Madam President, I have sought recognition to support the pending amendment which calls for the United States to unilaterally remove the arms embargo preventing the sale of weapons to the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina, because I think that this amendment, this resolution, is reasonably calculated to help the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina. There is no doubt about the atrocities of Serbian aggression against those countries, about their inability to defend themselves, and about the failure of Serbia and the Serbs to honor the wishes and sanctions of the United Nations and declared world public opinion against the atrocities which are being conducted there. This resolution is different in two respects from a resolution which was considered by the Senate on January 27, 1994. First, that resolution was only a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. This provision calls for forcible legislative enactment which will have the force and effect of law, contrasted with the sense of the Senate, which was the matter pending on January 27, 1994. When the reports came forward about the vote on the January 27 resolution, I received many objections to opposing the lifting of the arms embargo and explained to those who inquired that I was not opposed to lifting the arms embargo, but that I was opposed to the supplemental provision which would authorize the President, really with a blank check, to provide whatever military assistance he might deem appropriate. That is the language which was covered. One of the things which is frequently misunderstood is, when there are news reports about the votes, they do not reflect many paragraphs or many complications or many subtitles that may be comprehended. If the thrust of the amendment is to lift the arms embargo and that is all that is reported by the news media, the public does not understand that there are other provisions which are potentially very troublesome. So I take some time now to specify why I was against the January 27 resolution but feel that today's resolution is appropriate. I believe that the atrocities which are being committed today in Bosnia and Herzegovina are extraordinary in the annals of warfare, even considering the atrocities with which we are familiar from World War II and from other wars. It is a matter of great anguish that the civilized world stands by and observes these atrocities in progress. It is a matter that cannot be dealt with in any definitive way without ground forces. I believe that the U.S. policy is correct in not committing American fighting personnel on the ground, which would be debilitating and a quagmire and something which is just not what U.S. policy ought to be. Deciding we are not going to be engaged in a ground war over there -- and that is the view of NATO as well and the United Nations as well -- there is no way, really, to take sufficient definitive steps in a forceful way to stop the fighting there. We are then left with the option of the air strikes, which I do support, realizing that the air strikes in and of themselves are not going to be sufficient. The example of the war against Iraq certainly demonstrates the fact that no matter how forceful or how pounding and repetitive the airstrikes, the air strikes in and of themselves are not going to be sufficient. The air strikes also pose the problem of endangering the United Nations peacekeeping forces which are on the ground there. It is anomalous that we have peacekeeping forces there when there is really no peace to keep. Questions have been directed to me: Would I favor having U.S. personnel on the ground as part of the peacekeeping force? I say categorically, no, I would not do that. I would not want to jeopardize U.S. personnel as part of peacekeeping forces because there is no peace to keep. Yet, if there are air strikes or there is other action, even the elimination of the embargo, the U.N. peacekeeping forces may be hostage there. So their safety and security has to be taken into account. It is a very complex matter. Some have suggested with some forcefulness -- and I am not sure but that it may be most appropriate -- to withdraw the peacekeeping forces so they are not at risk and to intensify the air strikes as part of an action to remove the arms embargo. This resolution does not go that far. We do not have to make a decision on that at this time. I am aware of the problem of the United States moving unilaterally. I am aware of the administration's concern in not wanting to act unilaterally when the sanctions were imposed through the United Nations and that the United States relies upon joint international action in maintaining other sanctions such as sanctions against Iraq, sanctions which may not be working very well. So we are concerned about taking unilateral action, the administration is, which may weaken our request to other nations where we ask them to support international sanctions. Notwithstanding that consideration, it is my view that the United States ought to act unilaterally as the proposal is pending today, even though it is contrary to a very important general principle of supporting joint action with the United Nations. In supporting this amendment, which has the force of law, it is then still subject to a veto by the President and the necessity for a veto override. Judging from the fact that the last resolution was agreed to by a vote of 87 to 9, there would be sufficient votes to override a veto. I would be joining, so there would be no more than eight, and I am joining because this amendment does not contain the blank check for the President to use whatever force he may deem appropriate. Madam President, it is my thought that when the international community, including the Serbs, see this amendment having the force of law and it moves forward in the legislative process and may come to the President's desk for signature and may be signed and may be subject to being enacted into law on an override, they will see that the United States means business. At least the Senate means business. The House will have an opportunity to pass upon all this. Even though it is unilateral, perhaps it will have the effect of expediting the United Nations or NATO to move with the United States in eliminating the arms embargo. Certainly what is going on at the present time is totally intolerable. This at least offers some hope to improve that desperate situation. For these reasons, I will be voting in support of this amendment. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire. Is the Senator from Massachusetts seeking recognition, also? Madam President, I had just wanted to ask a question of the Senator from Pennsylvania. I will be happy to wait. I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts. I noticed he was here earlier. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized. Madam President, I listened to the Senator from Pennsylvania. I am very sympathetic to much of what he said. I do not think any of us here are arguing about the level of atrocity or what the civilized world ought to do. But the Senator has raised the issue of unilateralness and sort of pushed it aside. He said: Notwithstanding the unilateral issue, I think we ought to vote this way. I wonder if the Senator really feels that is good policy on its face. Or, perhaps, if there were an alternative way to approach this so, if the resolution embraced an exhortation to the President to first move multilaterally with some room for the President to be able to try to do that immediately and then, in the event of the failure of the President doing that, the embargo would be lifted notwithstanding a Russian veto or any other excuses why it failed -- but first to give the opportunity to keep faith with the multilateral effort -- does the Senator from Pennsylvania not think that perhaps might be a way of accommodating a lot of concerns of Senators and at the same time keeping faith with our international responsibilities? If I may respond, I think the Senator from Massachusetts raises a very valid point. If we can achieve the elimination of the arms embargo in a multilateral way, that would be preferable, instead of the United States going its own way unilaterally. That matter is not now before the Senate. I think the practical effect of this amendment will be what the Senator from Massachusetts seeks to accomplish. Right now, as I understand it, the administration is trying to persuade our NATO allies and others in the United Nations that there ought to be a multilateral elimination of the arms embargo. I think if there is a strong vote out of the Senate, that will arm President Clinton and the administration in their negotiating efforts. One might ask why that was not accomplished with the 87-to-9 vote before. I do not know the answer to that. Maybe they said it is only a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, those are passed all the time and they do not mean anything. I do not know that was the result. I have seen some reactions to a sense-of-the-Senate resolution taken very seriously. But whatever happened in the past we do not know. Now it will have the force of law and it will move forward as part of this bill as an attachment to the bankruptcy bill. It may be passed by the House. Then, if the President is unsuccessful in getting other nations to join in a multilateral way, he may be forced to veto the bill. But we are ratcheting it up. We are raising the stakes and, I think, strengthening the President's hand in a very real sense, saying to our allies: Go along because I am facing a legislative body which can make law over my veto if you do not. I thank the Senator. I take it then if we were able to come together, the Senator obviously would support it. I appreciate that and appreciate his sensitivity to try to make that happen. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire. Madam President, if I might be recognized for another second or two, and I do not want to impede on the Senator from New Hampshire. There have been negotiations to try to modify the language of this amendment. If it cannot be modified to take the multilateral step initially -- I think that will be a step in the right direction -- but absent that, I am prepared to vote in favor of this amendment. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire. Madam President, I rise to address this amendment. I believe it is reflective of some very significant problems which we have in our foreign policy issues as a government, as a country. We appear to be stumbling in our approach to foreign policy, something like a bear coming out of hibernation, hitting this tree and that tree and not having a distinct direction on the issue of how we handle ourselves in the post-cold war period. Unfortunately, this amendment which has been brought forth is just an expression of that stumbling activity. It is more appropriate that we should have a very specific framework that we should be acting on rather than taking this piecemeal drip-drip-drip approach to foreign policy. It is equally appropriate that the leadership for a coherent and pervasive policy should be coming not from the Senate but from the administration. The fact that this type of amendment is being brought forward by this body and that this body feels the compulsion to address this issue in this way, I think, reflects the very serious problem which this administration is having in the area of foreign policy in general, Bosnia specifically, but more important, in defining for the American people what the role of our country is in the post-cold war era. This amendment represents a road to intervention, and I do not think we should see it as anything other than that. It represents a step -- and a fairly significant one -- down the path that will lead to or could lead to involvement of American military personnel in Bosnia and in the former Yugoslavia. Before we step onto that path, we should know why we are on that path, and we have not heard an explanation of that from this administration. I think it is absolutely essential that we get such an explanation before we pass this type of a resolution. I would like to suggest that there are three basic standards that we should be looking at in the post-cold war period as to when we use American force and when we will put at risk American prestige in issues that involve conflict. Those three tests should involve: First, a question of defining the conflict and whether it is a resolvable conflict; second, defining our national interest; and third, defining a strategy for not only entering the conflict but for getting out of the conflict. That should be done in each instance where this administration or this body decides to go forward and put at risk American lives. In defining the conflict, we must first establish what is the nature of the conflict. Is it an ethnic conflict? Is it a religious conflict? Is it a conflict that has strong historical roots, or is it a conflict that involves individuals desiring aggrandizement, either through expansion of political base or expansion of land or expansion of control over other individuals? We have examples in very recent history of these different types of conflicts. We have the situation that occurred in Iraq where you had an individual who was attempting to expand his own personal role in the world by using military force. A dictatorial action, a totalitarian state taking action that was of a military nature, and we addressed that. We also have examples -- and I think Bosnia is one of them -- of conflicts which go much deeper which are ethnic and religious and which do not have a clear, defined good guy or bad guy, do not have a clearly defined winner-loser scenario, that involve generations of hatred and intense feelings within a community. In the issue of Bosnia, it transcends towns and streets. It goes throughout the former nation of Yugoslavia. Another instance of that type of conflict is what happened in Lebanon only a few years ago, where you had the various ethnic and religious factions fighting each other in a conflict that was not easily resolvable. The second test is the issue of national interest. What is the national interest? Is there a national interest? On that test, we, once again, could look at the Iraqi situation where there was clearly a national interest: Oil supply for the world was threatened. Or we can look at North Korea where there is a national interest, because we are talking about a renegade nation that contains or possesses, or soon will possess, it appears, a capacity to deliver nuclear weapons, with the vehicles to deliver those weapons and which will threaten, therefore, a broad spectrum of the world. The use of nuclear weapons is something we should be concerned about and have a national interest in and contain it. But in Bosnia, we do not have a national interest. In Bosnia, we have a conflict which is regional in a part of the world where the United States has no immediate national interest. If we are going to go into Bosnia, does that mean we are also going to go into Rwanda? Are we going to go into Azerbaijan? Are we going to go into the Kashmir? Are we going to go into any number of hot spots around the world where there is conflict going on and where the horror of that conflict equals or exceeds, as in the case of Rwanda, what is happening in Bosnia? So on the first two tests: Is the conflict resolvable? No, it probably is not. This is an ethnic and religious conflict in which today's events are a page in a long history, and it is just going to continue. So that test is not met. The second test is: Is there a national interest for the United States if we get involved? No, I do not believe you can insert a clear national interest for our Nation. If the national interest is defined as stopping a horrific event -- which this clearly is -- then we cannot limit ourselves to Bosnia. Clearly, we must be in Rwanda, also. I do not think America wishes to assert its strength across the globe in that manner. Rather, we must pick those areas where we do have a national interest and where the conflict is resolvable. The third test is: If you get into the conflict, how do you get out? Do we have an exit strategy? This proposal which is on the table today, this amendment, is the first entry step into the conflict. Is there a discussion of how we get out? What happens next? There has been a great deal of that on this floor. But is there a clear definition of it coming from the administration? No, there is not. Without that definition, we make a very serious error to step into this arena. So why are we at this point? Well, we are at this point because we have not heard from the administration a clear defining of the national role in conflicts like Bosnia, and because the administration and our people and the Western World generally are being inexorably pulled into the Bosnian morass by the fact that it is on television as a nightly occurrence. I would suspect that if we were getting the same type of video we are getting from Bosnia, from Rwanda, or from Azerbaijan, we would be equally outraged as a people and equally concerned. But we are not. Why are we not? I think we have to be honest about it. We are not getting it because Rwanda and Azerbaijan are not Western countries, they are not part of the European Continent and, therefore, they are not readily accessible to the international media, and also, they do not have a certain similarity to the Western media that is demanded in order to have the coverage. But were the coverage there, it would be equal to or worse in showing and displaying human suffering. So we find ourselves being drawn by television into a conflict on which there has been no clear, defined national policy set out for why we should be in there other than the fact that it does appear on television every night and that people are concerned about it. That is not a legitimate reason to go into Bosnia. It is not a legitimate reason to go into any part of the world where conflict is going on and put at risk American lives. The last count I had, there are today 42 conflicts going on in 39 different countries around this world, and we cannot police them all. We should not choose the ones we decide to police by the pressure which comes to us from the electronic media. We should choose the ones that we decide to police by the tests that I have laid out. First, is the conflict resolvable? Second, is there a national interest? And third, is there a strategy for not only entering the conflict but also exiting the conflict? There is also a whole subset of issues which are raised by the Bosnia situation which I think need to be fully aired before we go down this road any further, and a major element in that subset, independent of the question of having a national policy as to why we are choosing this arena, a major element of that has to be the question of our relationship to the United Nations and the U.N. command and control over American troops. It is a serious error for us to put American lives at risk because of a decision made by a political leader serving at the behest not of the President but of the United Nations. When American lives are put at risk, it should be because an American commander has received a directive from an American President or an authoritarian figure below the Presidency in the American chain of command. We should never abrogate that authority to another institution, another political institution, as has already occurred in the Bosnian situation. We have already heard reports of American military action being initiated as a result of directives coming from political figures who are outside the American chain of command and who are responsible to the United Nations. And that is wrong. Why is it wrong? People will say, well, the United Nations is a world body, it is a police organization, and there are a lot of different military forces attached to it from different countries. That is true. But the United States is unique as a military force in the world today. We are not like many of our allies or many of the other nations in this world that maintain military force. We are the only superpower. We are the only nation that has the capacity to project power around the globe with devastating authority. When American troops are put at risk, it draws that power into any action that occurs. And to use that power arbitrarily or without a thoughtful national policy, as was the first point I was making, or to put that power at the disposal of a nonelected American official is a serious error of public policy, because it draws much more weight to it and much higher ramifications to it than when an agency of the United Nations directs into action another nation's military forces. And, also, as we learned regrettably, in Somalia Americans become targets, not because they are with the United Nations but because they are Americans. When you put American forces into a conflict situation and you put them under the command of the United Nations, they become the targets of activists in the nation where they are, regrettably, because they are Americans. So when you are putting them at that risk, you must be very careful that they are under American command because the bottom line is you have to explain this. You have to explain it to the mothers and the fathers and the wives and the husbands and the children of the people who lose their lives because they put themselves in harm's way as American soldiers. That is a very difficult explanation to give unless you, first, have a national policy, and, second, make it absolutely clear that what they risk their lives for and, in some instances, regrettably, gave their lives for, is American policy under American command. Right now we have neither in this instance. I have heard innumerable talks on this floor from a variety of different, very eloquent speakers, but one consistent theme appears to be for those who support the resolution and those who oppose it, for those who support this administration and those who feel the administration may vary on this issue, that we as a nation have no national policy yet on how to handle the situation. And until that national policy is elicited and defined by this Presidency, it will not have such a policy because it is the focus of the President from which that comes, not from the focus -- as important as we are in the process -- of the Senate. That brings up a broader issue, which is the whole question of how this administration has approached the post-cold-war period, and I think it has been obviously an administration finding its way. That has been fairly clear to anyone who has watched and counseled or attempted to view these activities. But in the post-cold-war period we need more than that. We need a very defined purpose of what America's role is in the world. That defined purpose, in my opinion, must acknowledge that the new threat to the world comes from renegade nations which have nuclear arms and may use those arms. And when you want to rate what American national interest is relative to other nations, you must put at the top of the list to assure that renegade nations