Arlen Specter

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. The arguments which you have made stem from your stated position that the President really ought to have congressional authorization to use force. If the legislative approach is not to require him to come to Congress before the use of force, but to await his using force, then are we not really in a situation where we face the impossible predicament of seeking to cut off funds from the middle of a military operation which is untenable? Or to articulate the question more precisely: What would you suggest as a way to accomplish the constitutional principle you agree with, that only the Congress has the authority to authorize the use of force, with the current circumstances?

Mr. SPECTER. It was.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would disagree with the statement of my colleague from Delaware that we say, ``we do not trust you, Mr. President,'' by noting that the President might change his mind. He has been known to do that. Other Presidents have, and even the Senator from Delaware and the Senator from Pennsylvania have been known to change their minds. The other concern is that if you have it on a personal basis, in a letter, it really does not have the force of law. And we are consistently moving in the Congress to where there has been an executive order, which is a good bit more formal than the letter that the Senator from Delaware refers to, to make sure that it is governed by law as opposed to a personal commitment or what might be said. But let me articulate a question in a different context. Aside, hypothetically, absent a letter, what would the legislative approach be to limit a President from exercising his powers as Commander in Chief short of cutting off funds once he has already done so? It seems to me that we have a choice. We can either say in advance: You may not do it unless you have our prior approval; or say nothing once the President uses force, and then cut off the funds, which appears to me to be untenable. Is there a third alternative?

Mr. SPECTER. The Senator from Delaware has mentioned a third option to the two I suggested. The third option is for us to send a resolution saying don't do it unless we authorize it, but not binding him. Saying that would certainly impose a political restraint on the President--not doing it, in the face of our requesting him not to without our prior authorization. I understand his third alternative, but I do not draw much solace from it, just as a matter of my own response.

Mr. SPECTER. My time is running out. Let me finish my statement. Then you have quite a bit of time left. Let me just finish the thought. I do not think it goes far enough to say: We request that you not do it unless we give you prior authorization. Because that kind of a gentle suggestion--and I can understand the gentility of my colleague from Delaware--would not go very far, I think, with this President or might not go very far with the Senator from Delaware or would not predetermine what the Senator from Pennsylvania would do. When the Senator from Delaware talks about the President flying in the face of a cutoff of funds, I think that the President would be loath to do that. I think there he might really get into the Boland amendment or challenging the Congress on the power of the purse. The Presidents have gotten away with disregarding the congressional mandate that only Congress can declare war. They have gotten away with it for a long time. It has been eroded. Presidents feel comfortable in doing that. But if the Congress said: No funds may be used, as this amendment does--maybe it needs to be a little tighter here or there--I think the President would proceed at his peril to violate that expressed constitutional authority in Congress to control the power of the purse. I am very much interested in my colleague's response, but I hope it will be on his time.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, in listening to the comments of the Senator from Michigan, every single objection and argument he has raised applies equally to the President's commitment by letter to come to the Congress before he would use ground forces. When he says it would be the worst signal to Milosevic, the President gave that signal personally when he said it gives Milosevic advance notice. That is exactly what the President would be doing in coming to Congress. When he says there could be no intelligence or reconnaissance, that is exactly what would happen by the President's commitment. When he says it would preclude a preemptive strike, that is exactly what the President has done. When he says it puts at risk U.S. military personnel, that is precisely what the President has done. When they talk about a veto, it is the same old threat--senior advisers threatening to veto. I think this may be a better amendment than I had originally contemplated. I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. SPECTER. Reserving the right to object, will the Senator repeat that?

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, this amendment provides, simply stated, that there shall be no funds expended for ground forces in Yugoslavia, in Kosovo, unless specifically authorized by the Congress. This amendment is designed to uphold the Constitution of the United States, which grants the exclusive authority to declare war to the Congress of the United States. Regrettably, there has been a significant erosion of this constitutional authority, as Presidents have taken over this power without having the Congress stand up. The one place where the Congress clearly has authority to determine military action is by controlling the purse strings. This amendment goes to the heart of that issue by prohibiting that spending. It has been a lively and spirited debate. Now we will have an opportunity to say whether the Senate will seek to uphold the Constitution and whether the Senate will seek to uphold its own institutional authority--the institutional authority of the Congress to determine whether the United States should be involved in war. A few of the problems which have been raised have been clarified. The amendment has been modified, and I ask that it formally be approved with the concurrence of the managers.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the general counsel of the committee for helping me on the modification that we have worked out so that the restriction will not apply to intelligence operations, to rescue operations, or to military emergencies.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Thurmond be added as a cosponsor.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the main argument against this amendment has been that the President has said that he would come to Congress in advance of deploying ground troops. He made that commitment in a meeting at the White House on April 28. Then he sent a letter, which is substantially equivocal, saying that he will fully consult with the Congress, and that he would ask for congressional support before introducing U.S. ground forces into Kosovo, into a nonpermissive environment. That doesn't go far enough. The distinguished chairman has reported that the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of State, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have confirmed that there would be congressional authorization. That doesn't go far enough. We are a government of laws--not a government of men. And minds may be changed. We ought to be sure we have this nailed down. This amendment is entirely consistent with what the Senate has heretofore done--58 to 41 to authorize air strikes but no ground forces. Seventy-seven Senators voted not to grant the President authority to use whatever force he chose. To remain consistent, those 77 Senators would have to say, we are not going to allow you to use ground forces unless you come to us for approval, just as we said we will not allow you to use whatever force you choose, in effect, without coming to us for prior approval. Consistency may be the hobgoblin of small minds, but consistency and the institutional prerogatives of the Congress and the Senate call for an affirmative vote, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, how much time remains for me?

