John Warner

Mr. WARNER

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, under the standing order, the vote on this issue will occur at 2:30, give or take a few minutes on either side. Senator Levin has, under his control, 2 hours 45 minutes. The Senator from Virginia has roughly an hour and a half or less, of which 1 hour is reserved to our distinguished colleague, Mr. Byrd of West Virginia. Thus far, the Senator from Virginia is desirous of trying to accommodate those who wish to speak in support of the amendment. I have the names of Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Cleland, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Gregg, Mr. Burns, Mr. Inhofe, Ms. Snowe, Mr. Thomas, and Mrs. Hutchison of Texas. I am going to be right here to do the very best I can to accommodate all. Time is going to move very swiftly, and I hope Senators will contact the managers and indicate the times convenient for them to speak.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I seek 50 seconds. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma. Underlying this is clearly the readiness issue. It is not just the Kosovo operation, but it is how our troops are spread throughout the world. We are speaking in this amendment to a discipline that could well apply to the next mission, wherever it may be, or an existing mission. It is simply the accountability of the Congress of the United States in the expenditure of these funds to exercise a voice. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I am proud to come to the floor once again to defend and explain the Kosovo amendment which I have sponsored with the distinguished senior Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, and other, well-respected, conscientious colleagues--despite the accusations of some to the contrary. That amendment is now part of the bill before the Senate. Several weeks ago, Senator Byrd and I joined forces to draft a plan of action that would lead to a vote or votes on the continued deployment of U.S. troops in Kosovo. For almost a year now, thousands of U.S. troops have been patrolling the streets of Kosovo as part of a NATO-led peacekeeping operation--with no end in sight. The Congress has been silent; that must end. Congress is about to appropriate, pursuant to a request by our President, almost 2 billion U.S. taxpayer dollars for military operations in Kosovo without any knowledge of when our troops will come home. The purpose of our legislation is twofold. First, it requires the Congress to fulfill its co-equal constitutional responsibility, with the President, to make decisions--by vote--that are in the best interest of the nation, and particularly the men and women of the Armed Forces deployed in the Kosovo operation. This is a responsibility that the Congress has consistently failed to exercise for many years with respect to other military operations. Second, the legislation sends the message that other nations and organizations must follow through on their commitments of assistance for Kosovo if U.S. troops are to remain a part of the military force in Kosovo. The legislation that is before the Senate today has three main objectives. First, it terminates funding for the continued deployment of U.S. ground combat troops in Kosovo after July 1, 2001, unless the President seeks and receives Congressional authorization to keep troops in Kosovo. Second, the legislation requires the President to develop a plan, in consultation with our allies, to turn the ground combat troop element of the Kosovo peacekeeping operation entirely over to other nations by July 1, 2001. Third, related to today's operations in Kosovo, and to signal to the Europeans the need for them to fulfill their commitments for implementing peace and stability in Kosovo, the legislation withholds 25 percent of the emergency supplemental funding for military operations in Kosovo until the President certifies that our allies are making adequate progress in meeting the commitments they made to the Kosovo peacekeeping process. If the President does not make that certification by July 15 of this year, the funding held in reserve can only be used for the safe, orderly and phased withdrawal of U.S. troops from Kosovo, unless Congress votes otherwise. While I expected opposition to this legislation, I am, quite frankly, surprised by the misleading statements which are being used to describe our effort. Those of us who support this legislation are being accused of endangering the lives of U.S. troops, providing aid and comfort to the enemy--Milosevic, and sounding the ``death knell'' of NATO. According to General Clark, the measures contained in this legislation, ``are unlikely to encourage our European allies to do more. In fact, these measures would invalidate the policies, commitments and trust of our Allies in NATO, undercut U.S. leadership worldwide, and encourage renewed ethnic tension, fighting and instability in the Balkans.'' There is simply no basis in fact for making such statements. Why