Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. President, I send an amendment in the second degree to the desk. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report the amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. President, there will be additional cosponsors. I want to thank my colleague from Connecticut for his continuing support. We have been working together in this and other foreign policy areas. I certainly appreciate his willingness to make this bipartisan. There are not any politics in this. The last vote we had on this, I think, was 87 to 9. The problem with the nine, I think, is that they had some fears about what might happen. So we have added one paragraph where we make it very clear: We think we have taken care of that concern. I also ask that Senator McConnell be added as an original cosponsor. Mr. President, yesterday the President announced a new initiative to broaden the use of NATO air power to protect United States declared safe havens in Bosnia. In my view, such a move is welcome and long overdue. However, the President's initiative did not include an effort to lift the arms embargo against the Bosnians. President Clinton said he favored lifting the arms embargo, but did not believe our allies would support such a move. Nothing will change unless America takes the lead, and that is why I am offering, with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, legislation to lift the embargo today. I might add, the President said he was "encouraged" by the support in Congress for lifting the embargo. I believe this will further encourage the President and strengthen his hand when he talks with the French, the British, the Russians -- whoever -- because Congress does have a role to play. Hopefully, this will be helpful to the President. We have already gone on record, as I said earlier, by an almost unanimous vote, 87 to 9, in support of lifting the arms embargo -- not just the U.N. embargo -- but unilaterally lifting the U.S. embargo. If allies want to go along, it should be on a unilateral basis. We adopted a sense-of-the-Senate amendment after considerable debate. It seems to me that now is the time to strengthen the President's hand by letting the British, the French, and the Russians, who have objected to lifting the embargo in Bosnia, know that the U.S. Congress fully supports going it alone, if necessary, because this embargo has no legal basis and is unjust. Administration officials have said that the United States should not act unilaterally because such action could unravel support for other U.N. embargoes, such as that against Iraq. Mr. President, the arms embargo against Bosnia is not analogous to the embargo against Iraq. First, this arms embargo was established against Yugoslavia, a country that no longer exists. Second, extending the arms embargo to Bosnia violates Bosnia's fundamental right to self-defense, a right that is incorporated in article 51 of the U.N. Charter. And finally, aggression was waged against Bosnia, while Iraq was the aggressor against Kuwait. The arms embargo against Bosnia, unlike the legal embargoes against Iraq, Serbia or Libya, is illegal, in addition to being unjust. So I introduce the amendment which goes further than my earlier amendment. It mandates termination -- it is only a sense of the Senate though -- of the United States arms embargo against Bosnia. The amendment simply states the President shall terminate the U.S. arms embargo of the Bosnia Government 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. This language is taken from S. 1044, a bill I introduced -- again, with the distinguished Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman] -- last year. And, of course, I am pleased we are working together today along with others of my colleagues. In addition to that, the amendment prohibits the enforcement of the U.N. embargo against Bosnia. The amendment also includes a provision which I previously read so nobody has any misunderstanding. We are not talking about troops. We are not talking about somebody going there for training purposes or to get equipment into any area in Bosnia. So I think there are certainly many of us who have grave concerns about deployment of U.S. ground forces even after, if a peace agreement is reached. I think many of us are going to have concerns because it appears to this Senator -- maybe I can be convinced otherwise -- what we are doing is enforcing a peace, lining up with the Serbs to enforce a peace where they get to retain the territory they have taken, 70 percent of the independent nation of Bosnia, and we are going to be in a position, in my view, of lining up with the Serbs to make certain that none of that territory slips away. I think the best way to ensure that we are not going to commit U.S. ground forces is to lift the embargo and give them an opportunity to defend themselves. For 2 years now, the Bosnians have been unable to defend their citizens against the destruction and slaughter that has come to be known as ethnic cleansing. So officials of the Bosnian Government have been forced to plead with the international community for the protection of their people. Yesterday, I received a letter from the Bosnian Prime Minister Haris Silajdzic, in which he said: The Bosnian Vice President, Mr. Ejup Ganic, was in my office yesterday, and he emphasized the point when I met with him. He said the tragic situation in Gorazde may not have occurred had the Bosnians had antitank and other defensive weapons. He said, "We have the men but not the arms." And in my view it is not our place to deny the freedom- seeking Bosnians the right to self-defense. I also asked Mr. Ganic, Is it too late? Would it make any difference at this point whether or not we lifted the arms embargo? The answer, he said, was yes. It is pretty hard to fight off a tank with a rifle, but if you had antitank weapons, you could have a pretty solid defense. So, Mr. President, the President suggested if he could not convince the Serbs to halt their aggression and come to the negotiating table, that the allies might be persuaded to change their mind, and I hope that is the case. Why wait any longer? The war on Bosnia has gone on for 2 years now, and how much longer must the Bosnians wait to exercise their right to self-defense and how many more do we kill each day? Yesterday, one incident happened -- the Bosnian Serbs shelled an emergency room in a hospital killing 10 patients. How many more chances are we going to give Bosnian Serbs, who already occupy -- I said 70 percent earlier -- I think it is closer to 75 percent of Bosnia? And when is the international community going to abandon its neocolonial approach in which the world decides what is right for Bosnia and the Bosnians have no say at all? I think it is time to try to lead our allies and persuade our allies to the right position, a position that President Clinton supports, and that is lifting the arms embargo on Bosnia. I believe a vote in favor of this amendment will strengthen the President's hand and certainly get the Senate on record. I am not certain about the House. I hope they will follow through. But in my view it is a step in the right direction. I would be perfectly willing -- I know this is not really germane to the bankruptcy bill, and I do not want to interfere with the managers, so, unless there is some objection, we hope at the appropriate time we can get a time agreement, maybe 1 hour equally divided, if anybody wants to speak in opposition, and then we would be back on the bankruptcy bill. I also want to clarify that, unlike my previous amendment, this is not a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, and I would also like to add the distinguished Senator from New York, [Mr D'Amato], as a cosponsor, and the Senator from Alaska, [Mr. Stevens]. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Connecticut, [Mr. Lieberman]. Mr. President, I am proud to join with the distinguished Republican leader, the Senator from Kansas, [Mr. Dole], in cosponsoring this amendment and thank him for his leadership. This is truly a bipartisan expression of the opinion of Members of the Senate, I believe Members of the House, and I would guess members of the public of the United States of America about one course of action that we should and can take to try to bring an end to the slaughter and aggression in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Mr. President, in moving to direct the administration to suspend the existing embargo of distribution or sale of weapons to Bosnia, I believe we are also acting, as the Senator from Kansas has said, to support a position that President Clinton has taken now for almost 2 years, which is to be opposed to the embargo, to strengthen his hand in negotiating with our European allies, and in our own voices to send as clear a message as we possibly can to the Bosnian Serb Army and to the Serbian leadership that we have had enough and we are going to match rhetoric with action and, more important, with weapons, effective weapons in the hands of the Bosnian Moslems. Mr. President, in the course of the past few years, unfortunately, many of us have come to this floor to speak about the tragedy which has occurred and continues to occur in Bosnia today. Recent events in Gorazde are only the latest indicator of the inability of the world community to muster the moral courage and military might to end the slaughter of innocents which is taking place at the hands of Serbian aggressors. Mr. President, we find today that Gorazde is, in the words of the U.N. Commander on the ground, Lt. General Rose, "on the verge of a major humanitarian catastrophe." Artillery and mortar shells, regardless of the promises or signatures of the Serbian authorities, continue to fall on the innocent civilians of Gorazde, protecting themselves, as Senator Dole has said, with rifles in the face of Serbian tanks. Every 20 seconds, at different points in this week, death has hurtled its way into masses of civilians whose crime is that they happen to live or have sought refuge in a city the United Nations has declared a safe haven, in which the United Nations, the world community has said, "OK, Bosnian Moslems, there are not a lot of places where you can feel safe in Bosnia but this is one." They have sought refuge in a place where the Serbian aggressors simply have not wanted them to go. How much more of this outrage are we going to tolerate? How much more of Bosnia needs to be ethnically cleansed? How many more people need to be injured or killed because of their religion before the world stops wringing its hands and takes strong and effective action to put handcuffs on the perpetrators of this evil? Mr. President, I know that all of us in this Chamber worry about the possibilities that action which we may take in Bosnia may not be carefully thought out and focused on ends that we seek to achieve reasonably that could lead to increased levels, if we are not careful, of violence but not progress toward resolution of the dispute. But inaction in the case of Serbian aggression has proven time and time again to be a prescription only for more suffering, death, and continued slaughter of innocents in Bosnia. When the world community finally stood together in the ultimatum issued in Sarajevo, we have seen the Serbs back down and the killing subside. When we make threats which we do not carry out, we have seen only more death and destruction. When we use the power that we have in an inspective and limited way, as we have around Gorazde, we see that the Serbs pay no heed to us. What will it take before we realize the value of these lessons the Serbian aggressors continue to teach us? Mr. President, we must act now at a minimum to give the people of Bosnia the chance they have been pleading for to defend themselves, by lifting this pernicious arms embargo and delivering, in an expeditious fashion, the weapons and equipment that will allow the Bosnian Moslems to defend their homes and their families. No one wants to see this war expanded. But by refusing to give these people the means of defending themselves, the world community condemns them to either death or life -- what is left of it -- in a Serbian-controlled ghetto. Mr. President, I know that there is a dispute in this Chamber on the related question of whether allied air power should be used more extensively in Bosnia and Serbia to punish the aggressors and bring them, hopefully, to the peace table. I support the wider use of allied air power. I think we should not only -- as the latest United Nations actions propose -- use that air power to try to protect the safe havens, but we should go beyond that and hit command posts, supply lines, and military depots of the Bosnian-Serbian Army and of Serbia, which is supplying them. Mr. President, some of my colleagues have raised the question: "Can we say with any confidence that this kind of use of allied air power would bring the war to an end? Air power never does." I agree with them. It takes action on the ground, not action by American soldiers sent to fight on the ground in Bosnia. No one is asking for that, not here in the United States Congress and not for the Bosnian Government. The action on the ground that can be taken, if we help them take it, is by the valiant Bosnian-Moslem soldiers who want to fight, who have fought successfully, but cannot fight with rifles against oncoming tanks. Mr. President, these are not easy issues which face the world community. But it is clearly in all of our interests to bring this nightmare to an end. The world was set back twice in this century while aggression went unchecked in Europe, and ultimately paid a much larger price for that early inaction. Mr. President, when the United States of America, the strongest Nation in the world, when the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the most effective alliance in the history of the world, military alliance, when the United Nations, look impotent -- and are impotent in the face of criminal actions, lawless action, bullying actions by the Serbian military which is a third- or fourth-rate army -- then the security of every person in Europe, and indeed every person in the United States of America, is on the line. Here is an action, the lifting of this embargo, that we can take together that will make this a fair fight, and will allow us to again achieve some level of the high moral ground on which the United States has functioned best over our history, and while achieving that ground also serving the strategic interests of the United States and our allies in Europe. Mr. President, let me just briefly talk about the legal issues at work here. The embargo, as it exists now, violates the Bosnians' inherent right of self defense as codified in articles 2, 4, and 51 of the U.N. Charter. The right of self defense is a preeminent right of international law, and simply cannot be abridged by actions of the Security Council, such as the one that led to the U.S. executive branch action to impose this embargo, which we would lift by the amendment that Senator Dole and others and I have submitted here today. Denial of Bosnia's right to acquire weapons, to defend itself against aggression, to prevent the destruction of the state of Bosnia, to prevent genocide against Bosnian nationals, clearly violates Bosnia's international right of self defense. In abridging that right to self defense, the U.N. Security Council undertook to provide for the country's peace and international security. For 2 years, however, the Security Council has not taken measures necessary to maintain that peace and security in Bosnia. Accordingly, the U.N. Charter's provision of Bosnia's right to self defense through the acquisition of these defensive arms becomes preeminent. In other words, the arms embargo was imposed as part of a promise by the United Nations that the United Nations would act to maintain the security of Bosnia. The world community has clearly failed to do that. The least we can do is let them defend themselves. Continued application of this arms embargo conflicts with the obligations of the U.N. member states under the United Nations Convention on Genocide. It conflicts with numerous U.N. Security Council resolutions, and U.N. General Assembly Resolution 4842. Mr. President, in the particular case of this amendment, it seems clear to me that in accordance with international law, our country, the United States of America, may unilaterally seek to end the embargo by declaring the embargo invalid, refusing to participate in the enforcement of the embargo, and supplying arms to the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The declaration of the arms embargo against Bosnia and Herzegovina as unlawful would not result in the invalidity of the economic and arms embargoes against such other States as Serbia and Iraq. It is not even a precedent in doing that, in my opinion. The circumstances are dramatically different. Unlike those States, Bosnia and Herzegovina is under direct military attack sponsored by a neighboring state. As much as 75 percent of Bosnia's territory is occupied by hostile forces seeking its destruction, and partition. Its population is subject to mass killings, rapes, forcible relocation, and other crimes of genocide, and Bosnia simply does not possess a sufficient supply of defensive arms to meet minimal requirements for self defense. In other words, while the embargoes against Iraq and Serbia are intended to punish aggressor nations, this embargo against weapons for the Bosnians is punishing a victim nation, and making it impossible for the people of that nation to exercise their fundamental right to protect themselves, their families, and their homes. Again, I thank the Senate Republican leader for his extraordinary leadership in this matter. I am confident that if the Senate stands together on a bipartisan basis to adopt this amendment, we will strengthen the desire and ability of President Clinton to lift the embargo, which has been the policy of this administration for more than a year. We will make it easier for him to convince our allies in Europe to join in lifting the embargo, and hopefully we will send a loud and clear message to the Serbian aggressors that the days of their unfettered, unlimited, unresponded-to aggression are over. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator from Kansas. Mr. President, I want to thank again the Senator from Connecticut for his leadership. I want to just put in the Record a letter received yesterday from the mayor of Gorazde. Let me read the second paragraph. I think we all see these pictures and we sometimes understand. He says: In any case, the child was killed. I suggest that is a very powerful statement, with the mayor saying, in effect: Kill us, bomb us, to make it easier. I ask unanimous consent that the letter be printed in the Record. Sometimes we forget, and some people think Serbia must be like the former Soviet Union, a third- or fourth-rate power. Compared to Bosnia, they have about 300 tanks; Bosnia has about 10. It is 10 to 1 everywhere else. That is why they have a big advantage. To those who say they are worried about maybe escalating the violence, I suggest that all of the violence is on one side now. There is no opportunity for the poor Bosnian Moslems to defend themselves. Again, I visited with their Vice President yesterday, Mr. Ganic. He understands that we are not going to involve American troops. He would even understand some who say "no airstrikes." But what he cannot understand is why we are not willing to give them a chance to defend themselves. I do not know how you explain that to somebody. The U.N. Charter was pointed out by the Senator from Connecticut and will be pointed out by my colleague from Arizona. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain] is recognized. Mr. President, I thank my colleague and friend from Kansas, the distinguished Republican leader, for this very important, although perhaps a little late, measure to lift the United States embargo of Bosnia. We need to pass it and Congress needs to pass it and the President needs to act on it. I also find myself in complete agreement with the remarks of my friend from Connecticut, who has been involved in this issue for a very long period of time. Mr. President, I apologize ahead of time to this body if I am a little emotional in my remarks. I just finished meeting with Vice President Ganic, the Vice President of Bosnia. I wish every American could have the opportunity to meet with him and hear of the tragedy -- the preventable tragedy -- that is befalling the citizens of that very tiny nation. Mr. President, we need to lift the embargo, either with the approval of the United Nations or without it. I do not say that lightly, because we are signatories to a U. N. resolution, which is binding. But the fact is -- and I believe every American should know this -- that the resolution was imposed on the then Yugoslavia, which no longer exists. I repeat, the resolution passed by the U. N. Security Council was applicable to the nation of Yugoslavia, which no longer exists. The U. N. Charter states in article 51: Repeating: Mr. President, the Bosnian Vice President just told me that an ultimatum has been delivered to the Bosnians within Gorazde and that they have about an hour to get their troops within the confines of the city of Gorazde, or else there will be a full-scale attack against Gorazde. I do not know if it is true, but I know that if it is we have a group of people trying to defend themselves with weapons that are only effective at 20 meters. They do not have an antitank weapon. The Vice President of Bosnia said they do not want F-16's or B-1 bombers; they do not even want tanks. They want the ability to defend themselves. It boggles the mind for us to be concerned about a U.N. Security Council resolution which was enacted -- an embargo was enacted -- on a nation that no longer exists. Mr. President, I am a student of history, and the fact is that this Nation may not have achieved its independence without the help from the sympathetic nation of France, who did not send many troops, but did send people to help, and supplies and equipment and other assistance, in order that we might gain independence in our struggle. As I say, we are clearly in violation of the fundamental principles in the United Nations, in that we have prevented a nation, through this embargo, from defending itself. That needs to be rectified and, frankly, the members of the United Nations should be the ones to do so, so that we, this Nation, will not have to do it by ourselves. But in all candor, for the President of the United States to say there is a comparison between this and the arms embargo on Iraq is not valid. It is not valid to compare what we are trying to do, to make sure Iraq does not engage in further aggression, with an embargo placed on a nation which no longer exists. Finally, Mr. President, we as a nation were founded upon certain principles. Those principles, we believed, did not apply just to residents of this continent. We believed in those principles, and steadfastly today hold to those principles as expressed in the following words: This embargo is preventing those people from obtaining life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We ought to act now, quickly, and in the name of the principles of this Nation. Let us do it, and do it quickly. I yield the floor. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner] is recognized. Mr. President, I am hopeful of trying to clarify precisely what is intended by the pending amendment. I have spoken several times in favor of lifting the embargo. I continue to be of that mind. The action of lifting the arms embargo should be taken because the West will be held accountable from this moment on in history for the fact that we have literally tied one arm behind the backs of the Bosnian Moslems and asked them to fight this bitter civil war without adequate weaponry. It is time we released that arm and gave them the option of receiving such weapons as can flow, so that they can do the best they can to defend themselves and hopefully regain the territory that is rightfully theirs. Mr. President, I am doggedly opposed to the United States taking unilateral action in this conflict. If it is the intent of this amendment to urge the President to show stronger leadership, I agree. But if in any way this amendment implies that if our allies do not act, then the United States should act alone and unilaterally, I am opposed. I do not want to see the stamp put on this conflict from this moment forward "Made in the U.S.A." and the U.S.A. becomes responsible from this moment on and our allies step back and say, "You took an action. We did not agree to it. It is your conflict. You supply the arms. You manage it. You take sides." That we should not do. Mr. President, I am hopeful that if one of more of the sponsors of this amendment reappear on the floor, we can enter into a colloquy. I see my good friend from Connecticut. I have expressed my concerns, I say to my good friend. I will yield for the purpose of a question if the Senator wishes to ask it, but I have further remarks. I thank my friend and colleague from Virginia. I want to respond to a question. Therefore, I will wait until he is finished. Then I will rise personally to explain what I believe the intention of the amendment is. If the Senator wishes to put that in the form of question at this time, I would like to hear it. I thank the Senator from Virginia for yielding while he retains the floor. I would ask him whether he would accept this personal understanding of what this amendment intends to do. I speak for myself, and I believe this is the intention of the distinguished Senate Republican leader, although obviously he will return to the floor and speak for himself. The intention here is for the United States to terminate the embargo currently existing on the transfer of weapons and other defense systems to the people and Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I think implicit in this is our hope that by passing this amendment we will encourage the President to go forward in his effort to negotiate with our allies a joint lifting of the embargo and we will send a message to the Serbian aggressors. But I do want to make clear to the Senator from Virginia what my understanding is here, which is that if the President is not able to convince our allies to join with us in lifting the embargo this, nonetheless, would have the President terminate the United States embargo unilaterally and that conclusion is based on the premise that we are leaders, that we will set the standard, that, in fact, the way to get the allies to move it may be for us to exercise that leadership, moral and strategic, to avoid exactly the concern that the Senator from Virginia has expressed. As the Bosnian Moslems suffer, perhaps history will ask where we were. We are saying at least by lifting the arms embargo, the United States of America did what it could at this fateful hour for Bosnia and, in fact, for Europe to help the Bosnian people defend themselves. So at bottom line the hope is for allied action. But the clear intention of this amendment is also to allow for the United States to lift the embargo unilaterally. I thank my colleague from Connecticut. Mr. President, I am a lawyer; he is a lawyer. We should not be dealing here, especially with this background of strong emotion when all of us are watching this tragedy unfold daily. There is not a Member of this Chamber whose heart does not throb with compassion for the pitiful tragedy we see unfolding of human against human for reasons which are cultural and ethnic. That is not the question. Let us not as lawyers use the words that the Senator just used: You think it is the intention; you think it is implicit. Let us put it down very, very clearly. This is not an amendable amendment under our rules, a second-degree amendment, or I would seek to amend it. So my hands are tied to try to clarify this. I would urge the sponsor, if that is the intent, let us put it down with such clarity that the man on the street in hometown U.S.A. can understand it, because this is an important step. If it does not authorize it under this amendment, this is a step toward at least consideration of unilateral involvement of this country in that conflict. This Senator is opposed to unilateral action in that conflict. I think it is incumbent upon the drafters to come over here and make it very clear as to exactly what is meant. I can understand the legalities, and I have just been briefed on how it is questionable as to whether or not the existing U.N. resolutions are legal, how they should not tie the hands of the United States. But let us not get lost in legalities here today. Let us put it down in plain English. I need only remind my colleague of the tragedy that unfolded in Somalia as the Congress sort of laid back and allowed the Presidents in succession, Presidents Bush and Clinton, to involve our forces in that conflict. And then came the tragic events of October 3 and 4, 1993, in which some 17 were killed and some 70-plus sustained wounds -- a terrible loss. Congress then began to react to the people of the United States who rose up and said "What is our security interest in that country? What is it we are trying to do?" Both the President and the Congress share equal responsibility for having failed to explain to the American public precisely what those operations were for, precisely what our national security interest was, if any, in Somalia. It was more or less a humanitarian mission. And what happened? This Congress, indeed this very Chamber, led the fight to bring those troops home from Somalia by Christmas. Finally, in due course, basically behind the doors while the debate was taking place on this floor, cooler heads prevailed, and we allowed the President the right to decide, as Commander in Chief, when our troops should be brought home. And they were brought home, as we know, in March 1994, not Christmas. It was not a partisan debate. It was a debate between Senators on both sides of the aisle with understandable disagreements. The fact that the President and the Congress had failed to tell the people of the United States why our troops were there, what the risks were in terms of our most precious assets -- and that is the men and women of the Armed Forces who go beyond these shores in the cause of freedom. The result was the Congress came close to overriding the President's authority as Commander in Chief. I do not want to see that happen here. We have not, in my judgment, sufficiently established for the American people whether or not the United States has a national security interest in the Balkans. I personally do not think there is one there to the degree to justify further U.S. military involvement. I am opposed to the expansion of the air strike option. It has proven futile. It was tried in good faith. Brave pilots of the United States and our allies flew the strikes. We know the facts. It did not deliver the message. It did not provide the leverage that the diplomats thought it would achieve, and I have grave doubts it will ever do so, even though the President says air strikes should be increased in intensity. That is a side issue to this, but nevertheless it is linked. I come back to the fundamental issue that the President and Congress have not assessed adequately the extent to which this country does or does not have a national security interest. Humanitarian, yes. National security, a big question mark. I happen to think we do not have a national security interest, certainly not to the level to require the further risk of our troops. And here we are today about to send a message that we wish to lift the embargo. As I said, I am in favor of it, but I would like to have in this debate -- and I am going to oppose any time agreement until to my satisfaction we have had an adequate debate -- within this debate we have to discuss the tough ramifications of lifting this embargo. What is the time element within which the Bosnian Moslems can train and learn to use heavy weaponry effectively? What is it we expect the Serbian aggressors to do while this interim time period is taking place? The Serbs may well start an aggression to take everything they possibly can before the first tank and the first artillery piece arrives. These are questions that I find most troubling. Yesterday, in a speech when I said we should lift the arms embargo and tried to explain it, I was accused by people who said, you are going to perpetrate genocide. The loss of life will be far greater than we are witnessing today. What is the timetable that we would hope to achieve for the flow of weapons? How can we guarantee that these weapons will get to the various locations where they can be utilized by the Moslem forces? Many of the land routes are through territory under the control of Croatia. Do we have any indication that they are agreeable to allowing their territory, such territory as they claim, to be utilized for the transfer of these weapons? So I say to my friends: Leadership, yes. I urge our President to show greater leadership, greater strength, in talking with our allies, and maybe there is a plan that all can agree on. What is the likelihood that the lifting of the embargo will succeed as hoped for? What will we do as a nation in concert with our allies if the lifting of the embargo fails? Are we to take another step? Each time we take a step over here -- and regrettably we have taken a lot of false starts and steps forward and quickly steps back -- there has not been an expression of opinion by the President, the Secretaries of State and Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Their has not been a consistent message from our leadership on these tough issues in Bosnia. And, as a result, how do we know that lives have not been lost of late because of the failure of a clear, concise and unified U.S. policy? I do not want to see this body fall into the same trap to send a message which will be heard around the world -- the Senate pronounces that the embargo should be lifted -- until we know exactly what the consequences of lifting it are, how it would be implemented and what is the opinion of the American people about what should or should not be done to rectify this tragic situation in Bosnia. Finally, I ask of my good friend from Connecticut, how do we avoid a repetition of the tragic circumstances that took place in Somalia, where we went with the best of intentions and sacrificed the lives of our men and women in the Armed Forces, and saw our President's policy nearly reversed by this Congress in response to the outcry of the American people from coast to coast in this country? I ask that question to my friend. Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Connecticut. I thank the Chair. I note the presence of the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations and my colleague from Massachusetts. I would indicate to them I intend to respond briefly and yield the floor to them. The Senator from Virginia has raised some serious questions. May I say that it is the intention of the sponsors of this amendment to speak with just the clarity and conviction that the Senator has found absent in other statements and other leadership. Mr. President, I say that you have not done that when you say to me it the intention of the amendment and you think it is implicit in the amendment. What do you have expressly in the language that we and every American can understand? Mr. President, we have a disagreement, the Senator from Virginia and I. The language of this amendment is extremely clear. Let me state it to him exactly. I believe my colleague from Virginia may not support the language of the amendment. The amendment seeks to make clear that the United States shall unilaterally lift the embargo on the distribution or sale of weapons to the Government of Bosnia. If I indicated any tentativeness earlier, it was only on the question, which I believe is shared by the cosponsors, that it would be our understanding that the President would seek to convince our allies to join with us in that. But I say to the Senator from Virginia, there is a clear intention here -- and by his statement, I understand he does not support it -- which is that this is a moment, as he has said, of moral imperative. And one response to that moral imperative that I hope we can agree on is to at least have the United States, acting unilaterally if necessary, not to deny the people of Bosnia the arms with which they could defend themselves. We may disagree on the question of air strikes. I do not think we disagree on the question of whether American troops should be sent to serve on the ground in Bosnia. I have not heard anybody say that, and I certainly would not support that. In fact, the last paragraph of this amendment, offered by the Senate Republican leader, makes clear: "Nothing in this section shall be interpreted as authorization for deployment of U.S. forces in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina for any purpose." Second, the Senator from Virginia raises the question about Somalia. This is a very different circumstance, certainly in terms of what the United States would do if this amendment passes. We are not talking here about sending American soldiers to Bosnia, as we did in Somalia. We are talking about sending American weapons to the Bosnian fighters so they could use them to defend themselves. I agree with the concerns -- and I admired the Senator from Virginia when he stated them at the time of the crisis in Somalia -- that public opinion, that Members of Congress not tie the hands of the Commander in Chief in terms of the deployment of American personnel, forcing the Commander in Chief to bring back American troops at a premature date. That was worked out. In my opinion, we are not dealing here, in the lifting of this embargo, with the President's powers under the Constitution as Commander in Chief -- no personnel involved; no troops. We are dealing here with what I would view as the foreign policy powers of the U. S. Congress. What we are doing here, in asking that the embargo be lifted, is comparable, for instance, to what we do when we say in our foreign aid appropriations bills, in our Foreign Military Assistance Act, and earmarking as we often do: Congress directs that x dollars or x systems be sent to y foreign nation for the purpose of protecting themselves. It is quite comparable -- we may agree or disagree with the recommendation made earlier this week by my colleague from Connecticut and several others, directing the United States to increase sanctions against the Government of Haiti. Mr. President, will the Senator respond to this, then? I will. You have answered, No. 1, you interpret this as saying the United States shall unilaterally lift whatever embargo we have. I ask my good friend, does that not send a signal to the people tragically suffering, the Muslims: We have lifted it, and it implies we, then, will send some weapons? Is that not a logical -- Through the Chair to my friend from Virginia, I say the Senator's statement is absolutely right. That is a logical conclusion. And not only is it a logical conclusion, it is the intention of the sponsors of the amendment. And it is the desire of the duly elected leadership of Bosnia. The Senator said earlier he was concerned that the sending of weapons might either raise the hopes of the people there unfairly or contribute to more deaths. Earlier the Senate Republican leader read