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, the sense-of-the-Senate resolution which has been submitted provides for the prosecution of war criminals in Kosovo, arising out of the atrocities and war crimes which have been so blatantly committed in Kosovo. The somewhat polite term of ``ethnic cleansing'' has been used to describe these atrocities. But they are, in effect, mass murders and executions committed by the Serbian forces against the people of Kosovo. We have, to the credit of the civilized world, established a War Crimes Tribunal in the Hague. The establishment of this War Crimes Tribunal to prosecute crimes in the former Yugoslavia has already returned 84 indictments and the resulting conviction of some 8 criminals there. The importance of establishing the rule of law is something that may be the most important legacy that will come out of the Bosnian war and the war in Kosovo, and hopefully will be embodied in a permanent international criminal court--which will remain for another day. Those resolutions have been introduced and pressed by a number of Senators, including Senator Dodd and myself and others. But in Bosnia, we saw the war crimes and we have seen very strenuous activity by the War Crimes Tribunal in the 84 indictments and in the 8 convictions. Now we have seen ethnic cleansing at a high level. We have seen acts of violence which go to the very top of the Serbian-Yugoslavian Government, right to the doorstep of President Milosevic himself. Although he is not named in this sense-of-the-Senate resolution, it is plain that the kind of atrocities which have been carried out could only be carried out by his order, at least with his knowledge and, at the very minimum, with his acquiescence--any of which is sufficient to establish criminal culpability for those war crimes. Recently, Justice Louise Arbour visited the United States. On April 30, she met with Senator Landrieu, other Senators, and myself, and expressed the need for adequate financing for the investigations. The administration had requested funding of some $5 million. On the emergency supplemental which passed both Houses of Congress last week, up to an additional $13 million was added, for a total of $18 million, which was the sum requested by Justice Arbour. At that time, she made a plea that the NATO forces or the IFOR forces undertake activity to arrest high-level indictees who are at large, referring specifically to Karadzic, whose whereabouts has been identified in the French Quarter, and who could be taken into custody. Mladic, the other principal indictee, is said to be in Belgrade and it might require an invasion to apprehend and take him into custody. But at least as to the arrest of Karadzic, that could be accomplished. Justice Arbour also stated there were other high-ranking officials for whom sealed indictments had been obtained. Those sealed indictments were in the hands of military authorities, and those individuals, too, could be taken into custody. Justice Arbour expressed the judgment that if these war criminals, alleged war criminals--these individuals indicted on charges of war crimes, to be specific--were taken into custody, then she believed it could have a profound effect on the subordinates, on perhaps Milosevic himself or certainly on the subordinates immediately under Milosevic. It is our hope this sense-of-the-Senate resolution will impel the authorities to apprehend those individuals. I shall not go through the whereas clauses, setting forth the foundation for the U.N. action on establishing the War Crimes Tribunal or the atrocities themselves, but focusing for just a minute on the five clauses following the resolution: First, that the United States, in coordination with the United Nations, supply sufficient funds for the investigation of the allegations of the atrocities and war crimes committed in Kosovo. That can be accomplished with the $18 million appropriated by the United States and appropriations by other responsible nations. Second, that the United States, through its intelligence services, should provide all cooperation in the gathering of evidence to secure the indictments of those responsible for war crimes. Third, that where the evidence warrants indictment, those indictments will be brought for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, regardless of the position of the indictees within the Serbian leadership. This is directed at President Milosevic himself. Fourth, that the United Nations and all nations have an obligation to honor the warrants issued by the War Crimes Tribunal, and the United States and other responsible nations should use all appropriate means to apprehend the war criminals already under indictments. That refers to Karadzic, Mladic, and the others under sealed indictments as previously mentioned, having been identified by Justice Arbour. Fifth, NATO should not accept any diplomatic resolution to the conflict in Kosovo that would bar the indictment, apprehension, or prosecution of war criminals for crimes committed during operations in Kosovo. If there is any inclination, as part of a plea bargain on any of the negotiations, to spare President Milosevic or other high-ranking officials, that should be rejected as part of the diplomatic resolution of the conflict in Kosovo if such a diplomatic resolution should be obtained. Last Thursday, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright testified before the Foreign Operations Subcommittee of Appropriations, a committee of which I am a member. She was questioned at that time and stated that the United States was not negotiating with Milosevic. Well, in effect, an indirect negotiation is not a whole lot different. But it may be--and I made this statement at the time of the hearing--that the line could be drawn so that the United States would maintain its position that it would not be a party to any settlement which, by way of a plea bargain, gave immunity or absolved Milosevic or any other high-ranking diplomatic official or anyone from responsibility for the war crimes warranted by indictments and warranted by the evidence. I commend Senator Landrieu for her leadership on this important resolution, and I yield the floor.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, after conferring with the distinguished manager, I, too, wish to send an amendment to the desk and ask it be laid aside after it has been read.

