Senate Floor: FOREIGN RELATIONS AUTHORIZATION ACT

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

John F. Kerry

Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senator from Colorado. I think we had a good conversation in which we agreed that there may be some creative ways to try to avoid some of the pitfalls the Senator from Connecticut and I have cited, but at the same time have some of the up-side views we are looking for.

John F. Kerry

I would like to thank the Senator, congratulate him because I think his focus on this is well-advised. I think that we are going to have a better endowment for democracy, we are going to have a much more accountable one, we are going to probably be more effective and efficient. If there is a capacity to achieve a maximum efficiency, I think it will come about because of this intensity of scrutiny.

John F. Kerry

So I congratulate him for that. I will say to him, though, that if most of those people on the board were told ahead of time that they have to raise money, they would not go on the board. So I do not think you can just rely on the fact that some of them raised money in politics. Half of them got out of politics to get away from raising money. The last thing in the world they are going to do is accept a new responsibility and spend their time trying to raise funds.

John F. Kerry

Has the Chair ruled on the withdrawal?

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to withdraw his amendment. The Senator has withdrawn the amendment.

The amendment (No. 1272) was withdrawn.

John F. Kerry

Mr. President, I say again to colleagues, we are preparing lists on both sides of the aisle. I believe on both sides of the aisle it has been hot lined to inquire whether or not Senators have additional amendments.

John F. Kerry

We would like to try to propound a unanimous-consent agreement with respect to the remaining amendments, at least fencing the amendments and hopefully arriving at a time agreement. So if Senators do have amendments, I want them to have adequate notice that we are looking to propound a unanimous-consent agreement and hopefully they will come forward.

John F. Kerry

I know the Senator from North Carolina has two amendments which he is about to offer, and I would say to colleagues that these amendments would be voted on, I hope, en bloc, with one vote sometime in the vicinity of 3 o'clock or so.

John F. Kerry

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum having been suggested, the clerk will call the roll.

Frank Murkowski

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Frank Murkowski

Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Brown, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Frank Murkowski

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Frank Murkowski

Mr. President, the purpose of the amendment is to allow and encourage high-level visits of American State diplomatic people to Taiwan. It is my understanding that the amendment has been cleared on both sides.

John F. Kerry

Mr. President, that is correct.

Frank Murkowski

I thank the Chair. I urge adoption of the amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?

Frank Murkowski

I thank the floor manager as well as Senator Brown and appreciate the courtesy.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the amendment? If not, the amendment is agreed to.

John F. Kerry

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Frank Murkowski

Frank Murkowski

I thank the Chair. I thank my colleagues.

Frank Murkowski

John F. Kerry

I thank the Senator from Alaska.

John F. Kerry

Mr. President, if I could ask the Senator from Colorado, the Senator has no other amendment at this time?

We have the potential of other amendments but at this point no.

John F. Kerry

If I could ask the Senator, I would be happy to meet with him now privately and we can try to define that.

John F. Kerry

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum having been suggested, the clerk will call the roll.

John F. Kerry

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Claiborne Pell

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

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

Claiborne Pell

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Claiborne Pell

Mr. President, this amendment provides for a limited exemption to the Freedom of Information Act [FOIA] in order to ensure that certain kinds of data, collected by sensors during observation flights conducted in connection with the Treaty on Open Skies, would not be made public.

Claiborne Pell

The Open Skies Treaty was signed in Helsinki on March 24, 1992. The principal purpose of the treaty is to enhance military openness and transparency by providing each treaty party with the right to overfly the territory of the other treaty parties using unarmed observation aircraft. The Senate provided its advice and consent to ratification on August 6, 1993, and the United States formally ratified the treaty on December 3, 1993. The Open Skies Treaty has been ratified by 11 other countries. It will enter into force when eight more states, including Russia, ratify.

Claiborne Pell

The amendment was requested by the administration. It has stated that the FOIA exemption is necessary in order to effectively implement the treaty. Without the FOIA exemption, other treaty parties would be reluctant to participate in the treaty for fear that sensitive data regarding their national security collected under the Open Skies regime would be made available to the public.

Claiborne Pell

Under the FOIA exemption, data collected on non-U.S. treaty parties could be made public by the United States only if either the state party in question agreed to such release or had previously publicly released the data itself. Also under this provision, data collected on the United States would be made public, unless such release could be reasonably expected to cause substantial harm to the national defense or foreign relations of the United States.

Claiborne Pell

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter to me from the Department of State requesting this exemption be inserted in the Record.

Patrick J. Leahy

Mr. President, I rise to discuss the amendment. First, I wish to commend the chairman of the committee for the work done on this amendment and know that the language being proposed represents a significant revision and improvement from earlier drafts.

Patrick J. Leahy

It would be ironic if the Treaty on Open Skies were to cloud our citizens' rights to freedom of information. We must approach statutory exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act with great care. Given that the act has a series of exceptions that balance the public's right to free and open access to Government information with such competing concerns as national security and foreign policy, it should be rare that Congress is asked to create a statutory exemption from the act.

Patrick J. Leahy

The Freedom of Information Act has become and essential tool in our democracy for the public to obtain information about what their Government is doing. Through direct access and media access, the Freedom of Information Act provides a check on how the Government operates. Through proper implementation of the act we make openness the rule and Government secrecy the exception.

Patrick J. Leahy

I see that the language proposed in the amendment exempts data collected by sensors during observation flights from FOIA disclosure for a period of 5 years. I would have preferred that the shoe be on the other foot. Our general presumption of availability of information should govern in the absence of a specific determination that disclosure of certain information would be harmful to our national security interests or the legitimate interests of a foreign government.

Patrick J. Leahy

It is in this manner that we have traditionally structured statutory exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act. Thus, it is only after rulemaking and with periodic reports to Congress that Government information on control, accounting and security measures for the physical protection of special nuclear material, source materials and byproduct materials is excluded from FOIA disclosure.

Patrick J. Leahy

I ask for the chairman's understanding of the standard that is to be applied by the Secretaries of Defense and State. Subsection (a)(2) of the amendment requires a determination that data with respect to the United States be restricted only if its disclosure "could be reasonably expected to cause substantial harm." Is it the chairman's understanding that the standard is akin to that for classification of information as "secret"?

Patrick J. Leahy

As for data with respect to a foreign country, the exemption applies if the country has not disclosed the data to the public. The amendment allows for the foreign country, acting through the open skies consultative commission or diplomatic channels to authorize the United States to disclose the data to citizens of the United States.

Patrick J. Leahy

I intend no harm to the integrity of the treaty, but ask whether the basic purposes of the treaty are not served by the presumption of openness with exceptional treatment being reserved to data from other countries on the same basis as that from this country; namely, some identifiable national security interest.

Patrick J. Leahy

I suggest that our treaty negotiators are well-advised to explain the benefits of openness on this and future treaty subjects to their counterparts from other countries. Certainly there can be exceptions, but experience has taught us that such exceptions to the rule of openness should be narrowly created and specifically applied.

Patrick J. Leahy

I ask my colleagues to join with me to urge the Department of State to use its good offices and those of the open skies consultative commission to urge foreign signatories of the treaty to enjoy the benefits of maximum disclosure and the rule of openness.

Patrick J. Leahy

Indeed, by title IV of this bill we are establishing a Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secretary for the express purpose of reducing the volume of classified information.

Patrick J. Leahy

I recognize that overflight data can contain sensitive security information. Such data, when otherwise secret, should not become available to hostile forces through participation in Open Skies. The need for legitimate exception for such information is not the issue.

Patrick J. Leahy

We should encourage signatories to Open Skies by protecting participants. We should not and need not do so by doing damage to our domestic law or disserving our democratic interests in expanding information and participation of the citizenry in our public policy. I do not wish to see the language or processes of this amendment become a precedent.

Claiborne Pell

I ask that we go ahead and vote on this measure if there is no objection.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?

John F. Kerry

Mr. President, this has been cleared on both sides.

Frank Murkowski

No further debate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the amendment? Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.

John F. Kerry

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Frank Murkowski

Frank Murkowski

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

Claiborne Pell

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

Claiborne Pell

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Claiborne Pell

Mr. President, this amendment provides the Department of Defense with authority to transfer obsolete or surplus United States military equipment to South Korea from war reserve stockpiles located in South Korea. The equipment in question includes ammunition, old M-48 tanks, artillery, and repair parts.

Claiborne Pell

This provision was requested by the administration. It is necessary because section 514 of the Foreign Assistance act requires that any such transfer be specifically authorized by legislation.

Claiborne Pell

The United States no longer needs the equipment in question, and South Korea is the only country that has expressed an interest in it. In exchange for receiving the equipment, South Korea would provide the United States with concessions that would be at least equal to the transferred equipment's fair market value. The Department of the Army has informed the Committee on Foreign Relations that passage of this legislation will benefit the United States by more than $200 million in cost avoidance through fiscal year 1996.

Claiborne Pell

Mr. President, this amendment is a good, but partial, solution to a lingering problem. Major war reserve stocks remain in South Korea, and under certain circumstances removing them from our inventory could prove very costly to the United States. I intend that the Committee on Foreign Relations this year take a thorough look at the South Korean stockpile situation, and devise a solution that will meet both the national security and budgetary needs of the United States.

Claiborne Pell

Mr. President, I ask that the letter to me from the Department of the Army requesting this legislation be included in the Record at this point.

Claiborne Pell

Mr. President, I ask that we proceed to a vote.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? Is there objection to this amendment? Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.

John F. Kerry

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Claiborne Pell

Claiborne Pell

Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.

Claiborne Pell

I thank the Chair.

Claiborne Pell

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.

Frank Murkowski

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

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

Frank Murkowski

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Frank Murkowski

Mr. President, the purpose of the amendment is to allow a study for 1 year, and if the study is favorable it would establish a pilot program which would allow travelers from Korea to visit Hawaii and Alaska, as Guam currently enjoys traveling from Korea into Guam which is a United States territory, without a visa requirement.

Frank Murkowski

As the Chair knows, most nations' citizens who come into the United States do not need a visa. For Korea we currently require a visa.

Frank Murkowski

So there would be a State Department study to determine the merits of allowing for a 1-year period of residency of Korea to travel to Hawaii and Alaska without a visa. The provision would be that they would have to show a round-trip air ticket before they could depart Korea. They would have to show that when they went through Customs and Immigration upon entering either Alaska or Hawaii. If the State Department determines that it is not advisable, based on their criteria of visa application, obviously it would not go anywhere. That is the purpose of the amendment.

Frank Murkowski

I have explained it to the majority, the floor leader. If he has any questions, I would be happy to respond. But it would be meritorious inasmuch as Korea is one of the few countries where we continue to require visas upon entry. We feel that it might extend from both Guam to Alaska and Hawaii inasmuch as most of the traffic that is generated from Korea either stops in Guam or Hawaii.

Frank Murkowski

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

John F. Kerry

Mr. President, I think the concept itself is meritorious, let alone the study. But I think the Senator is wise to ask for a study to determine whether or not there are negatives that we are not at this time aware of. I think it is a good approach. We support it.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?

Frank Murkowski

I urge adoption.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? Is there objection? Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.

John F. Kerry

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to.

Frank Murkowski

Frank Murkowski

I believe the Senator from North Carolina is prepared to propound two amendments en bloc.

John F. Kerry

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.

Jesse Helms

Mr. President, thank you very much, and I thank my distinguished colleague from Massachusetts. I do have two amendments. They are very closely related. They address the same subject. As a matter of fact, Senator Kerry is perfectly willing to take both amendments but because of my obsession about the U.S. Constitution and the protection of the rights of the American people and so forth, I would like to have a rollcall vote.

Jesse Helms

The first one involves the first amendment of the Constitution.

Jesse Helms

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

Mr. President, at the outset, let me read the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution which is or should be familiar to all of us.

Jesse Helms

Jesse Helms

This amendment stipulates that the U.S. Senate will not consent to the ratification of any treaty providing for U.S. participation in an international criminal court unless American citizens are guaranteed that nothing in the terms establishing such an international criminal court or in its operation shall infringe upon or diminish the rights of American citizens under the first amendment of the Constitution as interpreted by the United States.

Jesse Helms

As the distinguished occupant of the chair knows, the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution refers to freedom of speech and freedom of the press. What do these matters have to do with international criminal courts? A lot, Mr. President; a lot.

Jesse Helms

It is important to realize that when we talk about an international criminal court, there is not only no agreed-upon list of what constitutes a "crime of an international character" but there is not even an agreed-upon procedure of how a list of international crimes is to be drawn up or who will do it.

Jesse Helms

So at this point to get some hint of what should be considered a crime of an international character we have to look at the academic literature.

Jesse Helms

The leading proponent of an international criminal court is Professor Bassiouni of De Paul University in Chicago. Writing in the spring 1991 issue of the Indiana International and Comparative Law Review at page 20, the professor argues for the widest possible jurisdiction of the court.

Jesse Helms

Within that widest possible jurisdiction, the professor notes, apparently with his approval, such possible international crimes as insults to a foreign state or dissemination of false or distorted news.

Jesse Helms

If insults to a foreign state means Iraq, I plead guilty right here and now.

Jesse Helms

And I am sure the rulers of Communist China have their particular views of what constitutes false or distorted news. This body knows of their repeated denials of credible newspaper accounts of major arms exports to Middle Eastern dictatorships, for example.

Jesse Helms

Let us not forget who may be determining what is an insult to a foreign state or what is false or distorted news. Under the most likely scenario of an international criminal court, at least some of the judges will come from such places as North Korea or Iran which have no tradition of freedom of the press or freedom of speech.

Jesse Helms

Therefore, both parts of this amendment are required: The prohibition on infringement of our first amendment liberties and the right to determine for ourselves what constitutes such an infringement.

Jesse Helms

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that amendment be laid aside temporarily.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Jesse Helms

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

Mr. President, as I did in the case of the previous amendment, I desire to read in this instance the fourth amendment of the U.S. Constitution which I seek to protect:

Jesse Helms

Jesse Helms

That is the fourth amendment. The pending amendment stipulates that the U.S. Senate will not consent to the ratification of any treaty providing for international criminal court, unless and until American citizens are guaranteed that nothing in the terms establishing such an international criminal court or in its operation shall infringe upon or diminish the rights of American citizens under the fourth amendment of the Constitution, as interpreted by the United States.

Jesse Helms

The fourth amendment concerns itself, as is obvious, with unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as the need for probable cause before a warrant can be issued.

Jesse Helms

There is no indication that proponents of an international criminal court understand or respect these basic rights of the American people. For example, in the case of the United Nations' effort to establish an international tribunal for war crimes in Bosnia, the Secretary General's report on May 3, 1993, at page 24, simply states that the prosecutor may "conduct on-site inspections." Mr. President, we cannot have that. We cannot have that action by the United Nations, that decision by the Secretary General, and this involving an American citizen or any American institution.

Jesse Helms

There is no reference to unreasonable searches and seizures or to the need for probable cause.

Jesse Helms

On page 27 of the same report, the Secretary General gives a list of rights of the accused. Again, there is no reference to unreasonable searches and seizures or probable cause.

Jesse Helms

Some American specialists have also noted this problem. For example, Mr. Ralph Mecham, Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, addressed this issue in a letter to Speaker Foley on October 28, 1991. Mr. Mecham said the following:

Jesse Helms

It is worth noting there is nothing to keep judges from North Korea or Syria serving on this international criminal court. It would be they who would determine whether a search was proper or not.

Jesse Helms

Therefore, both parts of this amendment are required: The prohibition of infringement of our fourth amendment liberties and the right to determine for ourselves what constitutes an infringement.

Jesse Helms

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the two pending amendments, which I have just submitted, be considered jointly, with one vote. I will ask for a rollcall vote and ask that it be counted as one vote.

John F. Kerry

Reserving the right to object, and I do not want to object, but I want to see if there is a way to deal with a procedural problem here. I intend to vote for the amendment. I have no problems with it. I would be happy to accept them without a rollcall vote. But the Senator, which is his right, would like a rollcall vote. I am advised that the only time we have ever voted en bloc is on treaties, and that there is a difficulty in voting en bloc because one person might have a problem with one of the amendments -- and I am not sure they would, but they might. So the question is either whether the Senator would be willing to fold the two into one amendment, or I will accept one, and then we pick one to have a rollcall vote on.

Jesse Helms

We will just have two rollcall votes. I ask for the yeas and nays on the first amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 1278 is the pending amendment.

Jesse Helms

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

Jesse Helms

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Jesse Helms

Mr. President, I withdraw the two amendments at this time. I have the right to modify both amendments, and I will so modify them and combine them into one.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.

The amendment is so modified.

Jesse Helms

Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.

John F. Kerry

Mr. President, I request the yeas and nays on the amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

There is a sufficient second.

John F. Kerry

We will obviously have a rollcall vote on this amendment, but we want to delay that for a little while. So I put colleagues on notice that there is a rollcall backed up here.

John F. Kerry

I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be temporarily set aside.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

John F. Kerry

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

Chris Dodd

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Chris Dodd

Mr. President, I just want to briefly say to my colleague and friend from North Carolina that the Senator from Connecticut has no objection whatsoever to this amendment.

Chris Dodd

Again, I state he and I discussed this at some length yesterday. There is a fundamental difference that we have as to whether or not there ought to be any kind of international court.

Chris Dodd

Aside from that issue is the sense-of-the-Congress resolution which is included in this particular bill that is now before us and was supported yesterday by a majority of our colleagues on a motion to table an amendment to strike.

