Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, before we do the closing remarks, we are waiting to see if Senator Daschle has any remarks he would like to make at this point. Just so Senators will be aware of the likely schedule this week, of course this is the week before the Memorial Day recess. We have a number of conferences that are completed or nearing completion, so we could have votes on a number of conference reports this week, including but not necessarily limited to bankruptcy reform, crop insurance, the satellite loan conference report, and the e-commerce digital signature conference report. Not all of those have been wrapped up, but we are hopeful that one or all four of those will be available during the process of the week's schedule. We also are expecting to receive from the House early in the week the Agriculture appropriations bill. We had hoped to go to that bill tomorrow and then, of course, as soon as it was received from the House we would go to the House-passed bill. If the House is not able to complete action on the Agriculture appropriations bill on Tuesday, then we will need to confer with the leadership on both sides of the aisle and decide exactly how we can go to that bill and have its consideration completed before the week is out. But I want to emphasize before we go home for Memorial Day, we must complete the Agriculture appropriations bill. We are still hoping that the House will be able to act on the legislative appropriations bill and we will be able to complete action on it also before we leave. So we will be having votes possibly into the night on Tuesday. We could very likely have a late session Thursday. Members should expect a session on Friday. If we are not through with the Agriculture appropriations bill, then we will keep going until we complete it. We could be in session Friday night or Saturday. This is work that has to be done. For reasons which I need not repeat at this point, we are behind schedule in getting that done. We need to complete it. I am not going to propound a unanimous consent request at this time on nominations, but so everybody will know, we have now been discussing the possibility of an agreement to take up as many as 72 nominations. There may still be some objections to one, two, or three of those. Somewhere between 65 and 72 nominations have been offered by the majority that we could take up and consider. Most of them would be confirmed, without the need for debate, in wrapup or on a unanimous voice vote. In at least four or five cases, some time would be required, with regard to the FEC nominees and at least a couple judges, with recorded votes necessary on somewhere between four and six at the most. We could complete up to as many as 72 nominations in the next 24 hours, including 16 new Federal judicial nominations. Again, three or four of those nominations for judgeships could require recorded votes, but I believe we could get them all done. There has been objection from the minority. I discussed the situation with Senator Daschle this morning, and he is still working on it. We hope we can get this resolved shortly without having to spend the whole week just on nominations. This really should be done in 5 or 6 hours with five or six votes and the rest of them done without any objections. There are a variety of nominations: U.S. marshals, U.S. attorneys, IRS oversight board members; Administrator, drug enforcement; two National Transportation Safety Board members; one Nuclear Regulatory Commission member; eight various Department of State positions, including the special negotiator for chemical and biological arms control issues, and a number of other nominees. I want it on the record that we are prepared to go to those at this point.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, having said that, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to S. 2522, the foreign ops appropriations bill, which includes the emergency funding for efforts to aid Colombia and that country's war on drugs, in addition to funding our foreign policy initiatives throughout the world.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to proceed to S. 2522, the foreign ops appropriations bill.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, under that debate time, I would say again that I believe Senator Gorton wishes to make a statement at this time. I see Senator McConnell is here, and I presume Senator Leahy, who is also here, may want to talk about the content of this legislation and discuss how we are going to find a way to get it completed. I know we have a problem in that the House has not acted on this legislation. But we also need to go ahead and move forward on it. It has emergency funding in it for the counternarcotics program in Colombia. It has the Israeli peace process funds in it and debt relief dealing with Iraqi opposition, and a lot of other very important items. I think we need to discuss that and decide how we are going to be able to proceed in an emergency way on this legislation. Having said that, while that debate is taking place, we will be working to see if we can work out an agreement on the next bill that will be called up relatively shortly. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I yield myself time under my leader time. Mr. President, I know Senators expect to vote at 2:30. I know there are meetings that are going to be occurring momentarily. I will not delay that, but I do just want to make three or four points. No. 1, I want to say what an instructive and constructive debate I think this has been. I listened to a good bit of it last night. Some of it I came and sat on the floor and listened to; I engaged in some of that discussion; I watched some more of it later on on television; and I listened to various parts of it this morning. I think it has been a very healthy debate. I congratulate all who have been involved on both sides of the issue on both sides of the aisle. I also want to pay a particular tribute to Senator Byrd--it is always an education when he speaks about the Constitution, about why he believes that Congress should step in to deal with an issue such as this--and, of course, Senator Warner. They have both done an outstanding job. They have been convincing to me. Also, I think it should be noted that as sponsors of the language that is in the bill, they have indicated a willingness to compromise in the conference, to make some changes if Members think that is necessary, on