Judd Gregg

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I will yield the 2 minutes on our side.

Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent Senator D'Amato and Senator Hollings be added as cosponsors.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, this resolution lays down the ground rules for any major American involvement in Bosnia, and essentially they are: The President must explain to this Congress and the American people what the national interest is which justifies putting American lives at risk, and must receive the approval of this Congress before those lives are put at risk. That is a reasonable request in a democracy, and I appreciate the support of the Members of the Senate in this matter. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. GREGG. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Maine.

Mr. GREGG. How much time do I have remaining?

Mr. GREGG. I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add Senator Lieberman and Senator Domenici as cosponsors. I yield 2 minutes to Senator Specter.

Mr. GREGG. I thank the Chair for his strength. The purpose of this amendment is to raise the issue of how this legislative body should address the pending potential introduction of troops into Bosnia, American troops. The administration has stated on a number of occasions that it is a distinct possibility that up to 25,000 American soldiers will be asked to serve on the ground in Bosnia. That, of course, creates a significant issue first for those soldiers who would be putting their lives at risk but also for us as a country as to whether or not it is appropriate for us to be asking our men and women to put at risk their lives in this conflict. It seems, when there has been such a clear statement of purpose and potential risk for American troops, it is appropriate that we as a Congress act to either approve that action or disapprove that action. Clearly, the power to undertake actions which put American soldiers' lives in harm's way lies primarily and first with the President, but obviously we as a Congress also play a major role, not only on the appropriating side but, more importantly, on the side of being concerned for our soldiers, many of whom will obviously be our constituents. Therefore, I feel strongly that prior to the President taking this action, he should come to the Congress and ask for our approval. I believe he should meet three tests before we give him that approval. First, he should be able to define what it is that the soldiers will be asked to undertake, what the conflict is that we will be entering and what our role is in that conflict. Second, he should be able to explain to us the length of time and the manner in which they are going to serve when they are on the ground and what sort of risks they will be put at. And, third he needs to be able to express to us how we will be getting our soldiers out. I think it is very important that he define in this process what our national interest is in putting American lives at risk. That is the bottom line, I believe, that he must satisfy as President. In addressing that issue, the appropriate body to address it to, obviously, is the American people but also the Congress of the United States as the representative of the American people. Therefore, I do feel it is absolutely critical that before troops are deployed in this region, especially in the numbers which are being considered by the administration--25,000--we have a full and open debate of the matter here in the Congress and that we get from the President a clear and precise and understandable definition of purpose in undertaking this very serious act. So this sense-of-the-Senate resolution essentially addresses that issue. It says that the President shall come to the Congress before he sends troops into harm's way in Bosnia except in certain limited circumstances. The language which I have agreed to is actually language which I originally drafted and then presented to the other side, which was reviewed, and to which they made some adjustments, and I understand it is now acceptable to the Democratic leader. As such, I hope we could have strong support of this because it is clearly the role of the Congress to undertake this sort of debate and pursue this sort of action before our troops are deployed in this type of situation. I reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. GREGG. To accommodate my colleagues----

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, the amendment which I proposed originally I had planned to offer as to the continuing resolution, as an act versus a sense-of-the-Senate, but in an attempt to accommodate my colleagues-- --

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration.

Mr. GREGG. I thank the Chair. Amendment No. 2842

Mr. GREGG. There would be 20 minutes of debate on my sense of the Senate.

Mr. GREGG. I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of debate on the present Specter amendment, that my sense-of-the-Senate proposal--which would be to the underlying bill which will be offered and not be subject to a second degree--would be debated for 20 minutes, with 10 minutes on both sides, and that there would then be a sequence of votes should there be a vote ordered on the Specter amendment. If there is not a vote ordered on the Specter amendment, then there would be just a vote that would occur on my sense-of-the-Senate amendment.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I would like to make another attempt at propounding this unanimous consent. I ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the debate and disposal----

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. [[Page S 14634]]

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I seek to propound a unanimous consent request at this time that I will present a sense-of-the-Senate amendment to this amendment that is pending, there will be 20 minutes of debate equally divided, that there will be a vote at 6 o'clock on the sense-of-the-Senate amendment. I ask unanimous consent that be agreed to.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. If I may respond to the Democratic leader.

Mr. GREGG. Yes, he does. We would like to work with it in view of the White House. It is basically language that already existed in another piece of legislation that I believe came through this body.

