Daniel Coats

Mr. COATS

Mr. COATS. That is the essential question.

Mr. COATS. That is the Senator's question.

Mr. COATS. The Senator certainly understands that the Senator from West Virginia has a much greater grasp of the Constitution than this Senator from Indiana. But I am having difficulty understanding how the power of Congress to regulate troop levels--and I understand that we set force levels. The Congress, through our committee, authorizes certain force levels for the Army, for the Navy, and the branches. But I don't understand how that would apply to the deployment of those forces or the utilization of those forces within a specific military exercise. I don't know that that is a power that is granted to the Congress. I don't see that here in the Constitution.

Mr. COATS. I say to the Senator, our vote will not preclude the Senator from offering an amendment on Bosnia. If the Senator's amendment is not a second-degree amendment to the underlying amendment, we strongly prefer to deal with our amendment as it stands and then have the Senator be recognized to offer an amendment on Bosnia.

Mr. COATS. I am not disagreeing with the Senator on that point whatsoever.

Mr. COATS. I do not disagree with the Senator a bit on anything he has just said.

Mr. COATS. But the question I asked the Senator is whether that power extends to once that force is raised, once Congress determines to raise an army, once Congress appropriates funds for that army, once Congress establishes force levels and sets the rules, at what point does Congress, does that extend--I should add, does that extend to the actual utilization by the Commander in Chief of the power--does the Congress have the power to determine how those forces then should be deployed to protect and defend the interests of the United States?

Mr. COATS. How are we to interpret the role and the meaning of the word ``Commander in Chief''?

Mr. COATS. But that is the essential question.

Mr. COATS. Perhaps I misunderstood the Senator.

Mr. COATS. I ask the Senator, what does the Senator believe the founders intended to be the powers of the President as Commander in Chief? What would be his duties as Commander? What does the word ``commander'' imply, or state, or mean?

Mr. COATS. The Senator, I believe, is correct. There is nothing in this amendment that I believe could be interpreted contrary to what the Senator has just stated.

Mr. COATS. I yield the floor. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. COATS. I will be glad to take a question from the Senator.

Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I will conclude, so that my colleague, Senator Levin, may proceed, simply by saying that we asked for the Department of Defense response to this amendment. They reported back. The Department of Defense says: The Department has no objection to the proposed amendment in general. The Department is concerned that paragraph (2) under Sense of Congress could be misinterpreted as a weakening of US resolve and commitment to the process initiated under the Dayton Agreement. While the Department agrees that there should not be a permanent US presence in Bosnia, the timing and nature of discussions on withdrawal of the international coalition should be driven by our continued progress on the ground and not by artificial deadlines. And The New York Times reported the following on June 13, 1996: There has been no change in the President's view of the current IFOR mission. It will last about a year.--Michael McCurry, White House spokesman, New York Times, 6/13/96. The Washington Post reported on July 25, 1996 the following: There is no successor mission. . . . We're not anticipating any such thing.--Vice President Albert Gore, Washington Post, 7/25/96. I agree in terms of their discussion about ``artificial deadlines.'' But I want to point out that the Dayton agreement clearly stated that the presence of the military was necessary to accomplish the military task. And I believe that military task has been accomplished. I think the debate on this floor, if there is to be a debate about our troop presence, should not be defining what the size of that presence should be and the timing of that presence. I think it should be on whether or not there ought to be a presence. There is going to be a legitimate debate, I believe, as to whether or not we want to stay involved in Bosnia. And the will of the Congress ought to be expressed on that, or the appropriations ought to be defined in a way to support whatever is necessary, if we are going to be there, determined by the military, or zero if we determine they shouldn't be there. That ought to be the debate, rather than defining what the mission should be, what the size of the force should be, and putting deadlines in terms of achieving those goals. With that, I yield the floor.

Mr. COATS. I don't see what grants the Congress the power to do that.

Mr. COATS. I thank the Senator. I apologize if I left that inference. If I had, I am glad the Senator clarified that, because I didn't want to leave that impression.

Mr. COATS. No; it was not. Congress had no role in that whatsoever. This Senator believes there is subsequent evidence in the reports that followed up on that tragedy which indicate that political decisions were made by people within the administration relative to the perception American people might have regarding our presence and involvement in Somalia, and the decision that was then made, either through the administration or at the Department of Defense, and to deny the request for additional force support.

Mr. COATS. I agree with the Senator. If the Congress does not choose to give the President the military force, he has nothing with which to command. But if the Congress does give him forces and raises an Army and a Navy, this Constitution designates that the President of the United States is commander of that Army.

Mr. COATS. Is the Senator saying those are the decisions to be made by this Congress?

Mr. COATS. I don't believe that is what I said.

Mr. COATS. If I am in charge of my office, I make decisions about how that office performs its duties. If the President is Commander in Chief of the military, he makes decisions about how the military performs its duties. That is my understanding of the word ``commander.''

Mr. COATS. The duties of Commander in Chief are to direct that Army, to deploy that Army when necessary to defend the United States.

Mr. COATS. I can assure the Senator from West Virginia that was not implied.

Mr. COATS. Nothing.