is the Administration so afraid of letting the Congress have a voice, by vote, on our continued military presence in Kosovo? We are elected by the people of our nation to speak and vote in their best interests. Have the opponents really looked at this legislation? It is not a ``cut and run'' from Kosovo. We are not deserting our allies. Nowhere in this legislation is there an automatic, mandated withdrawal of U.S. troops from Kosovo on a date certain. In every case, what we have done is make the continued U.S. ground combat troop presence in Kosovo subject to a vote by the Congress. We are requiring a Congressional affirmation of a Presidential decision that affects the security of our nation and the welfare of the men and women of the Armed Forces deployed overseas and their families here at home. That was the intention of the Framers of the Constitution in giving the Congress co-equal power for such decisions. I point out to our critics that this legislation was carefully crafted to impact only the ground combat element of our presence in Kosovo. Even if the Congress decides, over a year hence, not to support our continued military presence in Kosovo, the U.S. would still be able to provide support elements to the NATO-led mission in Kosovo, and would be able to respond to an emergency situation with combat units. General Clark has pointed out that other nations--primarily our NATO allies--contribute 85 percent of the troops that make up the Kosovo operation. To now say that the possible elimination of only part of the remaining 15 percent U.S. forces would mean that ``the sky is falling'' calls into question the importance of the allied contribution to this effort. Is General Clark really saying that the 85 percent of the troops in Kosovo are of such little consequence, little effectiveness, in the effort to achieve peace and stability in that troubled region? I would hope that is not his message to our allies. One of the main reasons we are proceeding with this legislation is out of a deep sense of concern for the safety and security of our men and women in uniform in Kosovo. They are making sacrifices, they are facing daily risk to their personal safety. We, as their elected representatives, with co-equal responsibility under the Constitution for deploying troops into harm's way, must fully examine and debate this issue and--ultimately--vote on whether or not U.S. troops should remain in Kosovo. That is our responsibility, and we owe our brave servicemembers no less. We cannot--we must not--allow the situation in Kosovo to drift on endlessly, as we stand idly by, unwilling to act. Over the past decade, as our military has been reduced by a third, U.S. troops have been involved in overseas deployments at an unprecedented rate. According to General Hugh Shelton, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, ``Two factors that erode military readiness are the pace of operations and funding shortfalls. There is no doubt that the force is much smaller than it was a decade ago, but also much busier.'' The increasing frequency of these contingency operations--which involve extensive, repeated separation from family and home--is one of the major causes for the problems the military is having in recruiting and retaining quality personnel. The United States has far too many commitments around the world, our military is stretched too thin; we cannot have an open-ended, decades-long military deployment to the Balkans. It is time for Congress to act. I was very troubled by what I discovered during my January trip to Kosovo. I was a supporter of our military involvement in Kosovo; in fact, I was a principal sponsor of the resolution for authorization by the Congress of the air war. But I was disturbed by what I saw in January. I found U.S. troops running towns and villages--acting as mayors, police, and jailers; I found U.S. troops--in groups of 2 or 3--guarding individual houses and churches, escorting Serb families to market; I found U.S. troops concerned with the slow pace of the UN's effort to rebuild the region, and frustrated by the seemingly endless and mindless cycle of ethnic violence in Kosovo--Albanian on Serb, Serb on Albanian, and Albanian on Albanian. When I visited Bernard Kouchner, the UN Administrator in Kosovo, I found a man frustrated with the level of progress he had been able to achieve; I found a man pleading for help from the international community. ``I have no money'' was a phrase I heard over and over as we sat in KFOR Headquarters in Pristina, in one of the few buildings in the city with power--but no running water--as most of Kosovo was cold and dark during the winter. He told me that many pledges and commitments of assistance had been made at international conferences, but he could not pay the government workers or fix the power supply with pledges. He needed money. Until he, and others, are able to make progress, our troops will continue to be policemen and mayors and mediators--targets of the frustration of the people of