Mr. GREGG. It had been my original intention to offer this amendment, [[Page S 14618]] which simply states what I believe is the administration's policy, which is they should come to the Congress before they introduce 25,000 American troops into Bosnia. I do think it our legitimate right as Congress to request that they do come to the Congress before that occurs. It had been my intention to put this amendment on the continuing resolution, and put it on as a matter of law, raising that point. Now I have agreed to move to a sense-of-the-Senate, which is a fairly significant reduction of position on my part. Second, I even agreed to put it on the Commerce bill, which was an even more significant reduction on my part. What I am not getting is any cooperation on this from the other side for a time agreement. Basically, I am told there will be no agreement on a time agreement on this. Now, I can get this up now by putting it on the continuing resolution, which I think would be very appropriate. I think the House should have a chance to act on this before they go home for a week and we might find American troops moved into Bosnia while we are away. But, as a practical matter, I am not willing to take that position if we can get a vote on this today before we adjourn and before we get too far into any further consideration of the Commerce bill, as I would have had the opportunity to have such a vote had I put it on the continuing resolution. I do not feel this is being unreasonable. I think it is being very reasonable in the light of the timeframe here and in an attempt to work with leadership.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, will the leader entertain a question?

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. That, to my knowledge, has not yet been agreed to with Senator Domenici. He will be here at 9 to begin debate on his amendment. And at that time I would hope that such an agreement could be reached with Senator Domenici.

Mr. GREGG

Mr. GREGG. I thank the Senator for yielding time on this issue before us which arrives here because of the concern of Members from the other the side of the aisle about the issue of the President's order on striker replacement. That is why we are having this not necessarily unique, but certainly not all that common, exercise of the vote coming up on the matter to proceed. The amendment in the bill that has generated this activity is an amendment that I offered in committee and which was adopted in committee that would essentially not allow the President to go forward to enforce his order on striker replacement. Now, the other side has already discussed at some length this issue. But let me make two points which I think need to be made. First, the President's order is clearly in violation, in my humble opinion and I think a lot of other people's opinion in this body, of the separation of powers. It does not lie in the President's prerogative to step forward into this arena and unilaterally take action which is basically a legislative action which is exactly what the President's Executive order has done. Therefore, on that count alone, people should be voting in favor of proceeding because, if you do not, you are basically voting to transfer power from the legislative branch to the executive branch. More important, however, is the issue of what is the underlying philosophy of this action taken by the President. We have heard a great deal of representation on the other side that this action was taken out of concern for working Americans, that it is an attempt to put working Americans on some sort of level playing field in the area of dealing with management. Nothing could be less accurate, of course. The fact is, this action was a crass political action taken by an administration which had a debt to a special interest group. The special interest group happened to be organized labor, in this instance, and as one of the first paybacks to organized labor which had given it literally hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars, not only to the President's campaign, but to the campaigns of Members of the other party, they immediately took an action which abrogated a law and activity in labor which had been in place since 1938. I guess it may be it is the other party's position that since 1938 we have had laws unfair to labor and they should have been changed for the last 50 years or so since they have been in place. The fact is, those laws have been in place for the last 50 years. Labor has functioned rather effectively in this Nation as a force for its organized membership, and management has also been able to function under the cloak of the present law as it existed for the last 50-some-odd years. Therefore, it seems to me that the playing field was not unlevel but had reached a rather good equilibrium between management and labor. What the administration is trying to do in this unilateral act is to create an unlevel playing field, not for the purposes of protecting some beaten down group of individuals, but rather for the purposes of protecting its own interest in running for reelection and getting contributions and support from what happens to be a very specific special interest group in this Nation. So this is purely special interest group pork-barrel politics is what it amounts to essentially. So if you want to vote against what amounts to labor pork or social pork, as it might be defined here, then you should not be supporting the administration's position [[Page S 14447]] on this, you should be opposing it, because that is what this piece of legislation represents. It is a payoff to a special interest group. Nothing more, nothing less. And it was done in the crassest political way. Furthermore, it was done in a way which violates very clearly the separation of powers which are so important, I note, to a couple of gentlemen who had been pointed out earlier in the discussion--John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, both of whom I suspect, were they here today, would be rather upset at the idea that the executive branch would be issuing an order which clearly is legislative in nature. It was, after all, they who, along with James Madison, designed the concept of separation of powers in order to have a balance among the executive and the legislative and, obviously, the judicial branches, which has been totally usurped by this action taken by the President. So this is not some cause which has any right on its side, it is a cause that has special interest on its side and which affronts the separation of powers issue. Therefore, I strongly suggest that we not support the action.

Mr. GREGG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the second vote on the motion to proceed to H.R. 2127, originally scheduled to occur at 11 a.m., if necessary, now occur at 11:20 a.m., with time between the end of the 10 a.m. vote and 11:20 a.m. equally divided in the usual form.