Robert Byrd

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment may be temporarily laid aside.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I call up my amendment and ask for its reading.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be waived.

Mr. BYRD. The Senator is entitled to be heard.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may we have order? There are too many conversations going on.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield just very briefly without losing his right to the floor?

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Committee has accepted my amendment to provide greater oversight and accountability in those instances when the Secretary of Defense determines that U.S. troops would be best protected by the administration of investigational drugs in a wartime situation. Our forces increasingly face the threat of chemical and biological weapons being used on the battlefield. It may therefore be necessary, in order to protect them from these terrible weapons, to require them to take medicines and drugs to counteract or prevent these threats from being used to devastating effect. I think that we can all agree that the Secretary of Defense should take all reasonable precautions to protect U.S. troops in these situations, and that for a number of reasons, it may not be possible, wise, or safe to make public that decision by asking for the informed consent of each and every soldier, sailor, or airman before those preventative measures are administered. However, I believe that it is also reasonable to take steps to ensure that when the Department of Defense thinks a particular drug, either investigational or used in a new way, should be administered without the informed consent of the troops, that such a decision is vetted very carefully, and that such decisions are recorded. Therefore, my amendment adds a new and higher level of scrutiny to the waiver process. My amendment requires that the President, the Commander in Chief, concurs in the decision of the Department of Defense to administer such drugs. It puts the top civilian in charge of the military in the loop, and it requires that these decisions to administer drugs to our troops are reported to the Congress. Unfortunately, some examples from history, such as the exposure of troops to atmospheric atomic tests, and other examples of making U.S. military men and women ``guinea pigs,'' have left lingering concerns about leaving this decision making process entirely in the hands of the military. I hope that my amendment, by bringing civilian leaders and representatives of the people into the process, will allay concerns that U.S. troops will ever be given drugs for any reason other than to protect them from real and dangerous threats.