Kosovo, and increasingly at risk. We saw some of the danger that our troops face during the violence in Mitrovica. That will only increase if an adequate economic and security infrastructure does not quickly materialize in Kosovo. I returned from that trip in January determined to do something to change the situation I found in that troubled region. I could not turn a blind eye to what I had seen. The legislation before the Senate is the result. Some may not agree with the approach, but I strongly believe that it is the proper course of action. Let me address some of the charges that have been leveled against the proponents of this legislation. The one that most troubles me is the charge that we are putting U.S. troops at risk because of this legislation. Who among us really believes that Senator Robert Byrd, Senator Ted Stevens, Senator Daniel Inouye, and the many others who have either cosponsored or voted for this amendment--15 of whom are veterans--would do anything to put U.S. troops at risk? We have devoted our careers to fighting for the well-being or our troops. I say to those who make this charge, we are trying to take action to address the risks our troops in Kosovo face everyday--which we must no longer ignore. My office recently received a communication from a soldier in Kosovo describing a recent confrontation with local citizens. I would like to quote parts of this e-mail so that my colleagues can understand the day-to-day reality of our troops in Kosovo: The entire village went out into the street, erected a barricade and as the squad (of my soldiers) came out they were pelted with rocks and other debris . . . As we moved in people were hitting us with sticks and actually hitting us with their fists . . . By the time of the linkup I was punched in the face, hit with a stick and got in a wrestling match. . . . Several hundred moved up the hill and started throwing rocks, tree limbs, fire wood, and everything else they could get their hands on. After getting hit in the head by a large rock and getting smashed across the back with a tree limb I gave the order for the soldiers to open fire with nonlethal munitions. How long will it take until one of these incidents turns deadly? Those who vote against this amendment vote to leave our troops in these situations indefinitely. I would like to address a particular issue raised in the letter which General Clark sent to Senator Levin concerning this legislation; that is, General Clark's contention that this legislation ``is unlikely to encourage European allies to do more.'' On this, General Clark, there is already evidence to the contrary. In the several months since I first began discussing my original amendment--which is now incorporated in the Byrd-Warner amendment--there has been progress. I quote from a March 18, 2000, letter from Dr. Kouchner, in which he details results: ``I very much appreciate the efforts that you have made so far which have been instrumental in improving our budget situation. Existing donor pledges have now been honored. The next challenge will be to get new donor pledges and to ensure that the pledges for the reconstruction budget of 17 November 1999 do materialize.'' Dr. Kouchner, we are continuing our efforts to help. I would like to address one other issue, one that was raised in a recent editorial by the Ranking Member of the Foreign Relations Committee--an editorial in which he accused the supporters of this legislation of being isolationists, a new charge for most of us. In this editorial, Senator Biden states, ``Some would even condition U.S. assistance on actions of the European Union, an abdication of our prerogatives in decision-making that ought to horrify conservatives.'' Since that is directly aimed at the certification requirement which I contributed to this legislation, I will respond. I point out to my colleagues that our President has already conditioned ``U.S. assistance''--that is, U.S. troops--on the actions of others. I remind my good friend from Delaware that the exit strategy for our troops in Kosovo--as it is for our troops in Bosnia-- is directly linked to the actions of the UN, the EU, the OSCE, and others in achieving civil implementation goals. As Secretary Cohen stated in an October 15, 1999 letter to the Congress, ``The duration of the requirement for U.S. military presence (in Kosovo) will depend on the course of events . . . The military force will be progressively reduced based on an assessment of progress in civil implementation and the security situation.'' This legislation uses the same link--the same tie to the actions of others--already adopted by the Administration. If this logic is good for one side in this debate, I say to my good friend, then it is good for the other side as well. I encourage my colleagues to read this legislation carefully; examine it for what it does, and especially for what it does not do. Consider the well-respected, conscientious group of supporters. And judge for yourself what is the best course of action.