Chris Dodd

The purpose of that sense-of-the-Senate resolution was merely to state our generic interest in pursuing the idea and the concept of an international court of criminal justice. None of us know what that proposal will include. Certainly, I would not ask my colleagues nor myself to endorse something we have not seen or been able to judge. But on the concept of an international criminal court I believe it is in the interest of our country to pursue one.

Chris Dodd

This amendment offered by our colleague from North Carolina merely states that in the terms establishing such a court, the court will take no action infringing upon or diminishing the rights of any citizen of the United States under the fourth and first amendments of the United States Constitution.

Chris Dodd

I thoroughly endorse that proposition and urge the adoption of the amendment either by voice vote or recorded vote, whatever our colleague from North Carolina desires. But it certainly is consistent with the sense-of-the-Senate resolution that the Senate approved of yesterday.

Chris Dodd

So I urge the adoption of this amendment in any manner that our colleague in North Carolina intends to seek approval of this amendment.

Jesse Helms

I thank the Senator.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.

The Chair thought the Senator from North Carolina was seeking recognition.

Jesse Helms

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

Mitch McConnell

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mitch McConnell

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

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

Mitch McConnell

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mitch McConnell

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

There is a sufficient second.

Mitch McConnell

Mr. President, let me briefly describe the amendment which I have sent to the desk and then offer an account of why I hope the Senate will adopt it.

Mitch McConnell

My amendment is simply a sense-of-the-Senate amendment urging the United States to support immediate admission to NATO of those nations which share and advance a common set of principles. U.S. support is predicated upon a nation having a demonstrated capability to commit resources to our common defense, as well as established democratic practices, including free elections, civilian control over the military, respect for territorial integrity, and the individual liberties of all citizens.

Mitch McConnell

I believe we face a crisis in Europe which has been created by a failure to define our vital interests -- an unwillingness to set an American course of conduct separate and apart from Boris Yeltsin.

Mitch McConnell

Mr. President, earlier this week, the Subcommittee on Foreign Operations met to review our assistance programs to the New Independent States of the former Soviet Union. It was no surprise to any of us that Ambassador Talbott's opening comment was he would only address his remarks to one of those states, the Russian Federation.

Mitch McConnell

This emphasis, what I now call the administration's Moscow myopia is not new. Last year, during consideration of the foreign operations bill I tried to link the provision of assistance for any country to its respect for territorial integrity and national sovereignty. At that time, we had all received an urgent plea for help from the President of Georgia, Mr. Shevardnadze. He had publicly accused the Russian military of aiding and abetting an insurgent movement that was threatening to bring down his democratically elected government. His cry for help, met deaf ears in this administration.

Mitch McConnell

Now these events occurred in the early stages of the Russian test of their policy toward the near abroad. There were no speeches or policy statements clarifying their ambitions to exercise influence, extend their military reach, and assert control over the political and economic affairs of their neighbors.

Mitch McConnell

We now have both actions and words which make clear Russian policy in the region. Foreign Minister Kozyrev, a so-called reformer, has spelled out Russian intentions in ambitious and aggressive terms. Before the world last fall at the General Assembly and in a speech just last week to the Russian ambassadors serving in the former republics he has established a Russian Monroe doctrine for the region. To prevent what he called a "security vacuum" in the area, Kozyrev said Russia must maintain a military presence in the former republics to protect Russian interests.

Mitch McConnell

The U.S. response was strangely silent.

Mitch McConnell

As I said, although I strongly oppose Russia's imperial reach, I have grown accustomed to the administration turning a blind eye to this advance. Just as they opposed linking aid to respect for territorial integrity, they also opposed earmarking funds for Ukraine. In establishing an account for Ukraine, I made clear I wanted to clarify United States support for its independent status. Among other arguments, I was told that this would be viewed as an insult to Moscow.

Mitch McConnell

I believe this preoccupation with Moscow's sensitivities is directly contributing to the slow down in talks for full withdrawal of Russian troops from the Baltics. Although, Congress has made clear this is a high priority and designated funds to house returning troops to accelerate the process, a high level delegation from Latvia in town a few weeks ago concluded that the Russians have little interest and less incentive to withdraw. After their elections, the Russians suspended the withdrawal negotiations. Prior to this they were demanding extended leases on military bases as they continued to build a new radar facility on Latvian soil. These are not the signs of retreat.

Mitch McConnell

In the past year, I have expressed my concern about Russian domination of the new republics. Whether it is stalled talks in the Baltics or the periodic suspension of oil shipments to Ukraine amounting to economic terrorism, the pattern is ominous and from my perspective, stands unchallenged by the United States Government.

Mitch McConnell

Conceding Russian influence and control over the republics is inexcusable, but the administration has now taken the outrage one giant step forward. I believe we have essentially given Russia veto authority over our European policy over all of Europe.

Mitch McConnell

Although the Partnership for Peace was broadcast by the United States and Russian Governments as a major achievement, few in Europe privately agreed. Having pressed the case for formal admission to NATO, Lithuania, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic were flatly rejected. Having pleaded for acceptance and protection, these nations were left out in the cold.

Mitch McConnell

Let me read some of Lech Walesa's comments about the Partnership for Peace and the NATO summit. "You can't talk about partnership but of blackmail. There is no partnership in blackmail * * * Russia is putting pressure on NATO by setting conditions. What kind of partner exerts pressure? That's how I see it today and I am not happy about it because no one, neither NATO nor other western countries has anything to gain by it." After meeting with President Clinton and the other Visegrad leaders in Prague, Walesa offered a grim observation. "The world's big powers settled the matter. We'll try to make the best we can of it." Hardly a ringing endorsement.

Mitch McConnell

An envoy of Poland's government in exile during the war and one of the nation's leading commentators summed up the situation in Europe this way: "The greatest threat is that the lack of reaction to Moscow's imperialist rhetoric could be understood as silent approval or even encouragement." He want on to characterize the Partnership as appeasement of Russia -- as we all know, appeasement is a word loaded with volumes of history in Europe.

Mitch McConnell

Concerned about the Central Europeans' point of view at the hearing early this week, I asked Ambassador Talbott what these nations would have to do to guarantee admission to NATO.

Mitch McConnell

His answer: "Well, the President made clear in Brussels that the issue of actually expanding the membership of NATO Alliance per se will have to take into account a fairly wide range of issues which one can only speculate about now, but they will include the whole security picture in Europe and, indeed, Eurasia." I am not quite sure what that says, Mr. President.

Mitch McConnell

Well, we all know the President did not make clear in Brussels the exact terms for expanding NATO. He could not make clear the conditions because it would demonstrate beyond a shadow of any sinister doubt that we have accorded Russia veto authority over NATO's membership.

Mitch McConnell

Instead of a reluctance to draw lines, I view the Partnership as a reluctance to make a decision, an unwillingness to define U.S. interests apart from politics and personalities in Moscow.

Mitch McConnell

I had thought we had learned our lesson about yielding U.S. leadership and interests in the streets of Mogadishu.

Mitch McConnell

By refusing Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic admission to NATO we have capitulated to Russian interests and Russian pressure. We have bowed to the Russian desire to blur the lines between democracy and despots -- the line between freedom and fascism.

Mitch McConnell

I was struck by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's ever cogent analysis of the European scene which appeared a few weeks ago in the Los Angeles Times. He said, "A moderate Russian foreign policy will be impeded by turning a blind eye to the reappearance of Russian imperial pretensions. Russia's efforts at reform cannot exempt it from accepted principles of conducting foreign policy." I share his view that in allowing Russia veto authority over our European interests we may damage the very cause we hope to advance -- Russian political and economic reform. That is what we all want to see. Ambassador Talbott and the President take the view that drawing new lines, including the Visegrad democracies within the NATO circle of security will inflame nationalist elements in Russia. This could, in turn, complicate if not jeopardize the future of reform and reformers.

Mitch McConnell

But once again, I am cautioned by Mr. Kissinger who noted:

Mitch McConnell

Mr. President, left out in the cold, I fear the worst for the new democracies in Central Europe. Let us accept for one moment the prospect outlined yesterday in the Washington Post, that Ukraine is on the verge of economic implosion. Just for the subject of discussion, let us assume that Ukraine is on the verge of economic implosion. Although there are fierce advocates of independence in the western part of Ukraine, it is unclear how long the eastern part would or could withstand Russia's declared interests in reestablishing dominion. The Visegrad nations have repeatedly and publicly clear that an independent Ukraine is an essential buffer in maintaining geostrategic stability and security. Envision this, Mr. President. Faced with Russian predators, what is to stop the Central Europeans from forging a security coalition with the remnants of the Ukrainian Government shielded by Ukrainian nuclear weapons?

Mitch McConnell

A year ago it was unthinkable, but a year ago, the democracies of Europe believed they would be accepted into NATO with open arms.

Mitch McConnell

I offer this history, this overview to put my amendment in a context, to explain why I think the Partnership for Peace is inadequate to the task of preserving European stability and security.

Mitch McConnell

We all want Boris Yeltsin to succeed. That is not the issue. For myself, I worked hard to achieve passage of the foreign operations bill which provided $2.5 billion in aid to the New Independent States just last year. But, wanting Yeltsin and reforms to succeed should not mean we allow our agenda to fail.

Mitch McConnell

Leadership brings with it the responsibility to make decisions, to draw lines. Those lines should be based on principles, not the personality or politics of the moment.

Mitch McConnell

The Senate must speak with confidence -- we must assure our friends in Europe that as they meet specific standards -- when they share and advance the agenda of political and economic freedom, when they are willing and able to commit resources to our mutual defense, they will be welcome in NATO. There should be no doubt that if you share our agenda, you share our security blanket, as well.

Mitch McConnell

So, basically what I am suggesting here is that the Senate, through this sense-of-the-Senate resolution, indicate that it believes that countries in Central Europe which meet the standards applicable to any other NATO applicant be welcomed to that important organization. I hope the amendment will be adopted.

Mitch McConnell

For the moment, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

Mitch McConnell

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Feingold). Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mitch McConnell

Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mitch McConnell

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mitch McConnell

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

Mitch McConnell

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mitch McConnell

Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the second-degree amendment that I sent to the desk.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is not a sufficient second.

Mitch McConnell

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

Jesse Helms

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Jesse Helms

I call for regular order.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is amendment 1278 offered by the Senator from North Carolina.

Jesse Helms

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?

Jesse Helms

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

John F. Kerry

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

John F. Kerry

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be temporarily set aside.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

John F. Kerry

What we are intending to do at this time, I believe Senator Dole has an amendment and we would like to proceed forward with business on this bill while we work out some of the parliamentary situations surrounding the amendments currently before the Senate.

John F. Kerry

So if Senators have additional amendments at this time -- and it is my understanding that Senator Dole was prepared to come forward with an amendment on the Bosnia embargo. I think Senator Simpson wanted to speak momentarily.

John F. Kerry

Until they arrrive, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Bob Dole

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Bob Dole

Mr. President, I am going to send an amendment up momentarily on behalf of myself, Senators Lieberman, Lugar, Moynihan, Helms, D'Amato, Biden, and Feingold.

Bob Dole

I thought first I might explain the amendment, and I will not take a great deal of time. I know the managers are trying to get amendments out of the way, and I am very happy to cooperate. The majority leader would like to get a list of the amendments so we will know precisely what may be ahead.

Bob Dole

Mr. President, the siege of Sarajevo began on April 6, 1992, and since that time, the world has watched with horror as the citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina have been systematically terrorized, driven out of their homes, and murdered by the tens of thousands.

Bob Dole

The leaders of the international community have failed to respond adequately or effectively to this blatant and brutal act of aggression against a U.N. member state.

Bob Dole

Sanctions were imposed against Serbia in May 1992. But, by the summer of 1992 -- with about 65 percent of Bosnia under Serbian occupation -- it became clear that hard liner Slobodan Milosevic and Serbian-backed irregular forces would not respond to economic or diplomatic pressure by the United Nations and the European Community. How did the international community react to Serbian intransigence? By boldly moving forward with more resolutions, more speeches, and more diplomatic handwringing.

Bob Dole

Indeed, the only real U.N. Security Council action was undertaken by the clerks who typed and photocopied numerous pages of resolutions and reports. Sure, a NATO no-fly zone exists, safe havens have been established, and air strikes are a possibility, but only in theory, in U.N. and NATO documents.

Bob Dole

In the fall of 1993, when it became evident that these paper threats would fail to do the trick, the international community redefined the war in Bosnia as a civil war, turning a blind eye to Serb and Croat support of irregular forces, and to the presence of regular Yugoslav Army and Croatian Army units in Bosnia. For the past few months, the Europeans and United Nations, through their envoys, Lord Owen and Thorvald Stoltenberg, have been pressuring the Bosnians to surrender and sign a deal leading to a three-way division of Bosnia, leaving the Bosnian Government in control of about one-third of their original territory.

Bob Dole

Mr. President, let us face it, the Europeans never had the resolve to take on the second-rate forces directed by Belgrade. And, the United Nations lacked the will to use force even in limited ways -- to implement the so-called safe havens resolutions or to facilitate the delivery of food to starving Bosnians. The fact is that almost any thug with a gun can stop a U.N. convoy.

Bob Dole

But, putting the international community's lack of courage and principle aside, what is most egregious and indefensible is that the international community has maintained an arms embargo on the Bosnian Government. In effect, the world has said, "we will not defend you and we will not let you defend yourself. Your only option is to surrender." And so, the trigger-happy terrorists in the hills around Sarajevo can target a school, a hospital, or a playground and know with almost complete certainty that they need not fear any reprisals -- they can slaughter innocent children at play. If you watched TV over the weekend, you saw six children slaughtered in a playground and many others injured. They can do it without any consequence.

Bob Dole

I cannot forget the pictures shown this week on CNN of blood-soaked snow which only moments earlier had been the scene of children sledding. What if these had been pictures of Paris or London? Would the U.N. Security Council claim that the British and French do not have the right to defend themselves? Is the right to self-defense limited to the permanent members of the Security Council?

Bob Dole

I am deeply disappointed that both this administration and the previous one failed to assert the leadership necessary to move the international community toward policies that would let the Bosnians, at the very least, defend their families and their homes.

Bob Dole

President Clinton, when he was a candidate and through the early months of his Presidency, publicly supported the idea of lifting the arms embargo. Unfortunately, to date, President Clinton has not used the tremendous influence of his office to build support in favor of this option, but he still believes in it because I heard him say so myself.

Bob Dole

I do not think it is too late to do the right thing. I believe that in light of growing frustrations with the ineffective U.N. peacekeeping operation in Bosnia, another opportunity has presented itself to revisit the issue of lifting the arms embargo. Citizens in countries such as Canada which have sent troops to join UNPROFOR in Bosnia are becoming weary of a situation where their troops seem to be sitting ducks; public sentiment is growing to pull UNPROFOR forces out. You hear it almost every night on television.

Bob Dole

The administration is right to oppose the introduction of United States ground forces into Bosnia to impose a peace settlement as has been urged by the French. Bosnia is not a colony, it is a member state of the United Nations with rights under the U.N. Charter, including the right to self-defense. But, opposing bad ideas is not enough. The United States must assert leadership in support of a better course of action.

Bob Dole

Now is the time for the administration to push again for lifting the U.N. arms embargo. And, the first step should be the United States lifting its embargo on the Bosnian Government. By providing arms to the Bosnians we not only improve their ability to defend themselves, but enable them to protect and deliver critically needed humanitarian aid.

Bob Dole

Clearly, the President is focused on his domestic agenda, but lifting the U.S. embargo and pressing for the U.N. Security Council to do the same will not require a great deal of the President's time -- probably just a few phone calls to Prime Minister Major, President Mitterand, and of course, President Yeltsin -- who has been staunchly supported by President Clinton and the U.S. Congress -- to the tune of $2.5 billion this year alone. Indeed, such a move will be a big step toward the just resolution of this tragic war in a manner that does not involve a massive commitment of U.S. resources -- to include U.S. military personnel.

Bob Dole

Therefore, in the hope of urging the President toward this course of action, I am offering this amendment, together with Senators Lieberman, Lugar, Moynihan, Helms, D'Amato, Feingold, and Biden. It states that it is the sense of the Senate that the President should terminate the United States embargo against Bosnia, pursuant to article 51 of the U.N. Charter, and provide military assistance to the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina upon receipt of such a request.

Bob Dole

This amendment is essentially the same language that was passed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during its markup of the foreign aid authorization bill -- a modification of the bill I introduced last year, S. 1044. It is also similar to language passed last year in the House, based on the companion bill to S. 1044 introduced by Congressman Hyde.

Bob Dole

Mr. President, maybe this is not going to have any impact. We all have to be very careful about passing resolutions, handwringing, speeches, and things that really do not help.

Bob Dole

But it seems to me at least this sends a message and supports the President in a very ticklish situation, with the British and the French on the other side. It seems to me that many of us on the floor on both sides of the aisle and the President himself and the Vice President have been talking about lifting the arms embargo for a long, long time. We have not been able to persuade our allies. But, what is at stake here is not just Bosnia but the international order.

Bob Dole

So I hope we could at least send a signal and underscore the support in the U.S. Senate, bipartisan support for this sense-of-the-Senate resolution.

