Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I want to put in the Record the scoring that we got on the supplemental bill as it came out of committee. It shows the problem. CBO showed we had $319 million in savings on outlays, and OMB said we had $567 million savings in outlays. OMB now has gone back and has changed the minuses to plus, and they say that we are over $441 million. It is because of a revision, I guess, of the way they have approached the bill. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the scoring that we received on S. 544, as reported to the Senate, be printed in the Record and that it be followed by the Senator's chart, as of March 22, of scoring from CBO of the bill as it stands before the Senate today.

Mr. STEVENS. I think it demonstrates that there is a legitimate battle here over people who make estimates. We have one group of estimators downtown, another group of estimators over in CBO. We have our own on the committee. We make estimates of what we are doing, and it is like three groups of lawyers. Fifty percent of them are wrong all the time. I say this as a lawyer. As a practical matter, there is no answer to the Senator from Texas' approach, unless we just set them all down in the same room and say find a way to come to an agreement. In the final analysis, there are three computers working on this bill and, as they say, if you put stuff in, stuff is going to come out; right? That is the trouble. I am not sure what color the stuff is that the Senator from Texas is using, but it is coming out. It disagrees with our conclusions of what this bill means. I am told that the other managers of the bill agree with my concept that this is something we should explore in conference, and we will give it our best review in conference. We are willing to accept the Senator's amendments now.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 130 (Purpose: To maintain existing marine activities in Glacier Bay National Park)

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia for his courtesy in working with us to try to assure that the provisions regarding the timeframe for decision by the Secretary were not a mandate but, rather, a period of time within which the discretion conferred on the Secretary must be made. Under the circumstances of the changed form of this amendment that the Senator has now presented, one which I find we are all very sympathetic to, I am prepared now to accept this amendment and ask that the Senate allow this amendment to go forward.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I know this part of Italy. I know what the Senator is trying to do. I think there is a national obligation on our part to try to reach out as much as we possibly can under the circumstances. I urge adoption of the amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, if I may, in connection with the debate that just took place involving my colleague, Senator Murkowski, I would like to point out the statement that I made on October 21 of last year in connection with the proposal that was in the conference report regarding Glacier Bay commercial fishing. I made this statement about matters the way that we finally arranged them in that bill and the provision that was passed at my suggestion. I said: I view this compromise as an insurance policy, a safety net that offers better protection to Glacier Bay's fishermen than was offered by the draft Park Service regulations, but I do not view it as the end of the story. There are provisions that I do not like. For that reason, I have cosponsored Senator Murkowski's amendment this year. I yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will the Senator withhold that? I understand my colleague would like to respond briefly before that motion is made. If the Senator will accord him that courtesy, I will appreciate it.

Mr. STEVENS. I do.

Mr. STEVENS. Yes it is.