Mr. BYRD. Yes.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I respect the viewpoints of all of those who have spoken, those who are opposed to my amendment as well as those who have spoken in support of it. When I read and heard about the problems that were existing in the military, I stated publicly that I was going to seek, in the Armed Services Committee, to establish a commission to look into the matter. Whereupon, I am not implying that Mr. Cohen appointed his commission because I said that, but he did appoint the commission on his own, or indicated he was going to appoint a commission. I looked with some askance at a commission that would be appointed by the Secretary of Defense to look into this matter. So he proceeded to appoint that commission. I was surprised that he appointed Nancy Kassebaum-Baker as chairman of that commission. He appointed a good commissioner. So I had approached the matter by pushing for an amendment that would create a commission. Mr. Kempthorne and I joined in that. But I was suspicious of any commission that would be appointed within the administration by the Secretary of Defense--not that it was the particular Secretary of Defense, but I wanted to establish a fox to watch the chickens. As it turned out, the commission that the Secretary appointed was a good one. It made some excellent recommendations, but by then we had already decided to appoint our commission. Now, there are those who say we should wait on the commission that we appointed. The Kassebaum commission is a commission of high integrity. We know the former Senator who served from Kansas, Nancy Kassebaum. We know that she was a great Senator of integrity and one who worked with high purposes. We all believed in her, and I believed in her commission. So I think that we ought not wait on the commission now that I helped to establish to keep an eye on the commission, that the Defense Secretary had indicated he was going to appoint. The Kassebaum commission has rendered its recommendations, and my amendment would put into effect the recommendations of the Kassebaum commission. My amendment would conform to the language of the House, the House language, so when the conferees go to conference, if my amendment is adopted, this will not be a question in conference because the Senate language will conform to the House language. So there are those who have urged that our colleagues vote against my amendment in order to preserve the integrity of the Senate commission on gender-integrated training, which will not issue its report until next year. Mr. President, I suggest to my colleagues that it is better to preserve the integrity of our Armed Forces and to preserve the integrity and safety of our young recruits. Let us not delay the process of implementing changes recommended by former Senator Kassebaum-Baker and the commission that she headed, a commission established by the Secretary of Defense. Let us not delay making changes that will improve the discipline, the teamwork, the cohesion of our military forces. Put these young recruits in separate barracks, train them separately until they have been instilled in the military discipline that will allow them to work together as strong, confident, and effective teams, and keep them focused on the job at hand. Let us not put this off for another year, waiting for the Senate commission to report. The Senate commission's purpose is not undermined by this action. It may make further recommendations regarding the problems faced today with mixed-gender training that the Secretary may want to adopt. It is also tasked with examining other areas, including fraternization policies in the various services which clearly, clearly, also merit review and possible change. There is plenty of work for the Senate commission still to do. The Senators have noted in their remarks that senior military officials all supported keeping mixed-gender training just the way it is. But our colleagues have failed to note that not all of our military services support mixed-gender training from day 1. The Commandant of the Marine Corps testified before the Armed Services Committee that the Marine Corps had decided to keep their basic training segregated. I think most of my colleagues would agree that the Marine Corps has arguably the greatest discipline, the greatest order, and the greatest unity cohesion of any branch of service. I think it is time that the other services model themselves after this successful example. I urge the adoption of my amendment.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the U.S. Supreme Court earlier today announced in its ruling in the consolidated cases of Clinton v. New York and Rubin v. Snake River Potato Growers that it has found the Line-item Veto Act to be unconstitutional. It did this by a vote of 6 to 3. It is with great relief and thankfulness that I join with Senators Moynihan and Levin--and I am sure that if our former colleague, Senator Hatfield, were here he would join with us--in celebrating the Supreme Court's wise decision. Mr. President, the Founding Fathers created for us a vision, set down on parchment. Our Constitution embodies that vision, that dream of freedom, supported by the genius of practical structure which has come to be known as the checks and balances and separation of powers. If the fragile wings of the structure are ever impaired, then the dream can never again soar as high. Today, the Supreme Court has spared the birthright of all Americans for yet a while longer by striking down a colossal error made by the Congress when it passed the Line-Item Veto Act. For me and for those who have joined me in this fight, a long, difficult journey is happily ended. The wisdom of the framers has once again prevailed and the slow undoing of the people's liberties has been halted. Every year, we in this Nation spend billions upon billions of dollars, we expend precious manpower, we devise greater and more ingenious weapons, all for the sake of protecting ourselves, our way of life and our freedoms from foreign threats. And, yet, when it comes to the duty--and we all take that oath with our hand on the Holy Bible and our hand uplifted, we take that oath and say ``so help me, God'' that we will support and defend this Constitution. And so when it comes to the duty of protecting our Constitution, the living document which ensures the cherished liberties for which our forefathers gave their lives, we walked willingly into the friendly fire of the Line-Item Veto Act, enticed by political polls and grossly uninformed popular opinion. Now that the Supreme Court has found the Line-Item Veto Act to be unconstitutional, it is my fervent hope that the Senate will come to a new understanding and appreciation of our Constitution and the power of the purse as envisioned by the framers. Let us treat the Constitution with the reverence it is due, with a better understanding of what exactly is at stake when we carelessly meddle with our system of checks and balances and the separation of powers. If we disregard the lessons learned from this colossal blunder, we might just as well strike a match and hold that invaluable document to the flame. Unless we take care, it will be our liberties and those of our children and grandchildren that will finally go up in the thick black smoke of puny political ambition. Edmund Burke once observed that, ``abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.'' If we, who are entrusted with the safeguarding of the people's liberties--and that is what is involved here--are careless or callous or complacent, then those hard-won, cherished freedoms can run through our fingers like so many grains of sand. Let us all endeavor to take more to heart the awesome responsibility which service in this body conveys, and remember always that what has been won with such difficulty for us by those who sacrificed so much for our gain can be quickly and effortlessly squandered by less worthy keepers of that trust. Mr. President, let me read just a few brief extracts from the majority opinion. And that opinion was written by Mr. Justice Stevens. There is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the President to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes. That is elemental. I am editorializing now--that is elemental. Continuing with the opinion written by Mr. Justice Stevens, and concurred in by the Chief Justice and four other justices: What has emerged in these cases from the President's exercise of his statutory cancellation powers, however, are truncated versions of two bills that passed both Houses of Congress. They are not the product of the ``finely wrought'' procedure that the Framers designed.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, for his incisive observations with respect to the roster of those who voted against the Line-item Veto Act on March 23, 1995, and for his very eloquent statement. Mr. CONRAD addressed the Chair.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Before the Senator speaks, would the Senator yield briefly?