dates, or to see if the administration could work with them on language that could be acceptable. I think that is the way to approach it. Those things have really made the difference for me. We have no long- term plan for Kosovo. We do not know how long we are going to be there. We do not know how much it is going to cost. We do know our allies have not been meeting their commitments. Progress is being made in that regard, but I give credit to Senator Warner and Senator Stevens and others, talking about this amendment and pointing out that those commitments were not being fulfilled in terms of people, troops, police--or in terms of money. That is unacceptable. But I think there is a little bit of an attitude: If we don't do it, the United States, the sole remaining world power, will take care of it. That is not right for the American people. It is not right for the taxpayers of America. So I think we need to have a better understanding about fulfillment of commitments and what is the long-term plan. How long are we going to be there? Under what conditions would we ever get out? It should be noted, even with these amendments, the Byrd-Warner package being adopted, we would still be able to provide logistics support, intelligence--a number of other facets. We are dealing with war troops on the ground who would be affected by this. Here is the most important point of all. For years we have been through this debate about constitutional requirements--what the Congresses do, the President's prerogatives. Clearly we have been abdicating ours. The language under the Warner provision says to our NATO allies No. 1: Fulfill your commitments. And, No. 2, we in the Congress should vote to authorize this action. For those who say Congress would not authorize this involvement next year, the presence of combat troops in Kosovo, I do not believe that. I do not think we know yet. I certainly would listen to the debate. I voted to use U.S. combat troops in various parts around the world, in Republican administrations and in Democrat administrations, and, quite frankly, against it sometimes in both of them. I do not think this is risky. I think there has been a lot of exaggeration as to the result. I am prepared to vote for keeping the language in the bill, and I think we can go forward from there. But whatever happens, Congress needs to fulfill its responsibility. I ask for the yeas and nays, Mr. President.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote, and I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, we have been discussing with our colleagues the procedure for the remainder of the day. At this time, I am going to ask unanimous consent to go to the foreign ops appropriations bill. I understand there will be objection to that. If there is objection, then I would move to proceed to it. That, of course, would be debatable. I understand there is at least a couple of Senators who would want to be heard on this matter. While that is being debated, we will be working to see if we can get a time agreement and the ability to complete action on legislation by Senator Brownback, Senator Wellstone, and others dealing with sex trafficking. We also will be working to see what kind of agreement we might work out on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act while we are doing the sex trafficking bill, if we can get agreement on that. After this series of three different things are worked through, then we will see if there is a possibility under that arrangement or even a likelihood that we could have a vote later on this afternoon. At this time, I couldn't say what time, but I presume 5:30 or 6:00. At that point, we could announce what would occur next. With regard to next week, I might go ahead and say that we are still discussing the possibility of clearing some nominations and having some debate time on those on Monday, and going to Agriculture appropriations on Tuesday with an understanding that there is a need for the House to act on that before we complete it. The Senate doesn't want to give up any of its rights. It has emergency funds in it, in addition to the regular appropriations bill. If we don't get started on the Agriculture appropriations bill early in the week on Tuesday, it is going to be very hard to finish that bill next week. But it would be our intent to stay on it until we complete it. That could be Thursday night, it could be Friday, or it could be Saturday. But it is emergency Agriculture as well as regular Agriculture appropriations items. I think it is essential that we find a way to commit ourselves to get that legislation through before we leave.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I rise today to congratulate my good friend, Rhesa Hawkins Barksdale. Last month marked the tenth anniversary of Judge Barksdale's investiture as a United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit. On April 1, 1990, Judge Barksdale was sworn into office by Justice Byron White, for whom Judge Barksdale clerked following his graduation from the University of Mississippi School of Law. Throughout the past ten years Judge Barksdale has faithfully fulfilled his sworn duty to enforce the Constitution and laws of the United States. Needless to say, his service to the Fifth Circuit has brought distinction to his family, our State, and the Nation. I might add that this country is indebted to Judge Barksdale for more than his zealous commitment to justice. His service as a Circuit Judge continues a lifetime of dedication and sacrifice to protect the freedoms and liberties of all Americans, as exemplified by his valiant and decorated service to his country during the Vietnam War. Judge Barksdale served in combat in Vietnam as an officer in the United States Army, and he was awarded a number of medals, including the Silver Star, Purple Heart, Bronze Star for Valor, and Bronze Star for Meritorious Service. Mr. President, Mississippians and Americans are grateful for Judge Barksdale's public service, and I congratulate and honor him on the tenth anniversary of his service on the bench.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, after an extended period of time for votes on these issues, we are ready to go to what I hope will finally be a substantive debate with regard to the Kosovo issue. Under the agreement that was worked out, I believe we have 15 minutes now to talk about this series of votes which just occurred. Therefore, I claim a part of that time for myself.