Bob Dole

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of the Republican leader's bipartisan measure, and I would like to echo his theme, which is to say that it is not too late. It is possible, I know, to have reached the contrary judgment. It is possible, that when CNN broadcast a mortar shell killing 6 children playing with sleds, that one just moved to another channel. It is possible, I suppose, to ignore the account in this morning's press that regular Serbian Army units are operating in Bosnia. It is possible to assume that nothing having been done, nothing will be done.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan

But I say, as Senator Dole has said: it is not too late. What is at issue is far too important to let go by. The resolution speaks to Article 51 of the United Nations Charter which guarantees the right of self-defense.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan

What we have allowed to happen so far is indefensible. We have suborned violations of international law. In the first instance by standing by while the Serbian Army invaded Bosnia. And then compounding that violation of the Charter by denying the Bosnian Government the means of self-defense. We have helped create a caricature of what the United Nations was meant to be.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Can we ever imagine that that Charter, which grew out of the invasion of nations around the world by Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, imperial Japan and by such like nations, would permit this? It says that the one absolute rule of international law is that armies will not cross borders, armies will not invade and partition other nations. The drafters of the Charter could not have imagined that we would first see an invasion occur and then place an embargo on the injured, the aggrieved party, the invaded nation. Denying it even that elemental residual right of Article 51 which says that if the international community will not maintain international law you can at least defend your own lives and land.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan

The Republican leader said that the invasion began April 1992. Mr. President, I was in Sarajevo in November 1992. I made my way in there. The Canadian Air Force took me in and the next day the British Air Force took me out. As hard as it was to believe what you saw already, the playing fields in the high schools, the soccer fields being turned into cemeteries, there being no room left in the regular cemetery.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan

As difficult as it was to believe that, it was surely not possible to believe that it would last through another winter and through that winter and on into another winter. Military men of great morale and endurance have been getting food in there. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, there were two persons directing the relief effort in the whole of Sarajevo when I was there, but they were feeding a city that had no food. Whatever came in by airlift or convoy one day, was eaten the next.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan

And yet, it has gone on another year. George Soros, a man of great stature who has made great endeavors on this subject, said something painful; rending. He said, "Sarajevo has become a concentration camp run by the United Nations." I spoke with the Deputy High Commissioner for Refugees in Geneva not long ago and I asked him about this. He said, we can indeed say it is a camp, a refugee camp of people, deprived of every means of existence, being maintained by others. And I say that is indefensible.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan

We will not forgive ourselves if, in the first large event of the post-cold-war era, we allow international law to be shredded, when we deny even the capacity of self-defense to a nation being torn apart by ethnic hatred and foreign invasion.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan

When I was in the region in November 1992, the city of Mostar was still there. That 16th century bridge, a world monument, was still there. It is all gone, destroyed by the Croatian side, which has joined in preying on the remains of the Moslem population and a Bosnian Government that cannot defend itself.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan

And it does not stop here. Will Macedonia be next? Will Albania be next? Will the violence in the Balkans spread? Will Serbia find that its huge northeastern region is in fact Hungarian? Will ethnonationalism, to use Walker Connor's term, spread across Europe, as indeed it is waiting to do? And will it have been invited to do because we have done nothing?

Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Senator Dole said the previous administration has done nothing, nor has the present. President Clinton has made clear his conviction that we should lift this embargo. I have heard it from him myself, as the Senator from Kansas said he had done. And it is time to do. It is time to say, "enough." And it is not too late. That is the proposition I would put. Despite all probabilities, Sarajevo is still alive. Despite enough horror to numb a population, to turn it into a passive and doomed community, that has not happened.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan

I would say to you that everything America has stood for in the international order for the last 50 years, from the time of Woodrow Wilson, is at issue here.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan

I have served as Ambassador to the United Nations. I have served as President of the Security Council. I could not have imagined in those days that we would let such an event as this take place.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan

I see the Republican leader has returned to the floor. I want to say, I am honored to be associated with this amendment. The honor of the Senate is at issue, the Senate that ratified the United Nations Charter which absolutely forbids the invasion of one country by another and absolutely guarantees the right of self-defense. Those matters are at issue. And to say once again, as Senator Dole has said, it is not too late.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan

I hope that we might vote on this amendment. I do not wish to interfere too much with the proceedings, but I would like to inquire of the distinguished manager, does he intend to have a vote on this?

Daniel Patrick Moynihan

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

John F. Kerry

Mr. President, I would say to the Senator from New York that we are just determining that now. I am a supporter of this. I voted for it in committee. I would like to say a few words about it in a moment.

John F. Kerry

I am prepared to accept it, but the issue is whether or not we want to have a rollcall vote.

Bob Dole

I am checking on this side. I think it is a very important issue. I am not certain that we would want to do it on a voice vote. But I will let the manager know very shortly.

Bob Dole

I did listen to all of what the Senator from New York had to say. I certainly appreciate it, because he was there and he probably understands it better than I.

Bob Dole

If the manager would permit me to send the amendment to the desk, because I failed to do that. And I want to add the distinguished Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold] and the distinguished Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin] as cosponsors.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Bob Dole

The distinguished Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden] is already a cosponsor.

Bob Dole

I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Bob Dole

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reid). Without objection it is so ordered.

John F. Kerry

Mr. President, I will just take a moment before my colleague from Wisconsin speaks. I would like to take a moment in support of the amendment and then defer to my colleagues.

John F. Kerry

There are some who will not like this, and maybe some in the administration who do not.

John F. Kerry

On my way back from China and Vietnam, I had 2 days of meetings in both Paris and London with the Defense Minister and those negotiating the question of Bosnia. I must say, I was struck by the decision that seems to have settled in in Europe that this is somehow something that they cannot really do anything about; that it does not necessarily represent a vital interest of any kind; and if it did amount to something, they would want to do something about it.

John F. Kerry

What strikes me even more about this situation is that we have joined in the United Nations in a resolution that has fundamentally created a disequilibrium and that has denied a State that we recognize and that the United Nations has accepted for membership, denies that State their own access to the capacity to defend themselves.

John F. Kerry

It is contrary not only to the charter of the United Nations itself, but I think it is contrary to any sense of fairness or common sense that someone might have.

John F. Kerry

We should note that the Bosnians appear on the battlefield at this point to be doing quite well and to have proven that even notwithstanding this embargo they know how to defend themselves and are prepared to do so.

John F. Kerry

Nevertheless, you cannot help but recognize that over the course of time the Serbs -- particularly supported from the outside over this entire period of time -- have had an extraordinary ability to work their will and to create a disequilibrium at the negotiating table, and in the process of trying to achieve a peace.

John F. Kerry

If it is to be that Europeans and Americans decide that they do not have a dog in this fight or that they do not have any interest worth our being involved -- and that may well be -- they at least should not leave it to others to fight it out in an unfair situation created by our own policy.

John F. Kerry

What we have done is restrain the ability of Moslems to address their own vital interests of national security and defense. And it has cost lives. There is no doubt about that.

John F. Kerry

So I think the Senator from Kansas is absolutely correct. It is not too late to at least redress that imbalance. And if it is to be that this is going to be resolved by the parties, then let them resolve it on the basis of the Charter of the United Nations, the right to defend oneself, and let them resolve it without the United States of America joining with other countries in denying the ability to fairly be able to do that.

John F. Kerry

That is not an ideal outcome. But nobody has suggested an outcome in this event that somehow is ideal and no one has suggested a way that anybody is willing to shed the blood. They are shedding the blood and they are doing it at remarkable disadvantage -- at a disadvantage placed on them by us.

John F. Kerry

That is not only unfair, it is absurd.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.

Russ Feingold

I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. I rise to join as an original cosponsor of this resolution. As I do it, I am both pleased to be a part of it, and also saddened. I am pleased because, if I have ever seen anything that is long overdue, it is taking this action, lifting the arms embargo. I am saddened because there really was no reason at all why this could not have been done a year ago.

Russ Feingold

I must say, the first resolution I ever introduced in the United States Senate was Senate Resolution 79 last March that called for lifting the arms embargo against Bosnia. At the time there did not seem to be much talk about that. There was a six-point plan the administration was talking about. There was a discussion of bombing. There was a discussion of sending 25,000 or 50,000 troops. People seemed unable to talk about just lifting the arms embargo in isolation, as if it was just a minor step, as if it would not do much good.

Russ Feingold

The sad commentary is because we failed to act, there has been an unbelievable amount of unnecessary suffering on the part of the people of Bosnia in the past year. Even at the time when we were commemorating the Warsaw Ghetto tragedy and the opening of the Holocaust Museum -- we all went to the ceremonies, the extremely moving ceremony in the Capitol Rotunda -- everyone made the statement: "Never again." This was, in Bosnia, similar to what had happened in the Warsaw Ghetto; that just a few people in the Warsaw Ghetto, with just a few arms could defend themselves for an unbelievable length of time. But still no action was taken.

Russ Feingold

I confess I was concerned that we should not act unilaterally, as this resolution has us do, because, after all, we had supported a Security Council resolution that called for this arms embargo to exist. As the Senator from New York pointed out, we created this situation. We put an arms embargo on all of the former Yugoslavia. The result was that the Serbians had all the arms, and the Bosnians had virtually none. And I was concerned that, somehow, it would be a breach of our commitment to the United Nations, and to the Security Council resolution if we voted to act unilaterally.

Russ Feingold

That is why I am fortunate to serve on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee with the Senator from New York. Because he came into that committee a few months ago and he pointed out that even though there may be a Security Council resolution calling for an arms embargo, there is a higher law within the United Nations Charter. That is Article 51, which says the right of self defense is paramount for all member nations. Bosnia became a member nation in April 1992.

Russ Feingold

That argument was persuasive to me, not only because it made sense but because it came from somebody who was president of the Security Council -- awfully well-qualified to talk about the legal position. In the Foreign Relations Committee we did vote to lift the arms embargo.

Russ Feingold

The President, as the Senator from Kansas pointed out, did indicate his support for lifting the arms embargo. He did seek that action but was blocked by some of our European partners in NATO, in particular, France and England. We were able to persuade them to allow us to drop the pallets of food and medicine but they blocked us from lifting the arms embargo.

Russ Feingold

One of the misunderstandings people have about this situation is that somehow we will help solve the problem by dropping a few bombs or by sending American troops in there. They refuse to acknowledge the basic fact. There actually are far more Bosnian Moslems than Bosnian Serbs and that many of them are ready to fight. They just do not have the arms. That is why it is so sad that we have let a year go by without providing them with the basic opportunity to defend themselves.

Russ Feingold

I think the most important thing that has been said on this issue so far has been said by the Senator from New York. To me it is really the first message of hope I have heard on this subject for many, many months; that is, that it is not too late.

Russ Feingold

I confess I started feeling, after a few months, that we were not getting anywhere on this issue. You look at Sarajevo, you look at the tragedies, and you figure, "What good will these arms do?" It is easy to buy into that kind of an argument. It is easy to become fatalistic about this situation. But the Senator from New York is right. It is a terrible mistake to say it is too late. It is a terrible mistake to stand back and say this one is just too complicated for us, let us not get involved.

Russ Feingold

The Senator from Massachusetts correctly points out that something has changed on the ground very recently in Bosnia. The Bosnian Moslems are making progress. They are making progress against some of the Serbian positions. And, it is even a little bit of a sad commentary -- they are making progress against the Croatian positions because, before this whole situation became completely messed up, there was some cooperation between the Croatian and Bosnian sides against the Serbians.

Russ Feingold

Why is that progress being made, though? Why, all of a sudden, are the Bosnian Moslems able to move forward? My reading of this and the information I have is they have, despite the embargo now, been able to obtain some arms. And the result has been dramatic. It has been a reversal on the ground.

Russ Feingold

Of course, what country is now crying out for a sudden peace settlement? What country is saying it is urgent? All of a sudden, France, the country that would not allow us to lift the arms embargo, is saying we have to stop this operation right away. Now that finally the Bosnians are gaining ground, now that finally they are able to move away from the humiliation of not being able to defend themselves because they are not even being given a gun to stand against an aggressor, they want action now.

Russ Feingold

I will be the first to say no side in this controversy is without blame. All sides have committed atrocities. And the arguments you hear about which side has committed the worst atrocity at the worst time is open. The fact is, only one side has been almost completely disarmed and that is the Bosnian Moslem side.

Russ Feingold

We were, a few minutes ago, beginning to debate the question of whether various countries should be admitted to NATO. That is a very important question. But what that question raises is not whether a country can defend itself, but whether we will commit our own troops and our own Armed Forces to defend another country?

Russ Feingold

Of course, Poland and the Czech Republic and other countries have a strong right to ask that question. And we need to respond. But what about Bosnia? They are not asking us to be a part of NATO. They are just asking us for the basic human right to defend themselves. And we hem and haw. And we fail to correct the error that we made by putting the arms embargo into effect.

Russ Feingold

I know there are others who want to speak but let me just conclude by reading a quote from Bosnia's Prime Minister, Haris Silajdzic. A few months ago this gentleman had some of the most important comments on this issue. He was not the Prime Minister then. He is now the Prime Minister. And he still has some of the strongest things to say about this issue. What Mr. Silajdzic says now is not that the Bosnians are desperately losing and need the arms, but that they are making progress and need the help. He says:

Russ Feingold

Mr. Silajdzic concludes by saying:

Russ Feingold

Mr. President, I wanted to commend the Republican leader, the Senator from New York, and the other sponsors of this for finally getting out to the floor of the Senate on this issue. This is something that should have been here a long time ago: The reversal of our egregious error in preventing the Bosnian Government from being able to defend itself. Thank you, Mr. President. I yield the floor.

Russ Feingold

Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.

Sander M. Levin

Mr. President, first let me commend the Republican leader for this amendment. It is a very important amendment. I believe it speaks the majority sentiment of this body -- maybe unanimous -- but surely the majority of this body that at least we should allow the Bosnians to defend themselves. It is one thing not to come to their assistance militarily as the capital, Sarajevo, is being pounded day after day, week after week, month after month, year after year. The siege goes on of a capital of a European country recognized by all of us, a member of the United Nations, a capital under siege being pounded by Serbian artillery.

Sander M. Levin

It is bad enough that the world does not come to the military aid of that country, but it is absolutely shameful that we will not let them defend themselves. I find that to be the totally unacceptable response to this tragic situation.

Sander M. Levin

We had a visit a couple months ago here in Washington by a newspaper publisher in Sarajevo, a newspaper called the Liberator. His name is Kemal Kurspahic. This brave man has published a paper for the last 2 years while that capital has been under siege. His staff is multiethnic. There are Moslems on his staff; there are Serbs on his staff; there are Croatians on his staff, day after day being able to get out a paper reflecting the diversity of that capital under those circumstances. They are living proof not just of the bravery of people in the newspaper business under extreme difficult conditions, they are living proof of the fact that Sarajevo is a multiethnic capital.

Sander M. Levin

This is not just a case of one ethnic group fighting and slaughtering another. This is a capital which is diverse. It is made up of people of all races and ethnic backgrounds that are together trying to hold off and stave off the end of their country. Surely -- surely -- in the name of human decency, at a minimum, we can permit them to defend themselves. Surely if this world is not yet strong enough and, in my book, wise enough to come to the defense of a country which is the subject of such obvious aggression, if we are not yet in a position to do that, morality, common sense, decency requires us to allow them to defend themselves. For us to tell them that we will not even permit them to defend themselves against this aggression, it seems to me, is nothing less than shameful.

Sander M. Levin

We have to end this embargo. I think we should do more, and I always felt we should do more, but we have been divided on that. I understand the complication of even air strikes. Although I favor them, I nonetheless understand the arguments against. But for the life of me, I do not understand how we can impose an embargo that affects but one of the three parties that are involved in this war. That, to me, is unacceptable. That is what would be ended if this resolution is adopted and the administration pursues the recommendation of this resolution.

Sander M. Levin

I am proud to be a cosponsor of the amendment of the Senator from Kansas. He has been a fighter in the effort to at least let the Bosnians defend themselves. The people of Sarajevo and the other cities inside Bosnia have that basic human right. It is supposed to have been guaranteed to them under the U.N. Charter at a minimum. For heaven's sake, let us allow them to fight for their own survival and their own freedom. I yield the floor.

Sander M. Levin

Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.

Joseph I. Lieberman

Mr. President, while the Senate has been out of session these past 2 months, we have witnessed the enormous power of nature and seen the death and disaster which can occur because of forces beyond the control of men. Each of us was touched in some way by the devastation of the earthquake in California or by the unrelenting bitter cold and ice of the winter storms which have struck the Midwest and East. I have great sympathy for all of our citizens who suffered from these natural disasters and I hope that we will be expeditious in our consideration of relief measures particularly for the California earthquake victims.

Joseph I. Lieberman

But, Mr. President, these events pale in comparison to the death and destruction we have seen in these past years, months and even days, brought about not by the hand of God, but by the destructive and purposeful evil of one man's hand turned against another. Who among us was not heartsickened and outraged by the report from Sarajevo this weekend of the deaths of Jasmina and Indira Brkovic, Nermin Rizvanovic, Merza Dedovic, Admir Subasic, and another whose name I do not know? Were these soldiers who died fighting on a battlefield in what was once the civilized land of Yugoslavia? Were this true, we might be saddened at the continued loss of life and perplexed by the inability of the world community to end this senseless slaughter. But these were not soldiers. They were not even adults. These were children: Jasmina was 5, Merza was 8, Admir was 9, Indira was 11, and Nermin was the eldest at 12. What was the crime that these children were guilty of? What was it that brought them to their deaths before any of them even reached their teenage years? They were sledding in the fresh fallen snow outside their apartment building in Sarajevo. They were sledding when four mortar shells -- perhaps from the Serbian artillery which overlooks Sarajevo and often fires into residential areas of that once beautiful city -- landed in their midst.

Joseph I. Lieberman

I have a daughter who is the same age as some of these children. She and I took advantage of the fallen snow in Connecticut during the congressional recess and played together, of course without fear. Why should mothers and fathers in Sarajevo, or anywhere in the former Yugoslavia, have to worry that if their children play in the snow, they could be blown to bits by shrapnel from a well-aimed or totally unaimed mortar round?