do not get nuclear arms and, if they do get nuclear arms, they are put in a position where they will not use them. That, of course, moves to the top of the list the North Korean issue, on which, again, we seem to have no policy as a country. But, clearly, if we are to function in this post-cold-war period, we are not going to be confronting ideological components. We may confront people who view us in religious terms as opponents, but we are not going to be confronting the Soviet concept of communism versus capitalism and a world struggle over that issue. What we are most likely going to confront is the renegade leader of a nation who has had the capacity to develop a nuclear weapon and is threatening to use that weapon or who is in the process of developing a nuclear weapon. We must -- unfortunately, the time has come -- in North Korea, make a very clear and definitive policy as to how we are going to handle that situation the first instance it occurs. And the first instance it is occurring is in North Korea. So as we look at this proposal, I think we need to watch the whole ball game. We need to look at the entire forest and not just look at this tree, which it is. We cannot allow ourselves to sort of dribble into this issue. We need, first, to have a clear definition of what the American role is in Bosnia, what our national interest is, how we see the conflict being resolved, and how American troops -- if they are going to be put in -- get out. We need to understand that we cannot be drawn into every conflict which becomes a national or international media occurrence or dominant event. We need to choose very intelligently and thoughtfully when and where we are going to put American lives at risk. We need to understand that putting American soldiers under the command of political figures within the United Nations is something that should never occur. We need to have an intelligent and thoughtful approach to what is the real threat in the post-cold-war period, which is those nations which are obtaining nuclear weapons or may be obtaining nuclear weapons and do not have responsible leadership for the management of those weapons. Those are the concerns that should be addressed, and that is the priority that we should put in moving forward on the Bosnia issue. For that reason, I do not support this resolution. I recognize I am in a minority probably on that. But I see it as a step to the road to American intervention, which has not been thought out; and as part of a process in which we, if we proceed on, will end up losing American lives without any way of explaining to American parents, wives, husbands, and children the reason for the loss of that life. I yield the remainder of my time. Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware. Madam President, I support and cosponsor this amendment to terminate the United States' arms embargo of the Government of Bosnia. I believe this measure is necessary to provide much needed assistance to the men, women and children of that nation -- people who are fighting for their property, their lives and future. I believe this amendment follows the successful Reagan doctrine -- that the United States can, under proper circumstances, help people help themselves. We all saw how well this doctrine worked in Afghanistan where, with the assistance of United States arms, the Afghan people turned back the world's single largest military, that of the former Soviet Union. In that conflict, because of America's willingness to help the freedom fighters, we did not -- over the course of the conflict -- have to commit U.S. forces. Rather, then, as now, our purpose was to help a valiant people defend themselves. With the right policies, we were able to do just that. Madam President, I do not believe there are any among us, who would say that the people of Bosnia do not have the right to protect their lives, their families and their property. Even today we hear the heart- wrenching report of the Serb attack on the hospital in Gorazde. How long do we suffer these atrocities to continue before we give the people of Bosnia the wherewithal to defend themselves. Frankly, it makes no sense for U.S. airmen to risk their lives to defend people who we simultaneously deny the ability to defend themselves. None of us wants to see this war escalated. Frankly, I hope that by lifting this embargo we send a clear message that America wants to see a speedy and equitable negotiated settlement. But I am afraid that unless this embargo is lifted what we will see, instead, is continued wholesale slaughter -- as President Clinton said yesterday, the slaughter of innocents. Let me be clear, madam President, this measure in no way authorizes or indicates a commitment of American men and women into this conflict. I believe our troops must stay out of Bosnia. But it does allow our Nation to assist men, women and children who are suffering needlessly and with little opportunity for recourse. Mr. President, I have chosen to cosponsor the amendment of the distinguished minority leader concerning lifting the arms embargo on Bosnia because I have become convinced that the embargo violates article 51 of the U.N. Charter. Like the U.S. Constitution, the Charter is not a suicide pact. The inviolability of article 51 is fundamental to the bargain entered into by nations when they ratify the Charter. They agree to be bound by the decisions of the Security Council, but on the basis that "Nothing in the present charter shall impair the inherent right of individual and collective self-defense * * *." Such is the importance of the principle that the phrase is redundant in its protections: "Nothing" in the charter shall impair the right and the right is "inherent". Hence I have cosponsored this amendment mandating that the United States cease its support for the embargo. That is not to say that I do not have concerns about whether this is precisely the right approach or whether the wording of the amendment could not be further refined in conference. If this were an easy issue the blood would not now be flowing in the streets of Gorazde. The President has just announced a new initiative; negotiations are about to begin. I hope -- and believe -- that the Senate's vote on this resolution will strengthen his hand, not weaken it. He has said that he supports lifting the embargo. This amendment will demonstrate that the Senate strongly supports this view. There is another important issue -- a constitutional issue -- about which I have some concerns regarding the precise language of the amendment. Namely, I think that it might be desirable to clarify the meaning of subsection (a) which states that the President shall not interfere with the transfer of arms to the Government of Bosnia. I interpret this prohibition narrowly to reach those areas in which the Congress has the constitutional power to restrict the President. I do not believe, for instance, the amendment should be read to imply that the President could not say that he opposes lifting the embargo or even argue that other states should continue to enforce the embargo. The constitutional power of the President to articulate his own views or to communicate with other nations cannot be controlled by Congress. I know that this is not the intention of the minority leader and the amendment should not be read to attempt to control the President's speech. Nor does the amendment affirmatively mandate that the United States provide arms to Bosnia. It prohibits interference with Bosnia receiving arms. There is a difference. Mr. President, there is a long history of congressional involvement on questions of arms embargoes and neutrality acts. It is appropriate -- indeed, essential -- that the Senate speak on this issue and I commend the minority leader and also the distinguished Senator from Connecticut on their leadership on this issue. Mr. President, like every American, I am appalled and shocked by the killings, rape, ethnic cleansing, and other atrocities currently taking place in Bosnia. Last year, in response to these outrages, I cosponsored a resolution, Senate Resolution 79, offered by Senator Feingold to lift the arms embargo on Bosnia. Today, I will join the distinguished Republican Leader, Senator Dole, and Senator Lieberman, in cosponsoring the amendment currently before the Senate. I will cosponsor this amendment to once again signal my support for lifting the U.N. arms embargo on Bosnia. Americans and people everywhere understand the right of self-defense. After the breakup of the former nation of Yugoslavia, the Serbs took possession of the bulk of weapons from the Yugoslavian military. As the three-way civil war erupted, the United Nations enacted an arms embargo on Bosnia, Serbia, and Croatia. In effect, however, this arms embargo denied the Bosnian Moslems the right to acquire arms to defend themselves against Serbian aggression. As a result of the arms embargo, Serbia and Bosnian Serbs had a monopoly on the heavy weapons they needed to conquer and carve up Bosnia. The ebb and flow of violence and atrocities we have seen are the tragic result of this policy. For some time, the U.S. Senate has called on the President to lift the arms embargo on Bosnia so that the Bosnian Moslems can defend themselves. Unfortunately, because of opposition from our allies with troops on the ground, the President failed to convince our NATO partners to lift the arms embargo. Given the current siege of Gorazde and my opposition to increased United States military involvement in Bosnia, I believe it is time for American to show its leadership and lift the arms embargo against Bosnia. While I want to allow the Bosnian Moslem to acquire the weapons they need to defend themselves, I strongly oppose any effort to increase the U.S. military involvement in this quagmire. Likewise, I continue to strongly oppose the Clinton administration policy of giving the U.N. commanders on the ground the authority to call for NATO and U.S. airstrikes. I fear we are seeing mission creep like we saw in Somalia, where U.S. military involvement escalates in support of United Nations' policies. I strongly oppose any increased United States military involvement in Bosnia because, to begin with, the President has not given the American people a clearly defined objective for our military involvement. As far as I can tell, no one in this Government can tell us how our air attacks are supposed to bring about peace in Bosnia. Indeed, as recently as 2 weeks ago, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Shalikashvili, warned that air attacks won't stop the Serbian attacks on Gorazde because, unlike Sarajevo, where the Serbes used tanks and heavy artillery, the Serbs are now using small arms to take Gorazde. I oppose increased United States military involvement in Bosnia because its a bad idea that will not end the suffering -- but may prolong it. I oppose United States military involvement in Bosnia because it will not lead to negotiations between the parties -- but may even delay them. I oppose military involvement because it leads us to the slippery slope of intervention -- and none of us can see an end to it. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Dole-Lieberman amendment to lift the arms embargo against Bosnia. I do so with the hope and belief that by giving the Bosnia Moslems the ability to defend themselves, this terrible ethnic civil war can be brought to an end. I support this amendment with the recognition that my support for this action in no way authorizes or encourages a greater United States military involvement in Bosnia. I support this amendment to forestall the looming danger of allowing the United Nations to drag the Armed Forces of the United States and NATO more deeply into this centuries old conflict. Madam President, 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 (Mr. Harkin). Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. President, we have been working all day long to reach accommodating language for various Senators that have had differences on amendments that were before us. We have reached accommodation on a number of amendments, and so we will go forward at this time. On behalf of Senator Johnston and Senator Breaux, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the other amendments will be set aside and the clerk will report this amendment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. President, today we are considering legislation which streamlines one of the most litigated sections of the United States Code. The amendment that I am offering will expand this legislation to clarify a section of the Bankruptcy Code which has had a chilling effect on the extension of credit to agriculture producers and caused great concern among agriculture lenders who have been impacted by section 522(d) of title 11 of the United States Code. As a result of various exemptions set forth in the Federal Bankruptcy Code, some States, including Louisiana, have chosen to opt out of the Federal exemption format under section 522(d) and create their own list of exemptions from seizure in bankruptcy cases. Thus, when a debtor files for bankruptcy he or she can avoid certain liens if they affect property that is exempt under State statutes. The purpose of these exemptions is to protect the debtor and his family from being reduced by financial misfortune to absolute want and becoming a public charge. The exemptions provided by States like Louisiana have not been a problem until recent rulings on a new line of bankruptcy cases which have allowed debtors in bankruptcy to avoid liens and security interest affecting property which is exempt from seizure, generally including collateral consisting of the tools of the trade by which the debtor earns his or her living. For example, in Owen v. Owen, 111 S.Ct. 1833 (1991), the court held that since Federal law determines the availability of lien avoidance, the State may not "opt out" of the lien avoidance provision of section 522(f) regardless of a State exemption, giving the debtor the opportunity to avoid the security interest irrespective of a possible waiver within the security document itself of the exemption. More recently, a Texas bankruptcy court held that a farmer's statutorily exempt tools of the trade included two John Deere tractors valued at over $47,350 and that the farmer could therefore avoid security interests in them. Because of this situation, many bankers in rural areas and especially agricultural lenders are restricting credit to farmers who voluntarily want to secure such a loan with farm equipment or other assets construed as tools of the trade. Consequently, this has impacted the availability of needed credit to farmers and raised concerns from the agricultural community in affected States about the overriding weight of possible protection provided under the tools of the trade statutes in the event of a chapter 7 or 12 bankruptcy proceeding. My amendment would make it clear that in States similar to Louisiana that have opted out of the Federal exemption format under section 522(d) debtors could not avoid the fixing of a lien if the lien is a nonpossessory, non-purchase-money security interest in tools of the trade and the State law prohibits the debtor from avoiding the fixing of the lien. Mr. President, the Owen decision, in particular, is having a serious impact on the extension of credit to agricultural producers, particularly in those cases where tractors, combines, and other big ticket items form a substantial, if not a majority, portion of a farmer's assets available for collateral purposes. On the other hand, banks are being denied a good loan opportunity based on the financial risks associated with current interpretation of the Federal exemption format under section 522(d). I hope my colleagues will join me in support of this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the texts of letters from the Louisiana Farm Bureau and Louisiana Bankers Association be printed in the Record. Mr. President, in regard to this amendment, I am agreeing to take this amendment. I had concerns about how the original amendment would affect farmers in my State of Iowa. I have discussed with the Senator from Louisiana my concerns without fully knowing the impact of this amendment on that. And he knows I am reserving my right to work on this language further in conference to clarify its intent. I appreciate Senator Johnston's efforts that he has already taken to narrow his original amendment. So I do accept the amendment at this point in time. I urge the amendment be agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk by Senator Bryan, dealing with matters pertaining to money, property, services obtained by false pretenses, false representation or fraud, and ask for its immediate consideration. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection the pending amendments are set aside and the clerk will report. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. I urge adoption of the amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote. Mr. GRASSLEY I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment by Senator Feinstein dealing with the matter of recommendations by the judicial conference for the appointment of bankruptcy judges and ask for its immediate consideration. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection the pending amendments will be set aside. The clerk will report. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. President, I want to first thank the managers of this complex and comprehensive legislation for their courtesy and cooperation in accepting my amendment, which will assist Congress in accurately determining how and where to meet the judgeship needs of the Nation's bankruptcy courts. Under current law, Mr. President, the Judicial Conference of the United States is required to conduct what is called a biennial survey every 2 years to determine the continuing need for bankruptcy judges in every judicial district in America. The data collected forms the basis of recommendations that the statute requires the Conference to make to Congress as to how many judges are needed, and where they should preside. Congress is not bound to follow the Conference's advice. The Conference's suggestions are intended, however, to keep judicial caseloads -- and, therefore, bankruptcy processing times -- at or near an acceptable level set by the Conference. This is no easy task, Mr. President, and I commend the Conference for the efforts that it has made in the past to expedite bankruptcy cases for both debtors and creditors. Such speed serves all who come into contact with the court system and is a stabilizing force in our economy at large. In recent years, however, the Judicial Conference's recommendations have left several judicial districts across the country -- including California's four districts -- short of the number of judges needed to achieve the caseload targets established by the Conference itself. My amendment is intended, Mr. President, to strike a balance between the deference owed by Congress to the Judiciary in operating the Nation's courts and the pressing need in California and many other States to obtain adequate judicial resources. To that end, it would modify title 28 of the United States Code at section 152(b)(3) to: First, require that, if the Judicial Conference recommends that Congress create fewer judgeships in a given district than its biennial survey finds to be actually needed to establish normal caseloads, the Conference must disclose that fact and its calculation methods to Congress and quantify the degree to which the district is being understaffed; and second, require the Conference to recommend to Congress an adequate number of judges to meet the needs of any district whose needs were not satisfied by the conference's previous recommendations. My amendment does not -- I hasten to add -- create new judgeships, modify any existing judgeships, affect the Conference's discretion to conduct its biennial survey in the manner it thinks best, or change the target caseload used by the Conference to make its recommendations. Accordingly, Mr. President, I believe that it is both budget- and deficit-neutral. In conclusion, Mr. President, I want to again thank the managers of the bill and the Judicial Conference for its hard work in the past. As a member of the Appropriations Committee, I look forward to working with all three in the future to provide America's bankruptcy courts with the resources that they -- and the public -- so seriously need. I urge passage of the amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk by Senator Metzenbaum, dealing with professional fees in regard to bankruptcies, and ask for its immediate consideration. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection the pending amendments will be set aside. The clerk will report. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. I urge adoption of the amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk by Senator Metzenbaum dealing with clarifying the effect of conversion of a case under chapter 13 to another chapter and I ask for its immediate consideration. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection the pending amendments will be set aside. The clerk will report. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. I urge adoption of the amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. President, I send an amendment by Senator Metzenbaum to the desk which amends section 525 of title 11 to prohibit denial of a student grant or loan on the grounds that the loan applicant has been a debtor in a bankruptcy proceeding and ask for its immediate consideration. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection the pending amendments will be set aside and the clerk will report. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. President, the Bankruptcy Code, section 525, prohibits governmental units from discriminating against a person because of a prior bankruptcy or discharge of a debt. Specifically, the code provides that a governmental unit may not discriminate in cases of a "license, permit, charter, franchise, or other similar grant" because of a prior bankruptcy. Some courts have construed this provision very narrowly. For example, if a person has filed for bankruptcy and later applies for a Government-sponsored student loan, some courts have upheld the denial of the loan because the Bankruptcy Code does not specifically mention student loans as a category in which the Government may not discriminate. This interpretation seriously undermines the fresh start that section 525 was meant to ensure. It also may prevent a person from going back to school. The Metzenbaum amendment would specifically list student grants and/ or loans as an area in which the Government may not discriminate. Under current law, most student loans cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. This amendment will not change that law. I urge adoption of the amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk by Senator Simpson, for himself, Mr. Wallop, Mr. Brown, Mr. Breaux, Mrs. Hutchison, and Mr. Johnston, and ask for its immediate consideration. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment will be set aside. The clerk will report. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. President, this is an amendment to the Bankruptcy Code which is similar to another amendment that I offered last year to the energy bill and which was enacted into law during the 102d Congress. This amendment will exclude interests owned in oil and gas production from bankruptcy proceedings. It is important to note, however, that the interest in production that is excluded from bankruptcy is not owned by the debtor. Any debtor-owned production is still available to the court to satisfy claims of creditors. The interest being protected by my amendment is referred to in the industry as a "production payment". I would take just a moment to describe what a production payment is and how it comes into existence, so my colleagues will understand how necessary and fair this amendment is. There are instances when owners of a right to drill for and to produce oil or gas cannot afford to drill the well themselves. Drilling an oil or gas well often costs millions of dollars. It is a high risk venture, and there is no guarantee that production will be established after undertaking that phenomenal expense. Companies that purchase the product, of course, have an interest in seeing oil and gas wells being drilled. The production is the "life blood" of their business and they often are willing to share in the expense of drilling in return for a share in production. When the companies involved enter into an agreement to share in the risk of exploration in the hope of obtaining a share in production, a contract is signed where, in return for providing capital -- money -- for drilling a well, the funds are repaid not in cash, but in the form of oil or gas produced from the well. That share of production is a "production payment". Simply stated, it is a payment of oil or gas in lieu of cash. The production payment extends for a limited term -- and likely for a term shorter than the life of production from the specific well. The term of payment in production is a part of the contract the parties enter into at the beginning of the venture. In some cases, Mr. President, one of the parties subsequently must declare bankruptcy. In these days of declining oil prices and increased imports, that is becoming more of a concern. If the entity that drilled the well and established production is later forced into bankruptcy, the payments owed to the partner in the venture -- the production payments -- could be taken over to satisfy the claims of other creditors. Such a result would be grossly unfair. The owner of a production payment is a blameless party in the bankruptcy. The production payment owner shared in the risk of drilling the well and is entitled to have that debt repaid. Therefore, my amendment would allow for this by excluding these interests from bankruptcy proceedings. Other creditors also stand to benefit from the passage of this amendment. If production is maintained to satisfy the obligation due the owner of the production payment, excess production will continue to be sold as well. The proceeds from those sales will be available to satisfy other creditors' claims. Even though the other creditors likely had no part in drilling a particular well, there will be an additional cash stream maintained into the debtor's estate to satisfy their claims, too. I have been working closely with my distinguished colleagues on the Judiciary Committee, Senators Heflin and Grassley, on this amendment since they first reintroduced their legislation in the 103d Congress. Through their able assistance, we have refined and simplified this amendment to accomplish its narrow purpose: to protect innocent non- debtor owners of oil and gas production and to do so at no loss to other creditors. We have accomplished that goal and I am most appreciative of their hard work and that of their fine staff. I would mention one modification that is particularly relevant. Senator Grassley had suggested that without clarification, some would believe that this exclusion of production payments, also known as an "overriding royalty", would cause some to believe all royalties are being excluded. So we made that distinction in the definitional section: A production payment is not a gross royalty. The term "gross royalty" is not commonly used in the oil and gas industry, but is rather a general term in property law. We made that change to be absolutely clear that we are addressing a specific and unique class of "royalties". Mr. President, I am informed that the managers of the legislation now pending are prepared to accept this amendment and I would yield the floor. I urge adoption of the amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk by Senator Metzenbaum dealing with tax assessments, and ask for its immediate consideration. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection the previous amendments will be set aside. The clerk will report. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. President, in current S. 540, there is a provision -- tax administration, section 115, tax assessment -- that would allow the assessment of uncontested or agreed upon prepetition tax liabilities. While of some assistance to the Internal Revenue Service, the provision does not cover taxes that may not require a return or those that do not involve the deficiency procedures of the Internal Revenue Code such as excise taxes and employment taxes. The amendment proposed would extend the ability of the Service to make assessments with regard to all taxes that it administers. Under the proposal, the Service would still be prohibited from taking steps to collect the tax. It would simply be allowed to make an assessment and send the first bill notifying the taxpayers of the liability. In addition, the restrictions on assessment contained in the Internal Revenue Code will continue in full force and effect. The proposal would not allow the Service to assess a deficiency in income taxes while the stay is in effect until either the automatic stay is lifted, the Bankruptcy Court determines the liability, or the Bankruptcy Court allows the Tax Court to continue the proceeding. The proposal is consistent with a recommendation made by the General Accounting Office. (See GGD 83-47, June 20, 1983.) Because there has been concern expressed that somehow the Service might get an advantage because of its lien under Internal Revenue Code if it is allowed to assess during bankruptcy, the provision provides that any lien arising by operation of the Internal Revenue Code does not take effect until after property is no longer part of the bankruptcy estate. This is consistent with the Internal Revenue Service's position that it seeks no advantage over other creditors by being allowed to assess taxes during the pendency of a bankruptcy. I urge adoption of the amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of Senator Metzenbaum dealing with the consumer rent-to-own contracts as being treated as secured purchase contracts. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments will be set aside. The clerk will report. Mr. President, this amendment resolves the debate over how rent-to-own contracts should be treated in bankruptcy cases. Rent-to-own agreements are consumer transactions in which consumers agree to make weekly payments for appliances or furniture with the promise of owning them after a period of time. The rent-to-own companies attempt to avoid credit sales and usury laws by writing the agreements as leases, terminable by the consumer at any time. Typically the consumers pay many times the true value of the property under these agreements, amounts which the Pennsylvania attorney general has found to be the equivalent of 100-200 percent in interest. Consumers have argued that these agreements should be treated as credit sales in bankruptcy and many courts have agreed that this is correct. If the transaction is treated as a sale for purposes of bankruptcy, the consumer is treated like any other purchaser of goods on credit, and may keep possession of the goods by paying to the creditor the lesser of the balance of the contract or the property's current value, the same amount the creditor would realize if the goods were repossessed. In a chapter 7 case, this payment is normally in a lump sum. In a chapter 13 case it is made under the chapter 13 plan, with interest -- at a fair rate -- added. However, other courts have ruled that to keep their appliances, consumers must pay the entire remaining balance of the rent-to-own contract, which is usually many times what the property is worth, and a burden that makes it more difficult for the debtor to pay basic living expenses and pay other creditors. A clear treatment of these transactions in the bankruptcy code would promote uniformity and end litigation on these issues. It would also serve the goals of consumer protection by limiting the effects of these unfair and overreaching contracts. This amendment would clarify the law in a way that treats debtors with rent-to-own contracts in the same way the bankruptcy code treats those with installment sale contracts. It preserves for the rent-to-own dealer the right to receive either a return of the property in question or its fair market value and at the same time ensures that the debtor gets the fresh start bankruptcy is intended to provide. Mr. President, even though we are going to move forward with this amendment, I want to make the point that I believe that this amendment is not the right amendment. I am opposed to it at this point. I am going to take the amendment now in the interest of moving this bill forward. I will work with Senator Metzenbaum on this issue, but I reserve my right to oppose this amendment in conference. I also note that the Banking Committee will hold hearings on the rent-to-own subject next month which may lead to a more acceptable resolution of this issue. I send to the desk at this time a statement on behalf of Senator Metzenbaum and ask that it appear in the Record as if read in full. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection. Mr. President, I have some reservation on this rent-to- own matter, too. We will work in conference to try to improve this with the House relative to this matter. I urge the adoption of the amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of Senator Metzenbaum dealing with lein avoidance, which we have considered and several changes have been made pertaining to it. But I think it is now agreeable to the Senators who are interested in it. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments will be set aside, and the clerk will report this amendment. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf of Senator Metzenbaum dealing with fraud in bankruptcy proceedings and to add provisions to combat bankruptcy fraud. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments will be set aside, and the clerk will report this amendment. Mr. President, this amendment is also in the crime bill. I just want to point that out to Members of the body. This will be passing the Senate twice in a recent period of time. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments will be set aside, and 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, I understand my colleagues will accept this amendment. I want to thank them for accepting this technical amendment, and I also appreciate Senator Kohl's efforts to work this out. So as far as I know, it will be accepted. Mr. President, this is the amendment dealing with shopping centers. I do not think there was ever any disagreement on this. I think this is one everybody agrees with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is on the amendment of the Senator from Utah. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the amendment was agreed to. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments will be set aside, and the clerk will report this 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, I understand the managers have agreed to accept my amendment to strike section 220. I really wish to extend my thanks to the managers, Senator Heflin and Senator Grassley, for their cooperation and assistance. I would also like to thank Senator Metzenbaum for his efforts and cooperation to resolve this matter, because I believe that this amendment -- the motion to strike -- is in the best interest of retirees and employees. I also would like to thank Senator Helms for his assistance and also, in particular, I would like to take just a second and thank the distinguished Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin], and the distinguished Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley], for the marvelous way in which they have handled this bill from beginning to end. They have done a tremendous job in committee and on the floor. I have tremendous respect for both of them. So I just want them both to know that. This whole S. 540, the bankruptcy bill, is long overdue and these two Senators have really worked hard to do it. Having thanked all of those people, I urge the adoption of the amendment. Mr. METZENBAUM addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio. Mr. President, I rise not in opposition to the amendment of the Senator from Utah, but rather to address myself to this particular subject and the conduct of some lobbyists who have been working the halls of the Senate. It has nothing at all to do with my colleague from Utah. It does have to do with the Bankers Association. This is an amendment that has to do with the question of whether or not retirees will be protected when a company is in bankruptcy and when a bank is making a loan to that particular company that is in bankruptcy. It is a subject that has been one of some travail, some concern. And this Senator, in cooperation with the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Thurmond], some years ago was able to protect the interests of the retirees in connection with the LTV Steel Co. This amendment does not have to do with any particular company. It has to do with the general subject of whether or not retirees are going to be given consideration and how much consideration, as far as their health benefits are concerned, when a company is in bankruptcy. There have been questions about the language that is in the law at the moment. The Senator from Ohio had an amendment that he thought clarified the matter. Yesterday we learned -- I guess we actually learned prior to that -- that the Bankers Association was not in agreement with the language of the Senator from Ohio. And so my staff entered into considerable negotiations with the Bankers Association. After they had been handling those negotiations for some time, I came out into the hallway near the Senate and said, "Well, what is it that you want?" The woman spokesperson -- I gather she is a lawyer -- for the Bankers Association said they wanted certain language in it. I found some difficulty with that. My staff had great reservations about it, but in an effort to get the matter resolved, I said, "All right, let's go with it." The lady then came back with some additional language and said, "Well, we also would like this language in." I looked at it, and I had some difficulty with it, and a representative of the White House was present, and she suggested we pick up some language from I think it is section 1114, if I remember correctly, of the Code and use that specific language and it be included in the amendment. I said fine. The lady representing the Bankers Association said fine. There was then considerable additional discussion, and finally, they got what they wanted. I wanted to move the matter forward. I did not want to hold up the bankruptcy bill. Both the manager of the bill and the comanager of the bill have been extremely cooperative and I said, "All right let's go with it." I am frank to say to my colleagues in the Senate that my own staff was not happy with my agreeing to take that amendment. As a matter of fact, my staff felt very strongly about the subject. I had to just go ahead and say we are going to go ahead anyhow, and I actually had to apologize because I was so curt with her. So I had made a statement. My staff was not happy. But I said, "I made a deal; let's go." The next thing I knew, I went out there, and I said, "Where is the amendment?" They said, "It is being typed in the Vice President's office." I said, "Fine. As soon as you have it, let me know." Several minutes later, they came back to me and said that their lawyers in New York, with whom they had already been in contact, talking back and forth, because a representative of the bankers had a telephone with her, a hand-held telephone, the Bankers Association lawyers have changed their minds; they now want to change it. Now, I have to say, I have been here 18 years, more than 18 years. I have negotiated with all sorts of groups. I have disagreed with some and agreed with others. But I have never seen conduct of any lobbying group as reprehensible as that of the Bankers Association yesterday. You make a deal. You live by your deal. Your word is good. You do not change your word. And to me, the last people in this country who ought to be changing their word are those who are in the banking business. They had agreed to it. Then they went back. No, they had to fine tune it. They had to change some language in it. I have agreed now to take the amendment, the whole matter, out of this bankruptcy bill and let the law stand as it is. But I say publicly that I condemn the conduct of the American Bankers Association in their dealing with Members of the Senate. If they cannot keep their word, they should not be traveling the Halls of this body; they should not be representing their group. This is an organization that owes it to the American people to have a sense of integrity. It is the last association that ought to have a lack of integrity. Having said that, Mr. President, I have no objection to the amendment of the Senator from Utah. And I wish to make it very clear my language is in no way any reflection upon the Senator from Utah. He was not a party to the negotiations. Mr. President, I thank my dear friend and colleague from Ohio. I am very happy to get this amendment done, because I think it is in the best interests of everybody. My dealing with the bankers has been totally favorable. I could find nothing but praise on my part for their activities and efforts, without which we probably would not have arrived at this conclusion, which I think is a very good one. So I urge adoption of the amendment at this time. Mr. President, those familiar with the details of this legislation are aware that section 220 of the bill requires a corporation reorganizing under chapter 11 first to fund retiree health and insurance benefits. If this section should become law -- and I cannot believe it will -- it would eliminate jobs, discourage viable companies from reorganizing, harm lending institutions, and hurt retirees -- the very group it purports to assist. That is why, Mr. President, I filed amendment number 1581 to strike completely this section. Senators can find this amendment in the Congressional Record of March 24 on page S 3777. The able Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch] and the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Metzenbaum] have agreed that section 220 of the bill be removed, and I appreciate that. Mr. President, I was first made aware of the onerous impact of this section by John Medlin, Jr., chairman of the board of Wachovia Bank in Winston-Salem, NC. In addition to being a leader of our Nation's banking industry, John Medlin has demonstrated a prescient understanding of how our economy works -- and of the impact the Federal Government has on the economy. John detailed his concerns about section 220 in his letter of March 8 to me, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of Mr. Medlin's letter -- as well as the text of a letter from John McLaughlin of United Carolina Bank -- be printed in the Record, and I extend my appreciation to Senator Hatch for his fine work. The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Utah. So the amendment (No. 1654) was agreed to. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleagues. Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas. Mr. President, what is the pending business? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is amendment No. 1640, by Senator Dole and others. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I rise to support the Dole amendment. It has become clear to people in the United States and around the world that the U.N. policies with regard to Bosnia and Herzegovina are not comprehensible; they are not coherent. In fact, Mr. President, the problem is there is no policy. Once again, those whom we hope will abide by international norms have demonstrated with impunity that their lust for blood will not be satiated until they have laid waste to Bosnia. The lessons of Munich have been clear ever since Neville Chamberlain handed over to Hitler all of his demands. Now we stand idly while Serb forces slaughter innocent men and women. While it is not in our interest to deploy United States forces into Bosnia, it is most certainly in our interest to allow those who would fight for their lives to do so. If Lafayette had been sent to our shores with only humanitarian aid during the American Revolution, we would still be a crown colony today. I am not advocating sending United States ground troops to Bosnia. In fact, I do not think, although we have an interest in Bosnia as a country, sending our troops in under any circumstances is correct. But I am most certainly advocating giving the people who have the will to fight the ability to do so. The fledgling United States was given that opportunity in our struggle for freedom. It is only just that we give the opportunity to those who only wish to fight for their lives. We have a moral responsibility to support those who would do for themselves what the West collectively cannot do, will not do, and should not do. It is fitting that this amendment would be offered to the bankruptcy bill because bankrupt is a fitting description of our policy toward Bosnia. We must act now, Mr. President, to allow the Bosnian people to defend themselves, and I hope this body will speak clearly and firmly and swiftly that that should at least be the United States policy and we should press it forward. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested. 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 Senator from Ohio is recognized. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a lady who has been extremely helpful to me on this bill, as well as a great deal of other legislation. She is about to leave my staff and go over to Fannie Mae. Pam Banks has done yeoman's work in connection with this bankruptcy bill. I think the managers of this bill have been good enough to accept 8, 9 or 10 of my amendments. She has been involved in all of the negotiations. She has worked many additional hours, over and beyond the normal time that all of us work in the Senate. She has been dedicated to the concerns of the bankrupt, the concerns of the would-be bankrupt, and she has been one of the finest legislative aides that any Member of the Senate could possibly have. I say this evening this may be one of the last bills she will be working on, but no Senator could have had a better aide, supporter and helper in connection with the legislative process than the kind of assistance that I have received over the years from Pam Banks. I am sorry to see her leave, but I congratulate her new employer. She gives more than a full day's work for a full day's pay. I would hope that every Member of the Senate would have staff assistants as able, as conscientious, and as concerned as Pam Banks has been. I thank her for her many years of service. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Robb). 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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add as cosponsors of S. 540 Senator Hatch and Senator Cochran. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. President, 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. Mr. President, I believe very strongly that we should avoid the loss of American life in the former Yugoslavia. I believe very strongly that Europe should take the lead in any actions taken in the former Yugoslavia. For too long the American taxpayer has been burdened with the United States always taking the lead. This is a European problem. We should help out and be supportive. But there has been an attitude developed by some that the United States is responsible for sending troops to resolve any matter. Whether it is leading the bombing in Bosnia or feeding the hungry in Somalia. I support the concept of lifting the arms embargo unilaterally, if necessary, but I am also pleased that this resolution contains a provision that there shall be no use of U.S. troops. I have pointed out before, on this floor, the need for reform in the way the U.N. military command does things. The U.S. taxpayer pays for about 31.7 percent of the cost of U.N. peacekeeping operations. I think this is very unfortunate. In 1947, there was a 25 percent cap placed on the U.S. assessed contribution. I introduced legislation during the State Department Authorization that passed and was adopted by the House-Senate conference. My amendment would withhold a portion of U.S. assessed contributions to the United Nations unless an inspector general is established by the United Nations. The United Nations requires a real inspector general, because there has been so much corruption and waste. But there is also a need for great reform in the way U.N. peacekeeping operations and their command and control are run. We are told, for example, that many countries have troops in Bosnia and the United States should have more, but some of the countries participating in the Bosnian operation are making a profit on their troops, that is the untold story. Many of these countries pay their soldiers $50 a month, which they continue to pay them when they are serving in a U.N. peacekeeping operation. The government of that country is subsequently reimbursed close to $1,000 per troop per month. So it is not necessarily out of nobility that some countries participate in U.N. peacekeeping operations, nor is it out of a sense of duty. In addition to monetary compensation, these countries are getting valuable training for their troops wherever they serve. I find it disturbing that some governments are actually making a profit on the troops they send to Yugoslavia and other U.N. peacekeeping operations. So, Mr. President, it is my strongest position that we should pass this resolution, but I am more comfortable knowing that no United States troops will be committed in Bosnia. We should not shed a single drop of American blood in this conflict. We should ask our Europeans allies to take the lead. If they wish to, we will be supportive. How long will American taxpayers continue to pay for peacekeeping costs at the high rate of over 31 percent while other countries pay little or nothing? Indeed, as I have noted, many countries profit from their participation in peacekeeping operations. Let us get the facts straight. Let us remember that our taxpayers are asking how long they will continue to finance the United Nations Let us make a rule that not a single drop of American blood should be shed in this conflict. Those should be the ground rules by which President Clinton and this body proceed. I hear from my constituents and from Americans all over this great country that they do not want the United States to commit ground troops. They do not want us to lead the bombing. They do not want us to become enmeshed in a dispute that has been going on since the 14th century and a dispute that will probably be going on long after we are all gone. So let us establish some ground rules primarily that not a single drop of American blood should be shed in the former Yugoslavia, and let us ask ourselves how long the American taxpayer must continue to bear the major burden of U.N. peacekeeping expenses. We contribute 31.7 percent of the total, far more than any other country. I believe strongly that those countries in Europe that are in the region should bear more of the burden. Mr. President, I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. Nickles]. Mr. President, I wish to compliment Senator Dole for his leadership in -- I am saying Bosnia but really I mean in Yugoslavia. I had the pleasure of traveling with Senator Dole and several colleagues a couple years or three ago to the former Yugoslavia. I think all of us came away from that trip with a real concern for the people of Yugoslavia for each of the republics and certainly those republics that were oppressed, in many cases really being strongly oppressed, by the Serbian Government headed by Mr. Milosevic. I think we felt that we wanted to do something. As a matter of fact, we did do a couple things. We did pass an amendment on a foreign operations appropriations bill that said we should allocate our foreign aid only to those republics in the former Yugoslavia that made moves and progress toward democracy. I might mention at that time that amendment was opposed by at that time the State Department in the Bush administration. They did not want to have any strings tied by Congress on foreign aid in Yugoslavia, but we still passed the amendment despite some objections by the administration. I remember being involved in that in a very long conference, but I felt like it was important. Mr. President, no question there is some significant tragedy in Yugoslavia today, certainly in Bosnia, and our hearts go out to all the innocent victims, and there are thousands of innocent victims. And certainly when you see the atrocities, when you see the murders, when you see the rapes, when you see the former very beautiful, lovely, peaceful villages pounded by artillery, it makes your heart go out to those people. What should we be doing? I am critical of the administration for their -- I am going to say vacillating policy on Bosnia, really for the last year and half but especially in the last 2 or 3 months. I am critical of their tendency to delegate so much authority to the United Nations, and I remind my colleagues that last summer this Senator offered an amendment that said we should not be delegating our responsibility certainly in combat roles to the United Nations. Yet we see that is exactly what has happened in Bosnia, when we looked at some of the reports of NATO or the commander in the field saying, well, we want to call in air strikes, and they would run that through the chain of command of the commander in the field through NATO, and then they had to get the permission of the United Nations. In some cases it took over 4 hours to get the permission to respond to an attack that was ongoing. By that time, it was too late. I think it shows some of the confusion, some bureaucracy in the chain of command that is present and really makes it a very inept military operation. Mr. President, part of my complaint or part of my objection to the Clinton administration is that we do not have a clear or a defined military objective. This is a significant deviation from what we have had from previous administrations, both in President Reagan's administration and President Bush's administration. We said that our military should not be engaged in a military operation unless they had clearly defined objectives, stated goals, accomplished the objective, end of mission. That is what we had in the Persian Gulf, and it worked very effectively. I remember one time we did not have that objective, and that was in Lebanon and we saw a real disaster happen in Lebanon. Many were critical of that. We hated to see that happen. We had unnecessary loss of life. The administration took remedial action and we pulled our troops out of Lebanon. My heart goes out to the innocent people in Lebanon, another beautiful country, with lovely people, and you had this uncontrolled chaos and fighting. But this was not a problem in my opinion that was appropriate for American soldiers to solve. I look at Bosnia, and I will confess to being more willing a couple years ago to be interventionist militarily but not with this administration and certainly not with the chaos that is there. I say I do not think we could solve the military situation in Bosnia with 500,000 troops on the ground. Certainly we cannot solve the situation in Bosnia with air strikes, as President Clinton mentioned that last night. Yet he is escalating the tensions and he is escalating the investment of the United States. By investment I am talking about risking lives of men and women of the United States armed services, risking the prestige of the United States by saying, yes, we are going to have air strikes, we are going to try to protect these five various corridors as safe havens. They have been safe havens declared by the United Nations, but we have not enforced that. Certainly it has not happened in Gorazde. And then when you see vacillation, you see the Secretary of Defense, Mr. Perry, on TV I think about 3 weeks ago saying we would not intervene militarily and a week later we were, that kind of a mixed signal is almost an invitation for the Serbs in Bosnia to attack, and they did. They escalated their bombardment and shells and artillery fire in Gorazde, and we have seen a real atrocity as a result. Again, this vacillation in foreign policy I think has cost the United States in leadership and prestige, and I think has contributed to a real decline in our influence not only in the United Nations but in NATO and in the world today. Then, Mr. President, I will just say, looking at the President's press conference last night and some statements, well, we are going to extend air power, yet air power is not going to be enough and will not be effective, that concerns me. We are going to use air power to maybe increase the punishment and the pressure on the Serbs so they come to the bargaining table. That sounds so reminiscent of Vietnam. It was not successful in Vietnam. I doubt it will be successful in Bosnia. I hope it would be. I would like to say maybe this would work. When I look at the President who says this is what he is going to try to sell the allies, and we talk about Britain and the French, neither of whom have endorsed this proposal. The Russians have not endorsed it. So we do not even have support from some of our closest allies within NATO. We lost a great deal of influence in NATO and lost a