Mr. SPECTER. It is.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I can describe this very briefly. It provides that none of the funds authorized or otherwise available to the Department of Defense may be obligated or expended for the deployment of ground troops for the United States Armed Forces in Kosovo except for peacekeeping personnel unless authorized by declaration of war or joint resolution authorizing the use of military force. I have asked that it be laid aside to be taken up at a later time. The purpose, in a nutshell, is to preserve the congressional authority to declare war or have the United States engage in war. Amendment No. 384

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, as stated very briefly before, I intend to speak for about 10 minutes. Then we have worked out an arrangement where the Senator from Maine will speak for about 10 minutes. We will be preceding Senator Landrieu, because she intends to talk for about 30 minutes. That is the speaking order which we have arranged among ourselves.

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. SPECTER. I have worked out with the Senator from Maine that I will speak first and then yield to the Senator from Maine and the Senator from Louisiana who will speak at somewhat greater length.

Mr. SPECTER. Now, on behalf of Senator Landrieu and myself, I send a sense-of-the-Senate amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SPECTER

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague, the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, for yielding me the time. I support the waiver on the point of order. The conference committee labored extensively and diligently to come up with the bill that is on the floor at the present time. It was a tough, contentious, argumentative conference. While not perfect, we conferees did the very best we could. At some points on Wednesday night of last week, it looked a little like ``Saturday Night Live,'' except it was Wednesday. C-SPAN was in the conference room recording and videocasting across the country to the few who might have been inclined to watch. Having been a party to that conference and having struggled through the issues of the necessity for military spending and the emergency programs that are involved in Hurricane Mitch and the tragedies in Oklahoma and Kansas--Kansas being my native State --the conference committee did the very best it could. This bill ought to be enacted in toto. Since that requires a waiver initially, that ought to be undertaken. We are really looking at broader, complex issues as we face the appropriations process for fiscal year 2000. We have recently seen the allocations in the House of Representatives. The allocations in the Senate are portending for very, very severe cuts. I chair the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services. The President's budget is slightly in excess of $90 billion. The allocation preliminarily marked up for my subcommittee is $80 billion. If that is to happen, we are going to have some really drastic, drastic cuts, cuts which the American people are going to have to evaluate as they are making their wishes known in our representative democracy to the Members of the House and Senate. We have budget caps. I would like to live within those budget caps. But to do that, we are going to be looking at these kinds of reductions in spending: On Safe and Drug-Free Schools, there would be a cut of $66 million from the Drug and Violence Prevention Program. Here we are today on a juvenile crime bill where we are trying to deal with the problems of juvenile crime, and at the same time we are looking at a budget which is going to cut funding of $66 million from the guts of that kind of a program--drug and violence prevention. We are looking at cuts on the Job Corps of $150 million from a $1.3 billion program. When we talk about the Job Corps, here again we are talking about dealing with juveniles who may have gone astray. If you have a juvenile offender without a trade or a skill, a functional illiterate who leaves prison, that individual is going to go back to a life of crime, and is going to get the first gun he can put his hands on. And here we are talking about an enormous cut in the JOBS Program, which is designed specifically against that problem. We have enormous cuts in child care--$131 million in our efforts to whip the welfare program and send welfare mothers to work. Child care is indispensable. Special education--a favorite of all Senators--would be cut by $480 million. The National Institutes of Health, the crown jewel of the Federal Government, perhaps the only jewel of the Federal Government--instead of having a $2 billion increase, which the Senate said we ought to have in the sense of the Senate, the National Institutes of Health would be reduced by $1.8 billion, which would result in approximately 6000 fewer grants at a time when medical research is on the verge of solving enormous problems of Parkinson's with the new stem cells estimated within the 5- to 10-year range.

Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair. Some of those who were called to order may be the ones who ought to be listening to what needs to happen in our appropriations process if we are to achieve the goals of our lofty rhetoric. But interrupting, the juvenile violence bill on the culture of violence we have programs which are designed to deal with that. The way we are heading, we are going to be cutting the heart out of the precise programs intended to deal with that culture of violence. These are issues which I hope the American people will understand so that their views may be felt in our representative democracy. We would all like to stay within the caps. We would all like to economize. But when we take a look at a $10 billion cut which hits labor, safety programs, and health and education, those are matters which have to be decided by this body reflecting the views of our constituency. I again thank the chairman for yielding the time. I yield the floor.