Mr. LOTT. I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. President, there were a number of things said earlier today on which I just bit my lip and took it because I thought, for the greater good of the Chamber, we should get an agreement and move forward. There has been a lot of what I consider to be misinformation put out about this issue and why we were proceeding the way we were. Plus, I also feel personally maligned, and I do not appreciate it, I say to my colleagues. I made the choice to leave the House and come to the Senate. I was on the Rules Committee. I could have stayed there. I could have been on the Rules Committee, but I chose to leave. I do not think we have any-- I do not remember the term that was used earlier--God-given rights in this institution. We all have certain rights, and I am going to work to protect those rights. When I believed Senator Schumer was not being treated properly, I spoke up. Last year, in a very critical moment when Senator Byrd was not being treated properly, I said: No, that is not right. I am getting really tired of people questioning my commitment to the Senate and to the opportunity for debates and that I am trying to be a rules committee of one. I tell you, what I am trying to do is find a way for the Senate to do its work. These charges that are leveled against me are nonsense. One of the things I have done since I have been in the Senate and have been majority leader is I have studied the history of this institution. That is why I started the Leader's Lecture Series, because I wanted to know what previous majority leaders did. I read them on both sides. I can tell you what Senator Mansfield did. I can tell you what Senator Lyndon Johnson did. I can tell you what Senator Byrd, Senator Mitchell, Senator Dole, and Senator Baker did as majority leaders. People talk about that civility has broken down, and there is acrimony. That is ridiculous. I think we have a very good relationship here. You may not get it the way you want it every time, but you do not have a guarantee that you get the results you want every time. What it is really all about is getting the work of the Senate done, dealing with real bills and real issues, not playing games and saying: OK, we voted last year; we have not voted this year. OK, we voted last month; we have not voted this month. Somebody has to be charged with the responsibility of trying to get the process to move forward. It falls to the responsibility of the majority and, therefore, the majority leader. Am I the only guy here who thinks we ought to get the military construction appropriations bill done with the emergencies in it that the President asked for? Am I the only guy here who thinks we ought to pass the foreign operations appropriations bill with the Colombian drug money in it, which we need to do, because there is a crisis developing down there? You talk about the situation in Kosovo. I think the situation in Colombia is a lot more dangerous for the long term. They are poisoning the minds of our children. Every day they are killing kids. Am I the only one who thinks we ought to do the agriculture appropriations bill with the disaster money that is in it? Everybody says: We want it. We want it. When? When do you propose to do it? The military construction appropriations bill should have been done last Thursday. It could have been done last Thursday. We could have had a debate on the Kosovo issue. I did not put that into this process. It was done at the subcommittee level. I might not have done it that way, but it is there. We have to deal with it. No, no, no, no, the word was we had to have talk about guns, driven by the Million Mom March. You wanted debate. Yesterday at 4 o'clock, I said: OK, let's have debate. The rest of the night we will debate, tomorrow for 3 hours, and we will have a vote. No. We were told we have to have 12 hours for debate on this issue. And then, 4, 5 hours later, we wound up basically getting an agreement so people could talk for about the same time. Maybe you all were not aware I was trying to say, OK, let's have debate. I want to go back to one other thing I said earlier. No, it is not a ``rules committee of one.'' It is a rules committee of the majority. There has to be fairness; there has to be understanding. You have to be able to make your speeches on both sides. We want that. But to have these sense-of-the-Senate resolutions that make these great, profound statements but don't result in any substantive action, I think that is a very serious problem.