Mr. STEVENS. No there is not.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I give notice to the Senate that following the vote on the tabling motion offered by the Senator from Nevada, I shall ask unanimous consent to vitiate the remainder of the amendments on the list, and the only remaining amendments will be Senator Lott's amendment and the amendment of the Senator from Texas, the Kosovo amendment, which has to be disposed of one way or another for us to finish this evening. So at this time, does any Member have an amendment they wish to offer? Mr. President, if not, let me take a couple minutes for myself on the Kosovo question. I am glad the Senator from Virginia has given me this. I was one of those that was invited to the White House this morning. As I approached the problem of listening again to the question of what we should do in Kosovo, I listened to a President that I think has made up his mind to initiate the air war. I am a very pragmatic Senator. My feeling was that if that was going to go forward, the people who were going to carry out that order deserve the support of this Congress. But I also had the feeling that we should assure ourselves that none of the funds that we have made available to the Department of Defense in the past, or through this bill we are considering now, could be used for initiating a ground war in this area. I so stated to the President that while I had severe reservations about the air war, he is the Commander in Chief, and if he has made the decision that it is going to take place, we have no way to stop that. But we do have a way to signal to the men and women of the Armed Forces that we do understand they are subject to the commands of their Commander in Chief, and when they undertake fulfilling those commands by going outside the United States in particular to carry out the policies of this country, I think they deserve to know that the Congress supports them. I therefore came back thinking we would have a joint resolution that the President would be asked to sign setting forth those two conditions which were ably set forth by Senator Byrd. Senator Byrd spoke ahead of me at that meeting, and he, strangely enough, made the statement that I had determined I was going to make at the meeting. The situation was that I returned thinking we would have a joint resolution. We now will have before us a Senate concurrent resolution, which is a form that we all know does not require the signature of the President. I understand that is being done for reasons beyond our control. But we no longer have the resolution Senator Byrd originally discussed, and it is my understanding from talking to Senator Byrd that he has consented to consolidating that into a direct statement of one sentence. I expect that to be offered soon. The second version I had intended to propose and Senator Byrd did propose was about the introduction of the Armed Forces of the United States into this area that I understand was to be deleted. I am now informed by Senators Biden and Warner that there is an agreement that that section will be put back into this concurrent resolution, which will once again contain the prohibition against funds to introduce ground forces of the United States into this area in a nonpermissive environment, meaning in terms of combat or in terms of imminent combat. They could go into a nonpermissive environment to carry out the procedure we thought we might be involved in, in terms of introducing 4,000 troops along with NATO in a peacekeeping effort. Section 2 of this resolution does not address that from the point of view of the intent of this Senator. But I do want to make it clear that I believe this is probably the most dangerous area of the world for our Armed Forces to be involved. I know really of no place in the world I would fear more, as a pilot flying over those mountains with the ground-to-air defenses that I know exist there, as much as this area of the former Yugoslavia. It is, beyond question, the most complicated area for military activity, far beyond Bosnia and far beyond what we might have contemplated in World War II in Europe in terms of where we operated with American Armed Forces. This area consumed several Nazi divisions--21. Is that correct, Mr. President? It consumed them, destroyed them, in terms of the action of the partisans in that area. If this bombing does not bring about a cessation of the genocide we believe is going to take place or is taking place, then it is going to be a very, very difficult problem to decide what to do. And I think the Congress has to be involved before that plan is agreed to by the U.S. representatives and NATO. Above all, I hope the message will go out to the people who represent this country in connection to NATO, they are not to make agreements about injection of Armed Forces of this country in a ground war before approval of the Congress. That, to me, would be unconscionable. And I am delighted my friends have agreed to put this section 2 in. Mr. President, I just want to close with this. There is no other word. I used it with the President. I have a ``gut feeling,'' a ``deep gut feeling,'' that we have initiated something which will be very hard to control from now on. This will require the consideration and really the absolute concentration of every American to try to get out of this place without severe loss of life. I urge the Members of Congress to understand that the President has made this decision. And it is not ``if.'' It is ``when.'' And when it happens, we have to be united behind our Armed Forces. That is all there is to it. I yield the floor. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I might say to the Senate that I made the statement that the managers would object to any amendments that were not agreed to on both sides. We made an exception in that case for the leaders' amendments. We have taken the amendments from the distinguished minority leader. This is the last one of the majority leader. I understand there will be objection on the other side. Therefore, I will ask that it be set aside temporarily awaiting the majority leader's return, so he can decide what he wants to do with his amendment. He asked me to offer it. I also state for the Record that although I did agree to make a motion to table on any amendments that were not agreed to on both sides, I made an exception in that situation for my colleague from Alaska, which I had cosponsored. That has been taken care of. My friend from Nevada made a motion to table that. We will let the Senate decide that issue. Other than that, as I understand it, we are in the situation that the last remaining matter is the amendment of the Senator from Texas. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment of the majority leader be temporarily laid aside.

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

Mr. STEVENS. That is not quite true. We still have many amendments on the list. We are led to believe that no other amendments will be raised from that list based on the negotiations we have had so far, with one exception, and I have it in my hand. It is the majority leader's amendment. Amendment No. 142

Mr. STEVENS. Yes.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield to me for just a question?

Mr. STEVENS. I am constrained to go back to the time when we had the Persian Gulf crisis and we had Iraq in Kuwait, threatening to go into Saudi Arabia. What is the difference between that situation, where it actually had taken place, and this threat the Senator is describing in Serbia and in Kosovo now?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I would like to have some parameter on these discussions so that we might get back to the bill and finish it this evening. Could I inquire of the Senator from Kentucky how long he intends to speak?

Mr. STEVENS. More than 10 minutes?

Mr. STEVENS. I see Senator Brownback. Does he wish to speak on this subject?

Mr. STEVENS. I see that Senator Warner's hand is up. Does the Senator intend to speak also?

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will reconvene tomorrow at 10 a.m. and resume consideration of the Lott amendment to the supplemental appropriations bill. Under the previous order, the time until 12:30 will be equally divided for debate on the amendment. The Senate will then recess until 2:15 p.m. for the policy lunches and upon reconvening will proceed to vote on the motion to invoke cloture on the Lott amendment. Following that vote, it is hoped that the Senate will begin consideration of the fiscal year 2000 budget resolution. Therefore, Members should expect rollcall votes throughout Tuesday's session, with the first vote to occur on cloture at 2:15.

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 10 a.m., Tuesday, March 23. I further ask consent that on Tuesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved and the Senate resume consideration of S. 544, the supplemental appropriations bill.