Joseph I. Lieberman

I have spoken on the war in Bosnia before in this Chamber, but never have I been more outraged than I am today. This is not the time for more hand-wringing and finger-pointing. Now is the time for America to act like the great and moral power that we are. We must stop making empty threats which only seem to amuse the criminals who authorize these shellings; we must act to end the slaughter. No more children can be allowed to lose their lives in Sarajevo while the world stands idly by. In the name of all that is decent and right let us act now to end the murder of innocents.

Joseph I. Lieberman

But how do we do that? What is there that we can do after so much blood has been shed to restore a modicum of sanity and humanity to this devastated land? A few weeks ago, I joined Senator DeConcini, former Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci, Ambassadors Max Kampelman and Jeane Kirkpatrick, Representatives Susan Molinari and Frank McCloskey, former Carter administration official Hodding Carter, and Morton Abramowitz, Lane Kirkland, and Aryeh Neier in calling on President Clinton to lead NATO in resolving the unfinished business of peace in the Balkans. The proposals we made were entitled "Bosnia First" for they attempt to restore a meaningful division of responsibility for Bosnia and the Balkans. Based on the fundamental principles of the Atlantic Charter, the United Nations Charter, and the Helsinki Final Act, "Bosnia First" calls for NATO to focus its considerable resources on saving civilian lives by ensuring that humanitarian relief is actually delivered, stopping war crimes, and preventing a wider Balkan war. It also asserts the right and demands the restoration of the ability of the Bosnian people to defend themselves.

Joseph I. Lieberman

Our proposals do not call for the deployment of United States troops to Bosnia. But we do call for the United States and the world community to stand up for what is right and to exercise the same moral courage which our soldiers would show if they were ordered to Bosnia. First, the United States should invoke the United Nations Genocide Convention and support the International War Crimes Tribunal. Those who authorize the use of artillery against civilians and those who aim and fire such artillery as they did again this weekend merit condemnation as criminals. The International War Crimes Tribunal is the right first step to bring these people to international justice. Second, we call for the end of the arms embargo against Bosnia. We can no longer assert that the killing will end while one side has no legitimate access to the means of their own defense. Third, we must provide the legitimate Government of Bosnia the means to deliver humanitarian supplies and vital services to its own people. It is time to recognize that the U.N. effort to deliver humanitarian supplies is insufficient. Too little of the aid destined for the suffering in Bosnia actually gets to those for whom it was intended. The United Nations forces which are on the ground in Bosnia are too few in number, too lightly armed, and too restricted by their rules of engagement to effectively deliver aid when faced with hostile forces trying to prevent these deliveries or, worse, to divert them from their intended destinations. In assisting the Bosnian Government, air forces of willing NATO member states, including the United States, should be used as necessary to protect convey routes and aid corridors, to break roadblocks and sieges, and to prevent interference with the U.N.-Bosnian transfer of responsibility for delivery assistance.

Joseph I. Lieberman

Mr. President, we must at long last stand up to those who kill children in Sarajevo, who would commit genocide in Bosnia, and who ignore the cries of the civilized world for an end to this madness. It is time for us to say "Enough!" I ask my colleagues to join me today in telling the President of Serbia: "Mr. Milosevic, stop the slaughter!" If Milosevic turns a deaf ear to us as he has done in the past, then the leaders of the United Nations and NATO must act decisively and expeditiously to do it for him.

Joseph I. Lieberman

In summary, Mr. President, the State Department authorization bill, which the Senate is currently considering, has become every year that I have been in the Senate not just an authorization bill for the State Department, but an opportunity for Members of the Senate to speak out in various ways on pressing foreign policy problems and issues. I must say in that regard that it would have been irresponsible of the Members of this Chamber not to use this occasion to make some statement of concern, of anger, and hopefully of action in regard to what is happening in the former Yugoslavia. That is why I am grateful to the Senate Republican leader, the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole], for initiating this amendment and why I am proud to be one of the original cosponsors of the amendment.

Joseph I. Lieberman

Mr. President, this Senator has spoken out in the past on the floor of the Senate about what has been happening in Bosnia -- about the war in Bosnia. The situation there continues to be, not just in gross geopolitical terms but in direct palpable human terms, one of the most painful and perplexing experiences that has occurred in the world since I have come of age.

Joseph I. Lieberman

I cannot help but view it as a continuing and terrible failure of diplomacy and statecraft, and a failure of will, a failure of the civilized world to take action to stop the aggression, to stop what has been a genocide against the people because of their religion -- namely, that they are Moslems -- to stop the slaughter of innocent human beings. There are those who say that this is too complicated a situation for us to enter in any meaningful way. It is, of course, a complicated situation, but our failure to enter it at least within the terms of this amendment, which is to give the Bosnian Moslems the right to defend themselves, would, in my opinion, not only be irresponsible but immoral. It would at this moment in history, as the cold war ends and the former organizing principals of the world fall by the wayside, be an invitation to further extreme violence among ethnic groups in what was the Soviet Union.

Joseph I. Lieberman

Mr. President, there are those who say what is happening in Bosnia is just a continuation of centuries of ethnic conflict. But as the Senator from Michigan, who has spoken before me, has said, the conflicts may have come and gone over the years but the memory of many in the modern period has been of what was recently Bosnia as a multicultural society in which the various groups actually lived quite well together.

Joseph I. Lieberman

Perhaps one of the most painful and yet graphically illustrative tragedies in Bosnia in recent times was the picture of that elderly woman lying dead in the streets of Sarajevo, three people walking by almost looking casually at her body because the appearance of corpses in the streets of Sarajevo and other Bosnian cities is commonplace.

Joseph I. Lieberman

Then the story that followed: This was a Serbian woman who lived in Sarajevo and who had gone to try to pass a message to a granddaughter over the line, beyond this predominantly Moslem city of Sarajevo. She was hit by Serbian fire. All the complexity, all the irony, all the futility of the conflict and all the inaccuracy of the claim that this is just a continuation of centuries old violence seen in the tragic death of this Serbian woman falling at the hands of Serbian fire in the city of Sarajevo.

Joseph I. Lieberman

Mr. President, on every occasion of this awful story, when the United States or the Western World has seemed to be ready to act with force to stop the Serbian aggression, to stop the ethnic cleansing, the Serbs have hesitated, have pulled back, have begun to cooperate and yet, on every occasion, when the Western World -- or the United States, in particular -- has backed down from that forceful action, the Serbian aggression has begun again and the Moslems have been the major victims of that lack of will in the world community to press forward in some minimal way to come to their aid to allow them to negotiate a more reasonable end to this conflict.

Joseph I. Lieberman

Mr. President, a few weeks ago I was privileged to join with a bipartisan group, including our colleague, Dennis DeConcini; former Secretary of Defense during the Reagan administration, Frank Carlucci; Ambassadors Max Kampelman and Jeane Kirkpatrick; Congresswoman Susan Molinari; Congressman Frank McCloskey; Hodding Carter and Morton Abramowitz, Lane Kirkland, and Aryeh Neier in a group called Action Council for Peace in the Balkans, which called on President Clinton to lead NATO in resolving the unfinished business of peace in that troubled region of Europe.

Joseph I. Lieberman

The proposals we made were entitled "Bosnia First," for they attempt to restore a meaningful division of responsibility for Bosnia and the Balkans. Based on the fundamental principles of the Atlantic Charter, the United Nations Charter, and the Helsinki Final Act, "Bosnia First" calls on NATO to focus its considerable resources on saving civilian lives by ensuring that humanitarian relief is actually delivered, stopping war crimes, and preventing a wider Balkan war. It also asserts -- and I say that particularly in support of this amendment which the distinguished Senate Republican leader has taken the leadership in introducing -- the right and it demands the restoration of the ability of the Bosnian people to defend themselves.

Joseph I. Lieberman

The proposals of this group went well beyond that right of self- defense to asking the United States to invoke the United Nations Genocide Commission and support the International War Crimes Tribunal, to actually involve air forces of willing NATO member states including the United States, as necessary, to protect convoy routes and aid corridors, to break roadblocks and sieges, and to prevent interference with the United Nations-Bosnia transfer of responsibility for delivering assistance.

Joseph I. Lieberman

But today with this amendment we have the opportunity to fulfill a minimal moral obligation and not only an opportunity to carry out a strategic responsibility, which is to try to bring an end to a conflict in Europe before it spreads wider and involves Europe and perhaps the rest of us in fighting that we will regret. Twice in this century we have turned our back on conflicts in Europe only to be drawn in later at a much larger price in blood and resources.

Joseph I. Lieberman

Mr. President, this amendment recognizes the right of self-defense of the people of Bosnia under article 51 of the U.N. Charter. It asks and urges the President to terminate the United States embargo on the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina upon receipt from that Government of a request for assistance in exercising its right of self-defense under article 51 of the U.N. Charter. It encourages the President to provide appropriate military assistance to the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina upon receipt from that Government of a request for such assistance; namely, in the form of arms.

Joseph I. Lieberman

Mr. President, once again we have an opportunity to do something meaningful, to do more than wring our hands and look at the dreadful stories of this weekend -- as the Senate Republican leader remarked, this terrible story of these five or six children playing in the snow, sleigh riding, in Sarajevo, killed by mortar shells. This is an opportunity to do something that can affect the balance of military action and the imbalance in moral action in the former Yugoslavia.

Joseph I. Lieberman

I thank the Senate Republican leader for taking the lead on this. Again, I am proud to be a cosponsor. I hope that we will have a rollcall vote on this because it seems to me we have spoken on other amendments here by way of rollcall. This is so pressing and profound an issue that I hate it to go by with just silent assent. I think we all ought to stand up and vote and send this message to our administration and also, send a small message of hope to the people in Bosnia.

Joseph I. Lieberman

I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.

Joseph I. Lieberman

Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas, the minority leader.

Bob Dole

I send a modification of the amendment to the desk. I said in my statement it was a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, and that does not appear in the appropriate place in the amendment, so I send a modification to the desk.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to modify his own amendment, and the amendment is so modified.

The modification is as follows:

Bob Dole

Mr. President, could I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

There appears to be a sufficient second.

Bob Dole

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lieberman). If the Senator will withhold, the Chair recognizes the Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid].

Bob Dole

I withhold.

Harry Reid

I thank the Chair. I also extend my congratulations to the Republican leader for offering this amendment.

Harry Reid

Mr. President, about a year ago, the Democrats had a retreat in Virginia. At the retreat there was a long debate on what should be done in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The discussion included whether there should be bombings, led by American planes. That discussion ended by saying perhaps, maybe. The discussion of sending American troops was a resounding no, and the discussion on arms for Bosnia was also a no.

Harry Reid

Now, during the past 10 or 11 months, I have stood by the belief that the United States should not be involved in exporting arms to other countries. We should in fact try to help other countries through other means. Economic aid certainly is appropriate in many instances. But rarely have I believed that there is a need for the United States to export arms to another country.

Harry Reid

In fact, I can remember very clearly appearing before a large group of Pakistani physicians. There are about 3,000 or more of them in the United States. Under some very intense questioning I stated to those assembled physicians that I did not believe it was appropriate to send arms to the people in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Harry Reid

Now, during the period of time that has transpired since the debate, the discussion in Virginia at the Democratic conference, a lot has taken place. About 70 percent of the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina has been overrun by the Serbs. There is rarely a day goes by that we do not see depicted on television, and in the newspapers, the terrible tragedies that are taking place there.

Harry Reid

Mr. President, even I have had enough. Even I can take no more. I think the time has come, where one of those rare opportunities has presented itself to this Congress that we have to say to the rest of the world that we, the most powerful nation in the world, are not going to send troops to Bosnia and Herzegovina. I do not personally believe that we should do bombing, but should we not at least allow those people to have some type of weapons to defend themselves?

Harry Reid

I say again, Mr. President, even I, who rarely believes we should export arms, believe the time has come we should do away with all of the niceties and do what the United Nations articles call for.

Harry Reid

Article 51 of the United Nations Charter says that a country has an inherent right of self-defense. This does not mean that we are saying that Bosnia is going to overrun Europe. We are saying that these men and women and children should be defended. By whom? By the Bosnians and Herzegovinans, by the Moslems who are in control of that part of the world, what little part remains to them, the 30 percent of their previous country.

Harry Reid

So I say that the United States should provide appropriate military assistance to the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina upon receipt from them, which I am sure will come very quickly, of a request for assistance to exercise their right for self-defense. The time has come. We can wait no longer.

Jesse Helms

Mr. President, I am advised that Senator Lugar is on the way to the Chamber and wishes to speak on the amendment. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

Joe Biden

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Joe Biden

Mr. President, is time under control of anyone?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time control at this time.

Joe Biden

Mr. President, I will not take much time. I rise in support of and as a cosponsor of the Dole amendment on Bosnia.

Joe Biden

Mr. President, I expect this body might be tired of hearing me speak so many times on this issue.

Joe Biden

Mr. President, the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, and genuinely an expert on foreign policy, no one knows more about its impact on international events and domestic events in other countries than the Senator from New York, chairman of the Finance Committee, who has already spoken. And he asked a number of questions: Does this mean the war will spread? He asked four questions. I will presumptuously answer them all. The answer is yes, yes, yes, yes.

Joe Biden

There is nothing good that comes from our continued inaction and paralysis, nothing good for the United States, nothing good for world peace.

Joe Biden

I stood on this floor about a year ago, asking for the embargo to be lifted. I stood on this floor 8 months ago, 6 months ago, 4 months ago, asking for the embargo to be lifted.

Joe Biden

I also might tell you very bluntly that I think we should also be using air power. I think we should have been using it a year ago, a year and a half ago. And each time I heard the same argument that I am hearing today when I hear arguments against this proposition; too late, does not work, beyond our control. That was wrong then, wrong 18 months ago, wrong 12 months ago, wrong 8 months ago, wrong 6 months ago, wrong 4 months ago, and is wrong now.

Joe Biden

Mr. President, last April, after traveling to Bosnia, to Sarajevo, to Tuzla, to Croatia, to Serbia, I submitted a report to the Foreign Relations Committee in which I called on the administration to seek the lifting of the arms embargo and to use military power against Serbian military targets.

Joe Biden

What was said then was true then. What was predicted then has occurred now. And what has not occurred, yet that is predicted in this report, I will bet my political career on, will occur.

Joe Biden

Our failure as a nation to exert leadership over the Western alliance, to deal with the situation in Bosnia has resulted in an exacerbation of the crisis and has undermined the identity and the rationale for NATO, has diminished the possibility of prospects for the United Nations taking on a new role in a new world order to bring about a change in world politics for the next two decades, if not the next two generations.

Joe Biden

All we are asking here is for a simple, simple proposition. How in God's name can we argue against lifting the embargo? For God's sake. We put the embargo on in the name of diminishing bloodshed. Do I need to make the point any more than to submit for the Record the total number of casualties that have occurred in Bosnia and Herzegovina since we put the embargo on? What in the devil could have happened more? Perversely, the British and French have argued that if we lift the embargo we are going to perpetuate the bloodshed. They are idiots. And we are acting collectively as a free world like cowards.

Joe Biden

We stood on the floor 18 months ago, I said in this report several months ago, and a lot of times in between, and said Yugoslav forces are fighting in Bosnia, sent across the Drina River by Milosevic, against the Bosnian Government.

Joe Biden

At one point Milosevic even acknowledged that he was doing it when the United States put pressure on that they might lift and strike -- lift the embargo and use air strikes. He even went so far as to say he would allow international observers to stand on every bridge along the Drina River to check cargo going across, whether or not fuel, ammunition, or troops were being sent. Everybody said this is progress. The man wants peace. The moment after we withdrew the pressure, he withdrew the offer.

Joe Biden

This guy is a thug, a war criminal. What is going on is an atrocity that rivals, not in its scope, but rivals in its intensity the atrocities that took place in Central Europe in the 1930's.

Joe Biden

Mr. President, it is truly a shame what we are allowing to happen. It is absolutely an outrage. I remember standing on this floor over the last year arguing with my good friends, particularly on the Republican side, about the use of air power. They said it would not be wise and it could not be used. Then they said it does have efficacy. It can work to knock out the heavy artillery sitting up in the mountains around Sarajevo, where in the summer the Serbs, irregulars and regulars, sip their wine, eat their cheese, and drop in one big Howitzer shell after another, randomly firing at populations of children, elderly, women, hospitals, drinking fountains, and water resource centers.

Joe Biden

I stood there in the streets of Sarajevo in a flak jacket and a helmet being told to walk out of the way because 3 days earlier, at the water distribution center, 17 women and children had been blown to bits by a shell, and it had only just begun.

Joe Biden

(Mr. LIEBERMAN assumed the chair.)

Joe Biden

I feel so strongly about this issue and, to tell you the truth, some of my political advisers tell me not to speak to it, because I say things they say will be imprudent about us as a nation, about our allies, and about the legacy we are going to leave for my son's and daughter's generation. Mark my words. I will not be around here, so it is easy to say it because I will be gone.

Joe Biden

Twenty years from now, they will be debating on the floor of the Senate about a similar situation occurring, and they will ask the same question that John Kerry's and Joe Biden's generation asked of our fathers' generation: How could guys like Vandenberg and others have stood on the floor of the Senate in the thirties, knowing what was going on in Central Europe, and have done nothing? How could they do that? They will teach it in school, just like they taught our generation, just like these young pages learn in their history books about world war.