Mr. LOTT. We had in our budget resolution provisions that stopped sense-of-the-Senate resolutions from being voted on repeatedly, over-- well, 45 of them right at the end of the session. Now, somebody said we are trying to shut down Senate debate. We had debate. We had 6 or more hours on this issue. We debated it 4. We had debate on it last week on the so-called gun issue. We had debate and votes on it last year. As a matter of fact, we have bills in conference on a number of these issues on which we are going to act. I am working on them one by one. We have the FAA authorization conference report. We have the African trade conference report. We are working, in a bipartisan way, to see if we can get the bankruptcy conference report. We are working on e-commerce. Nobody is trying to shut the Senate down. We are trying to get the Senate to move forward and do its work. As far as order and comity, I support that. I am going to do everything I can to continue to support that. But I think for us to have basically 1, 2, 3, 4 days tied up having debate on gun amendments instead of having debate on Kosovo and the military construction appropriations bill is not the way we should be operating. We have this language in conference. We voted on it last year in the juvenile justice bill. Maybe you forgot. But last year I said, with advanced notice: OK, we are going to have the juvenile justice bill. It is going to be open for amendment. We were going to finish it; start on Monday and get through on Thursday. It took another whole week. My trying to be helpful and cooperative wound up causing all kinds of problems for us. I think it is important that we put this in perspective. We had the two votes. What has been proven here? One of them--a resolution--we agreed to by a vote of 69-30, saying: Hey, we have laws on the books. Why don't we enforce the gun laws? Why don't we arrest people who are using guns in the commission of crimes? Why don't we stop people from taking guns into schools? Why don't we take actions instead of just talking about it? More laws on the books. Oh, that's the solution: More laws. Let's take away people's rights instead of enforcing the laws that are on the books. But we got an overwhelming vote on that. Then again, we got a vote of 50-49 telling the conference to act before Memorial Day. Well, great. The Senate is going to tell the conference to act before Memorial Day? Do you know how much weight that really carries? Zero. They are going to get a juvenile justice bill. Will it be to the perfect liking of me or anybody else in this Chamber? I doubt it. But they are going to get a result. So this is a lot of sound and fury that is not going to produce results in terms of the Justice Department enforcing the laws on the books or in terms of getting the conference to provide a final action. I have been pushing to act on that conference report. In fact, I am pushing every conference report. But I have to go on the record saying I do believe I have been maligned unfairly. I have bent over backward to try to give notice when we were going to call up a bill and to have cooperation with the Democratic leadership to make sure Senators had a chance to make their case. But to come in here and think we have to have a right to offer nongermane amendments to every appropriations bill that comes through, and then criticize us for not getting our work done--oh, boy, that is really smart--really smart: Yes, we demand our rights to offer our issues. By the way, why aren't you guys getting these bills done? I do not believe the American people are being fooled by all of this. So I will end with this. I will not impugn other people's actions or integrity. I am going to try very hard to make sure we are civil in the way we act and that we have a relationship. But also I hope you will understand that I am trying to get bills done. Some people say: You worry too much about running the railroad. Somebody has to do that. I guess it is my responsibility. Somebody has to try to see if we can get these appropriations bills done before the end of the year so we don't get to the end of the session and schools don't know what they are going to get, parks don't know what they are going to get, while we are wrangling around here to see who is going to get primacy over the other. I am saying let's do these appropriations bills. I am going to give priority to the appropriations bills over everything else. I would like to do the defense authorization bill and the defense appropriations bill next week, but we have people who want to offer nongermane, nonrelevant amendments that are going to tie that up probably for all week. So instead, we will go to the agriculture appropriations bill. But before we leave next week, we are going to have to do the military construction appropriations bill, the foreign operations appropriations bill, and the agriculture appropriations bill. In the process, if we could have a little cooperation, I think we could get a lot of nominations done. Hopefully, we can come to an agreement on how to complete action on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I am going to offer a unanimous consent request next week or tomorrow to have more amendments on education, but let's see if we can find a way to get to a conclusion on education. I presume the Democrats are going to object because they want to offer issues that do not relate to elementary and secondary education. Let me say I suspect there might be objections on this side, too, because people want to offer amendments that are going to do nothing but cause problems and probably defeat the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I do not think that is good. I think we need to address this issue of education. So I wanted to take advantage of some of this 15 minutes. I do not know how much time is left. But I had it on my chest, and I had to hold it earlier, so now I feel better. I hope maybe we all got some of this out of our system and we can move on to get our work done. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe we have 4 minutes left on our side. I believe I have some leader time left.

