Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Please. I am not suggesting here--let us put aside the underlying debate on the constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Even if my amendment were to be adopted, I say to my colleague from Utah, he knows I have serious reservations with the underlying amendment. I merely wanted to address this one section here.

Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield?

Mr. DODD. I thought the debate was kind of healthy.

Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield, that is what the amendment says.

Mr. DODD. And you are offering, I suggest, to a potential enemy a wonderful arrow, an additional arrow in their quiver, where they can sit there and say, ``They are at the end of the fiscal year. These people have difficulties. They'd have to rearrange their budget. It is going to require votes of the whole House. People could not show up.'' I see this as an advantage. You are subjugating, I say with all due respect to my wonderful friend, you are subjugating national security interests to the fiscal concerns you raise in this budget. Your priorities are switched. As important as fiscal matters are, to place in jeopardy the ability of the United States to respond quickly and efficiently to an imminent threat to its national security, for the life of me, I don't understand why we would be risking that.

Mr. DODD. If you are short of a conflict and try to get ready for it and try to get the votes to prepare for it, we have seen the debates that rage here.

Mr. DODD. My colleague knows how mischievous people can be in utilizing things like this.

Mr. DODD. Putting a straitjacket on the ability of this country in future years to respond to a threat to national security by insisting on a declaration of war and actual conflict--actual conflict.

Mr. DODD. I don't think this is easy, as you are suggesting it is. But you are putting a straitjacket, in my view----

Mr. DODD. I think actual use of military force is my interpretation. I don't understand----

Mr. DODD. Doesn't it make more sense to leave out your declaration of war language here and then have the threshold as an imminent threat? We all have to vote here. It's not as if it happens by one person. But at least you could respond without a court. Because I could imagine you might take the position in the Persian Gulf that that could have been the outcome. Let us say I disagreed with you. I run to Federal court. I read the language there and I cite the report language and the report language says, under this section, ``is engaged in military conflict involving the actual use of military force.'' My point to the court would be that is not actual use of military force. Therefore you cannot waive this provision.

Mr. DODD. That's not engagement.

Mr. DODD. We ultimately became engaged.

Mr. DODD. The point I am trying to get at here is the question of actual--the language here of section 5 is ``is engaged in military conflict.'' I make a strong case to the Senator here that in those situations we were not engaged in military conflict.

Mr. DODD. They were large. They were 36 percent of the overall budget, much larger than they are today.

Mr. DODD. How about lend-lease, under President Roosevelt?

Mr. DODD. Yes. By the way, the interpretation of engaged is actual use of military force.

Mr. DODD. Were we engaged at that point in August 1990 for the United States----

Mr. DODD. I say to my colleague. It is not a supermajority here. It is a dangerous precedent in my view. So on a 50 to 50 vote on whether we met the other standards would fail and the President of the United States would not be able to act. Let me ask my colleague from Utah just a couple quick questions. I cited examples earlier, putting aside whether you agreed or disagreed with the action taken. In August 1990, when President Bush sent 100,000 troops to the Middle East, were we in actual--to quote the language of this section 5, were we engaged, in the Senator's opinion, in military conflict at that point?

Mr. DODD. We do not do that under any other circumstance in the 208- year-old history of this Republic----

Mr. DODD. In casting a vote.

Mr. DODD. Under this one section we are carving out a unique exception for the first time in the history of this country. Section 5 says adopted by a majority of the whole House and its Members. We exclude the Vice President in a 50-50 tie.

Mr. DODD. I am not going to press my colleague. The point I wanted to make, if my colleague will yield further, is that we are creating an unprecedented exception. The waiver provision--put aside the constitutional amendment. I am not debating that. I am debating this one section.

Mr. DODD. I am sorry.

Mr. DODD. Certainly.