Joe Biden

Everybody who looks at that era today is incredulous about how could we have not known? How could we have not acted? How could it have been? It is so clear. I never understood it until this issue came up. I now understand it. The American people, back then, did not want to be involved unless you could paint for them a scenario where there was no cost, period, no cost. And no Senator, or sufficient group of Senators, or Congresspersons, wanted to stand up and talk to the American people about the fact that Americans would lose their lives.

Joe Biden

You young pages know about this in your history books. Had we acted when Hitler began to mobilize and started flying those glider airplanes and practicing back in 1934, 1935, and 1936, had we acted when he did, we would have been able to save the world. The truth is, had we acted then, Americans would have died. Granted, probably one one-hundredth as many, or one one-thousandth would have died as in World War II. Had we acted then, Frenchmen would have died, Englishmen would have died. People would have been killed -- a small number -- stopping Hitler in the 1930's.

Joe Biden

When it became clear to the people who knew better in the world that Hitler was running concentration camps in the late thirties, we could have stopped it. There still would have been maybe 800,000 Jews that had died. There would have been Americans that would have died in larger numbers than would have occurred in 1934 had we acted. But they would have died. Had we acted 2 years ago on this issue, it is possible a couple of Americans, literally a handful, may have died, which is an important thing; I do not take it lightly. Had we acted a year ago, maybe two dozen Americans would have died. If we act now -- and the Senate is not even asking what I am asking. Were we to act, more than a handful will die. It is a harder problem, more intractable now.

Joe Biden

But I want to tell you that I believe with every fiber in my being that if we do not at least let what is left of the Bosnian Government, which admittedly now is almost all Moslem -- and, by the way, when I stood on the floor a year ago with the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Massachusetts, it really was a multiethnic government. The Bosnian army was made up of about 18 percent Bosnian Croats. It was made up of about 22 percent Serbian, if I am not mistaken -- Bosnians of Serbian extraction -- and the rest were Moslem. It really was a multiethnic government and army. It is not now. People say, you know, everybody is an equal malfeasor over there.

Joe Biden

I try to explain to people, and I am going to say it here for the record, that the Vance-Owen peace plan was an atrocity for a simple reason: We sent this signal to every ethnic group in Bosnia and the surrounding areas: Here is what we are going to do, folks. We, the world, are going to carve up this nation into ethnic enclaves, and the way we know that is going to end up -- whether this piece of real estate is Serbian and this piece of real estate is Moslem, and this piece of real estate is Croatian -- depends on -- it is like musical chairs, where you are standing when the music stops is what you control.

Joe Biden

The reason I bother to point that out is, you know why the Serbs and Croats and Moslems started going after one another 8 months ago in earnest? Because they knew the world was walking away. They have been moved out. All the Croats were moved out of this area by the Serbs, but you had Moslems that filtered into that area. At some point along the way, the world is going to stop the music here. And they knew if we do not have a place in which to stand, it is going to be given to whoever is standing there. So as a Croat in Bosnia, it is easier to move out a Moslem than it is a Serb, because the Serbs are being backed up by the Yugoslav Army, funded by, equipped by the Serbian Government.

Joe Biden

So you had Serbs in Bosnia, former allies of the Moslems in Bosnia moving the Moslems. They turned against the Croats. For what reason? They knew that nothing is left for them, and the one force that is the perpetrator of the problem -- the Serbs -- was too big to move. Then guess what happened? Everybody, including me, underestimated the absolute tenacity of the Bosnian forces and the Bosnian people in Sarajevo and other cities, after the merciless pounding they had suffered. The only analogy I can think of is what happened to the Brits during the blitz. They got tougher during the blitz. They did not crack. They got fortified. Guess what happened then? Now the Moslems, unequipped, ill- equipped, with the whole world letting them go, they are starting to make some gains.

Joe Biden

Guess what happens then? There used to be a song when I was a kid with the refrain and it said, "And then along came Jones." The Moslems, with sticks and single-shot rifles, come along and they started to beat these Serbs. They start to make gains. Guess what happens? In comes the Serbian army again. Read the headlines in the paper. Milosevic crosses the Drina again.

Joe Biden

What do we do? We keep the embargo on. Why do we keep the embargo on? Well, we keep the embargo on because we do not want to offend our European allies. I say to our European allies, so what? So what?

Joe Biden

What the devil use is NATO? And I have been an absolute ardent, consistent, vehement supporter of NATO for its military as well as its political and economic reasons for 21 years in the United States Senate. But if it cannot affect the carnage in the middle of Europe, what do we need it for? The Russians?

Joe Biden

So the answer, we do not want to offend our NATO allies, I say the hell with them. I said that before. They got angry with it. I say it again. What is the other rationale for not lifting the embargo? We will spread the carnage.

Joe Biden

As the foreign minister of Bosnia said to me, a guy named Silajdzic, now the prime minister, I asked a bunch of Senators to come in 8 months ago when I tried to convince some of you -- I did not have to convince my friend from Arizona because he convinced me -- convince others to change their view on what we should do. One of my colleagues came in the conference room. There were 10 or 12 of us. I think the Senator from Arizona was there. Silajdzic was there. One of them said: If we lift the embargo, you will start getting sophisticated weapons and other things. First of all, you do not know how to use them. Silajdzic pointed out there has been universal conscripts in that area of the country for the last 20 years. It did not seem anybody knew.

Joe Biden

By the way, you notice even our military guys are saying these guys are pretty good. They know how to use the equipment.

Joe Biden

The Senator then said: "If in fact we lift the embargo, we are just going to cause more people to be killed." I will never forget Silajdzic's answer to that particular Senator. He looked that Senator square in the eye, and he said: "Senator, my children, my family, literally and figuratively in a national sense is being killed and maimed now. At least give me the dignity to choose to die the way I want to die. And, Senator, even if you are right, I would rather die fighting than die sitting." Let us let them die their own way, if we do not have the courage to help them live. Let them choose. Who are we to sit here and say, oh, my God, we are not going to let you have weapons, even though the other side has weapons, because if you have weapons more people will die. It is a bizarre argument that has an incredible, to me, resonance in this town and in the capitals of Europe.

Joe Biden

I promised myself I would not let myself get upset about this because I know what is going to happen here. So let me stop and conclude with the sentence saying we are all going to be judged by this. You will not be judged now. Your constituency will like it better probably if you vote against Dole, Biden, DeConcini, and others who share this view or who have shared this view for a long time. They will like you better because they are going to be less involved.

Joe Biden

So, this is not a tough political vote. You are not going to pay any political price. And even if you vote for this you are not going to pay much of a political price because we are not going to have the courage to really do anything in the end, probably. But I will make you a bet. I will make you a bet. Four years, 6 years, 8 years, 10 years down the road, if we cross paths outside this body, and you are honest, you will acknowledge this is a vote you regretted.

Joe Biden

Now, that is easy for me to say because of my position. And I thought I had the President convinced when I came back and wrote this report. I went down to the White House, gave it to him. I sat with him and with the Secretary of State. He came out and called for a policy of lift and strike which I proposed in this legislation. I thought I had actually, one of the few times in my career in the Senate, actually affected events. The truth of the matter is if he stuck with what I and others proposed, maybe it would be worse for the United States of America. Who knows? I may be wrong.

Joe Biden

It is easy for me to sit here and say what I just said. But I will promise you 10 years from now if we continue to do nothing and you were part of not putting pressure on the administration to do something at least to lift the embargo, it will be a vote that the pages sitting on that step 10 years from now will question. You will not go down to them and say, "You know, 10 years ago when I was a junior Senator, or a younger Senator, I cast a vote on this floor against lifting the embargo in a place called Bosnia." They will look at you and say: "You mean that place where the larger war broke out back there when all those people died and were killed?" Let us at least have the decency to paraphrase the foreign minister of Bosnia. Let them choose the way they want to die. At least let them have that right. Let us lift the embargo.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Moseley-Braun). The Senator from Arizona.

Madam President, I am glad to yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.

Dennis DeConcini

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

John F. Kerry

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator from Arizona speaks for a period of 5 minutes or 7 minutes -- --

Dennis DeConcini

I will not be long.

John F. Kerry

For a period not to exceed 7 minutes.

Dennis DeConcini

Do not limit me. I guarantee the Senator I will not be long.

John F. Kerry

How long does the Senator from Washington want to speak to this amendment?

Slade Gorton

I wish to speak, but only briefly.

John F. Kerry

Does the Senator have a time limit? We would like to try to get an agreement if we can.

Slade Gorton

This Senator will not speak for longer than 5 minutes.

John F. Kerry

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that after the Senator from Arizona has spoken and the Senator from Washington has spoken, we proceed immediately to a vote on the amendment of Senator Dole with no intervening business and no second-degree amendment allowed.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.

Dennis DeConcini

Madam President, let me assure the Senator from Massachusetts I am not going to speak 5 or 7 minutes. I did not want to be restricted.

Dennis DeConcini

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as an original cosponsor of the pending amendment by the Senator from Kansas.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Dennis DeConcini

Madam President, the Senator from Delaware has been a leading advocate of lifting the embargo and taking demonstrative military action. He has been out there in front on this issue for more than a year since the beginning of this conflict some 2\1/2\ years ago.

Dennis DeConcini

I have joined him. I have been to Bosnia, to Sarajevo, Macedonia, to Kosovo, to Croatia, to Yugoslavia, to the surrounding countries four times now, and all I can say is, it is a tragedy what is happening and something that the United States and the people here, as the Senator from Delaware has so articulated, will regret as history goes along for not taking some action.

Dennis DeConcini

I do not blame anybody, per se, except the fact that the people of this country have not really seen it. When I say that they see bits and pieces of it, they read a story in the Washington Post or perhaps the Arizona Republic, of a family that lost its home, all of the three generations of the family, and they hear some reports on national broadcasting networks, indicating the severity of the problem, the tragedy, the blood, the deaths, and they hear statements now and then from political leaders of various countries, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia and hear Vance-Owen, and wonder what that is, and see the United States make an earnest attempt but failed.

Dennis DeConcini

I have to say I think we could do more. I am not saying that we could convince our allies, but I wish we would have the courage to devote our time to both the President, the Secretary of State, and other members of the Cabinet as well as Members in this body, to go to our allies as we do when we need something like NAFTA; go to the allies in our country and other countries to explain it to them to get their support; go to the political leaders in this country to get their support.

Dennis DeConcini

Truly, what has happened there is genocide in the first order, something that no one is going to question who has followed it at all or reads about it. It is always the qualm that is put before us, the dilemma, that some say do we want to involve American forces, whether it is on the air, on the land or the sea?

Dennis DeConcini

Do Americans want to fight a war that is between ethnic groups, religious groups, within the former Yugoslovia? Well, the answer is no, we do not want to fight a war.

Dennis DeConcini

But if you understand and if you know what is happening there, like we did not want to fight the war in the Second World War, I truly believe the American public will come forward.

Dennis DeConcini

That has not happened. And I am not here naive enough to think the fine speech the Senator from Delaware has made and others on the subject matter that that is going to change. I do not think it is.

Dennis DeConcini

So we are confronted here with kind of a lukewarm, leftover soup, I guess you would say. Sometimes that can be very healthy. If you are sick and your mother makes it for you or some loved one makes it for you, you feel pretty good, even if it is leftover or canned soup. And I say that in no criticism of the Senator from Kansas who offers this amendment, because he, too, has been out there forcefully advocating military action.

Dennis DeConcini

He has asked the Senate, he has asked this body, to stand up and say the arms embargo should be lifted. It is a sense of the Senate. It is not binding. It does not unilaterally commit the United States or NATO or the EC or the United Nations to a military action. It does not require the United States to do anything.

Dennis DeConcini

So I make reference to it as somewhat warmed over only because to me it is all we have. It is all we have before us that could at least demonstrate, hopefully, the majority and the will of this body that, yes, the people of this country, through their elected representatives, are willing to let the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina defend themselves.

Dennis DeConcini

Under article 51 of the United Nations, of which Bosnia and Herzegovina are members equal to any other member of that body, as members of the United Nations they have the right to protect themselves. And how the United States can support an arms embargo that prohibits them, as the Senator from Delaware pointed out better than I can, to at least die with dignity, if that is their choice, is beyond me.

Dennis DeConcini

I am saddened, and I somewhat put it out of my mind time and time again because I just cannot believe that this great Nation of ours that has stood for human rights, that has stood up -- this administration is standing up now with courage toward North Korea -- that has demonstrated our ability to go after Saddam Hussein when he invaded another country, that has peacekeepers almost all over the world, that we have not shrunk into an isolation mentality here -- although some will support that I suppose -- that we have not taken a forceful, demanding position in the United Nations and internationally to lift the arms embargo that prevents the Bosnian people from defending themselves.

Dennis DeConcini

There is no explanation. There is no explanation. I think any American needs can be satisfied.

Dennis DeConcini

The argument that this is going to involve us in some kind of a land war is not true. The argument, as the Senator from Delaware pointed out, that Foreign Minister Silajdzic answered the Senator about being able to use equipment and defend themselves does not hold any water. The argument that, well, the embargo is also against Serbia, we know so clearly how that has been violated, how the arms of Serbian soldiers that are being deployed within the Bosnian territory today, along with the Serbs from Bosnia that are fighting against the Bosnia and Herzegovina Moslems, are equipped with some current, modernized equipment that has come into that country since the arms embargo. That is no secret. That is not classified information. It has been reported. As well as the armament and the staff that is there left over when Serbia, or Yugoslovia at the time, was an ally of the Soviet Union.

Dennis DeConcini

Madam President, the least we can do tonight is support this in a bipartisan way. This is no slap, no affront to this administration. It is no political upsmanship.

Dennis DeConcini

I understand this body as well as anyone. I know we all have our political objectives and duties and responsibilities and obligations as we see fit. This is not that. I know the Senator from Kansas can be as partisan and political as anybody in this body. But he is here because of his long belief under a previous administration before this administration that the arms embargo should be lifted, that stronger action should be taken.

Dennis DeConcini

I am hopeful that this body would vote to lift that embargo and do it tonight. At least I would sleep better. Even though it is not near enough to really resolve the problem, at least I would feel that we have met some responsibility toward the murder, the genocide that is going on in Bosnia and Herzegovina this very moment. At this very moment, I daresay, there are people dying and there are people dying who do not have armaments, do not have the capability to shoot back.

Dennis DeConcini

This amendment, if it did pass, might be the momentum, the beginning of the momentum that would reverse the U.S. policy in the United Nations, and maybe the United Nations. That may be wishful thinking.

Dennis DeConcini

But without some action from this deliberative body indicating that the time has come to let those people defend themselves, I do not think there is any hope for them. They will be destroyed. There will be literally no Bosnia and Herzegovina except what is forced on them against their will. There will be a division contrary to the U.N. principles and articles, contrary to the Helsinki Commission, which Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina have all signed, that recognizes that there is a violation of human rights by the incursion of any one sovereignty. And there is no question that that has already occurred there. And I guess there is no question that that is ultimately going to occur if peace is ever made. The Bosnia that we knew before this conflict is not going to be the same Bosnia.

Dennis DeConcini

But, again, I can only say that we have some responsibility to let these people defend themselves. I am truly hopeful that this body will have the courage to stand up and say so.

Dennis DeConcini

I thank the Chair.

Dennis DeConcini

Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.

Slade Gorton

Madam President, in 1776, when this Nation declared its independence, Great Britain attempted to enforce an arms embargo against our newly declared Independent States. Fortunately, France and a number of other European countries refused to abide by that embargo. And it may well be that that was a key to our success in securing our independence.

Slade Gorton

From 1776, almost until 1990, the United States has believed that distinct nations, recognized nations, fighting against external aggression, attempting to secure their independence, deserved our aid not our interference with that fight for independence.

Slade Gorton

As recently as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan we provided literally billions of dollars worth of aid to people expressing ideas with which we did not agree, and do not agree today, except for their desire to be free and to be independent.

Slade Gorton

Yet, almost from the time that the United Nations recognized Bosnia, we have accepted the notion that its citizens were not entitled to fight for their own independence with arms secured, not just from the United States, but from anyplace in the world, and have adhered to what I consider to be an immoral resolution of the United Nations, superficially evenhanded but on the ground overwhelmingly favorable to Serbian aggressors, prohibiting any kind of arms aid to an originally almost defenseless and certainly victimized people.

Slade Gorton

That arms embargo was wrong when it was imposed. It was wrong when it was enforced by President Bush. It was wrong when President Clinton changed his own views on it after being sworn in as President and continued it. And it is wrong today.

Slade Gorton

I do not believe that at any point in this conflict we should have risked the lives of American men and women in uniform, even in the worthy cause of Bosnian independence. It is not an area vital to the security of the United States. And, clearly, no proposal including the now almost laughable threats of bombing seemed likely to be decisive in gaining any worthy goal.

Slade Gorton

But it is perhaps just because a great majority of Americans and the U.S. believe we should not intervene in this conflict ourselves, that the arms embargo represents such bad policy, that it approaches and surpasses the boundary between pure policy and immorality. The arms embargo, Madam President, is wrong. It is immoral. It penalizes the victims and benefits the aggressors. Its removal is every bit as likely to cause those aggressors to make peace as it is to increase the bloodshed. So the arms embargo on top of everything else is impractical and significantly contributes to the deaths which occur daily.

Slade Gorton

I am more than pleased that we have had so many eloquent speeches from both sides of the political dividing line, from liberals and conservatives, on behalf of at least being neutral but primarily being encouraging of the independence of the small country, far away, which is something we once were, and is the cause for most of our history.

Slade Gorton

Let us return to our own origins and remove this arms embargo.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

John F. Kerry

Madam President, I believe under the prior agreement we will proceed directly to a vote now.