Mr. LOTT. I yield myself time under my leader time and leave the remaining 4 minutes for others who might want to speak on the gun issue. If that is the way it is going to be, then that is the way it is going to be. One of the things that shocked me in the last day in talking about things that you don't appreciate is, yesterday, I had no notice at all that this issue was going to come up. I found out when I came on the floor. I had not seen the amendment to be offered. I had no notice whatsoever. Earlier this year, when there was an incident where I took an action and the Democrats had not been notified, it was called to my attention--because I thought they had been--so I apologized and said we would correct that, and we did. But if it is over, it is over. This can go all ways. We can just draw the line and not get any work done. We can just not have cooperation if that is the way they want it to be. But it extends across the board. I don't think that is the way to proceed. I am not going to be threatened and intimidated by the minority in trying to get our work done. If you want to go through this approach, if you want to shut down everything, then everybody loses in that process. We can cooperate and we can get these bills done. As far as issues coming up where we don't like it--in fact, one of the Senators I have been concerned about--and one of the issues on this Elementary and Secondary Education Act is that we have a Senator who wants to offer something dealing with NCAA gaming, and there is an objection on the Democratic side. I have gone to the colleague on this side and said this is not relevant to this issue, doesn't relate to elementary and secondary education, and we ought not to do that. After a lot of back and forth, he came back and said: OK, if we can get it up some other way, I will agree to back off of that for now. But on both sides we have Senators who want to offer things that will cause mischief and delay or kill a bill. That happens. If you have an elementary and secondary education issue that comes up and somebody offers a killer amendment, we stall out right there. It might not be on this side. So it takes a lot of cooperation around here on both sides. I think we have had that pretty much for 4 years. Both leaders have to look after their members. You have members who want to be heard. You have to try to get them in there. In fact, every one of these issues that I hear complaints about, we voted on all those issues. We voted on all of them over the last year. Maybe not this year or last month, but they have been voted on. So I hope it doesn't come to this. I have tried to avoid having an acrimonious relationship. Maybe it is unavoidable in this election year, but I think that would be a shame for the American people because, after all, that is about whom we should be thinking. Regarding these conference reports, I have never seen a more bipartisan effort than what we had on the Africa and CBI trade bill. I don't know whether it was some sort of legally constituted conference or not. Sometimes the House doesn't appoint conferees, but we have an obligation to keep trying to work. Senator Moynihan was there, Senator Roth was involved, as were Chairman Archer and Congressman Rangel. It was totally bipartisan. It was one way, one side, or one party or the other trying to get the upper hand on the other. The reason we are doing what we are doing on bankruptcy is that we are trying to find a way to move bankruptcy so we can then extract the minimum wage issue. We have people on one side or the other objecting to it. What do you propose we do? What I propose we do is to get our work done right across the board. I am willing to try to do that. But if we are going to hold our breath, turn red in the face and threaten, then that is the way it will be. But everybody needs to understand that in that kind of relationship nobody wins; everybody loses. More importantly, this body and the American people lose because we have a lot of work we need to do together. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator from West Virginia engage in a colloquy with me because I am very interested in his remarks. I have the highest respect for his efforts in this body, and I listened closely to what he had to say. I believe there has been a lot of misunderstanding or misinterpretation or misinformation about what is in this legislation. Perhaps this was not the best place to put this language, but certainly the timing is propitious. This issue is upon us. Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens, two of the most respected Senators in this body and senior members on the Appropriations Committee-- Senator Stevens is obviously very much interested in the condition of our military troops, what they are doing, and where they are, and the same is true with Senator Byrd. Maybe it is an oversimplification, but as I understand it, the Byrd-Warner language will really do two things: One, say the President should certify to the Congress by this summer-- the exact day is July 15?

Mr. LOTT. By a reasonable date this summer that our allies are fulfilling their commitments, one. And two, that by July 1 or October 1 of next year, the Congress would have to authorize the continuation of ground combat troops in Kosovo; is that basically it?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if the Senator will allow me to ask another question----

Mr. LOTT. I do not think there is anything wrong with that.

Mr. LOTT. I am going to support it.

Mr. LOTT. I believe Senator Byrd's time has expired. I ask to use the time designated for Senator Roberts.

Mr. LOTT. I know Senator Hollings is wishing to speak on this. I do not intend to use the full time, but we have an expert on this subject.