a letter from the mayor of Gorazde saying, astoundingly, movingly, that he felt the people of Gorazde would rather U.S. planes bombed Gorazde in an effort to force out the Serbian aggressors than have the people of Gorazde die defenseless at the hands of those Serbian aggressors. So their desire is clear. Mr. President, let me then qualify. My colleague interprets the amendment as saying legally we, the United States, will lift our embargo. And you agree with my observation this sends a message -- again using your word -- it implies that the United States is saying we will be sending arms. I ask my friend, if our allies, mainly Great Britain and France, who have at risk their own people in the UNPROFOR forces in Bosnia today, those forces, commingled geographically with combatants on all sides, be they Serbs, Moslems or Croatians, those UNPROFOR troops right in the crossfire of this combat -- supposing Great Britain and France say, "You shall not, United States, send arms in. We object to those arms going in." Could that not happen? Will my colleague yield? Let me just finish the question and I will be glad to yield the floor. I just wanted to add to the question, if I may? Let us get this one answered. My colleague can answer it. Then I will be happy to receive his question. It is quite possible, in response to the Senator from Virginia, that our allies in Europe might give the response that he has given. But I would say this. The suffering of the defenseless victims in Bosnia sounds louder to me, and I think to the sponsors of this amendment, than the possible expression of opposition by our allies in Europe. My hope is that they will decide to join us. Again, I say to my colleague, I have spoken to the Prime Minister of Bosnia, as many us have here, and the Vice President. They say, "If you gave us a choice of whether to have the ability to receive arms to defend ourselves or to keep the British and French peacekeepers in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the choice for us is an easy one. We would say, "Thank you," to the British and French peacekeepers, and wish them farewell, in order to receive the weapons with which to defend our families and our homes. Mr. President, I think I received a third answer, and that is that we go ahead, irrespective of whether Britain or France agree. I say that is unilateral intervention by the United States. That stamps this conflict, then, "Made in the U.S.A." And we become responsible, not only for the further loss of life by the Serbian and Moslems and Croatians that may die, but also the UNPROFOR forces of many nations, who are there bravely trying to provide assistance to those who are suffering. This is a very serious risk, Senator. I think before this body acts on this resolution, we must have a clear understanding of what reaction would come from our allies. I once again say I am unalterably opposed to unilateral action or even sending a signal we intend to act unilaterally. I urge the President to use the most forceful of leadership. I will support the lifting of the embargo, providing it is done in unity with our allies. One further comment. Yes, I oppose the introduction of United States ground forces in Bosnia. But let us not overlook the fact that we have United States pilots today fighting in the skies over Bosnia. As far as I am concerned, an airman is just as valuable as one of our ground troops, and we should not dismiss the risk that they are taking, the risk that they could be shot down, the risk that they could become prisoners along with the UNPROFOR forces. They will be taken prisoner the moment the signal is sent. They will be taken as hostages if this embargo is lifted. I say to my friend, yesterday in the Armed Services Committee we had an Air Force officer, now a CINC, General Horner, who is now in charge of our Strategic Command. He was our air commander in the Persian Gulf war, recognized for brilliantly executing, under General Schwarzkopf, the air part of that conflict. I asked the General, "How many missions did the allied forces fly in the gulf operation?" "Senator, you would be astonished. In a period of 6 weeks, January to February 1991, 100,000 missions were flown." It is clear that the air war was a critical part of the vicory in that conflict for the coalition forces. Even though there were 100,000 sorties, this was not decisive and it took several hundred thousand ground troops to secure victory. This use of air power in the past weeks in Bosnia, a mission here, a mission there, weather problems that we did not have in the gulf operation, such missions will never succeed. I am concerned we are raising false hopes, both the President by saying he is going to augment the use of air power and this Chamber by saying we are going to lift the embargo. We have not, in my judgment, sufficiently thought through all of the ramifications. I lastly ask my question to my friend. Then I will yield the floor to others because I am anxious to hear from them, as we all are. If we send forth this message that we are going to lift the embargo unilaterally, what is the likelihood of the Serbian forces then beginning to take more and more hostages from the UNPROFOR, which are right there as we speak today, trying to fulfill humanitarian missions? Mr. President, the question of the Senator from Virginia is a fair one. He asked earlier about what reaction the Bosnian Serbian army might take in response to the lifting of the arms embargo against the Bosnians. I would say there is not much worse. Certainly from the point of view of the Bosnian Moslems, 200,000 people killed in the last 2 years, 2 million refugees forced out of their homes, there is not much worse that could happen to these people than has happened to them while the rest of the world effectively stood by and let them suffer defenseless. So there are no guarantees of how anyone will act in a circumstance of this kind. But one thing we know is that our inaction up until this time has been a failure. It has failed to impede the progress of aggression. It has failed to stop the genocidal acts that are occurring. I must say, though some of the questions the Senator from Virginia is asking are obviously quite important and fair, I am disappointed that he would oppose the unilateral lifting of the arms embargo by the United States, because I had hoped that on that ground -- I understand the dispute about the use of air power. Although I must say the reference to the gulf war is a good one, we have not really used allied air power here. We have tweaked their noses and not really brought the force that we have to bear in a way that would hurt the aggressors, the Bosnian Serbs and those who support them and supply them in Serbia. The Senator from Virginia has said he is concerned that lifting the embargo unilaterally would put a "Made in the U.S.A." stamp on this conflict. What it would do, responding to something the Senator from Virginia said at the outset of his remarks, would be to put a stamp that said at least in this way the people of the United States of America did not stand by, did not equivocate. We at least sent weapons to the victims of aggression and genocidal acts with which they could defend themselves. That is a stamp that is consistent with the best moral traditions of our people and our foreign policy, and a stamp which history, I think, will applaud and not criticize. So I hope we can find a way to have unanimous, or at least substantial, support in this Chamber for the unilateral lifting of the arms embargo. It is an act of leadership in a conflict in a world that is sorely lacking. I say, finally, the Senator from Virginia has had a proud and long and distinguished record in strengthening the rule of order and law in the world in supporting the development of strength of the U. S. military to protect our national security and world order. I know that he shares my feeling that when we are in a situation where, as Senator Dole, the Senate Republican leader, said earlier, a third- or fourth-rate military power can intimidate and make the United States, the world's superpower, and NATO, the greatest military alliance in the history of the world, look timid and weak, then the message to Europe, to other aggressors there and throughout the world, to the leadership of North Korea, for instance, Iraq, Libya -- wherever we may have enemies -- that message is the wrong message we want to send. We need to find a resolve to a complicated situation in Bosnia, obviously. But to me there is a clear aggressor, and that is the Bosnian Serb army. There is a clear party that is guilty of genocidal acts. That is the Bosnian Serbs. We have a strategic interest and a moral obligation, at least, to stand together and say we will give these people the arms with which to defend themselves. Mr. President, in closing, would the drafters of this amendment consider amending it in some manner to reflect that while the United States may have a legal right under international law to lift such embargo as this country is responsible for, we will do that, but we will not act unilaterally in this conflict in opposition to our allies; that we will only take such further actions in concert with our allies? Could that be made a part of this amendment with such clarity as we can all then have the feeling that we will not see this conflict suddenly transform into one for which the United States of America is primarily responsible? Mr. President, there would never be an occasion on which this Senator would hesitate to sit down and discuss and try to work out an arrangement that could be supported mutually with the Senator from Virginia. I have enormous respect for him. But I must say I feel very strongly -- and I speak only for myself and not the Senate Republican leader or the other sponsors of this amendment -- that this is a moment in which this body should speak with clarity and eliminate and avoid conditions and qualifications, and to say very clearly that we intend to unilaterally lift the arms embargo so we can supply weapons to the Moslems in Bosnia to allow them to defend themselves. I say that with the understanding that the President will continue to negotiate with our allies, and I hope that our allies will join us. But, most of all, what I want this amendment to do is to provide help for the Bosnian Moslems and put a little bit of fear into the Bosnian Serb aggressors, which they have not had until this time. The Senator from Virginia asked what the impact on the Bosnian Serbs and others in Bosnia will be as a result of passage of this amendment. Right now the Bosnian Serbs are acting like thugs in a lawless territory, firing at civilians, ignoring a declaration of safe havens where the Moslems can run -- leaving the homes they were forced out of only because of their religion -- going into Sarajevo where we had an agreement and taking antiaircraft weapons out of a depot that the United Nations was storing them in, acting with such pernicious disregard for promises they made that even their historic allies in Russia have left the field of negotiations feeling they could not trust them. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Virginia, there is nothing more that we could do here that would embolden the Serbs to do anything worse than they have done now. They are animals running without regard to the law through what used to be a civilized and peaceful land. Mr. President, I will remind my good friend from Connecticut that I ran a calculation. There are 36 conflicts going on in the world today. Most of them civil wars, cultural wars, religious wars. Yes, we are appalled about the tragedy unfolding before our eyes in Bosnia. Yes, we have compassion. But this Senator draws the line. I am speaking today for the future involvement, the future credibility of this country and the future risk of lives of the men and women in the Armed Forces that wear our uniform. We cannot become militarily involved in every humanitarian tragedy in the world. Madam President, does the Senator from Massachusetts wish to address a question to the Senator from Virginia? Mr. President, I had a question that I wanted to follow up with the Senator. Is the Senator willing to yield the floor? Mr. President, I would like to retain the floor and entertain his question, as I can. (Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN assumed the chair.) Madam President, I also have some statements I want to make with respect to this. I join with the Senator from Virginia in some respects, and I join with the Senator from Connecticut in others. But I want to make it clear, along with the Senator from Virginia, that this amendment, in its current form, I believe, has flaws. I would like to lift the embargo under the appropriate procedures and with an appropriate process. But the Senator from Virginia is absolutely correct in raising certain questions and in asking the Senate to make a judgment about whether or not this is the best method of accomplishing the goal that the Senator from Connecticut seeks. For instance, the language of the second-degree amendment -- I regret that this is second degreed in the way it is. This is far too important an issue to come to the floor and plunk down in front of us a second- degree, prearranged amendment that may even have flaws with respect to the intentions of the proponents, but which does not allow us in the U.S. Senate to flesh out a vital foreign policy issue. Let me be very specific, Madam President. There is a unilateralness to this which the Senator seeks, I understand, in terms of the message we want to send. But the messages that are also sent with respect to our allies and current negotiating efforts the administration is in the middle of, could conceivably be extraordinarily damaging. It seems to me that the amendment would be a much stronger amendment if there at least was a 2- or 3-day or an immediate effort embraced in the amendment to respect the multilateral manner by which we engaged in this, and to respect the multilateral manner in which we will most likely finally reach some kind of resolution. If we just run off in a unilateral fashion, to be specific, what happens to the current fragile cooperation of Russia? Do we then create a new threat to Boris Yeltsin and the capacity of the Russians to cooperate, which invites their need politically to respond to the Serbs in a way that deprives us of some of the very response of air attacks that the President is now contemplating? We would, in fact, make matters worse for the people of Gorazde if all of a sudden the Russians were to say, "Well, in view of this unilateral action, we are no longer prepared to support the air attacks because you have clearly entered on the side of one of the protagonists in a manner that is not called for by the current dynamics of the negotiating process." So I would respectfully say I do not know the answer for certain to that, but I do know that the Senate should not vote on this until we have some understanding of what those implications are. I suspect the answer is that the Russians would view this with grave implications, that the Russians would see this as a threat to their relationship in the region, and that it would alter the balance of power in the immediate circumstances that would make matters worse, not better. Now, I do not think the Senator from Connecticut wants that to happen. Now, I wish to preface my statement by saying I wish to lift -- I wanted to lift the embargo a year ago, and the timing was correct a year ago. The timing was correct for a lot of things that we chose not to do a year ago including, I might add, what the Senator from Virginia has said, which is to bring the American people into some consensus about what is really at stake in the region and what is not at stake in the region. I might add, however, I happen to disagree with the Senator from Virginia that there has not been at least some effort to do that. Secretary of State Christopher, in February a year ago, said that "the continuing destruction of the new U.N. member state challenges the principle that internationally recognized borders should not be altered by force." He said, "The conflict may not have natural borders, but it threatens to spill over into new regions." He said, "It could become a greater Balkan war." He said, "The river of fleeing refugees, which has reached the hundreds of thousands, would swell and the political and economic fiber of Europe, as demonstrated by the former Communist States, would be further strained." So it is not as if there has been no further effort to try to describe this. The fact is though we find ourselves in a situation where there is not a clear understanding by the American people, where there is not a clear definition of the progression we might be willing to go down in an effort to assert our interests. Now, I think yesterday the President of the United States made it very, very clear. It is the policy of this country to not only try to protect Gorazde but to try to extend the concept of the safe zones in the areas of dispute. It seems to me that that is a clear definition of a policy, and that is very much in play right now. I think we should put it on a very short fuse, Madam President. I think that we ought to look at this resolution and any effort to lift the embargo unilaterally in the light of a very short fuse. And I would respectfully submit to my colleagues that if we take the time to fashion a resolution that creates a sufficient process for the President to be able to carry out the Presidential prerogatives that he exercised yesterday and we link the lifting of an embargo to the failure of the Bosnian Serbs to come to the table or to the failure of the air power to resolve some of these questions, then we will do far more to induce their behavior while simultaneously maintaining the integrity of the message the Senator wants to send and of the common sense, if you will, of the United States Senate. So I think this needs to be fleshed out more. I ask my colleague from Connecticut, is he prepared to end the humanitarian effort in Bosnia? Because that may be one of the implications of this amendment. Madam President, I say in response to the question of the Senator from Massachusetts, this Senator does not feel that would be one of the implications, one of the results of the passage of this amendment. My colleague from Connecticut says he does not think it would be. Let me say to my friend that the Bosnian Serbs have made it clear that if the United States is perceived as somehow entering the conflict of this particular moment in a way that in the current dynamics is unilateral, they may decide they are going to take 150 or 200 UNPROFOR people hostage as a consequence. They have already done that. But they have been releasing them in the last few days, Madam President. We seem to have made the point and we seem to be breaking through in the last few days. Now, I cannot deny there is a perfidy that is unacceptable in their actions in Gorazde. It is unacceptable, beyond anybody's standards, to lob mortars and direct artillery shells straight into a hospital. And that is why I think the President should put the bombing on a much shorter fuse. But we should think very carefully about at the very moment that the President is saying I am prepared to bomb, we want to simultaneously take the step unilaterally, unilaterally, to have a greater impact on this. Now, I would say to my colleague, if the United States is truly prepared -- and I hope it is and I believe it is -- to follow through on this threat of air strikes, and if we are prepared to stay the course, I respectfully submit and I believe that we will change Bosnian Serb behavior. We may not. But if we make it clear that we are responding specifically to their perfidy, specifically to their inhumanity, specifically to their willingness to attack innocent women and children, and to defy the United Nations and NATO and the will of the civilized world, I believe we have the high moral ground and the world will understand our bombings. But I believe that if we moved unilaterally, without even the consent of our allies, who have the troops on the ground -- it is their risk on the ground today, not ours -- we would be inviting an irresponsible international reaction. What is wrong with having an amendment, which I would vote for, that suggests the condition precedent to our lifting the embargo, on very short order, I might add. I respectfully submit to my colleague that if we set up a continuum of conditions precedent to our actions and vote that we will lift the embargo in the event that the Bosnian Serbs do not respond, we will do far more to elicit a response than if we ask ourselves to unilaterally lift this embargo. So I just think this needs to be fleshed out. And I regret that this is in a second-degree form, because I think we could come up with an amendment that is strong, that is sensible, that reflects an important message which the Senate ought to send. I wish to make it clear, the Senator from Connecticut is absolutely correct to come to the floor with a sense of outrage. He is 100 percent, together with the minority leader, appropriately suggesting that the United States owes the world leadership on this. We do. We do owe the world leadership on this. And we have been, frankly, going on a slippery rock, from rock to rock, into deeper and deeper water, without a clarification of what we are going to do once we are swimming, if we know how to swim. So I say respectfully that we have an obligation here to approach this as the greatest deliberative body ought to, which is sensibly and slowly and carefully. I am not suggesting we should not vote. I would like to have an amendment I could vote for, and I hope my colleague and the minority leader will help us, together with the Senator from Virginia, to come together on this in a way to fashion a sensible foreign policy message. And I join my colleague -- I have to go to a hearing. I would stay here and debate this at great length. But I am not going to agree to a time agreement until such time as we have really tried to flesh out these issues further. There is a great deal more to be said. I am not going to say it now, but I certainly want to be able to reserve the right to do that. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts. While we may have differences on the use of air power, I initiated this debate along the framework of the question as to what happens under this amendment on the unilateral question. I think the Senator and I have a meeting of the minds. I hope others will join and that we can work with the distinguished Republican leader and his distinguished group of cosponsors here to fashion an amendment which we can all agree to and get behind. Madam President, I appreciate that. I want to work with my colleague to do that, and I hope we can work with the Senator from Connecticut. On the air issue, the Senator is as versed, if not more so, as the former ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, and more importantly as the former Secretary of the Navy. I understand the limits of air power. But I also understand the limits of the Serbs. And I cannot disagree with the comments of the Senator from Kansas when he talks about this power. For heaven's sake, the United States of America spent 40 years building up a military that was supposed to be able to fight not just the former Yugoslavia but every single one of the Warsaw Pact nations and the Soviet Union. Here we are faced with one small partition of one country of the Warsaw Pact, and we are kind of putzing around as to how much message we are willing to send to make the price for the Serbs high. Yesterday, the President made that clear. I have no illusions. Might you tighten resolve? Yes. You might. Could it conceivably turn then to say we are going to prolong this? Yes. It might. But the alternative is to do nothing, the alternative is to admit failure, and the alternative is to accept that the United Nations and the NATO are impotent in the face of any kind of threat. The alternative is to invite demagogs and despots in the rest of the world to believe they can challenge that power with impunity and not with a price. My own belief is that if the United States of America were more clear and more determined to accept the risks and the limits of what is involved in pressing the air strikes, the Serbs might have a different message in that chess game that they were so prominently displaying in the New York Times the other day. Madam President, let me say to my friend before he departs the floor, let us examine the use of air power in the Persian Gulf. I mentioned before the Senator arrived that there were 100,000 sorties flown in a period of 6 weeks during that conflict. There was a clear demarcation -- the boundary of Iraq. Once we went behind that boundary, we knew the enemy, but even there was collateral damage to civilians. We had the best of weather conditions; the best of air bases. We had carefully marshaled all the assets for a major conflict before we initiated that conflict. The situation in Bosnia is starkly different. You have difficult terrain in which to spot targets and operate. You have very difficult weather conditions. You have the Serbian forces, which are designated as the enemy, colocated but a mile or less from civilian populations, and a mile or less from UNPROFOR forces. We cannot release the air power, or even a fraction of it, that we used in the gulf in this conflict. And we should not mislead the American people that air power can turn this battle. I say to my good friend from Massachusetts that sometimes leadership is more difficult to exercise by way of restraint than by using military force. Madam President, let me just say to my friend that everything he said is correct. Everything he said is correct. I do not argue with it. His description of the limitations in the gulf is accurate, and he is as knowledgeable as anybody in the U.S. Senate. But here is I think respectfully the distinction. While we may be able to specifically turn the battle at Gorazde by pointing the air strikes at Gorazde, the Serbs have an enormous number of assets in other locations that we are aware of that are not near civilians and that are not part of that battle. I believe that because they are defying their own word, because they are going against their own agreement, because they are violating their own understanding -- and the world understands that -- and because they are engaging in behavior that is contrary to the rules of warfare, the world will understand if the NATO and U.N. attack targets that are not in the area of Gorazde or of civilians, but which make the price higher. I admit to the Senator that may or may not work. I rather suspect that if the Serbs saw a united determination of the world to make it clear that the United Nations word is not going to be flaunted and that the will of civilized people is not going to be trampled on, I would suspect that they would understand this is a serious measure, that it will cost them dearly, and that it will do what it did at Sarajevo. It worked at Sarajevo. Those who are clamoring for leadership should respect the fact that this President of the United States and his team brought about the events of Sarajevo, and they also brought about the peace between the Croats and the Moslems. So I would respectfully suggest things are happening. I think that the use of that air power is worth the effort recognizing all of the limitations. I would also say that with respect to this particular resolution that I would be much more comfortable if this resolution made it far clearer that we are doing this in response to the specific Bosnian Serb perfidy and to their behavior, that we are respecting the neutrality, if you will, and that this is really not entering into the effort. It is in response to their actions and would only occur if those actions continued. That is a far more sensible way to approach the choices that are presented to us, far more responsible way to approach it than otherwise. (Mr. KERREY assumed the chair.) Mr. President, I would ask one more question. I observe the presence of the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and I will momentarily yield. I ask my friend from Massachusetts, if that is the strategy to be used, this air power and these significant attacks on targets, supply depots, avenues of approach, which are clearly in Serbian territory, I presume that territory is Bosnian Serbian territory and not Serbia proper. Would the Senator clarify that? That would be clearly the first order of priority. But may I say to the Senator, if the behavior continued -- and here you have obviously an extraordinarily difficult issue to work out with the Russians -- but you would have to make it clear that that was an option on the list. Obviously, the Russians play significantly in this. But a first order of priority is Bosnia. Mr. President, I ask of my distinguished colleague, with that use of force it would clearly be perceived that we, the United States, together with our allies who presumably would participate, and I assume we are talking about NATO air strikes, not just U.S. air strikes -- -- I am. Then we have chosen sides in this conflict. Let there be no doubt we have chosen sides. I wish to ask this question: Clearly defined, are we doing this in response to compassion and emotion, or are we doing it as a part of the NATO force consistent with a clear national security interest in Bosnia? I suggest it is a result of emotion and compassion, and there is an absence of a clear national security interest. I think that the Senator from Virginia has asked one of the best questions, and it has been long lacking from the debate and the framework within which we are trying to approach this issue. It is the question what should have been debated in this country, and what should have been set out for this country a long time ago is a clearer discussion of what the progression is here. What is the slippery slide? We have been dancing around. We have been sort of sending the message that we want to be militarily strong, that we are prepared to use force. But is the United States prepared to use force? Are we prepared to see body bags coming back and arriving at Dover, DE? That is what the Senator is asking. What is at stake here? I respectfully submit to the Senator from Virginia that the answer is there is a vital national security interest. How vital? Is it as vital as others that we have faced more recently in other parts of the world where we have chosen to send troops and fight wars? The answer is "no." But does it rise to the level of legitimate national security interest? The answer to that is absolutely yes. We have a vital national security interest in the stability of Europe. We have a vital national security interest in the ability of the United Nations to not have its word flaunted, to not have its intent simply trampled on by thugs and war criminals. We have a vital national interest in not having this spill over in Macedonia and Kosovo. We have a vital national interest, I believe, in having our own leadership mean something in the world, so that we do not wind up inviting other people in other parts of the world to put us to the test like Francois and Cedras in Haiti, who scoffed their noses at us only days after we moved out of Somalia. That is what is at stake here, and I think that is important. I know the Senator, who is a passionate advocate of an adequate defense for this country, and who understands the stakes of foreign policy, would share with me a view that the word of the United States and the word of the United Nations and the word of NATO and their ability to effect their power is important in future conflicts and in future negotiations. That is an interest. Is it a vital interest that predicates that we should put American troops on the ground? No, I do not believe that; not unless there is a peace of some kind and we are in peacekeeping, not peacemaking, component. I do believe fervently that air power here is one of the tools that we have available to us, commensurate with a level of national interest that I have just described. If the national interests were greater, then we would talk about putting marines in. If the national interests were even greater, we might talk about the kind of confrontation we had in Cuba. It clearly is not that. The problem is that we have never spent enough time defining the interests and measuring the levels of response. The Serbs understand that, so they are operating with a perception that when push comes to shove, the United States will back down. They were given succor the other day and an ability to believe that -- I mean, in the total of all of this war with ethnic cleansing, with rape as a calculated tool of war, with the most extraordinary bombardment and movement of civilians, we have dropped, through NATO and the United Nations, a total of six bombs, and three did not go off. Mr. President, I must say that, to me, that did not establish a national security interest. I do not believe we have a national security interest. But your definition that it is there to the extent we use air power but is not there to the extent we use ground forces, that is a fallacious, I say to my good friend, formula. I think a U.S. airman's life, a downed pilot, captured on the ground, is just as valuable as any marine that marches in. So I cannot distinguished between air and ground in terms of the level of our national security interest. I disagree with my good friend that this conflict could destroy U.S. credibility in Europe. We have stood side by side with the Europeans in two major world wars. The Europeans have looked to us for leadership every year since World War II. We have given it time and time again in the form of our support for NATO. Our record is clear. And I do not think this conflict, certainly in the last 2 years, has come to the point where Europe is about to fall, convulse, implode, or otherwise destruct, as a consequence of this tragic conflict. You say "casualties." There were tens of thousands of casualties over the past several weeks in Rwanda alone. That is life. There are 36 conflicts in the world today of civil war proportions, with life being lost. We cannot say that because the United States is not involved in those many conflicts, that our credibility is weakened. I think it is wrong in this debate to go back and examine from this day backward, what went wrong and what went right. We will have to do that another day. Let us, on this day, not only thank the Republican leader and his cosponsors for initiating this debate, which is long overdue, but let us address from this day forward what the U.S. interest is and what we should do. I say that I am yet unconvinced that we have a national security interest which justifies the use of our military -- be it air, or otherwise -- as recommended by the Senator from Massachusetts and the President. I think that would be a mistake, and it would end up that this conflict is stamped "made in the U.S.A." I yield the floor. Mr. President, if I could answer my friend. No one has suggested putting a different level of values on the lives. No one has suggested that. Obviously, the airman's life is at risk. For Heaven's sake, there are troops of France, and troops of a host of other countries, that are there now, and we ought to care as much about them, frankly, because they are part of our effort. They are doing our bidding, in essence, almost our mercenaries, because we are willing to pay for it, but we are not willing to put the troops on the ground. These troops need this air support in order to be protected. That is what Lieutenant General Rose decided, and we have given him the command. I know my friend respects the notion of letting command make a decision. I say also that those who put on the uniform are prepared to accept certain kinds of risks, and there are different gradations of what a nation is willing to do in certain kinds of situations. Our friend in the chair, who was a Navy Seal, knows full well that there are different kinds of missions that you can get sent on. And sometimes they will say to you when you go out on a mission: You are on your own; you are not going to have cover on this one, or we are not going to be able to come in and pick you up. You guys have to go get off there yourselves. This is the risk you take. Usually, American soldiers have had the courage and gumption to raise their hands and say, "We will take that risk." It does not mean we do not value them. We make judgments every single day in foreign policy, and in the conduct of our military affairs, about what we are willing to put in or not put into this. This is the whole problem with this issue. Let me finish here. The problem with the whole issue is that the Nation has not yet gone down the slippery side. We want to not have the United Nations humiliated, or NATO humiliated, and we want to not walk away from our humanitarian responsibilities; but, at the same time, we have not really said what we are willing to do to maintain all of those desires, or to achieve those desires. I am simply saying to you that it is my belief that in this effort you would not abandon anybody, but you would bring the power to bear in the effort to try to seek the resolution. I believe if the Serbs thought we were serious, as they did at Sarajevo, we could achieve these safe havens and might get back to the negotiating table. Mr. President, I share the concerns -- and I have said it in this debate in the last hour -- of the French and the British about their forces on the ground in Bosnia. They were put in there to carry out a humanitarian mission. They were equipped with such military equipment as was necessary to protect themselves, not to become an aggressive force and work in conjunction with NATO air power to repulse the Serbs. If you leave the impression that if we add air power to what they now have on the grounds, this could turn the tide in that conflict, you have made a very fallacious military argument. Mr. President, in answer to my colleague, I think there are limits to it. I accept the limits. I accept the possibilities of failure that might go with the limits to it. But as the Senator from Kansas said, we have a responsibility here to try and show some leadership and to take a certain level of risk, if you will. There is a level of risk in not doing that. The level of risk in not doing that is that you invite all of the repercussions I articulated, by making paper tigers out of these institutions that they have struggled to give power to. As I expressed earlier, I hope the distinguished minority leader will open up the opportunity, notwithstanding the second degree, for us -- I would like to be able to vote to lift this embargo, because I think there is a moment where that indeed is something you have to do. But I hope that in this delicate moment, where the Russians are so important to our ability, and where our allies rely on us not to do something unilaterally, if we can just create this capacity to approach the multilateral portion of it, then you would be comfortable, I would be comfortable, and I hope the Senator from Kansas, the minority leader, would also feel we are accomplishing what we were setting out to do. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? I yield. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts has the floor. Mr. President, I just wanted to put in the Record a fax we have just gotten from the Prime Minister of Bosnia. Let me read it to my colleagues. Certainly we are willing, if we need to modify the amendment in some appropriate way, not to take any teeth out of it, to make a strong statement. But I have to check with my cosponsors on both sides of the aisle. This is a letter we just received from Dr. Silajdzic, the Prime Minister: This is directed to Mr. Colin Keating, President of the Security Council, United Nations, Sarajevo. I think it underscores this. All I am suggesting in our amendment -- and I will not get into all this other debate -- if we are not going to do anything, and maybe there is good reason we should not do anything, we ought to at least let them defend themselves. It seems to me they ought to have that basic right. It is in the U.N. Charter. We are not choosing up sides. We are choosing up sides with the Serbs if we do not do anything. They do not need the weapons. They have 300 tanks; the Bosnians have 8, and it is the same ratio in other weapons systems. I hope that in the very near time we could vote on the amendment because I know the distinguished Senator from Alabama wants to get back to the bankruptcy bill at some appropriate time and finish that up. But I have been listening to the debate of colleagues. I think it is a good, healthy debate. But I think in this case we would be strengthening the President's hand, and NATO is meeting today and tomorrow. I am not certain they care what the U.S. Senate says or not. I hope at least they understand we had some serious reservations about slaughtering innocent people, killing 10 people in the emergency room in the hospital yesterday, killing a child while the mother stood 10 yards away, where the mayor of Gorazde asked us, in effect, to drop bombs on his city. He said it makes dying easier. We can walk away from that, but at least as we walk away let us lift the arms embargo and make it clear that we want people to have a right to defend themselves. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? I would like to answer the minority leader, if I may, because it is an important question. I want to make sure I answer it directly. Mr. President, I say to the distinguished minority leader I agree with what he said. I think President Clinton agrees with what he said. The President announced a policy yesterday that may do more, conceivably, to respond immediately to the need he has described than lifting the embargo, because, if we lift the embargo today on this bill or send a message today, we absolutely will invite them to rapidly do everything they can, and they will not get any arms. They are not going to get arms to save Gorazde. What is going to save them there, if anything will save them, will be the response that the Senator from Kansas has rightfully just called for. Under no circumstances should we do nothing. That is why I supported the strikes, and that is why I believe we ought to hold that on a very short fuse. All I suggest respectfully to my friend is let us try to send this message in a way that combines the best of both worlds, that sends the message but allows the President to move in the next days, hopefully, to prevent precisely what the Senator has just described. I would say to my friend from Kansas, if you read article 51, it is not an unlimited right of self-defense. It is a conditional right of self-defense. You can take the first part of article 51 and cite the right of self-defense, but if you go to the second part, it says very specifically measures taken by members in exercising this right shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present charter to take, at any time, such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. That is precisely, with UNPROFOR troops on the ground with the multilateral approach of the President, that is precisely what the President is trying to do right now. If we were to unilaterally do that, we raise a legal issue whether we are in keeping with the article, but we also, I think, more dramatically undermine the message we could send here. So I say to my colleague -- and I think the Senator just said he does not want to do this in a way that somehow does not send the strong message, nor do I -- I want to vote to lift this arms embargo if these other efforts fail, but if we are in keeping with article 51, we are in keeping with our responsibility if we put this on an extraordinarily short fuse. Our friends in Gorazde or the people of Gorazde will not get these weapons any sooner or any later if we do that. I think we will have a far more constructive approach. I hope we can work together. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield for an observation, I again express my appreciation to the distinguished Republican leader and his cosponsors. Let us hope that we can reshape this amendment to send the needed message that the Republican leader so correctly states but do it in a manner that meets two criteria: First, that it is clear that this amendment does not imply that this Nation is going to act unilaterally but that this Nation will join with our allies in future actions and; second, that there is a cause of action which militarily, strategically, and diplomatically will not put at risk the UNPROFOR forces, raise false hopes, and further inflame this conflict. Mr. President, I apologize to the Senator from Rhode Island, my distinguished chairman, who has been waiting at great length. He has been very indulgent to this colloquy. I thank him very much. I thank the Senator very much, indeed. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized. Mr. President, I am hopeful that compromise language that takes into account some of the concerns expressed by Senators Warner, Kerrey, and others can be worked out. As a strong proponent of the United Nations, I must oppose this amendment at this time because of its potential to undermine the strength of U.N. Security Council decisions. While I would support the lifting of the embargo on a multilateral basis, I do not support a unilateral lifting of that embargo. The arms embargo is in place as a result of a binding U.N. Security Council action. Accordingly, I do not believe it wise to direct the President to lift the embargo unilaterally. A unilateral lifting of the arms embargo would set a very dangerous precedent. Other nations could choose to ignore Security Council resolutions that we might consider important, for example, such as the embargo against Iraq or sanctions against Libya. At yesterday's press conference, President Clinton indicated that he supports the lifting of the arms embargo but that he is not willing to do so unilaterally, for the reasons that I outlined here. I believe that this amendment could seriously damage President Clinton's leverage with our allies at this delicate point in the negotiations over the three-pronged United States strategy on Bosnia that the President outlined yesterday. How can the President hope to gain NATO support for the U.S. plan if he is forced simultaneously, at the behest of Congress, to undermine the notion of multilateral consensus? I hope very much, as I say, that some sort of compromise language can be worked out because we are not far apart and it should be within the ability of man. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington. Mr. President, I want to express my full agreement with and admiration for the distinguished leader of the Republicans and the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman]. It is long past time, it seems to me, that we should be dealing with these wonderful abstractions of how an arms embargo will lead to some kind of peace, of how another bombing raid or two will change the minds of the aggressors in connection with this case. If my understanding is correct, some 100,000 sortie missions were flown by the United States and its allies in the war in the gulf, and yet after those 100,000 missions, in order to conclude that conflict, it was required that ground troops go in and actually win a war. To think that a handful of additional raids, to think another in a series of threats, which have gone on in hollow fashion for 2 entire years now, will suddenly change the minds of those who engaged in systematic slaughter and ethnic cleansing is, I think, to believe in the tooth fairy. It simply is not going to happen. There is no one in our Military Establishment who believes that the course of action being proposed by the President to NATO is going to work. And, of course, there is no historic precedent for it working at all. We, this country and the United Nations, recognized the independence of Bosnia some 2 years or more ago. The Bosnians, like the residents of any other nation, have the right to defend themselves. The Bosnians have been the subjects of unprovoked aggression on the part of the Serbs. They have been subjected to tens of thousands -- perhaps more than that -- of deaths of their people, the great majority of whom are civilians, women and children, older people, and the like. More hundreds of thousands have been displaced from their homes. And the nature of the demands on the part of the Bosnian Serbs remains absolutely unchecked. It is not only a wrong and perversive policy to continue to enforce this arms embargo, it is, in my view, an absolutely immoral policy to do so. This body, as I remember, has already, on at least one and perhaps more occasions, passed sense-of-the-Senate resolutions that the arms embargo should be lifted. Remarkably enough, a debate 4 months ago, 6 months ago, a year ago, fell on almost exactly the same lines it has fallen today: Let us wait. Let us let the United Nations see what it can do. It is premature to end the embargo. The Serbs will be angered. The Russians will be angered. Well, these arguments for patience, for delay, have had a single result: more deaths, more aggression, more loss of territory. Is it not time to listen to the people who are the victims of the aggression, the Bosnians themselves? They do not want the so-called peacekeeping or relief forces which are there at the present time from various European countries. They want them gone. They want the opportunity to defend their own liberties, to establish their own State. Only when they have arms sufficient to impose a punishment which is remotely proportional to what they have suffered are they likely to get and to achieve any kind of just peace and any kind of settlement on a reasonable and appropriate basis. It certainly is clear that we in the United States cannot, by any action that we have remotely thought of taking, end the ethnic and religious tensions which have plagued the Balkans for such an extended period of time. But to risk the lives of even a handful of American men and women, Air Force and Naval officers and enlisted personnel, on fruitless bombing missions, on bombing missions in which our military does not believe, on missions which will not be a success but will risk our people, and at the same time to say that the victims cannot defend themselves, Mr. President, that is a perverse, erroneous, and immoral set of policies. The United States of America has survived and prospered as the leader of the free world because our successive administrations have, in fact, been leaders. And when we express our unequivocal intention to end this arms embargo, I suspect that at least a significant portion of the NATO nations will be willing to go along with us. When we express that kind of leadership and do something that follows up the rhetoric which has occupied two previous administrations and its predecessor administration, the chances that the aggressors will be willing to talk peace on some kind of a rational and reasonable basis will dramatically increase. So far, however, our threats have been empty, our actions have been utterly and totally inadequate. We have seen, and it has been the case, that we lack any kind of leadership or any kind of rational policy. Our leadership, our ability to be respected throughout the world has suffered greatly. Let us say, first, that this is not directly the fight of the United States but, second, as it is the fight of a beleaguered people for its own independence, we are not going to inhibit that struggle, and that in fact we will help them at least to attain arms equality with their opponents. We should not amend or change this resolution. We should pass it in its present form and, in the view of this Senator, at least, we should follow up by seeing to it that we are not speaking mere words but that we are giving these people the ability to fight for their own liberties. Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized. Mr. President, as a principal cosponsor of the amendment of the able minority leader, Mr. Dole, I must acknowledge that U.S. involvement in Bosnia has already gone too far. Two weeks ago, President Clinton made the military decision to initiate limited air strikes against Serbian targets in Bosnia. This decision came just hours after a statement by the Secretary of Defense that the United States would not participate in airstrikes. Today, we note news reports that the administration has now proposed expanded airstrikes -- a reversal of Mr. Clinton's position of 8 weeks ago. All of this is just the latest misstep by this administration, which could lead this country toward greater U.S. military involvement in the former Yugoslavia. As the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and as a Senator from North Carolina, I absolutely oppose expanded air strikes. So, as I said at the outset, I am extremely concerned that the U.S. may already have gone too far in its involvement in Bosnia. I am not certain that we can believe the statement of the administration that it will not commit troops to Bosnia without congressional approval. We may not now be able to reverse course. The administration has already committed to sending 25,000 U.S. ground troops to enforce the peace agreement, and from 2 years of experience surely we know that any peace agreement could vanish in a heartbeat. The administration has already dispatched troops to the precipice of the conflict in Macedonia in the hopes of "deterring aggression." Where have we heard that before? These troops will soon number about 500. Now the United States has used American pilots, under NATO Command, I might add, to strike Serbian positions. Mr. President, U.S. lives have been put in jeopardy under the auspices of a U.N. resolution that is subject to the decisions of foreign bureaucrats. That rubs against the grain of this Senator and most of the people back home whom I represent. I cannot and will not countenance this multilateral "enlargement" of U.S. involvement. Of course, I do not support the belligerent actions of the Serbs. Quite the contrary. Their actions are reprehensible and I believe the United States should give what compassionate aid it can to the victims of aggression. However, the President has had other options available to him that would not lead the United States down a dangerous, ill-advised, ill- considered, misguided and costly path of military intervention. Lift the arms embargo and allow and enable the Bosnians to defend themselves. I received a lot of calls from North Carolina regarding the President's foreign policy actions. Rarely have I received so many calls opposing the President's most recent actions. The American public, as I judge it to be, is not convinced that the United States should become engrossed in imposing a peace in the former Yugoslavia. Nor do I believe that we have such strong national security interests in Bosnia so as to justify risking U.S. lives in the heart of Europe once again this century. We have already done that. The Europeans may have a national security interest in ending the conflict on their borders but we do not. From the very beginning of his presidency, President Clinton has taken half steps in Bosnia. His policy is one of advancement and then retreat. During his campaign for the presidency, by the way, Governor Clinton called for a lifting of the arms embargo. Months later, the President announced the intention to lift the arms embargo and then alerted our allies. Our allies gave a resounded no and the President accepted their decision. While condemning the dismemberment of Bosnia, administration officials have been muttering that any peace agreement would have to "be fair, enforceable and fully embraced by the Bosnian government." Talk about Alice in Wonderland. Now, it seems they are ready to accept almost any agreement as long as it is on paper. The Bosnians have few choices. It is difficult, if not impossible, for the Bosnian Government to agree "freely" to the dismemberment of their country while guns are pointed at their heads. And that is the position that we have put them in. The administration first announced that it was willing to initiate air strikes in February 1993. We all know how many times hollow threats have been made since then, but I understand that we are serious now. Do not believe it. Mr. President, no one knows the goals, objectives, duration, exit strategy or U.S. national security interest in this conflict. No one knows how much the U.S. tax payer will be forced to spend on this operation. No one knows how we will pay for the operation. The one thing I do know is that I am not willing to spend one American life on an ill-conceived, ill-defined, and ill-advised military mission. It is pure folly to believe that the United States can impose order in a region that defines hostility and chaos. The administration is not prepared to insist on lifting the arms embargo on the Bosnian people so they can defend themselves. Yet we seem prepared to risk U.S. lives. I reiterate, I am totally opposed to that. I believe the American people are totally opposed to that. And we do not need to. When I met with President Izetbegovic, he pleaded that the United States allow Bosnia to defend itself. He was right. Mr. President, air strikes alone will not work. If the President is serious about stopping the carnage, he would order cruise missiles to strike the military command, control and communication headquarters of the Bosnian Serbs. He would issue notice to Serb and Bosnian Serb leaders that they are personally responsible. He would insist that unless there is an immediate ceasefire, military sites in Serbia and Bosnian Serb-controlled territory will be the primary target until they cease and desist from their brutal and senseless attacks on defenseless civilians. But, Mr. President, this administration appears to be half-serious about ending the tragedy and carnage that has engulfed the former Yugoslavia for almost 2 years. This Senator is dead serious that U.S. servicemen and women will not be pawns in a diplomatic game played by U.N. bureaucrats dancing to the tune of the Secretary General. I urge my colleagues to allow freedom-loving people to maintain their dignity and defend their country and their families. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan. Mr. President, what is the pending business? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate is considering S. 540, and the pending amendment is the Dole amendment 1640, the Bosnia amendment. I thank the Chair. Before I proceed, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Gorton be added as a cosponsor of the pending Dole-Lieberman amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. President, the tragedy in Bosnia continues and, to me, it is incredible, it is unthinkable, it is immoral that the world has not taken reasonable risks sooner to defend an entire people who are the subject of this massive aggression and this ethnic cleansing. I never thought I would hear the words "ethnic cleansing" again in my lifetime. But we have -- not just heard the words but seen the cleansing -- in Bosnia. The shame of the world. But it is even more incredible to me that we do not even let the Bosnians defend themselves. We have been unwilling to take even the minimal risk of air strikes against military targets. I think that has been a mistake. I have always felt we should engage in those air strikes to reduce the military capability of the aggressor. That has been a tragic mistake, but what is totally indefensible is that we will not even allow the Bosnians to defend themselves on the ground. This is not a question of whether American troops are sent in. This is a question of whether we will finally let the Bosnians defend themselves against Serbian aggression. Whatever the argument is about the use of air strikes, whether they can succeed alone or whether you have to have a ground component, or whether it jeopardizes U.N. people on the ground or not, or whether we should conduct air strikes unilaterally or do them through NATO, there are a whole host of questions on air strikes. While I favor those air strikes, at least there are questions to be argued and to be resolved relative to the use of air strikes. But when it comes to letting a people defend themselves in their own homes, how in the name of Heaven can we justify the maintenance of an arms embargo which will not even let people do that? The violence in former Yugoslavia has mocked democratic societies. We who celebrate the end of a halfcentury of cold war should be ashamed by what is going on in Yugoslavia. A few weeks ago, the civilized world was apparently pushed over the brink by the slaughter from a shell exploding in Sarajevo at a marketplace. Finally -- finally -- with that marketplace tragedy, after the world had swallowed ethnic cleansing and genocide for 22 months, the world finally gagged and began to take credible action. And it worked in Sarajevo. The threat of credible force worked in Sarajevo, finally, 22 months late. The world could not take it anymore. Well, we should not take it anymore in Gorazde, and we should not take it anymore in the other so-called safe zones, which are about as unsafe as any place can be in the world. The war in Bosnia cannot be ended without American leadership. There is no other way to end this war except to let the Bosnians defend themselves and to combine that with the threat of credible air strikes. Not us on the ground, but the Bosnians on the ground defending themselves. But the only way that can happen is if the arms embargo is lifted. Would air strikes work alone? No one is suggesting that air strikes do work alone in this resolution. This resolution is saying let the Bosnians defend themselves on the ground. This resolution does not address the question of air strikes. I wish it would, but it does not. But at least it finally does the moral thing, saying we have had it with tying people's arms behind their backs so they cannot defend themselves. And so today I hope that the Senate will finally, in a strong way, express itself; that whatever additional steps are taken relative to air strikes by NATO, at a minimum we will let the people of Bosnia defend themselves. We should lift this arms embargo that has effectively punished the weakest faction in Yugoslavia. Mr. President, I know there is an effort being made to work on the language. That is the way it should be. I for one as a cosponsor of this amendment would have no difficulty whatsoever if there is an amendment to this which says that the arms embargo will be lifted in X number of days unless something happens between now and then, as the Senator from Massachusetts has suggested, providing that period of days is a short period. But the heart of this is that we are telling the Serbs, finally you are going to face for the first time not unarmed victims that you are slaughtering city by city, but you are fighting a people who are allowed to defend themselves. And whether or not the Serbs will respond to that, I do not know. I am not sure what it will take. But I know that without it, without them facing an enemy which is armed, which they are slaughtering in this century's newest genocide, the Serbs will not stop their aggression. I hope we adopt this amendment or something close to it. I congratulate Senators Dole, Lieberman, and the others who have decided that we want to act on this amendment. I know that the Presiding Officer is one of those cosponsors, and he has felt strongly about this issue for a long time. I do hope the Senate will adopt this resolution promptly and send a very strong message to the Serbs that they are likely in the next few weeks to face a two-pronged problem. One is, hopefully, credible air strikes and, two, a credible armed force of Bosnians that finally will be allowed to defend themselves. I am hopeful that there can be, even at this very late stage, some minimal, decent, equitable, negotiated settlement among the factions. The only way to achieve it is if there is a credible threat of force, at least against the artillery which is pummeling those safe areas and shelling hospitals, against the Serbian forces who have taken as hostages both international peacekeeping forces and humanitarian relief workers. The best chance we have for any kind of a just settlement is if that kind of exclusion zone is established in other areas and backed up the way it was in Sarajevo, in order to make peace, not to make war. In Bosnia, we must have a credible threat of force and a willingness to use force to make peace. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor this resolution, and I urge its adoption by the Senate. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized. Mr. President, unfortunately I have not been able to participate in this debate until this moment. As the Presiding Officer knows, I introduced the first amendment on this issue when President Bush was in the White House. We passed the so-called Biden amendment that authorized the President, then President Bush to seek that the arms embargo be lifted. I ask that that amendment be entered into the Record. Mr. President, it authorized the President of the United States -- and it is the law of the land -- to make available to the Bosnian Government up to $50 million in arms that are sitting "on the shelf" here in the United States. I have been an open critic of at least some of the ways this administration has handled a very complicated, admittedly complicated, situation in Bosnia. But I would like to set a few things straight before we vote, if we vote, on this amendment. It was not President Clinton who locked the United States into a multilateral approach. It was President Bush. It was Secretary Eagleburger, with whom I spoke, who said we should do nothing in Bosnia. And finally the last administration decided that we should impose through the U.N. Security Council an arms embargo on all the constituent parts of the former Yugoslavia. That was a mistake from the outset, in my opinion. It was well intended. It was done in the name of bringing people to the peace table, except for one small thing. The JNA, the Yugoslav National Army, which had been very well equipped, over the previous 30 years under the leadership of President Tito, was under the control of Mr. Milosevic, the President of Serbia. And so, as in the former Soviet Union, when its constituent republics began to break up and go back to being countries under the watchful and disdainful eye of Mr. Gorbachev, the world rushed to recognize, as it should have, the independence of those States, which were not constituent republics but the independent entities of the Ukraine, Belarus -- it went down the line. The same thing was happening in Yugoslavia. Slovenia first came along and said, "We want independence." They did not want to be a part of Yugoslavia anymore, because at the turn of the century Slovenia was an independent country. Things began to break apart. Milosevic and Serbia decided: We are Yugoslavia. And the fact is that Bosnia was a multiethnic culture made up of Serbs, who are orthodox Catholics; Croats, who are Roman Catholics; and Bosnian Moslems, who 400 years earlier, in order that they could own their own businesses, decided to become titular Moslems. It is interesting when you visit. You sit with Moslems in front of a mosque and you watch them drink liquor. You do not see any veils. It is what you might call secular. But they are all Slavs. They are all Slavic people -- Yugoslavia, southern Slavs. That is how we got the name. And all of a sudden these countries in the former Yugoslavia said, "We want to be independent countries." And Germany said, "We ought to recognize Croatia." And France said, "We ought to recognize Slovenia," and so on. Well, the Bosnian people had a vote, this multiethnic culture. Almost all the Croats, almost all the Moslems, and some of the Serbs said, we want to be an independent country. We do not want any part of Yugoslavia anymore. But Milosevic, sitting there seeing this empire crumble in Belgrade, said no. But the world came along and, after this vote, boycotted by Bosnian Serbs, took place, said we recognize this country as one of the family of nations, and here are its borders, with the Drina River on one side. We said this is an independent country, a member of the United Nations. And then Milosevic thought, There goes my dream of a greater Serbia. Yugoslavia is crumbling around me. I am going to have a smaller empire, but I know if I cross the Drina River with troops from the Yugoslav Army, that is, now the Serbian Army, it will be a war of aggression. Europe will have to respond. So what will I do? What I will do is on the State-controlled television I will put on these phony messages. Now, the Serbian people are good people. They have been our allies. They were our allies during World War II. But Milosevic went on television and played upon the 400 years' of history, saying on television, remember when the Croats massacred some 100,000 Serbians just like they did the Jews in concentration camps in the Crimea. Yes, it happened. Well, that got the attention of good, thinking, normal Serbians, who said: Wait a minute; could this be happening again? They said, look at what the Moslems must be doing to our people in Bosnia and Herzegovina. And in the meantime, across the bridges on the Drina River, Milosevic was sending tanks, artillery, troops, oil, money, and ammunition to aid the Bosnian Serbs in a fight against the Moslems and, originally, the Croats as well. And while all this is going on under the watch of the Bush administration, the United Nations says, we are going to move toward peace. This could break out in a war. We are going to put an arms embargo on everybody. The problem is, as I said, the Serbs had all the arms. They had the munitions factory. They had the tanks. It was a modern army that Yugoslavia had. The Bosnian Government had a Remington rifle, figuratively speaking. So, some of us said, as you recall -- the Presiding Officer strongly supported the proposal -- wait a minute. This "ain't" right. Let us lift this embargo. Let these poor devils fight. We urged the President to lift the embargo. Senator Dole strongly supported that, as others did. I am not in any way questioning the credibility of people who are now pushing this resolution. But it did not happen at the time. So along comes a new President. He gets sworn in in January, raises his right hand, and he has said, we are going to do things multilaterally. We want to make the United Nations work. We want to make NATO work. But NATO had said, now, hey, United States you signed on with us. You said you will not lift the embargo unless we all agree. So now this President is in a real conundrum. If he chose to unilaterally lift the embargo, and I think, arguably, he can do that under resolution 51 of the U.N. Charter, he splits NATO. Where are we without a NATO when this happens in Ukraine, in Belarus, in Russia, when the Zhirinovsky's of the world, the ultranationalists, say, we must go into the Ukraine where there are 6 million ethnic Russians being ill-treated by our Ukrainian brothers? Where are we without NATO? Where are we without a United Nations, which we need to bring the hammer down on North Korea for building atomic weapons? We ask the United Nations to sign on. They say, why the devil should we sign on with you? You, the United States, made a deal. You joined up. You said we could do this in unison. You are the only one that wants to lift the embargo. You are the only one, and because you do not get your way, you are going to take your ball and go home. So the President is in a tight spot. Let me tell you my criticism of the President, though. I think the President has let NATO and everyone else off the hook. I went to Bosnia just over a year ago, and wrote a report upon my return, debriefed the President, debriefed the Secretary of State, came to the Senate floor, and proposed that we should adopt a new policy in Bosnia. We should push to lift the arms embargo and we should use air strikes. And the President publicly signed onto that. He said, that is my policy; lift and strike. Then he sent the Secretary of State to Europe to a NATO meeting. My hope was that the Secretary of State was going to say, "We demand you join us to lift the embargo. And we are going to call you to task. We cannot make you, but we want you to sign up for world history. You sign, you vote yes or no." The President did not do that. I think the President should go to the United Nations and have Ambassador Albright, our Ambassador, say, here is the deal. We make a formal motion. Lift the embargo. Now stand up and be counted. I predict the French will not veto it. I predict the British will not veto it. I predict none of them will have the guts to veto it. But if they do, at least we are on the right side of history. Then we can make the decision whether or not we should fracture the alliance and go it alone. But let us do it by the book first. Look, I do not think, although I may be mistaken, there is a senior Member on this side of the aisle who has been as openly critical of this administration on foreign policy as I have. I cannot think of one off the top of my head. I would be surprised if you could. But I believe that this move is ill-timed. NATO is meeting on Friday to decide what their policy is. We are going to pass a law while the President, as we speak, is negotiating with Major, Mitterand, and Kohl trying to get them to move to this position? And we are going to say, "Mr. President, you must?" I would respectfully suggest that if the Democrats had done that with the last two Republican Presidents on the eve of negotiations involving NATO, we would have been blown into next Wednesday for interfering in the prerogatives of the President while he is negotiating. You know that when a President goes on national television, that means he goes on world television. Everybody listens. It is like that E.F. Hutton commercial. When the President speaks, the world listens. They may not agree, but they listen. Helmut Schmidt used to say to me and to others, "When America sneezes, Europe catches a cold." We are the 800-pound gorilla in the world. What has the President of the United States said? He has said, I, Bill Clinton, favor lifting the arms embargo. I, Bill Clinton, want to widen NATO air strikes. The only reason there are threats of air strikes -- although I argue it came late in Sarajevo -- is that the President of the United States forced the issue with the NATO alliance. And what did NATO do? Even though resolution 836 had been passed allowing a wide use of air power, NATO commanders concluded that in Gorazde they would not apply the Sarajevo standard. In Gorazde, they said, we will only let NATO aircraft fire at offending pieces of artillery or offending tanks if, and only if, that tank or piece of artillery is firing at U.N. personnel. That was not the deal. People say to me during interviews, "Well, Senator, how can air power work? It did not work in Gorazde." We dropped six bombs, two or three of which did not go off. That is all we did. My friend from Maine, as we say in this body, "and he is my friend," -- quoted Chesterson; paraphrased him -- I do not remember the exact quote -- on the crime debate. The Senator from Maine is truly the most literary man in this institution, besides maybe being the most honorable. People say air power has been tried and it has not worked. That is not true. As Chesterson said about Christianity, "It is not that Christianity has been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried." It is not that air power has been tried in Gorazde and found wanting or lacking. It was not tried. So what is the President of the United States doing right now? He has picked up the phone and called Yeltsin. He called Mitterand. He has called Kohl. He has called Major. On Friday, our military leadership and civilian leadership were meeting in Brussels to say, let us use air power as we intended. It will not "win the war," but it will save some lives in the meantime. By using air power, that means, if you fire at me with this tank, I can go find any tanks you have anywhere and blow them up. You shoot at me with this gun, I can go find where you store your ammunition and blow it up. You shoot at me with this piece of artillery, I can find your command post and blow it up. That is not going to stop the war, nor does the President think it will. But, at a minimum, it will stop what you see on television, or it has a chance of it, which is seeing Serbs -- by the way, I keep saying "Serbs." It should be pointed out that there are still Serbians in the Bosnian Government. There are still Serbians in Serbia, who want no part of what is happening to Bosnia, to the Moslem and Croat population. This is not all Serbs. But look at the pictures you see on television. You see women and children huddled, literally crouched, running down streets, huddled against walls, hiding in mosques and churches, and in basements, and you see, sitting up on a hill lobbing a piece of artillery, a shell, and pulling a string and indiscriminately blowing innocent civilians up, without any fear of anybody doing anything about it. Why? Bosnians have no weapons, for God's sakes. So it seems to me that since this President was dealt this hand through the incompetence of a previous administration, having compounded the bad hand he was dealt by some incompetence on the part of his administration, he is now trying to find the way through it. He says the first step is to let us use air power to the extent we have the capability to do so, without limitation. And even that he cannot get NATO to agree to yet. They are going to meet on Friday to vote on it. Let them do that and then let the President make a serious effort to lift the arms embargo with our allies. I have not had a chance to talk to the majority leader, because I was in another meeting, nor to Senator Dole, but I hope we can reach a compromise on this, not on principle, but a compromise on tactics. I hope we can work out language -- and do it with a directive, which we have the power to do, if we have the votes -- and say the following: Mr. President, you must insist with our allies that the arms embargo be lifted. Mr. President, you must table at the United Nations a resolution lifting the arms embargo. You must show you have done everything in your power to persuade the allies in the U.N. to reach a rational and humane position on this issue. In the meantime, let him negotiate. My friend from Maine knows. Private negotiations with our NATO allies. Let us see if we can move this in the next 4 or 5 days. And then if, A, it does not move, or, B, the President does not attempt in earnest to lift the arms embargo multilaterally, then we have the option a week from now, or 10 days from now. The answer to this problem is a truly negotiated settlement in Bosnia. A truly negotiated