Orrin G. Hatch

Mr. President, I originally denounced the U.N. arms embargo in an op-ed article published in October 1991. I have returned to this issue in print, in speeches, and in statements time and time again. I want to join my colleagues in supporting the Dole amendment today.

Orrin G. Hatch

I would go farther than this resolution. I would also support the lifting of the embargo against Croatia and the use of limited air strikes against the Serbian positions in Bosnia. It is time to act.

Orrin G. Hatch

Mr. President, the horror of the human suffering in Bosnia is matched only by the horror of the increasing complicity of Europe in Serbia's genocidal aggression in Bosnia. Instead of following Europe's lead, the United States must compel Europe to adopt President Clinton's March 1993 proposals to lift the U.N.-imposed arms embargo.

Orrin G. Hatch

During the last 2 months, the spectacle of Western disarray in the face of the total defiance of Serbia's leaders calls into question our ability to manage European affairs. During the NATO summit this month, NATO leaders stuck their heads in the sand while Serbia shoved more shells into artillery guns pounding Sarajevo and other Bosnian cities.

Orrin G. Hatch

Mr. President, NATO's purported goal at the summit was to define its post-cold-war role. But the future of the alliance will be defined not by artful communiques. Instead, its relevance will be determined by whether its policies and actions address the leading European security issues in this new era.

Orrin G. Hatch

Front and center among those issues is Bosnia. In that conflict, NATO has been sleepwalking its way through history. If its policies remain unchanged, the United States and its allies not only will lose credibility as security partners for the still vulnerable states of the former Soviet bloc but also will embolden aggressors in Europe and elsewhere.

Orrin G. Hatch

Last December, President Clinton rightly distanced the United States from the European proposals to lift the sanctions against Serbia if Bosnian Serbs put another meaningless signature on an unenforceable peace agreement. It was bad enough that the European Community has persistently opposed stronger actions in Bosnia. Its gambit to throw away the sanctions -- our only real leverage against Serbia -- was the last straw. Compared to Europe's mediators, Neville Chamberlain is starting to look good by comparison.

Orrin G. Hatch

Mr. President, Western leaders have declared that Serbian ethnic cleansing is unacceptable and that sending Western ground forces to impose peace is also unacceptable. To prevent genocide without sending combat troops, the indispensable first step is the lifting of the U.N. arms embargo that has denied the victims of Serbian aggression the weapons with which to defend themselves.

Orrin G. Hatch

President Clinton reached that conclusion last spring but backed down against European objections. With the rejection by Serbian leaders of any suggested compromise, the White House ought to seize the moment presented by Europe's failure to resurrect its proposals. By seeking to raise Bosnia at the NATO summit, the Europeans themselves appear to concede that their approach has reached a dead end.

Orrin G. Hatch

To be sure, the setting is more difficult now. The Croatian and Moslem communities, which represented 65 percent of the prewar population, have been forced into a third of Bosnia's prewar territory, resulting in sometimes brutal conflicts between the two former allies. Extremists in the Croatian and Moslem camps have both gained strength as a result of the cycle of escalating violence.

Orrin G. Hatch

But if the arms embargo were partially lifted, the United States could use the leverage of arms supplies to broker a deal between the Croatians and Moslems. Initial supplies should be made contingent on the removal of extremists and fundamentalists from positions of power in each group and the demobilization of units implicated in atrocities. Continuing arms supplies should then be linked to sustained military and political cooperation and respect for human rights.

Orrin G. Hatch

For almost 2 years, the Serbians have used threats to attack U.N. peacekeepers to blackmail the West. But that specter is exaggerated. Access by land would already be possible to most Croatian and Moslem areas if these two groups restore their alliance. With adequate arms, Croatian and Moslem forces could open up corridors to many besieged cities and enclaves, while others could receive supplies by air drops and by smuggling through Serbian-held areas.

Orrin G. Hatch

The West has made a fatal mistake in overestimating the capabilities of the Serbian forces in Bosnia. Serbian successes so far are attributable not to the size or strength of their forces but to the weakness of their opponents, who have greater numbers but who have been deprived of needed defensive weapons. In Slovenia and Croatia, Serbian aggression ground to a halt when its adversaries demonstrated the will and the means to resist. The same would be true in Bosnia.

Orrin G. Hatch

Those who decry any involvement in Bosnia overlook one fact: Through the arms embargo, the West is already intervening in the war -- but on the wrong side. Serbia and its clients in Bosnia inherited the arms industry of the former Yugoslavia, a major exporter of equipment and ammunition, and suffer no detriment from the arms embargo. As President Clinton recognized last spring, simple justice requires that the United Nations allow Bosnia the means to defend itself.

Orrin G. Hatch

Mr. President, the crisis in Bosnia will not disappear. Just as the United States supported the Afghan resistance for more than 10 years until Moscow withdrew its occupation armies, the West can achieve its objectives in Bosnia without the loss of a single American or European life. It may be too late to prevent massive deaths among Moslem and Croatian civilians in Bosnia this winter. But if we act now, there's still time to turn the tide of the war in the spring and avoid their annihilation.

Paul Wellstone

I want to indicate my reasons for supporting this expression of the view of the Senate on the provision of arms to the Bosnian Moslems. For many months, I opposed providing arms to the Moslems out of concern that it would just exacerbate the bloodshed. But now, after returning from a sobering -- even at times heartbreaking -- trip to the former Yugoslavia, I believe we must send a strong signal of our willingness to at least allow the Bosnian Moslems to defend themselves. This amendment does that.

Paul Wellstone

For months, the administration has pressed our Western allies unsuccessfully to provide arms to the Bosnian Moslems. But if the international community is unwilling to act, and is unwilling to intervene militarily to protect humanitarian convoys, then the time has come for the administration to provide these arms to the Bosnian Moslems.

Paul Wellstone

The debate today has made clear that military assistance as used in this amendment is limited to the provision of appropriate arms that would allow the Bosnian Moslems to defend themselves in accordance with its right of self-defense under article 51 of the U.N. Charter. It does not urge, nor would it authorize, the dispatch of U.S. military advisers or other troops to the region. Even in the face of the continuing horrible tragedy there, that would be a serious mistake.

Paul Wellstone

If we are to become more engaged in the conflict there, either in the air or on the ground, we must clearly define in law the goals and purposes of any military action, the rules of engagement, the respective roles of U.S. and U.N. forces, and the plan for disengagement of Western forces there.

Paul Wellstone

For many months I have believed that the United States and other western nations should take forceful action, under NATO auspices, against those who have been blocking humanitarian assistance to the Moslems. That has not yet taken place, to my deep regret and to the shame of those of us in the West who have watched the tragedy unfold. And today we read in the New York Times that Serbian regular army troops are on the march, presumably to engage in preemptive strikes against Bosnian Moslems forces in Eastern Bosnia. In response, we must send a strong political and diplomatic signal of our willingness to take more forceful steps than we have thus far. This amendment is designed to do that.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the yeas and nays have been ordered. The question is on agreeing to Amendment 1281.

The clerk will call the roll.

I announce that the Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus] and the Senator from Washington [Mr. Murray] are necessarily absent.

Alan Simpson

I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Kassebaum] and the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Pressler] are necessarily absent.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber who desire to vote?

John F. Kerry

Dennis DeConcini

Dennis DeConcini

Mr. KERRY and Mr. DeCONCINI addressed the Chair.

Dennis DeConcini

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

John F. Kerry

I notice colleagues are asking what the order of business is going to be and whether or not we can go home, and so forth.

John F. Kerry

I do not know if it is any consolation, if you believe me or the weatherman less. But apparently they say it is going to warm up later and it is safer driving later. I do not know if that is believable.

John F. Kerry

Madam President, we are trying to get the narrow list down at this point in time, Senator Helms I know has hotlined on his side. We have hotlined on our side. We have an outside chance of finishing tonight. We will not finish tonight if a couple of contentious amendments that we have heard are out there are going to be brought to the floor.

John F. Kerry

There are a number of individuals who have held places on the list with relevant amendments. We do not know what the amendments are at this point in time. If you do have an amendment and you are in fact planning to bring it, it would help us enormously in terms of planning and scheduling if you could come to the appropriate manager at this time and give us the subject matter of the relevancy, and the time that you believe your amendment might take if indeed it is going to be one that we can accept. That will enable us obviously to be able to inform everybody about where we are going.

John F. Kerry

The majority leader, however, has said that he wants to continue working at this point in time. We do have an amendment on Partnership for Peace and NATO which will require, I believe, a vote depending on the outcome of the discussion between Senator McConnell and Senator Levin at this moment in time.

John F. Kerry

Pending that, we could continue at this time if the Senator wants to do so.

John F. Kerry

Mr. DeCONCINI addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.

Dennis DeConcini

Madam President, I have an amendment which I believe is cleared, and I ask unanimous consent that the pending Helms amendment be set aside.

Dennis DeConcini

Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.

Jesse Helms

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

Jesse Helms

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. DeCONCINI addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.

Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Arizona? Without objection, it is so ordered.

Dennis DeConcini

I thank the Senators from North Carolina and Massachusetts. I also thank the majority leader. He has cleared this amendment.

John F. Kerry

Madam President, may we have order, please?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be order in the Senate.

The Senator from Arizona has the floor.

Dennis DeConcini

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

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

Dennis DeConcini

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Dennis DeConcini

Madam President, this amendment evolves from a recent trip when I traveled to Europe with the Secret Service in advancing President Clinton's trip to Europe to participate in the NATO conference and meet with President Havel of Czechoslovakia and other leaders. I went to only two of these advanced countries to see what, in fact, was involved in the Secret Service's protection for going and coming and preparing for the President's visit.

Dennis DeConcini

I chair the appropriations subcommittee which funds the Secret Service. And as many of the Members of this body have witnessed, the President's protection provided by the Secret Service is very sophisticated, and rightfully so. It is very manpower-intensive, and it is very costly.

Dennis DeConcini

Like other Members, I do want to get a handle on the needs of these costs, and we have done so in the appropriations process.

Madam President, it is awfully hard to understand when the Chair asks the colleagues to respect another Senator when he is making a statement, and they continue to do the same thing. I would hope that the Chair would not allow the Senator from Arizona to speak until the Chamber is in order.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point is well taken.

The Senator from Arizona.

Dennis DeConcini

Madam President, I thank my friend from Kentucky. I will not be long.

Dennis DeConcini

Madam President, over the recess, I traveled with the Secret Service on President Clinton's trip to Europe to participate in the NATO conference and meet with President Havel of Czechoslovakia. I chair the appropriations subcommittee which funds the Secret Service. As many of the Members of this body have witnessed, the Presidential protection provided by the Secret Service is very sophisticated, manpower intensive, and costly. Like other Members, I do want to get a handle on the needs and the costs to find out if the Service is overdoing the protection or if it is in fact justified. Hence, the purpose of my trip was to review the Secret Service operations for international travel of the President. This particular Presidential trip was unique in that President Clinton made stops and visits in several different countries and the Service had to leap-frog equipment, agents, and technicians from one country to another to prepare for the next stop. During the course of the trip, I questioned the Secret Service on the large number of Presidential protection personnel, what their specific responsibilities were, why they needed so many, the costs and the use of sophisticated investigative and surveillance equipment, and overtime costs. I talked to the representatives of several of these governments, et cetera. Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, accompanied President Clinton on the trip for many of the meetings. In Brussels I was struck by the number of security details, vehicles, armored limos, and equipment being used by the Diplomatic Security Service for the Secretary's protection, particularly since the Secret Service presence for the President was very substantial. There did not appear to be any coordination between the State Department and the Secret Service with respect to security. In fact, you would see the President's motorcade departing the hotel at one moment and the Secretary's arriving a few minutes later. I noticed that the license plates on the State Department vehicles were from the District of Columbia and assumed that the vehicles, including the armored limo were transported by C-5 transport specifically for the Secretary's visit.

Dennis DeConcini

I believe the costs for security by the State Department should be properly scrutinized to ensure that the security level is commensurate with existing threat levels and assessments and that there is no duplication of effort by the State Department at sites where secure zones have already been established by the Secret Service. I am not here on the floor today to criticize the performance of the security detail nor am I concluding that from this one trip that the State Department security was unnecessary or excessive. Madam President, I recognize the terrorism around the world targeted at American officials is still very much a threat. I am not making a case here that this security for our Secretary of State is not warranted or needed. I am not here asking to list or limit the security provided for the Secretary of State. What I am concerned about, however, is the costs of all of this protection. We are dealing with a State Department authorization bill here today and I believe it is legitimate to expect the State Department to provide detailed justification information on an annual basis to the Congress on the specific costs of protecting the Secretary of State.

Dennis DeConcini

Madam President, I yield the floor.

John F. Kerry

Madam President, the Senator from Arizona has raised an important concern about accountability. We share the concern. And in view of the agreement with respect to the classified aspects of this, we have agreed, I believe, to proceed forward. We are prepared to accept this amendment.

Bob Dole

There is no objection on this side.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1283.

John F. Kerry

Bob Dole

Bob Dole

Madam President, I believe the pending business is the Helms amendment, is that correct?

John F. Kerry

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is -- --

John F. Kerry

I believe we left it when the regular order was requested some time ago. We have subsequently, temporarily, set aside the combination of the Helms amendment and the McConnell amendments. The primary and preceding amendment is the Helms amendment to be followed subsequently by the two McConnell amendments. The first amendment is a perfecting amendment; is that correct?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending business is amendment No. 1278 offered by the Senator from North Carolina.

John F. Kerry

I believe the yeas and nays have already been requested on that amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.

John F. Kerry

We are prepared to vote, I believe.

Bob Dole

Will the manager permit me to offer an amendment related to disability, which has been agreed to on both sides?

John F. Kerry

Yes.

Bob Dole

I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set aside.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Bob Dole

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

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

Bob Dole

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Bob Dole

Very briefly, this amendment would authorize disability related educational and cultural exchange programs for USIA.

Bob Dole

Madam President, I want to thank the bill managers for accepting my amendment, which I offer on behalf of myself and Senators Hatfield, Kennedy, Harkin, Helms, and Murkowski, that gives the U.S. Information Agency [USIA] specific authority to address disability issues in its educational and cultural exchange programs, and, most important to increase participation by people with disabilities in these programs. I know this is a matter of considerable interest to many other Members of Congress as well. For example, in its report on fiscal year 1994 USIA funding, the House Committee on Appropriations requested the Director of USIA to place more emphasis on programs which include the disabled.

Bob Dole

Madam President, this amendment is important because it reaffirms America's growing commitment to be a global leader in ensuring the full participation of people with disabilities worldwide. I recall the first time I spoke before the Senate on an international disability issue. In August 1970, I made a short floor statement introducing the newly designated sign of a wheelchair as the international symbol of accessibility.

Bob Dole

In the 24 years since, we have gone way beyond symbols. In 1990, the Congress passed the Americans With Disabilities Act, in which we determined unequivocally to base our national disability policy on the principles of equal opportunity and full participation. And last July, to extend these principles to American foreign policy, I introduced with strong bipartisan support, the Disability Rights in American Foreign Policy Act (S. 1256), which recognized for the first time that discrimination against the disabled is a human rights violation.

Bob Dole

But there can be no more powerful way of advancing these principles than by example. This is where USIA's exchange programs come in. By sending Americans abroad, and bringing international visitors to the United States, we show rather than simply preach. And I can think of no better ambassadors of America's commitment to disabled people than its own citizens with disabilities.

Bob Dole

Today, USIA does conduct some disability-related exchanges, and I commend USIA's staff for their initiative in this regard. However, I hope that this amendment will give USIA the charter it needs to systematically expand its exchanges in all domains -- including public policy, architectural and environmental design, rehabilitation science, assistive technology, the arts, and in sports.

Bob Dole

In the area of sports, for example, the Special Olympics International is a fine organization, and is currently organizing a major soccer exhibition with representatives from 24 countries to celebrate World Cup '94. And in 1995 the World Special Olympics Games will be held in New Haven. USIA support could importantly assist these efforts.

Bob Dole

My amendment also asks for a report in 6 months on the steps USIA has taken to implement this new provision, and an annual report thereafter on disability-related exchanges. I look forward to carefully reviewing both reports.

Bob Dole

In closing, I would like to thank Elizabeth Lambird and Steven Berry of the Committee on Foreign Relations for their assistance to my staff in preparing this amendment.

John F. Kerry

I thank the distinguished minority leader. Indeed, this is acceptable. There is no need nor further debate.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1284.

Bob Dole

John F. Kerry

John F. Kerry

Madam President, we have now worked out the two amendments of the Senator from Kentucky that were pending. I want to thank the Senator from Kentucky for his willingness to do that. It will save the Senate a certain go-around on Senator Helms' amendment. That means that after the Senator has asked for a modification on his amendment we will have two rollcall votes lined up.

John F. Kerry

John F. Kerry

In fairness to everybody, so we are not going back and forth, we are prepared to stack those and try to proceed further with amendments to see what else may need a vote. And then we can set a time for them sometime a little later in the evening.

William Cohen

Madam President, if the Senator will yield, until what time does the Senator intend to stack votes this evening?

John F. Kerry

At the moment the majority leader is very anxious to get this bill into a position where we know where we are going to finish, and at this point in time we are making good progress. We are now narrowing down on both sides the scope of the available amendments with the hope of propounding unanimous-consent requests that will allow us to know what the final list is. I would say it is now only 6:10 p.m. I think we have several hours of work ahead of us.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.

Bob Dole

Madam President, I respectfully disagree. The weather is getting bad outside. A lot of offices shut down about 3 o'clock. I am prepared to stay here for a while.