Mr. WARNER. We will give the Senator 12.

Mr. WARNER. On your time because my clock is ticking.

Mr. WARNER. Yes, Senator Inhofe will be seeking recognition, and perhaps 10 minutes would be agreeable. Would that be agreeable?

Mr. WARNER. I say to my good friend from Arizona, we respect his judgment, his long association with the U.S. military, and indeed his depth of knowledge as it relates to security and foreign affairs. While I respectfully differ, I nevertheless think it has been a constructive and important part of this debate. May I also, at this time, congratulate the Senator on 20 years of a great marriage, which he celebrated last night.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wonder if I might ask Senator Byrd for 50 seconds.

Mr. WARNER. I compliment my distinguished colleague from Texas. It is very important that we get the type of message she has delivered today in the debate. I thank her.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it had been my hope as cosponsor of the bill to have the opportunity to make some rebuttal arguments to those who are about to speak. Since that will not be possible, I will take my 2 minutes to sum up the manner in which I view this entire debate of those who have come to strike the Byrd-Warner inclusion in this appropriations bill. I am reminded of the immortal words of a great President, Franklin Roosevelt, when he said: The only thing this Nation has to fear is fear itself. Underlying the debate of those who are considering striking this language is the fear that the next President will be unable to convince the Congress to do what is right for America. That is what it is--fear. I say to those who have fear, if there is not a simple majority, but 51 votes, to support the next President, then logic says to me that the continuation of those deployments in Kosovo are not in the public interest or the national security interest of this country. It is as simple as that. If there are not 51 votes for it, we should not be there, and we may as well stand up and face the world and say that this body, with coequal responsibility, has exercised its voice. I committed earlier in this debate and I commit now that if the next President makes a strong case, he will have the Senator of Virginia voting and supporting him. I have confidence in this institution to make the right decision, and in this Senator's heart, he has no fear. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I yield myself 20 seconds.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague. We have been privileged to serve together for many years. The Senator draws on personal experience, having served in World War II in the concluding chapters of the war in Europe. The Senator's opinion, in my judgment, is to be respected. I regret we are on different sides. As I listened very carefully to the speech, the theme time and time again was, our allies, our allies. And that is important. Senator Byrd yesterday recounted the history from World War I and World War II. Time and time again, we have always been in partnership with the allies for that portion of Europe. We will do so in the future. We have 100,000 in NATO. Time and time again, I get the feeling that people who are trying to strike this provision have no confidence in the ability of the Congress of the United States, acting at the direction and request of the next President, to make a proper decision for national security. Those who select a vote to take this out, think about your constituency: $2 billion of taxpayers' money expended on Kosovo; yet there is no conclusion as to how this is going to be spent over the years, how long we will be there. What we are trying to do is put some discipline in the Congress of the United States to assume its responsibilities and to involve itself in a coequal way with the President of the United States. That is not asking too much for hometown America which is supplying these dollars and supplying the men and women who proudly wear their uniform. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. I thank my colleague for his kind personal references. Indeed, we have worked together as a team. On this one, we divide. Regarding his concluding remarks on world leadership, in this debate we are constantly talking about our allies. I am concerned about the hometowns in Virginia that are shoveling out taxpayer funds, billions and billions of dollars. I have already added it up--well over $6 billion. There has really been no debate or action in this Senate. We have an obligation in the Congress to speak before we shovel these funds out in incredible sums. It is from the towns and villages in our State and other States from whence we get these brave young men and women, who put on these uniforms, as the Senator and I have in the past, and march forth from the shores of our country into harm's way. I think Congress has to stand up and be accountable in those decisions and support the President. I have no fear that this institution will support the next President of the United States in his request, if he comes forward and says: It is my intention not to just leave this indefinitely but here is my plan to keep our troops over there. I yield the floor.

Mr. WARNER. If I could take 20 seconds of my time just to advise Senators that the time remaining under the control of those proponents of keeping the amendment, namely Senators Byrd and Warner, has now diminished to the point where the time Senator Byrd and I have allocated between ourselves--that is, the time of the Senator from Virginia has all but expired, and the distinguished Senator from West Virginia has, under a previous order, 1 hour remaining under his control. I just wish to advise the Senate of that.

Mr. WARNER. We will just have that understood. I put the unanimous consent request.

Mr. WARNER. How does that convenience or inconvenience our colleague from Texas?

Mr. WARNER. We were trying to rotate. Our colleague from Texas has been here about an hour.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to join my distinguished colleague in thanking the Senate for one of the finest debates we have had on this floor this year on an issue that affects every one of us and our constituents back home. The vote was rendered by the Senate, and the Senate spoke. Now we must continue to lead. I yield the floor. Amendments Nos. 3146, 3156 through 3163, En Bloc

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, we have had an orderly debate. We started last night at 5 o'clock. We have moved along. This will be the first quorum call in the 10 hours scheduled for this debate. We have tried to be as cooperative as we could all the way along. I have no more control of the time. I suggest there be a quorum call placed, since no one seeks recognition, and it be charged equally to both sides.