Mr. LOTT. For the people watching, you have made the point, and I have made the point, that what this requires is for Congress to do its job to fulfill our responsibility, that while the President clearly has a role--this is not aimed as a criticism of this President or as a halter on the next President--it is for the Congress, for the Senate to step up to its responsibilities. I believe the responsibilities you have cited are constitutional. I also believe we have the War Powers Act on the books. Would the Senator take a moment to talk about those constitutional and other legal requirements that suggest we should act in this area?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I will just take a few minutes to say that I thought a good bit about this issue--both Kosovo and the Byrd-Warner language. I have not been quick to make a final judgment or to make comments, but I have concluded that this is the right thing to do. I want to emphasize, again, I say that knowing full well that the President has problems with it. I think they are overreacting to what is in this language.

Mr. LOTT. Now our candidate for the nomination, our presumptive nominee, has said he is concerned about Presidential prerogatives. I understand. All Presidential candidates and Presidents worry about that. But we have a responsibility here, too. What about the prerogatives, what about the responsibility of the Congress? I think the American people want to know what is going on. They are unaware, really, of what is going on and not asking about it. They are not really aware of the commitment we have there. They don't really know that perhaps our allies are not fulfilling their commitments. They have not done it in terms of personnel or money. And why is because they do not have to. They know Uncle Sam will take care of this problem. I had occasion to meet with the President of one of our ally countries. I said: Why aren't you fulfilling your commitment? Why don't you do more? Why don't you do what you said you were going to do? Only after a brief silence, he said: You are the world leader. You are the only surviving power. It is your responsibility. That is kind of the attitude, frankly, of some of our allies--yes, you are the big guy. You have to take care of it. Yes, it is in our backyard. This is supposed to be a peacekeeping initiative. But you will handle it. We don't have to do that. In their defense, to be honest, I think because of Senator Warner's efforts, and others, because of complaints I made to some of our allies, they are beginning to do a better job. I believe the President will be able to meet this certification. But I think it is important that our allies in NATO do what they say they were going to do. I am hesitant for us to even reduce the requirements of what they should have to do. But I tell you what is really bothering me. We wonder, how long are we going to stay there? We have been in some parts of the world for 50 years. We have been sending troops now to every little place imaginable around the world. There is no end in sight in Bosnia; no end in sight in Kosovo; no plan, no end game. We do not know what is going to be the final outcome. We are just there. Then each year this administration, and the next administration--Democrat or Republican--will show up and say: Sorry, we had this problem. We had to spend the money. We spent $1 billion. We spent $1.5 billion in Kosovo, not to mention what we are spending in Bosnia. We had to take it out of other defense accounts, O&M, operation and maintenance--very important things--and now you have to give us the money, because if you don't give us the money, then we are not going to be supporting our troops. Then we are in a bind, without any real accountability, without having input, without voting to authorize it, without knowing what the end game is--without anything. Then we just ante up the money. You are not talking chicken feed. You are talking a lot of money. We have to stop that. I noted what Senator Byrd said. And I would say, for myself, when the vote comes to authorize it, I think we would be hard pressed not to authorize keeping troops there. Certainly we would be for the support of troops. But if the case was made, if we knew what we were getting into, we knew how much it was going to cost, how long it was going to last, I think that a persuasive case would be made. And I have not made up my mind how I would vote. I want to see what it is. But that is not where we are now. People are saying: You are taking action now. You are going to have these difficult problems on your hands next year. That is one of the reasons why I want to deal with it now. I want us to make sure everybody understands we have to have an accounting; we have to have a plan. We cannot put our men, our women, our ships, our planes in every corner of this world indefinitely with no plan. We are still dealing with Iraq. We probably had sorties today. We probably bombed somebody, while we are counting on them to produce 700 million barrels of oil for us, I guess it is. The hypocrisy of it bothers me, too. I know it is expected that the majority leader of the Senate would automatically just say: No, we can't have this out of the Appropriations Committee. We don't want to tie the hands of the next President. It could be a President from your party. That really offends me. This is bigger than that. I believe some of the comments that have been made questions the integrity, the patriotism of the sponsors of this legislation. I think that is totally inappropriate. They would not do that. So as for myself, unless there is something dramatic that changes, I plan to support this language. I urge my colleagues to take a look at what is really in it. Do not be misguided by incorrect information that is being put out there. Ask yourself: Are you satisfied with the situation in Kosovo? I think the answer is no. So I thank the two sponsors of this legislation. I hope the language stays in the bill.