Bob Dole

We are trying to get a list together in an effort to accommodate the majority leader. We are now making a hotline. I hope we can go ahead and have the votes. By that time we will have the list. Once we get everybody named in the net, then we get something we can work with. There is a chance we might be able to complete that within the next 30 minutes. We got the hotline out, I might say to the managers.

John F. Kerry

Let me just say, Madam President, I am not willing to ever disagree with the Republican leader's judgment about what they can get done on that side in a short span of time, especially when the weather is bad and people want to go home.

John F. Kerry

I am delighted to work with that list, and I am happy to help that process to proceed with a vote at this time. I see no reason to not do it.

Jesse Helms

Let us go ahead and do it.

John F. Kerry

I see the Senator from Kentucky wishes to say a few words and modify his amendment, so we can do that.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.

Mitch McConnell

Madam President, what is the pending business?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is amendment No. 1278 offered by the Senator from North Carolina.

Mitch McConnell

Madam President, I ask that the pending amendment be temporarily laid aside and that amendment No. 1279, the second-degree amendment to amendment No. 1280, be the pending business.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mitch McConnell

Madam President, I send to the desk on behalf of myself, Senator Levin, Senator Simon, Senator Gorton, Senator Mack, Senator McCain, Senator Cohen, and Senator Brown, a modification of that amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator wish to withdraw his second- degree amendment?

Mitch McConnell

Does the Senator have to withdraw the second-degree amendment in order to modify it? It is my understanding that I can modify my own amendment. Is that not correct?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.

Without objection, the amendment is so modified.

Mitch McConnell

Madam President, the distinguished Senator from Michigan and I have been discussing, along with the Senator from Washington, Senator Gorton, the issue of expansion of NATO membership.

Mitch McConnell

I had offered an amendment earlier indicating my feeling that former Warsaw Pact countries, NIS countries, and others ought to have an opportunity with a reasonable timetable to aspire to NATO membership.

Mitch McConnell

We have been involved in negotiations of just what kind of language might be appropriate, and I believe we have now come up with a bipartisan approach to this most important issue which I believe will provide some hope to those countries previously dominated by the Soviet Union that they may at some point in the future be candidates for admission to NATO. I believe the way the amendment is crafted should not in any way be offensive to the Russians, which I know has been a concern of the administration.

Mitch McConnell

I particularly commend Senator Levin, Senator Gorton, and Senator Brown, who have been doing work in this area as well, for their interest in this most important issue.

Mitch McConnell

We have in this country an awful lot of Americans whose roots go back to Central Europe, who follow Central Europe, and the former Soviet States who have a great deal of concern about this issue.

Mitch McConnell

There is a good deal of nervousness in the former Warsaw Pact and in these other countries that there may not ever be a day in which they could aspire to membership in NATO. I think by the passage of this compromise amendment tonight, hopefully we will be sending them a message that we do believe that their admission to NATO at some point, in my view not too far down the road for some of them, is a good idea.

Mitch McConnell

Further, let me say -- and I am not sure all my Democratic colleagues agree with this -- that I do not think the administration is on the right track. This amendment does not seek to slap their wrist, but I do not think they are on the right track in allowing Boris Yeltsin to make our foreign policy for us in that area of the world.

Mitch McConnell

This amendment did not slap the wrist of the administration, but I want to say that I hope that this recent flirtation, if you will, with allowing our foreign policy in large portions of Europe to be largely determined by Russian wishes is something that will fade out in the coming months.

Mitch McConnell

So, Madam President, I am going to ask for a rollcall vote on this amendment at some point. I do think we have come up with a constructive bipartisan approach to the issue.

Mitch McConnell

I again thank Senator Levin for his leadership on this most important issue.

Mitch McConnell

Maybe this would be a good time, Madam President, to ask for the yeas and nays, and I so ask for the yeas and nays.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?

There is a sufficient second.

Mitch McConnell

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.

Sander M. Levin

Madam President, this amendment as modified serves a number of purposes. First of all, it pays a very important acknowledgement to the Partnership for Peace which has been worked out by the President, our allies, and so many others in the recent summit.

Sander M. Levin

I believe that Partnership for Peace was a very useful step toward a number of goals. One is the admission of a number of countries that seek admission to NATO after certain conditions have been met and to do it in a way which does not isolate Russia or draw a new line in Europe which could leave a lot of nations on the other side of the line.

Sander M. Levin

We have to accomplish both of those simultaneously as we proceed. We want nations to become ready to join NATO and have proven that capability to expand NATO. That is important. That is an obligation which seems to be both for our own security and history that we do that. We have a moral commitment to nations that have been too long under the Soviet yoke, but we also have an obligation to our own security.

Sander M. Levin

Partnership for Peace accomplishes both the opening of the door to NATO membership and doing it in a way which does not isolate Russia, because if we did that, we would play right into the hands of the ultraright in Russia that would want us to do exactly that so they could prove to their people that somehow or other we are threatening, which, of course, we are not.

Sander M. Levin

This amendment, as modified, now acknowledges that the Partnership for Peace -- and here I am reading -- "is a positive step towards maintaining and furthering the security of Europe and ourselves," and it is a step that gives the nations of the East time to prepare for membership in NATO.

Sander M. Levin

It also did something else, and that is in its two key paragraphs. It says that it is the sense of the Senate that European nations which demonstrate both the capability and willingness to support collective defense requirements and established democratic practices including free, fair elections, civilian control of military institutions, respect for territorial integrity, and the individual liberties of its citizens, those nations share the goals of NATO; and, two, the United States should urge prompt admission to NATO for those nations after they have demonstrated such capability and willingness as has been set forth in that first paragraph.

Sander M. Levin

I commend my friend from Kentucky for his work on this subject. Particularly, I want to thank Senator Simon of Illinois who has worked so hard on this subject, who had a different draft which we worked with as we proceeded here. I do not know that Senator Simon is on the floor at the moment, but I know he will want to be here to speak on this subject because he feels so strongly, as do many Members of this body, about opening NATO to European nations that have for too long been under the Soviet yoke.

Sander M. Levin

But I think we have worked out a compromise here which meets a number of goals that I have outlined. It does, again, do something very important, which is to have this body acknowledge that the partnership for peace was indeed an important, positive step towards maintaining both European security and American interests. And with those changes, I not only can support this amendment, but I am proud to be a cosponsor of it.

Sander M. Levin

As I have indicated, Senator Simon, who has done so much work on this and who helped to craft this compromise, has played an absolutely critical role in bringing the importance of prompt membership of Eastern Europe to the attention of the Senate. And he is now on the floor.

Sander M. Levin

Mr. COHEN addressed the Chair.

Sander M. Levin

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.

William Cohen

Madam President, I rise this evening to commend my colleague from Kentucky for having offered this amendment. I agree with him in his suggestion, not that he is imposing a slap on the wrist of the administration, but rather than that the administration missed an opportunity during President Clinton's travels to Europe and to Russia to lay out to Boris Yeltsin exactly what the United States will seek to do with respect to the European nations once under the roof -- some would say clearly within the prison -- of the Soviet Union.

William Cohen

I think it is important that we send a signal to the Russian military and to other Russian leaders who are emerging, who would seem to be taking that country back toward a rather dictatorial or imperialistic path, that the United States is going to support the opening up of NATO as far as its membership is concerned to those European nations who qualify, who measure up to the standards that we insist be met by NATO members; that they agree to subordinate their militaries to civil control; that they promote democratic values and reforms; that they, in fact, have protection for minorities within their countries. All the standards we would impose upon members of NATO today, we would ask them to measure up to, as well. And if they do so, then they will be invited to join into NATO itself.

William Cohen

I think it is important to say that up front and let the Russian military and leadership know that that is going to come about not tomorrow, not perhaps next year, but certainly by the end of the century -- and we are only talking about 5 or 6 years -- and during that period of time we expect several of the major European nations to become members of NATO. So I think we have to be clear about that.

William Cohen

And, yes, the Russians will object to it and, yes, they may stomp and puff up their chests and say this is unacceptable. But, remember, Mr. Gorbachev, when he was President, also opposed admission of a United Germany into NATO and we insisted that a United Germany would remain a part of NATO. And we could structure our military system as such and deploy our forces in a way that would not pose any sort of an imminent threat to Russia or to the other Soviet, former Soviet Republics.

William Cohen

I think we have to do the same here. We have to say Poland or Hungary or the Czech Republic or others who measure up to these standards will, in fact, be admitted.

William Cohen

It is a chance for us to signal to the European nations that we have not abandoned their struggle for freedom. It is also an opportunity for us in these intervening 5 or 6 years to send a signal to the American people as to whether or not the American people are prepared to commit U.S. forces to defend those particular nations should they ever be threatened.

William Cohen

Frankly, we have a lot of educating to do. We have a lot of educating to do. Our own hesitancy in becoming involved in the conflict in Bosnia today, I think, is symptomatic of a problem that we in the western world have to face up to as to whether or not we are willing to commit American forces into any region for any purpose that is short of threatening directly U.S. territory or vital interests. And that is something that we have yet to come to terms with.

William Cohen

We have debated what to do in Bosnia. We have made threats. We have talked about air strikes. We have today gone on record as being in favor of lifting arms embargoes. We have yet to define exactly what the role of the United States and NATO is to be in the forthcoming years.

William Cohen

And so we need an opportunity, as well, to define exactly what NATO is going to be. The question is perennially asked: Whither NATO, or shall NATO wither? We have yet to answer that question satisfactorily. So I think that we have a opportunity here tonight.

William Cohen

I wish to again commend Senator McConnell from Kentucky and Senator Levin from Michigan for working out this compromise language, along with Senator Simon and others. I think it is very important we go on record in favor of this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it.

William Cohen

Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.

William Cohen

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.

Madam President, carved over the library entrance at the University of Colorado are words that say "Who knows only his own generation remains always a child." Perhaps it is a different way to express the hope that we will learn from history.

If this amendment passes -- and I feel sure that it will pass -- there are surely those in our country whose hearts are in their throats. It does not take much of a jog of memory for Americans to recall the heartbreaking events of Polish history. It is fair and reasonable to observe that the events, the tragic events, of 1939, where Poland was dismembered both by Hitler and Stalin, where the Polish people were enslaved and murdered and tortured, took place, at least in part, because the aggressors did not feel that anyone would come to the aid of Poland.

Put a different way, a portion of the tragedy -- not all, by any means, but a portion of the tragedy -- of World War II and the loss of millions of lives in that war came about partly because people were unsure that Poland's democracy would be defended. No American -- no American -- wants that to be repeated.

The tragedy was compounded after the war when the United States intervened and asked the leaders of the Polish resistance to surrender to Soviet forces so that the United States and U.S.S.R. could negotiate a truce. We, in effect, led them to believe we would help guarantee their safety. Everyone remembers the tragedy that occurred when the Soviet forces put those valiant defenders of Poland's freedom on trial, then into prison or to death. Meanwhile, the United States having asked the brave Poles to surrender to the Soviets would not then even require its representative to attend the trials by the Soviets.

Surely, with the passage of a half a century, no American can want the Polish people to face the tragedy of aggression again.

Poland qualifies, as does, I believe, Hungary and the Czech Republic, right now for the standards we set forth in this resolution for immediate admission to NATO; that is, these countries support collective defense; they have established democratic practices, including free and fair elections; they have civilian control of military institutions; they have respect for the territorial integrity and individual liberties of their citizens; and they share the goals of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Madam President, we have an ability, by admitting Poland and Hungary and the Czech Republic to NATO, to take a major step forward and prevent the reoccurrence of a tragedy of almost unbelievable proportions. By bringing these countries into NATO we will forestall the question of aggressive pursuits. The very fact that they are a member of NATO will take the question of reexerting dominion over those Eastern European countries off the table for any nation or foreign politician who might be tempted to consider it.

That is why I am so delighted with the leadership of Senator Simon and was so delighted to work with him. It is why I am so delighted with the leadership of the distinguished Senator from Kentucky in bringing this measure before us and want to join him.

It is why Colorado has, in Denver, a park to the valiant Hungarians who hoped for the freedom of Hungary. It is why we recall the heroism of the Czech citizens who were killed in the invasion of 1968. It is why our hearts are in our throats as we think of the tragedies the Polish people have suffered.

I believe this resolution can play a part in preventing those tragedies from being repeated.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter I sent to the President on January 7 concerning this subject, and a letter by the charge d'affaires of the Republic of Poland commenting on my letter be printed in the Record.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.

Paul Simon

Madam President, I thank you. I am pleased to be a cosponsor of this amendment.

Paul Simon

I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an editorial from the Peoria Journal Star on this general question, and also an eloquent letter from our President pro tempore, Senator Robert Byrd, to the President, on this question.

Paul Simon

Madam President, I had an amendment prepared somewhat along the same line as the amendment offered by the Senator from Kentucky. Senator Brown, Senator McCain, and Senator Byrd were cosponsors of my amendment.

Paul Simon

Senator McConnell offered his amendment first. I am pleased -- thanks particularly to the interest of Senator Levin -- that we worked something out. I commend my colleague from Kentucky for his leadership on this. Senator Gorton was also one who showed an interest in this. I want to commend him also.

Paul Simon

Senator Cohen mentioned before that the NATO role is changing, and there is no question about that. Yet in one respect it is not changing. NATO was to give Europe stability. The great threat to the world now, and the great threat in Europe, is instability. And one of the threats -- let us be candid -- right now is what is going to happen to Russia, in Russia. Our friends in Poland and the Czech Republic and the Baltic Republics and Hungary and some of the other countries, they are concerned. I think one of the great ways we can lend stability to that area is to include these countries gradually into NATO.

Paul Simon

It is not going to happen tomorrow. And the President has made steps in that direction and I hope we can make more and I hope we can make them fairly rapidly. I think it is extremely important that we do that.

Paul Simon

Then, if Russia establishes a good, solid democracy, there is no reason Russia cannot be part of NATO. We do not spell that out in this amendment but I am sure -- I see my colleague from Kentucky nodding his head. He is either sleeping while I speak or he agrees with me and I think he agrees with me -- there is no reason that cannot happen. And that could be in Russia's long-term best interests, not only because of stability there but Russia has an eastern frontier. Where China is going to be 20 years from now, no one knows. This resolution could very well be in Russia's best interests.

Paul Simon

So, I commend my colleague from Kentucky, and particularly Senator Levin, who is a bulldog when it comes to working out language. He should have been a journalist instead of a lawmaker here.

Paul Simon

Some of the people in Michigan probably agree with that.

Sander M. Levin

I hope a minority.

Mitch McConnell

The Senator makes an important point that this amendment draws no line and does not rule anybody in that area of the world out, including the Russians. I think that is a very important point and I commend him as well for his interest in this subject.

Paul Simon

I thank my colleague from Kentucky.

Paul Simon

I should have mentioned Senator Nunn also, who was helpful as we pulled this together.

Paul Simon

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.

Mitch McConnell

Madam President, briefly, I ask unanimous consent the distinguished occupant of the chair be added as a cosponsor of this amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The Senator from Washington.

Slade Gorton

Madam President, as we, from the vantage point of the year 1994, look back through the golden haze of victory in the cold war, after 45 years in which the United States and the Soviet Union confronted one another across the frontiers of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, we tend to forget that not all Americans were always united with respect to the policies of our country during those years. There were a significant number of articulate people who felt that there was no significant moral difference between the two sides; that the United States and Western Europe were as much potential aggressors as the Soviet Union was; that the Soviet Union could rightly fear aggressive tendencies from the West.

Slade Gorton

There were those who, at the end of the cold war, rewriting history, asserted that it was not American purposefulness and a strong North Atlantic Treaty Organization which ultimately resulted in the collapse of the Soviet Union but the fact that, unbeknownst to any of us, the Soviet Union never amounted to anything from the very beginning.

Slade Gorton

I think it is unfortunate -- but I also think that it is unconscious -- that some of that revisionary thinking was in the mind of the President of the United States when he expressed the view that an expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization could be considered as provocative by Russia. But can anyone seriously assert that Poland threatens the territorial or social independence of the Russian Republic? That Hungary does? That the Czech Republic does? That the Baltic States, so newly liberated, do? To state that proposition is to answer the query. Of course not.

Slade Gorton

The people of Poland live in a nation whose boundaries have shifted east and west on half a dozen occasions over 200 or 300 years, always as the result of the aggression of some more powerful nation, a nation which was literally partitioned out of existence on four separate occasions. Are the Poles a threat? Can their actions be considered to be provocative? Of course not.

Slade Gorton

It was the fundamental basis of American foreign policy during that entire 45 years, under Democratic Presidents and under Republican Presidents, that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was purely defensive; that it united nations with a democratic heritage, with a devotion to freedom and to liberty, and without aggressive intent. The admission of other nations who meet the qualifications set out by the distinguished Senator from Kentucky with the help of many others will enhance security, stability, and freedom. It should in no way be considered to be a provocation.

Slade Gorton

I guess the basic question that we face here is, should a weak Russia hold a veto over American and NATO foreign policy which we never permitted a strong and threatening Soviet Union to exercise? The answer should be no. The men who run the Russian Republic at the present time are all graduates of the years of the Soviet Union. They are all highly realistic. They often deserve our admiration for the changes in Russia. But they remain Russian nationalists. The moderate Foreign Minister of Russia himself claims special status and special rights for Russia not just in the Baltics but in every square inch of what was formerly a part of the Soviet empire.

Slade Gorton

Does that lead to security and a feeling of a happy future in those newly liberated nations? Of course it does not.