settlement can only be arrived at after all of the warring parties are convinced that they have totally used up all their wherewithal to do better on the ground. Can anyone in here name for me a circumstance where there has been a negotiated agreement with warring parties that has held before the warring parties have expired on the battlefield? Name me a single such circumstance. Right now, the people of the Bosnian Government -- mostly Moslems -- had they the wherewithal, could take back part of the 70 percent of their country taken by the Serbs. The worst of all worlds is -- and I have said this to the President, so I am not being disloyal to him or this country, and I will say it publicly now -- the worst of all worlds is for a falsely negotiated settlement. The worst of all worlds is that there would be a negotiated settlement, because the Bosnians cannot take it anymore, so they negotiate. Does anybody suggest that means that once there is a settlement, we are going to keep an arms embargo forever on Bosnia? The answer is "no." The economic embargo will be lifted on Serbia and, mark my words, within 6 months to a year, the Bosnians will be back, Moslems and Croats, fighting -- and now better armed -- the people they signed an agreement with because they feel it is an unjust agreement foisted upon them. The best way to get to the negotiating table is for the Serbs to know they got all they could get through force. Look, we have been negotiating now, and what are the Serbs doing? The Serbs are going after Tuzla, Bihac, Gorazde, and Srebrenica. Why? Well, the world is standing by. They do not have any need to settle. Why do we have to negotiate? Who are they negotiating with? Themselves. That is the negotiation that is going on. So ultimately, if we were put in the awful position of having to send in American forces to enforce a negotiated agreement that was literally a coerced agreement, American soldiers become apartheid cops, actually codifying Serbian gains. So that is why I believe ultimately the answer lies in lifting the arms embargo, again a position I have relentlessly pushed from the beginning. But at this point, on the eve of a Friday meeting in NATO for us to pass this would be wrong. If we pass this today and dictate to the President of the United States to say, you must thumb your nose at the rest of NATO and say, "I do not care what you all think; we are going to do it anyway," while the President is trying to negotiate a multilateral response that is more robust, I think it would be premature. It is not premature in the sense it should not have been done 18 months ago. But it is ill- advised on the eve of this meeting to pass something that will not have any effect other than to embarrass the President of the United States while he is trying to negotiate. And I know that is not the intention of Senator Dole or Senator Lieberman, both of whom I will be allies with on this subject. So I hope that in the next minutes or hour, people of good faith can say OK, let us work out something here whereby, even if we resurrect the old amendment that passed, we say, Mr. President, we want you to lift the arms embargo, we want you to push for it, and we authorize you ahead of time if it is lifted to send $50 million worth of equipment. Let us do that, send that message to our European allies now but do not send the message that says, "Mr. President, do not negotiate with the people you are negotiating with. Tell them it does not matter what you think of their opinion. Unilaterally lift the embargo, break up the coalition" -- and that is not going to in and of itself break up NATO -- but break up the coalition and go it alone. Give the man some time. I think he has clearly understood the intention. His instincts have been right on this point all long. He inherited a position that is difficult to get out from under, and I think with the prodding of this body and hopefully the American people, we will act in a more forceful, not just forceful in terms of physical force, forceful in terms of negotiating posture, a more forceful way than we have of late. So I stand ready, if anybody wishes to try to craft such an approach. I stand ready to try to help work one out. I think it is the more reasonable approach. I think it is the more rational approach, and I think it at least does due deference to the President of the United States, who tomorrow will have his representatives sitting down with NATO allies to try to get a decision to use additional air power. I think it is ill timed. I hope we wait on it. I hope we come up with a compromise. I thank my colleagues for listening, and I thank my good friend from Maine for allowing me to take his name in vain. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky. Mr. President, it is no secret that no one, I repeat, no one on either side of the aisle has had the magic solution to the problem in Bosnia. This is quite probably the most difficult, perplexing foreign policy issue on the horizon, certainly at the moment. We are all pretty sure what is not going to happen. We all know, Mr. President, there are not going to be American troops on the ground in Bosnia. The President is not asking for that at this point. We all know that we would insist that any decision to put American troops on the ground be preceded by a resolution of authorization by the Congress. Having pretty well concluded that we are not going to put troops on the ground in Bosnia, we are left with very limited options. I think it is also safe to say very few people, either in or out of this body, believe that airstrikes standing alone are going to have any substantial impact on a conclusion to this conflict and political solution. In short, Mr. President, in all candor, we all know whether we say so publicly or just utter the words privately on the floor, that our ability to effect the outcome of this conflict from outside is extraordinarily limited either because of lack of political will, a feeling that it is simply not in our national interests, or whatever. So what are we left with, Mr. President, as we see this carnage on television every night? I think what we are left with is what is embodied by the amendment of the distinguished Republican leader and Senator Lieberman of Connecticut, which is to lift the arms embargo on the Bosnian Moslems now and to do it unilaterally. Some Members of the Senate have said this afternoon and the administration has said that it is a mistake to lift the arms embargo unilaterally because if we do that, the strength of our U.N. embargoes will be reduced and, therefore, the credibility of other multinational embargoes of arms will be undermined by a U.S. unilateral action. First, Mr. President, let me say that I think the notion that American foreign policy should be to that degree guided by any multinational body is a somewhat suspect place in which to find ourselves, that, in fact, American policy should not be in most instances determined by the United Nations in any event. But even if one is convinced that somehow U.N. permission for an arms embargo lifting is critical, the argument is fatally flawed as applied to Bosnia. I think it could be persuasively argued, Mr. President, that the U.N. arms embargo on Bosnia is illegal in the first instance. The U.N. arms embargo violates Bosnia territory integrity and its inherent right to self-defense. The right to self-defense in article 2, subsections 4 and 51 of the U.N. Charter is the preeminent right under international law. The arms embargo, it seems to this Senator, is unjustly and illegally applied for Bosnia in the first place. The arms embargo was imposed by Resolution 727 on the former Yugoslavia before Bosnia had achieved statehood or even declared independence. I repeat, the embargo of the United Nations was applied to Yugoslavia which does not exist anymore. Bosnia is not a successor state to Yugoslavia under international law. Bosnia had to apply for U.N. membership as a new state, as a brandnew state, Mr. President, and has not been able to use U.N.-related property of Yugoslavia. No U.N. action ever applied the arms embargo to the independent State of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Upon admission to the United Nations, Bosnia is unquestionably entitled to the right of self-defense. So I think it could be argued, Mr. President, that the U.N. arms embargo does not apply to Bosnia anyway. So even for those who feel that our policy must somehow be bound by the policy of the multinational body, it does not apply in this situation and it is pretty clear that our allies at this point do not have the stomach for lifting the embargo. And the question at this point is whether we are willing to do it on our own, to try to give the Moslems a fair chance, to give them some chance to succeed. Some Senators have said here this afternoon they are for it but just not now. Just do not do it right now because it may create some problems for the administration or some other problem because of some meeting that may occur tomorrow or next week or sometime. We have been talking about this for a long time. In the meantime, the shells are being lobbed in, hitting hospitals, killing civilians. Others have said, "Well, if we lift the arms embargo, it is going to take a while for the arms to get there, and that will just encourage the Serbs to commit additional atrocities." I do not know how much worse it can be than it already is. So, regardless of what actions the Serbs may or may not take in response to a decision by the U.S. Senate to recommend that the President or to actually dictate to the President that the arms embargo be lifted now, we do not know what the Serbs are going to do for sure on a day-to-day basis. We do know what the pattern is. It is pretty clear to anybody who can turn on a television set that the pattern is of continuous aggression, continuous carnage. Oh, they may step back for a day or two at a time or respond to some line drawn in the sand temporarily. But the movement is inexorably in the same direction and that is to subdue the Bosnian Moslems. So we are left with only one option, Mr. President. We are not going to put troops on the ground. Air strikes are not going to work. The United Nations is not going to lift the arms embargo. We are either going to do it unilaterally or nothing is going to happen. So I think the amendment of the Republican leader and the Senator from Connecticut is appropriate. I think all of us feel that it may be somewhat overdue. But, Mr. President, better now than never. Let us give the Moslems a fair shot at this thing. Let us give them a chance to level the military playing field. We have the armaments to send. They have the will to fight. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by my colleagues, Senator Dole and Senator Lieberman requiring the President to lift the arms embargo on Bosnia. I come to this decision reluctantly, but largely out of frustration with the misteps and miscalculations in the administration's policy. When the Senate first debated American policy in the former Yugoslavia in August 1992, many members of this body wanted to demonstrate the Bush administration's shortcomings in resolving the crisis. Senators were cheered on by candidate Clinton, who accused the Bush administration of "sitting on the sidelines" for too long allowing Yugoslavia "to slip into chaos and civil war." In August 1992, I believed such calls to action were dangerous. In close consultation with Prime Minister Major, the United States was actively engaged in a full scale diplomatic initiative as we simultaneously moved forward in providing humanitarian relief and food. In August 1992, the President was balancing our frustration with bloodshied with the facts on the ground. He balanced our commitment to continuing humanitarian relief operations with our allies intention to pull out their peacekeeping forces if we took unilateral military action. President Bush did not squander American or NATO credibility by threatening actions which he could not or would not take. There was no grandstanding, no empty threats. The administration pushed hard to isolate the Serbs through sanctions. The President also affirmed his commitment to deploy and use air and naval assets to protect relief convoys. He defined a specific use of American power and effectively carried out that commitment. All the while he was actively engaged in moving the peace process forward. I supported that effort completely. It was my view that adding arms to the equation or taking sides against the Serbs would only escalate the conflict. I believed that hard headed diplomacy with the credible threat of force to protect American lives or American interests, was the appropriate course. Force remained a last, but viable, resort. I remained hopeful through April 1993 that the new administration would clearly define our goals and international role. The administration indicated three options were under consideration -- air strikes against Bosnian Serb targets, lifting the arms embargo, and establishing safe havens. I was impressed when Secretary Christopher spelled out four strict tests for the use of air strikes or any other force: The goals must be clear, there must be a strong likelihood of success, there must be an exit strategy, and Americans must support the plan. The final test presumed a clear cut explanation of the administration's intent to the Congress and the public. Unfortunately, since last April, we have seen our credibility collapse and our policy implode. No less than nine times, the administration has called for the use of air power and then retreated. There was little predictability to our policy, no consistency in carrying through on our pronouncements. Polling told the public and the President that there was a deep ambivalence about American involvement in Bosnia. That ambivalence translated into indifference at the White House. The shock of the savage attack on a heart of Sarajevo renewed interest in attempting a solution. Now with Gorazde under siege, we are once again seeing an interest on the part of the administration. But, I am concerned about how seriously and how long we will sustain that interest. If we ask ourselves whether the administration has met the four tests spelled out by Secretary Christopher the answer is a resounding no. We do not know what the goals are -- we are unclear whether we can achieve success, there is no end in sight, and finally, I doubt a single American could tell us what exactly we are doing and why. Good intentions are no substitute for good policy. What happens when the air strikes don't work? What happens when the first American is shot from the sky? Will the American people understand? When I posed the "what happens next" question to Deputy Secretary Talbott last night, he told me he did not have a "persuasive answer." He left me with the uncomfortable impression that we are hoping this will work, and have not thought through the consequences if it does not. The use of air power to protect six enclaves squarely puts the credibility of NATO and therefore the United States on the line. The administration will no longer be able to hide behind the notion that this is a European problem or a U.N. war. There is no doubt in my mind that we are backing this nation into a serious responsibility. I hope the threat of air power has not come too late -- months after we have forfeited U.S. leadership and compromised our credibility. Whether it works or not, I am supporting this amendment because I view it as a way to make clear that there is a next step if air power alone does not push the Serbs back to the negotiating table. The amendment supplements the current initiatives, giving teeth to the efforts. The Serbs have successfully exploited weaknesses and inconsistencies in the international community's position, while continuing their slaughter of the Bosnians. The time has come to give the Bosnians the means to defend themselves until international action and effort succeeds in negotiating a durable agreement. If we can't help them, we at least should give them a chance to help themselves. Mr. COHEN addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lieberman). The Senator from Maine. Mr. President, I will only take a few moments to express some thoughts on the amendment that has been introduced by Senator Dole and others. I think it reflects a sense of desperation. I think what Senator Dole and the cosponsors of the amendment are indicating is that they have looked at all the options, there does not seem to be any other options and, therefore, let us take this one last act of desperation on behalf of people who are being slaughtered. This act of desperation has been precipitated by the absence of a policy. We do not have a policy, not one that has been clearly conceived and articulated and certainly not one that has been articulated with any degree of coherence. We do not have a policy, and we do not have a voice to express that policy. Who, for example, is speaking for the administration? Is it the Secretary of Defense? Is it the Secretary of State? Is it the National Security Adviser, Mr. Lake? Is it the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Who speaks for the administration? Well, ultimately, only the President can speak for the administration. And yet we have had conflicting statements and policy suggestions expressed to the public by each of the individuals I have mentioned. Not long ago the Secretary of Defense made a public statement saying that the United States simply would not bomb the city of Gorazde. The Secretary of State made a different statement. Mr. Lake, from NSC, also rushed to the podium to say no, that is not our policy. We will act with air power to save this city. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs said it is not in our interest and would not be effective to pursue a bombing policy in Gorazde. We have this cacophony of voices -- all of those individuals have very high positions of prominence. And, as Senator Biden from Delaware said, it is not only when the President speaks that the world listens. Everybody watches on CNN when you have high-level individuals speaking on behalf of the administration. So the picture painted to the world at large, not only to the Serbs, the picture painted is one of complete chaos, of inconsistency, of fragmentation, of confusion. And so they are bewildered. They are befuddled, if I can use that word. They do not know exactly what we are doing, or what NATO is doing, or what the United Nations is doing. We have gone through a series of threats. We threaten to bomb, and then we back away from the threat. We threaten to bomb again, and then again, the threat appears to be empty. We finally take action, but it is ineffective. And, if I might just contradict my friend from Delaware when he says we are the 800-pound gorilla, we may be the 800-pound gorilla, but over the last 2 years we have acted like a weak and whimpering tiger. And we have to ask the question: Why? Why have we failed to take the action worth any of an 800-pound gorilla? We certainly have the military power, but we obviously do not have the will. And we do not have the will because we do not have a consensus in this country, and we do not have a consensus in this Chamber, not to mention the other body. We do know there is a consensus that there shall be no ground troops. I have not heard anyone here suggest that we ought to introduce American ground troops to help stabilize that country and to prepare for peace or make peace. No one is suggesting that. There have been hints that if we had some kind of a settlement, a real and stable settlement in which all the parties agree to the boundaries, that we might consider putting up to 25,000 troops into that region in order to secure the peace. And let me suggest to you even that would be very controversial in this Chamber. There would be no immediate consensus, and perhaps ultimately, no consensus, at all. So we start with the proposition: No ground troops. They say, "Well, how about air power? We have fantastic air capability." And we do. But virtually every military adviser coming over from the Pentagon to testify before the relevant committees have said air power alone will not be sufficient. Yes, we can target bridges, and we can target ammunition dumps, and we can go and take out fuel supplies, and we can take out cities of Serbia, itself, and leave them in ruins. We can take out electric power plants. We can do all of that. I have talked and learned about some of the targeting plans that are there as contingencies. We have that capability. But there is no one coming forward to this Congress, to the Senate, suggesting that will, in and of itself, do it. They say, "Well, it might get their attention. It might make them understand that we might go further." Well, maybe we would and maybe we would not. And, by the way, what happens if we start to deliver that air power and we start to lose U.S. air personnel? A British aircraft was shot down earlier this week. The pilot was rescued. But what happens when we start to lose American pilots who do not get rescued, who either get killed or held as POW's? Does that change the formula at all? Obviously, we have to take that into account. If we are prepared to use air power, we have to be prepared to lose personnel. That is one risk you assume when you go to war or when you take action short of all-out war. But seeking to send messages, or seeking to interrupt supply lines, or seeking to rescue individuals, you run the risk of losing American lives. So are we prepared to put American lives on the line? Well, that is something we still have to debate here in this Chamber. What Secretary Perry said last week or 10 days ago, he said initially -- in Munich back in the first week of February at a conference in Munich -- he said we really should not take action A unless we are prepared and we have a plan for actions B, C, D, and E. And at that time, while being new to the job, I think only a few days as Secretary, he expressed the opinion that we did not have such a comprehensive plan in mind. So he urged caution on the part of United States. Well, again we have gone from threatening the use of force to almost overnight suing for peace. I recall the Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan] at one point more than a year ago was suggesting let us charge certain individuals with war crimes. Bring them to the United Nations, charge them with being war criminals. We have gone from a point of charging them with being war criminals, to threatening the use of bombs, to eventually suing for peace, saying if only you stop slaughtering the Moslems, if only you stop this, we might even lift the economic embargo that we placed on Serbia. So on the one hand, we threaten to bomb, which is ineffectual, and then we offer to sue for peace, and that too is ignored, and the slaughter continues. And so the sponsors are offering this amendment as the last thing we can turn to. Let them fight for themselves. But I think, as others have pointed out -- and I have yet to conclude what the ultimate rationale should be for this action we take today or how it should be formulated -- we also have to understand there are consequences for us if we seek to lift the arms embargo. Who delivers the arms? How are they delivered? Will we use our air power in order to ensure that they reach their destination? What happens if the Russians decide they are not going to go along? They might decide to supply the Serbs with surface-to-air missiles, and we might start to lose more and more planes. Do we then escalate it and go further? Do we then take out Belgrade? How far are we prepared to go? None of us is in a position to make that judgment today, which is one of the reasons why, for the past several weeks, I have suggested that we not initiate bombing until we know what the complete plan is going to be. We cannot continue to act on an ad hoc basis. We need clarity of purpose and consistency in the pursuit of that particular purpose. As of this date we have neither. So, is it worthwhile for us, this afternoon or this evening, to agree to an amendment which will not go into effect immediately, on a bill which will have to go to conference, which will take days if not weeks of negotiation with the other Chamber to come up with a proposal to present to the President long after the decisions have been made as to whether we go to a bombing strategy or not in Bosnia? It seems to me not unless we are prepared to answer these questions about whether we go it alone. If NATO decides, "It is your ball game; if you decide you want to lift it unilaterally, go ahead," and we pursue that unilateral policy, it will have repercussions not only in Bosnia but in other areas as well where we depend upon a united, concerted effort. Is it worth taking that particular risk today to send the signal we are prepared to go alone? Does it strengthen the President's hand? Or is it better, as Senator Biden of Delaware has suggested, that perhaps we ought to give the President at least one more day? People are going to die during that one more day. We have to understand that. But is it worth giving the President of the United States an opportunity? To say, "We are giving you this direction. We have reached the end of our rope in terms of patience. We are not formulators of foreign policy. We cannot have coherency in a body of 100 -- or 435, in the other Chamber. We need you to lead. You have not been leading. You have been stepping forward and backwards, then forward and backward again. You have not been leading on a true and straight course. Maybe it is not possible to do that, but you have not done it. But we think it is worth another 24 hours to say to you, Mr. President, Go to NATO. Tell the NATO allies that we cannot tolerate the current situation a day longer, that we need united action to lift the embargo so the Muslims can defend themselves and stop tying their hands behind their backs. If they turn us down at that point, then I think you can say we have tried everything. We gave the President a chance. I recall on each and every occasion when we had President Reagan and President Bush in the White House, Members of the other side in particular were always eager to pass resolutions. And we on this side said, look, let us not take this action on the eve of a negotiation. Do not undercut the President. We find ourselves in a similar position, I think, today. Those who support the amendment, I know, feel they are going to strengthen the hand of the President, that he can go to the NATO allies and say, Look, unless you agree we are going to go alone. They may call that particular bluff of ours, if it is a bluff, and say, Go alone. Then we have no alternative. No more empty threats, no more empty promises. Then we will go it alone. The question is, where will we go and how far? Using what? None of us have thought that through yet. None of us, perhaps, can without the full information of our intelligence community, our defense establishment, the best advice we can get out of this Government. So I think we ought at least to have enough caution in this particular debate to say: Mr. President, we are not happy with a nonpolicy that you have articulated on one day and disavowed the next, or had spokesmen articulate one day and disavow the next. We are not pleased with that. Frankly, we should not be pleased with our own performance because we have not really been very much integrated with this process. We have not become too activated on this process. We have not had a very aggressive debate on this question. We have followed the President's lead as well; that is, just ignore it for the time being, let us look the other way and hope it somehow works out. What we realize, nothing in the world works out unless we are engaged, unless we are actively engaged, be it in dealing with China or Japan or any place in the world. We cannot simply pursue a domestic policy. This is a domestic President. But we cannot be a domestic nation. It is not as if we can simply tell the world, "We are not concerned with you. Let the world fend for itself. Let the Asians take care of Asian problems. Let the Europeans take care of European problems. Let us come home to America." We cannot shut the world out, because the world is not going to shut us out. There is nothing that takes place in isolation. Everything that happens in this ever-diminishing world of ours -- diminished by technology, being miniaturized by technology -- everything that happens has a consequence. Maybe it will reach our shores and maybe it will not. But the solution is not for us to come back to a cocoon called continental United States, zip ourselves inside, and let the world unfold and everybody watch it on CNN. That is a sure prescription for disaster, for future wars, for future entanglements which will cost us thousands of lives. So, we cannot claim any high position here, any moral virtue, that somehow only the President is at fault. We are at fault as well. This debate has been enormously helpful, I think. I think Senator Dole and Senator Lieberman and others, who have introduced this amendment, have forced us to start dealing with this, not on a 1-day basis but looking at what the ultimate consequences to Bosnia are, to the Serbs, to the Moslems, to the Croats, and to us. We should not follow the President's declaration it is only going to be domestic issues we are concerned about. We ought to be as concerned about foreign policy as the President should be concerned about foreign policy. Mr. President, I hope the initiative you and others have taken will, in fact, stir us to sit down this afternoon to see if we cannot come up with some kind of workable approach to give the President some time -- not a lot of time. As I mentioned before, people are dying. People are dying by the minute, by the second, through the brutality that is being waged, the savagery that is being conducted in Bosnia. If the President is going to communicate with NATO officials tomorrow, let us tell the President: We want you to take action. We want you to persuade the NATO allies to take this action. In the event you are unsuccessful in doing so, you can rest assured Congress is going to urge we go forward unilaterally. I think it is worth waiting a very brief period of time. I hope it does get the President's attention. I hope the President will, in fact, put together a foreign policy apparatus within the administration that is capable of, number one, focusing upon the complexities, the nuances, the dangers, the opportunities involved in formulating foreign policy, then speaks with a consistent, coherent voice, and then has the leadership to come to the Congress, who represent the American people, saying: This is what I want in the way of your support. There is one thing we have learned in this country. If the President takes action which puts our young men and women in harm's way so they lose their lives or are in jeopardy of losing their lives, unless the President has the Congress on record in advance in support of that action, then when the bullets start flying and the bombs start falling and the bodies start coming home, public opinion will be flowing in exactly the opposite direction. And we as Members of Congress will be right behind them. So the President must have the support of Congress in advance. In the absence of that support, he is likely to be out there on a limb, and the limb will get thinner with each tragedy, and he will reverse his policy. And, once again, the United States will look as if it is that weak and whimpering tiger that roars a great deal but takes no action, and when it takes action, it is ineffectual. So I think, Mr. President, that this debate has been helpful and healthy. I hope that the leadership will be able to meet during the course of the afternoon, as we are debating this issue, to come up with a proposal that does not undercut the President, that does, in fact, strengthen his hand, that does give him one last opportunity to go to our allies and say what we have done has been a disgrace. In the absence of action, we have forfeited the lives of tens of thousands of others; we have subjected them to absolute horror and terror and death, and we cannot be proud of that. So we go to NATO, insist that NATO take the action that we are recommending here; namely, allow, at the very minimum, the Moslems to be armed, allow them to fight with both hands. But in the absence of that, Mr. President, we would tell our NATO allies that, under those circumstances, if there is going to be a total default, complete abdication of any moral responsibility for action to defend innocent people, then we are prepared at that time to go forward. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. President. I rise today as an original cosponsor of the Lieberman-Dole amendment which will, in effect, unilaterally lift the pernicious arms embargo against the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. I do not have a great deal to add to the comments by my colleagues, but only to reiterate what I and others have said for over a year: The missing link in an integrated and effective international policy on Bosnia is allowing the Bosnians to exercise their right to self defense by lifting the U.N. arms embargo against the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. It is an action I have advocated ever since I introduced Senate Resolution 79, a resolution expressing the sense of the Senate to do just that. We are discussing the embargo again today because of the imminent fall of yet another Bosnian city to Serbian aggressors. But while the debate today may be more impassioned, it is no different than before: this is an action we should have taken a long time ago. This is much more than just a feel-good measure taken by a group of Senators who want ease their consciences regarding Bosnia. Feeding starving people who are unarmed targets of aggression is a feel-good measure. Piecemeal air strikes, launched in the absence of a long-term, integrated strategy in Bosnia, is a feel-good measure. Rather, lifting the embargo is the most practical approach we can take in this conflict. Peace will have to be negotiated no doubt, but as long as the Bosnians pose no threat whatsoever -- and carry no international protection -- the Serbians have no reason to settle. Further, if the United States is, indeed, going to invest in Bosnia with our own troops -- a step I have grave reservations about for several reasons -- then we have an interest in the Bosnians being able to defend themselves. The only way the Bosnians can save themselves and preserve what remains of their country is by fighting for themselves, by being allowed to arm themselves. This will help make a fair fight on the ground where up to now it has been egregiously imbalanced in favor of the Serbs. It is also the surest way U.S. troops can stay out of the conflict. This amendment, as other cosponsors have already said, does exactly what the administration has supported for a year. But the President and others are cautious about sending arms to Bosnia unilaterally because of the precedent it sets for further U.N. action. That is a point well- taken. Clearly, the international community, led by the United Nations, has not yet "taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security." Therefore, the right of Bosnia to self-defense, pursuant to article 51, is being violated. This is also a precedent for U.N. action which I think we must also take very seriously. As long as we participate in the embargo, we are assisting the Serbs -- the Serbs who are guilty of some of the most heinous war crimes in the post-cold-war era. I believe that lifting the arms embargo is a defense of human rights and a strengthening of international law. It is also -- ironically enough -- a step toward a peace agreement. Without lifting the embargo, the increased air strikes, the tightened sanctions, the protection of so-called safe havens will prove to be just feel-good measures. Mr. President, I rise to support the initiative that is before us this afternoon, and I want to commend both the Chair and Senator Dole for bringing this to the floor of the U.S. Senate. I suspect that there are a lot of people who have been wondering why it has taken us so long. I guess my initial reaction to that thought is that we, frankly, wanted the President to lead. The American people want to support President Clinton. The American people want to support his foreign policy. But, frankly, they have become dismayed, and the international community looks at us with disbelief. From a personal perspective, it is hard for me to believe that in a very short period of time, we have destroyed the vision of what America is all about to people around the world who have looked to us so long in support of freedom, who have looked to America as the leaders who are prepared, a society, a nation that is prepared to defend freedom anywhere on the globe. But in a relatively short period of time now, there is serious question about America's resolve: Who are we? What do we believe? What are we committed to? There have been many articles written over the last several weeks with respect to Bosnia and questioning the President's leadership. Let me just read from one. Anthony Lewis, New York Times, Monday, April 18: I think we are again here today to discuss and debate this issue because the time has come when the country will no longer accept a position that in essence says just wait till tomorrow; we will have another policy for you. I think a second frustration people are feeling is no longer do they believe it is proper for the United States to abdicate or to turn over its role in the world to the United Nations. That is not said from the perspective that I am trying to beat up on the United Nations. But when one observes just what has occurred in the world as a result of the United States saying we are in essence going to turn over foreign policy to the United Nations, we have seen I think terrible consequences -- in Somalia, in Haiti, and clearly in Bosnia as well. This month is the 52d anniversary of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. The world's response was "Never again." Never again would we turn our backs on people who are being slaughtered. We said we in essence would take a stand. I think we have failed ourselves, and we have failed our Nation in not providing the world with the leadership necessary to bring the forces together to defend those innocent people in Bosnia. Mr. President, again, I come to the floor with a very strong conviction that the Senate of the United States must speak out; that we must unilaterally lift the economic embargo imposed on the Bosnian people. It is morally wrong for our Nation to support a policy of denying people the right to defend themselves and at the same time saying to them "And we won't defend you either." The time has come for us to act. The information coming out of Bosnia -- there is an article that I have in "The Bosnia Relief Watch." The headline, if you will, is, "This is Not War; This is Slaughter." Mr. President, it is time for us as a nation and as a people to stand up once again and say to the world we are prepared to do what is necessary, not just to maintain the peace but to protect and extend freedom around the world. I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The Chair recognizes the distinguished President pro tempore of the Senate, Mr. Byrd, of West Virginia. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.