administration fiercely oppose this amendment? The amendment does not mandate the withdrawal of U.S. ground combat troops from Kosovo. The amendment does not micromanage the Pentagon or the State Department. What is the administration afraid of? The intent of the Byrd-Warner Amendment is to restore congressional oversight to the Kosovo peacekeeping operation. Congress should have taken this step long ago, but by not doing so, Congress has allowed, by its own inaction, the administration to usurp the Constitutional authority of Congress in this matter. The administration would much prefer that Congress not interfere at this late date with the continued usurpation of Congress' Constitutional prerogative and authority. No, the administration would much prefer Congress to keep quiet, roll over, play dead, or pretend to play dead, while the administration continues to do whatever it wants to do in Kosovo, run up the costs of the operation, prepare for a long- term stay there, and then send the bills to Congress for payment. The position of the administration has been articulated most fervently by General Wesley Clark, the former Supreme Allied Commander of NATO troops in Europe. In a letter to Senator Levin, and in several meetings with Senators this week, General Clark repeatedly made the argument that the Byrd-Warner amendment would undermine the confidence that our European allies place in the U.S. commitment to NATO. Ha-ha, listen to that. How ridiculous that the Byrd-Warner amendment would undermine the confidence that our European allies place in the U.S. commitment to NATO. In less than two weeks, we will celebrate Memorial Day. We will remember, and honor, the 4,743,826 men who served in World War I. We will mark the loss of the 53,513 men who lost their lives in battle during that war, and the 63,195 uniformed men who also died, though not in battle. We will honor the 204,002 men who were wounded in that conflict, whose blood was spilled in those muddy trenches and across those snowy hills. We will also pay tribute to the 16,353,659 men who put on a uniform and served during World War II, a conflict that also started in Europe. Some 292,131 of those 16 million men died--died in battle during that bloody war, and another 115,185 died while serving in that war. Another 671,876 were wounded in all theaters. American blood has soaked European ground--the ground cries out--and saved European lives. Then to say that the passage of this amendment would cause the Europeans to lose trust in the Americans--how silly, how perfectly ridiculous that that would be said. That is the U.S. commitment to NATO, and to our European allies. Our commitment lies under European sod, under poppy-covered fields marked with endless rows of white crosses. Our blood is our bond. What more cane they ask? It is preposterous for General Clark or the administration to suggest that the Byrd-Warner amendment could undermine that bond. How silly, how utterly ridiculous. Asking our European allies to meet their commitments in Kosovo, while we continue to shoulder the burden of intelligence collection, transportation, and other critical support roles for which we are uniquely equipped, is not walking away from NATO. It is not walking away from Europe. The Byrd-Warner amendment assumes that the administration can come up with a supportable case for continued U.S. involvement in Kosovo if necessary. It might be Mr. Gore. It might be Mr. Bush. But we assume that they can come up with a justifiable case if they think they have a case. The Byrd-Warner amendment does not assume that the United States will withdraw from Kosovo. We do not assume that at all. That is simply the logical conclusion of but one path this debate might take. The other path is that the administration will present, and defend, a plan-- whatever administration it is--by next year for continued U.S. involvement in Kosovo that the Congress and the American people can support. We assume they can. But let them do it. Then our troops, our military establishment, our allies, and others in the region, will understand the depth of support for this mission in the United States. One of the primary aims of the Byrd-Warner provision is to get the administration and the next administration, be it Democratic or Republican, to focus on a policy. I have asked this administration for an exit strategy. I cannot get an answer. I have asked for a rough estimate, within 2 years, of how long we expect ground troops to remain in Kosovo. I cannot get an answer. I have asked this administration for an estimate of the ultimate cost of this operation to the American taxpayer. I cannot get an answer. As far as I can tell, we are on mission ``Ad Hoc'' in Kosovo, with nobody in the entire executive branch in Washington or elsewhere, able to give this Senator and the American people answers to the most basic questions regarding the scope, costs or foreseeable end of the mission. I cannot even get anyone to tell me how we will know when it is time to leave? How will we know when it is time to leave? Talk about open ended commitments! This endeavor does not even have walls, much less ceilings or floors. Now we are being told by the Office of Management and Budget that the administration cannot provide assurances that the certification of allied effort required by the Byrd-Warner amendment will be met by the due date of July 15. The problem? I quote from the statement of administration policy. Here is the problem: ``mechanical formulas and recordkeeping technicalities.'' I realize that this administration has had its share of recordkeeping problems, but I find it difficult to believe they cannot do the simple arithmetic--the old math or the new math--this provision requires. The administration itself acknowledges that the allies are already exceeding their commitments for humanitarian assistance and for the Kosovo consolidated budget. Further, according to the administration's reckoning, the allies have already deployed 63 percent of the civilian police that they have promised. No, they have not yet met the 75 percent benchmark, but Spain is expected to deploy 115 additional police in June, and great Britain recently announced that it will deploy an additional 57 police by the end of May, which would boost the total to over 75 percent. Given the allies' poor track record in the area, I think we should hold their feet to the fire on the 75 percent standard. It is achievable. If the allies balk at coming up with 158 additional policemen, Congress and the American people should know and should know the reason why. And we should know the reason before we pay out the final installment of the $2 billion in military costs funded in this bill that the U.S. has incurred in Kosovo this year. The administration also contends that the allies will not be able to come up with 33 percent of their promised reconstruction assistance. The changes that we intend to make to this provision--Senator Stevens and I confer if we are not allowed to make them on the floor--will take care of that problem. We will drop that requirement to 25 percent. According to the National Security Council, which apparently can do the arithmetic, the allies are currently at 23.1 percent. I have every confidence that they can come up with the remaining 1.9 percent by July 15. Mr. President, the purpose of including the certification benchmarks in this provision was to give the United States leverage to demand that our allies live up to their commitments. Our intention is for these requirements to be used as a prod, not a battering ram. We want the allies to meet these requirements. But if for some reason they cannot, we have included a safety valve--a vote under expedited procedures to release the money being held in reserve to continue the deployment of U.S. forces in Kosovo. It is not now, nor was it ever, the intention of Senator Warner or me to force a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Kosovo in July. Our intention is very simple: To do right by the Constitution, to do right by the American people, and to do right by the men and women in uniform that we send into harm's way in operations like the one in Kosovo. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. BYRD. Right.

Mr. BYRD. What is wrong with that?