Slade Gorton

Have the three principal nations -- Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary -- done everything they possibly could to move into the free world both politically and economically? Of course they have, and they have done so because of the beacon that we and the rest of NATO held out to them for so long.

Slade Gorton

I earnestly hope and pray that the President and the rest of NATO will see that these people who gave up so much to win that freedom should be considered as rapidly as possible to be a part of our traditional democratic, peaceful Western World. NATO is not a threat. Its definition is strictly and clearly defensive. I hope and I believe that all of us hope that the day will come when Russia itself will qualify for such membership. But clearly there are nations which do so today.

Slade Gorton

Personally, Madam President, I would have preferred that we lay out the names of nations which we feel are qualified for membership in NATO today. We have not done so and there is an attempt on the part of the sponsors of the proposal to be as all-inclusive as possible, but I hope that the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, when he has an opportunity to speak again, will join me in affirming that the qualifications laid out in this resolution would authorize the admission of Poland, the Czech Republic, and of Hungary into NATO today and that a number of other nations, including the small Baltic republics and others, will meet those qualifications soon and should be considered as potential members promptly and favorably.

Mitch McConnell

Madam President, I say to my friend from Washington, my own view is that the policy of this administration, which I have called Moscow myopia, is entirely in the wrong direction. And for us to have concluded that admission of any country formally under Soviet influence to NATO is, as the Senator said, a provocation is utter nonsense.

Mitch McConnell

So I certainly agree with the Senator from Washington that there are three obvious candidates -- and the Senator from Colorado mentioned this as well -- three obvious candidates that would seem to be worthy for admission now, and the Senator from Colorado and the Senator from Washington have named them: Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic.

Mitch McConnell

I hope this administration -- they are not going to change their policy over this particular amendment -- but I hope they begin to get the hint that there are quite a number of Senators who are not convinced that this is the best policy. One way to, again, shift directions in the not-too-distant future would be to admit the three clearly ready countries to NATO. The Senator is right on the mark.

Slade Gorton

I thank the Senator from Kentucky and conclude by stating that it is very difficult for me to see how leaving an unprotected and questionable area in Central Europe occupied by the nations which we discussed today at the time of Russian weakness will provide strength if Russia unfortunately becomes aggressive once again. We have reached the time -- the ideal time -- for the kind of expansion based on democratic ideals which are reflected in this resolution.

Slade Gorton

I join the Senator from Kentucky and I join the others in hoping that we are adding constructively to this debate as it takes place in the administration in expressing what I trust will be the sense of this Senate that the time has come to reward democracy, to reward freedom and to bring in to the Western fold those countries which qualify and which are so desirous of being members.

Slade Gorton

Madam President, at this point, as I conclude, I ask unanimous consent that an eloquent column by the distinguished former Secretary of State of the United States, Henry Kissinger, be printed in the Record.

Madam President, some of the colleagues would like to have a time certain when we will have the next vote. I checked with the managers and the proponent of this amendment. Are there any Senators on the Republican side who would like to have some time? If not, we have Senator Nunn who would like to have 3 minutes and Senator Lieberman would like to have 3 minutes. That is 6 minutes.

I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the amendment by Senator McConnell, which would be an amendment with a perfecting amendment -- the Senator worked that out. We would have two votes? One vote now. So that we vote at 6:55. It is on amendment No. 1280.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The Senator from Georgia.

Sam Nunn

Madam President, I am delighted that this amendment has been worked out. I congratulate the Senator from Kentucky and the Senator from Washington, the Senator from Michigan, the Senator from North Carolina, and others, who worked on this amendment.

Sam Nunn

This is an enormously important subject. I think all of us share the excitement of the free markets and the emerging democracies that are now beginning to take shape in Eastern Europe and Central Europe. I think we all realize that there could be another threat to those countries down the road. I think we all were sobered by the recent Russian election and some of the very extreme statements that were made by the so-called Liberal Democratic Party and Mr. Zhirinovsky.

Sam Nunn

I also believe, however, the Partnership for Peace approach that was adopted at the NATO summit conference was the right approach. It needs some beef; it needs some definite criteria; it needs some resources. But I think it gives time to answer some crucial questions. The countries involved, including Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Hungary, have to answer some crucial questions and we have to answer some.

Sam Nunn

The committee responsible for providing resources in a declining budget period will be asking some real tough questions like who is going to provide the forward deployment of forces if those forward deployments are necessary? Are we extending the nuclear umbrella? If so, what are the conditions of that extension? We have a lot of questions that need to be asked and a lot of preparation. I think this amendment reflects the appropriate approach. So I intend to vote for the amendment.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.

Joseph I. Lieberman

Madam President, I rise to support the amendment and thank my colleagues who have put it together. I think it gives the Senate an opportunity at this uncertain moment in Eastern and Central European history to make a statement, which is that we understand that in the post-cold war world we have some central tenets and principles for foreign policy.

Joseph I. Lieberman

One is to try to sustain the newly democratic and largest nation of Russia, but there are other goals that we have, too. Those include keeping the faith, the trust with the people of Central Europe, of the Baltic nations, of Ukraine to whom we appealed over the years as captive nations to rise up and assert their freedom. Now they have done it. It would be a terrible dereliction of our responsibility and a breach of our basic principles to become so centered in our concern about a stable Russia that our response is to be timid in our dealings with other allies and friends in Europe.

Joseph I. Lieberman

Madam President, the recent political turmoil in Russia has shown us how unstable that country is and raises the concern that Russia may become, once again, expansionist in its foreign policy -- perhaps toward the Ukraine, perhaps toward the Baltic nations. In that event, or with that possibility in mind, it is even more important that we not remain silent about our willingness to embrace, through NATO, those nations that follow the principles of democracy and respect the territorial integrity of others in the region.

Joseph I. Lieberman

Finally, there are those who say extending membership to the nations of Central Europe, particularly Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia, draws a line in Europe. It does not.

Joseph I. Lieberman

NATO has always been a defensive alliance -- never threatened its neighbors -- and it never will. It is there to protect those who live by and follow the principles of democracy to which we, as a Nation, are committed.

Joseph I. Lieberman

This amendment makes that inclination of our foreign policy clear. I congratulate my colleagues for introducing it, and I am proud to support it.

Joseph I. Lieberman

I thank the Chair.

Toby Roth

Mr. President, I would like to congratulate the Senator from Kentucky for introducing his amendment. I have long supported the notion of offering NATO membership to those newly democratized nations of Central Europe which are seeking it so avidly.

Toby Roth

Our failure to respond to the Czech Republic's, Hungary's and Poland's desire for membership, unless rectified, could provide ominous for the future of this vital region of the world. Twice this century this region has proved turned into an East-West battlefield. If this situation is not to recur, we would be well-advised to cement the new democracies of the region into a broad stable security framework which can guarantee their security. NATO alone can fulfil this role.

Toby Roth

I have heard some of my colleagues assert, quite rightly, that Russia has no right to exercise a veto over Czech, Hungarian, or Polish membership of NATO. By shrinking from addressing this vital question, the Clinton administration may have played into the hands of Moscow's new hard liners -- we have demonstrated that, indeed, they can aspire to have a veto over the foreign and security policies of the sovereign nations of Central Europe. I should also point out to my colleagues, in passing that the C.S.C.E. Treaty, to which Russia is a signatory, specifically reserves to all of its members the right to join any alliance they wish free from external interference.

Toby Roth

I would wish that the President, during his recent summit in Europe, had addressed this question squarely. Instead he chose to offer a rather vague, inclusive, partnership for peace to all members of the former Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union. I fail to see how Polish, Czech, and Hungarian security concerns can be allayed by placing them in a partnership alongside the very nations whom they most fear. And recent events in Moscow, specifically the electoral success of Vladimir Zhirinovsky, demonstrate that those fears are well founded.

Toby Roth

Now, the task before us is to make the best that we can out of the so-called partnership for peace. Let us use it to establish a series of guideposts for those nations who wish to join NATO. Let us, as the Senator from Kentucky has urged, lay down a set of criteria which they must meet and, when they have met those criteria, let us welcome into our alliance in a spirit of inclusion and in the fervent hope that Central Europe can escape its tragic history as the scene of East-West conflict.

Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mitch McConnell

I ask unanimous consent that Senator Byrd be added as a cosponsor.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

John F. Kerry

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

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

John F. Kerry

I ask unanimous consent that I simply be allowed to proceed a couple minutes before proceeding to the vote.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

John F. Kerry

Madam President, I would like to thank Senator McConnell and Senator Levin, Senator Lieberman, Senator Nunn, Senator Simon, and others who worked with us together in order to try to arrive at an understanding on this. I am particularly grateful to Senator McConnell who had the prerogative to move forward previously but who held off in order to see if we could not reach an accommodation.

John F. Kerry

I also want to say that I just came back from a series of discussions with both French and British defense ministers and those involved directly in some of the issues at the summit and the partnership for peace.

John F. Kerry

It is my view that this is a very important statement for us to make. It is clear that none of these countries -- Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia -- are in a position today or tomorrow to immediately become full members. The military issues alone would boggle the mind as to how certain decisions could be made or implemented, and immediate membership is obviously not something that is available.

John F. Kerry

On the other hand, it is also equally important that we make as strong a message as possible of the importance of bringing those countries in immediately. Things could change very rapidly in Russia if Zhirinovsky were, in fact, to be elected or if any number of events were to take place. I think the faster we can understand how to become amalgamated and the faster we lay the groundwork for that to happen, the more we underscore the importance of the transition to democracy that we think is taking place and that we want to have take place.

John F. Kerry

So I congratulate my colleagues for joining together in sending this message and I hope that we can proceed faster to make that union a reality. It is in all of our interests.

John F. Kerry

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed to the vote immediately.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1280, as modified, offered by the Senator from Kentucky. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.

I announce that the Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] is necessarily absent.

Alan Simpson

I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] and the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Pressler] are necessarily absent.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Boxer). Are there any other Senators in the Chamber who desire to vote?

John F. Kerry

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we vitiate the yeas and nays on the underlying first-degree amendment No. 1279.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

The question is on agreeing to the amendment.

John F. Kerry

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Jesse Helms

Jesse Helms

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 1278 offered by the Senator from North Carolina.

The nays and yeas have been ordered.

The clerk will call the roll.

I announce that the Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein], the Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], and the Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid] are necessarily absent.

I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein] would vote "aye."

Alan Simpson

I announce that the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Durenberger], the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum], and the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Pressler] are necessarily absent.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber desiring to vote?

Max Baucus

Madam President, we all know how distracted we sometimes are by other matters on the Senate floor.

Max Baucus

During the vote on the Dole resolution on Bosnia, this Senator was distracted and, therefore, did not seek recognition to vote. Had I not been distracted and sought proper recognition, I would have voted in the affirmative in favor of the Dole resolution.

Max Baucus

Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.

Dianne Feinstein

Madam President, I would like the Record to reflect that had I been able to be present for the last vote, I would have voted affirmatively.

George J. Mitchell

Madam President, I have discussed the best way to proceed with the manager, the distinguished Senator from North Carolina, the Republican leader and assistant Republican leader, and I will now propound a request for unanimous consent following which, if granted, I will have a brief colloquy with the assistant Republican leader pursuant to our prior conversation.

George J. Mitchell

Madam President, I now ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be the only first-degree floor amendments remaining in order to S. 1281, the State Department authorization bill, and that second-degree amendments be in order, provided they are relevant to the first-degree amendment to which they are offered; provided further that in order for the remaining first-degree amendments to be in order, they must be offered by 6 p.m. on Tuesday, February 1.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

George J. Mitchell

Madam President, I send to the desk the list of amendments to be incorporated into this agreement and ask unanimous consent it be printed in the Record.

George J. Mitchell

Now, Madam President, I commend the managers for their diligence in handling this legislation and all of the Members of the Senate for their patience, particularly on a day in which there is very inclement weather.

George J. Mitchell

Under this agreement, all amendments, if they are to be offered, have to first be on the list which has just been sent to the desk and was incorporated in the agreement; second, must be offered by 6 p.m. on Tuesday.

George J. Mitchell

It is apparent to any person familiar with the Senate rules on reading of the agreement that it is possible that absent good faith on both sides, some Senators could be precluded from offering amendments if one Senator, for example, got the floor and spoke for all the time we were in session until 6 p.m. on Tuesday; or, conversely, the purpose of the agreement, in permitting completion of the bill by Tuesday evening, could be frustrated were anyone to simply get up and offer on behalf of the other Senators all the amendments on the list.

George J. Mitchell

But we do operate, and very successfully in the Senate, in good faith on both sides. I have discussed it with the managers, with the Republican leader and the assistant Republican leader, and we agree that it is the purpose and intention of this agreement to complete action on the bill Tuesday evening and to do it in a manner which permits an orderly and fair consideration of amendments which Senators intend to offer.

George J. Mitchell

Therefore, the Senate will be in session tomorrow beginning at 9:30, and we anticipate that amendments will be offered on which there will be votes tomorrow.

George J. Mitchell

In addition, the Senate, upon the completion of its business tomorrow, will recess until 1 p.m. on Monday, and the managers will be present on Monday, so any Senator who has an amendment to offer may come here after 1 p.m. on Monday -- and they are prepared to stay in session throughout the day if necessary -- to offer the amendment. If an amendment is offered on Monday on which a vote is required, that vote will be set over until Tuesday, because, as I previously indicated, there will be no votes on Monday.

George J. Mitchell

But this will enable us to accomplish the two objectives of completing action on an important measure by a time certain and at the same time give any Senator who has an amendment that he or she wishes to offer a reasonable opportunity to do so tomorrow or on Monday. I thank all of my colleagues for their cooperation and good faith in this endeavor.

George J. Mitchell

I would like now, Madam President, to yield to the distinguished assistant Republican leader, if he has any comment to make.

George J. Mitchell

First, if I have misstated anything inadvertently if he would correct me and, if not, if he would be prepared to comment on the understanding I have just set forth.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Republican leader.

Alan Simpson

Madam President, on behalf of the Republican leader -- and I have visited with the majority leader -- I think this has been stated very fairly and clearly. And it does depend upon good faith.

Alan Simpson

We also must depend on those who come forward to try to realize that there are others that need to be accommodated within that time limit and, if we can all recall that, to try to compress -- I know it is very difficult to do -- to compress our remarks on the Senate floor. I know that to be a tremendous challenge to us. But nevertheless that will help our colleagues.

Alan Simpson

We are ready to proceed and, I think, pledge from our side of the aisle we will proceed with dispatch and good faith and fairness, as you have prescribed here. I think we can get that done and accommodate our fellows.

George J. Mitchell

Madam President, I thank the distinguished assistant Republican leader, and I now am pleased to yield the floor. I again thank the managers for the diligent manner in which they have handled this measure, both the Senators from Massachusetts and North Carolina, and of course the distinguished chairman of the committee, the Senator from Rhode Island.

George J. Mitchell

Madam President, consequently, having reached this agreement with this understanding, there will be no further rollcall votes this evening. I inquire of the managers whether there is any other business associated with the bill which they would like to, and can, accomplish this evening?

John F. Kerry

Madam President, let me just inquire of the Senator from Colorado. He was waiting. I do not know if it was on this bill or an extraneous matter.

There are two amendments I am aware of, one that we had previously conversed about, the pipeline amendment, which the Senator from Texas will be offering, and the antiboycott measure, which I will be offering tonight.

John F. Kerry

In that case we are prepared to continue to do business.

John F. Kerry

I thank the leader.

George J. Mitchell

I thank the managers. I thank my colleagues.

John F. Kerry

I thank my colleague and Senator Helms for helping to get us into this agreement. I thank colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their cooperation, and I hope if we do proceed as articulated in good faith -- I think we ought to be able to wind up in a position on Tuesday where we complete this bill.

John F. Kerry

Does the Senator from Texas wish to proceed?

Kay Bailey Hutchison

Yes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.

Kay Bailey Hutchison

Madam President, on behalf of myself and the Senator from Colorado, Mr. Brown, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Kay Bailey Hutchison

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Kay Bailey Hutchison

Madam President, I will compress my remarks in line with Senator Simpson's requirements and just say this is an amendment that would return to the Treasury foreign aid funds that have not yet been obligated at the end of 4 years.

Kay Bailey Hutchison

This is really a reform that has been in the pipeline for a long time. In "Putting People First," President Clinton said that he thought we should reform the foreign aid pipeline system and, as a matter of fact, the U.S. Agency for International Development said at the end of 1992 there was $8 billion of undisbursed foreign aid obligations in the pipeline.

Kay Bailey Hutchison

Madam President, $6 billion at the beginning of this fiscal year was obligated when Ronald Reagan was President. So there is a lot of money that we have passed on through the years in the Senate that has just not been expended, for one reason or another. This amendment would return that amount to the Treasury. But on a case-by-case basis the President could waive the requirements for the return of those funds under certain circumstances if they have not been expended for some unforeseen reason.

Kay Bailey Hutchison

So I think this is just a good-fiscal-responsibility amendment. It would save $1 billion, according to the CBO. I offer the amendment, and I believe it is acceptable to the managers. If that is correct, I will rest my case.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.

John F. Kerry

Madam President, it is indeed. In fact it is, if not identical, very similar to an amendment which we put on the AID bill. We are delighted to accept it. I thank the Senator from Texas for compressing.

John F. Kerry

THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment.

John F. Kerry

Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. The amendment is offered on behalf of myself, Senator Moynihan, Senator McConnell, Senator Mack, Senator Kempthorne, Senator Coats, Senator McCain, Senator Burns, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Feingold, Senator DeConcini, and Senator Grassley.