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

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, the Senator has no more time under his control. The Senator from Michigan, Mr. Levin, has control. If there is not another speaker, I see no other recourse but to put in a quorum call.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will speak for a minute awaiting Senator Levin's appearance on the floor. As we approach the desk for this historic vote, and it will be a historic vote, I point out to my colleagues we have in the past contributed, in fiscal year 1999, $4.5 billion for this action in Kosovo. We are about to vote on, in a sense, another blank check, for $1.85 billion. In the bill I am working on and will bring to the floor hopefully next week and pass on to the appropriators, there is authorization for another $1.65 billion for a total of up to $8 billion for Kosovo. I think we have an obligation to the people of our Nation in hometown America who are paying this through their taxes, who are sending forth the young men and women into harm's way beyond our shores. We have an obligation to them. If we are going to vote to strike the Byrd-Warner amendment, in essence we are saying Congress is out of it. It is another blank check. Add up Bosnia; it is about $11 billion to $12 billion. We are approaching $20 billion for U.S. participation in this critical part of the world. I certainly agree it is in our security interests to have been with NATO in Bosnia, then with NATO in Kosovo. We did the bulk of the fighting in the 78-day war. How proud we are of the men and women of the Armed Forces. Now we have an obligation to those serving today. For an indefinite commitment, there is no one who can come forth in this Chamber--and I ask anyone to come forth in this Chamber--and give any time expectation as to when this commitment terminates. The Byrd-Warner amendment, within the confines of the constitutional responsibility of the Congress, is trying to lay down a strategy and some information for the American people who are paying the bills and sending forth the troops. To strike this language is back to business as usual, blank checks which will total, just in Kosovo alone, $8 billion. Then the section about our allies. They fought bravely with us to the extent they had the air assets, the lift assets, the highly technical guided ammunitions. They fought bravely. This is no disrespect to any soldier, sailor, airman, or marine of any nation that fought in that the 78-day war. In a sense, we are fighting for their own interest in knowing how long they are going to be there. No one can come to this floor and controvert the Senator from Virginia saying in January and February and March of this year they were falling behind in their commitments they made following that war to provide economic assistance, humanitarian assistance, police. We got their attention. I thank Senator Stevens, Senator Inouye. It was a bipartisan effort. Many Members came to the floor and laid in the Record the intention to bring this issue on the first legislative vehicle we could. That is before the Senate today, the requirement for our allies to fulfill their commitments. They are doing that. I am confident that the President can make the certification as required in a section of this amendment and certify that the allies have at long last met their commitments. This is a historic vote. It affects not only our commitments in this worldwide and important place in the Balkan region but all the other commitments. It will set a standard by which the Congress will have said that we are going to enter our decision power under the Constitution as we send forth men and women of the Armed Forces into harm's way and expend the taxpayers' money in such enormous sums.

Mr. WARNER. The sentiments expressed so fervently by those wanting to strike on behalf of our allies? There are 350-plus years of history, going back before World War II, of our steadfast alliance to our allies, and they can anticipate another 50 years. But on this, it is time for Congress to speak.

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague for his very important contribution to the debate. It has been one of the best debates on foreign policy we have had in the Senate I think this year. I appreciate his references to the Senator from Virginia. We have accomplished much of what we set out to do in this amendment. I bring to the Senator's attention that yesterday there were 263 votes in the House of Representatives in support of the principles that are embodied in the Byrd-Warner amendment. The other body spoke just yesterday. But I say to my dear friend that I am willing to calculate we have spent close to $20 billion in Bosnia and Kosovo. I will place it in the Record. This is, in a sense, handing out another blank check for $1.8 billion in this supplemental for Kosovo with no clear, decisive action for the Congress requiring a strategy as to when our troops can hopefully be considered along with others to be withdrawn. I say to my good friend, how many of my colleagues are calling back home today to get the sentiments of hometown America and put them against----