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator. I have a few words to say today about yesterday's colloquy between the Senator and myself in which I clearly misunderstood the Senator. I think we passed each other, but most of the fact that we passed each other was my fault, and I want to state that more clearly later today.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the Supreme Court of the United States has just struck down the line-item veto by a vote of 6-3. I ask unanimous consent that I and Senator Moynihan and Senator Levin may have some time--say, not to exceed 30 minutes--following the three votes that are scheduled.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I would love to give both of those Senators double the time. I make the consent that they have equal time.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, and I beg the Senator's pardon; I was distracted.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in the debate on the Brownback amendment yesterday some Armed Services Committee members observed that the Brownback amendment would adopt recommendations of the Kassebaum/Baker commission report by passing the Senate's own commission created last year. It was said that doing so makes a ``mockery'' of the Senate's own action, and wastes the time of the 10 members of the commission. Well, Mr. President, Secretary Cohen has flouted the recommendations of the Kassebaum/Baker report that he himself commissioned. He has promised to implement the easiest recommendations in that report while publicly repudiating its core recommendations. He has not waited for the Senate commission's report either. He got out in front of it. Senator Brownback's amendment, and the amendment that I have prepared, would say if you are in for a penny, you are in for a pound. If the report has merit--and Secretary Cohen has acknowledged that at least parts of it do have merit in his estimation--then we ought not to reject those parts of the report that do not seem politically correct. In fact, the Kassebaum/Baker report notes that ``the committee has made recommendations regarding gender integration in training where appropriate, but has also made recommendations regarding the large number of other issues that we concluded have an impact on the effectiveness of the overall training program. It is the committee's intention that its recommendations be viewed as a complete package since training is a building-block process beginning with the quality of the recruit.'' Other Members have reported the objections of senior military officials to the recommendations in the Kassebaum/Baker report. And they have stated their strong support for keeping mixed-gender training just the way it currently is. I would remind those officials and my colleagues that not so long ago the military trained women completely separately from men. It was only since the early to mid-1980's that the military began mixing the sexes during the early training phases. I believe, if I recall it correctly, that Army women were trained together at Fort McClellan, which is now closing as a part of the base realignment and closure process. The great social experiment of putting men and women together from day 1 in the training process is not, therefore, some hallowed military tradition. It is a policy, and if that policy gets in the way of a process that is designed to remold these undisciplined young individuals into focused disciplined soldiers, then we should not hesitate to change it. Our focus must be on national security--not political correctness; not social policy. And the basic safety and security of our recruits should not be compromised. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my amendment may be temporarily laid aside so that others may call up other amendments.

Mr. BYRD

Mr. BYRD. The Senator says at what point does Congress have that. Congress before, before it provides for calling forth the militia, before it creates an army, before it creates a Navy, it certainly has the power and authority not to do those things; it has the power to issue regulations. I am not suggesting that the Congress ought to try to get into the nitty-gritty, teensy-weensy little details of this and that. Of course, there has to be one person who can command the military forces of this country.

Mr. BYRD. Period. That is it. That is all.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator.

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distinguished Senator. I incorrectly drew the wrong inference from what the Senator said.

Mr. BYRD. It was not Congress' fault?

Mr. BYRD. I didn't say you said that. I thought that it was implied.

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have tried to carefully listen to the Senator's remarks, and I think I have heard the implication that Congress was somehow at fault in Somalia for the lack of supplying of heavy equipment.

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