great deal of influence within the United Nations. President Clinton even mentioned last night, yes, he would like to lift the arms embargo, but we have not been successful in convincing the United Nations. Two years ago President Bush was quite successful in convincing the United Nations if there was a resolution that we needed to pass we could get our allies on board and pass it. We had influence in the United Nations. Obviously we have lost that clout. Now a lot of people have spent a lot of time debating whether we should have this resolution, whether we should do it unilaterally or do it through the United Nations. Presently, the United Nations says we are going to have an arms embargo on all of Yugoslavia, and some people say that is still in effect even though there no longer is a Yugoslavia. We have not been successful in convincing our allies this is not in the best interest in Bosnian to be able to defend themselves. Let us pass a resolution repealing it or modifying it or changing it. The administration and President Clinton said he has been in favor of this for a year. We still have not done anything. So, it makes me think that we have lost a great deal of influence and prestige in the United Nations. And if you look at the United Nations and their resulting efforts not only in Bosnia but in Somalia, in Rwanda -- I mean, read the paper today. You have U.N. troops in Rwanda who are destroying their uniforms and fleeing. In Somalia, we had a change in mission in the United Nations from humanitarian to nation-building, and that was a disaster. Six months ago, people were talking about the United Nations putting up to 50,000 troops into Bosnia. And one time people were talking about whether the United States might put in 25,000 or maybe a third of whatever contingency would be put in. Yet, again, you see all this confusion of who is going to be in charge in the chain of command. Will NATO be in charge? Will the United Nations be in charge? We find today a great deal of confusion and ultimately the United Nations having the final say. And, again, that is no way to run a military operation. We have gotten so far away from what we have had in the past, where we stated we would only use our military to carry out clearly definable, winnable military objectives. And that is not the case in Bosnia. One thing we could do -- and I agree with Senator Dole -- one thing we could do is lift the arms embargo. And Senator Dole and others of us offered a sense-of-the-Senate resolution last year, and it passed overwhelmingly, saying we should do this. But the administration has not followed up. So now Senator Dole is taking the next step and saying, let us make it legislative language. I just hope that our colleagues will agree with this. Maybe this language is not perfect. Well, it can be changed. Maybe the language could be changed in conference if we were successful in passing it or it would be changed on the floor of the Senate. But we need to send a signal if we want to do something. Should we not allow the people in Bosnia to be able to defend themselves? I would hope so. They may not be able to win the war. I doubt they can. They may not be able to overturn the gains the Serbs have made by acquiring something like 70 percent of Bosnia. They may not be totally successful, but at least they should have the right to be able to defend themselves. I might mention that I, along with many of our colleagues, have met with many people in Bosnia. They have not asked for U.S. troops. Maybe one or two individuals have, but, for the most part, they have not asked for U.S. troops. They have asked for the right to be able to defend themselves. So I concur with the Republican leader, Senator Dole, and others who say, let us do something. I think the amendment that Senator Dole has on the floor is a big step in the right direction, and I hope that our colleagues will concur. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. President, the drive by the Bosnian Serbs into Gorazde shattered the hopes that protected areas could not be established without significant numbers of United Nations peacekeepers and possibly, without military support for those peacekeepers. Any United States action in former Yugoslavia must be taken in the context of our own national interest as well as out of concern for the fate of the Bosnians. Determining our national interest is difficult. I disagreed with those who thought that the war with Iraq was in our national interest. Some Americans may believe that it is in our national interest to intervene in Rwanda, where already 100,00 people have died in only a few short weeks of fighting. And some congressional leaders are calling for military intervention in Haiti. The supporters of these pending amendments argue that the United States should break with the international community and unilaterally lift the arms embargo on the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina. And the amendment's backers would also argue that the United States should be the first to arm the Bosnian Moslem government. I cannot support this amendment. While I clearly understand the concern of the authors, I do not agree with their reasoning. If this amendment passes, the United States will go on record as rejecting the multinational, comprehensive approach to ending the war in former Yugoslavia. The response to the lifting of the embargo could endanger allied troops assigned to the peacekeeping effort. I believe it is disingenuous -- if not naive -- to argue that our lifting of the embargo and weapons support to the Bosnian government does not constitute military intervention by the United States. I do not know how such an action would be interpreted by the Serbian leadership, but the very fact that such a question exists means that this proposal does not provide certainty. Rather than risk extension of the war, I believe we should put in place an economic and diplomatic choke hold which will take away the Serb's means to conduct the war. Lifting the arms embargo does not guarantee that there will be peace. It guarantees that there will be more war, more deaths and we will have played a part. Mr. President, as a cosponsor of the Lieberman-Dole amendment, I rise today in support of lifting the arms embargo on Bosnia. With the coming fall of Gorazde, it is obvious that the Serbs will not relent. Time after time, we have seen that the Serbs have violated their own ceasefires, four this week alone. They have no plans to stop because they know that the world will do nothing to prevent their constant attacks on the Bosnian people. For this reason, I believe that the United Nations arms embargo against Bosnia must be lifted. We have all seen the horrors of this war of aggression by the Serbs. Inhumane attacks by the Serbs against innocent Bosnian men, women, and children have not stopped for over 3 years now. The Serbs have given a new name to their mass slaughter: ethnic cleansing. They have conducted mass murder and mass rapes of Bosnian women, and have caused over 2 million people to flee the country as refugees. After all this, we have done nothing. Similarly, over 50 years ago, the United States refused to act on very persuasive information from a variety of credible sources, that said that the Nazis were killing Jews and other groups of people by the thousands and eventually millions. Not until our forces actually liberated the death camps, did we gain the full understanding of what went on inside of Germany and occupied Europe. Mr. President, the Serbs understand only one thing: force. When confronted with opposition, they backed down and abided by the ceasefire. Our waffling in Gorazde, though, has encouraged the Serbs to continue their war of aggression and killing rampage. The Bosnian people are poorly armed, fed, and clothed, but they are willing to fight fiercely to defend themselves to avoid certain death at the hands of the Serbians. While self-defense is Bosnia's right as an independent nation, we have denied her the right to obtain any weapons. Thus far, we have stood by and allowed a nation we recognize diplomatically to be extinguished. This policy must not continue. Muhammad Sacirbey, Bosnia's representative to the United Nations, told me in my office, that they do not want United States troops. They want our weapons. "Give me weapons and we will fight," he told me. Let's do what is right. Let's give them the few small weapons they need to defend themselves. Mr. President, the victimized people of Bosnia deserve our help. We have ignored the death and destruction by the Serbs for far too long. Now is the time for action, not the sellout of an entire people. At the end of World War II, we said "Never Again." It is apparent, that we have broken our word. What is at stake is the survival of an entire nation. We must not allow the people of Bosnia to be snuffed out. Let's lift the arms embargo now. Mr. President, it has become clear to people in the United States and around the world that the United Nations policies with regard to Bosnia and Herzegovina are not comprehensible, are not coherent, in fact the problem is there is no policy. Once again, those who we hope will abide by international norms have demonstrated with impunity that their lust for blood will not be satiated until they have laid waste to Bosnia. The lessons of Munich have been clear ever since Neville Chamberlain handed over to Hitler all his demands. Now, we stand idly by while Serb forces slaughter innocent men and women. While it is not in our interest to deploy United States forces into Bosnia, it is most certainly in our interest to allow those who would fight for their lives to do so. If Lafayette had been sent to our shores with only humanitarian aid during the American Revolution we would still be a crown colony today. I am not advocating sending United States ground troops to Bosnia, but I am advocating giving those with the will to fight -- the means to fight. The fledgling United States was given that opportunity in our struggle for freedom. It is only just that we give that opportunity to those who only wish to fight for their lives. We have a moral responsibility to support those who will do for themselves what the West collectively will not and should not. It is fitting that this amendment would be offered to the bankruptcy bill, because bankrupt is a fitting description of our policy toward Bosnia. We must act now to allow the Bosnian people to defend themselves. Mr. HEFLIN addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Alabama, Senator Heflin. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, other than the pending amendments numbered 1640 and 1641, the only remaining floor amendments in order to S. 540, that is the bankruptcy bill, be those relevant to the subject of Bosnia and those sense-of-the-Senate amendments relevant to the Housing Authority's policies. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent request as propounded by the Senator from Alabama? Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Republican leader, Senator Dole. Mr. President, I want to take a few moments to express my support for the Bankruptcy Amendments Act. As my colleagues know, this bill is designed not to overhaul the current bankruptcy system, but rather to streamline a system that has worked relatively well since 1978, when the current Bankruptcy Code was adopted. Modernizing the bankruptcy system is vitally important today, as the number of bankruptcy filings continues to increase. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, for example, estimates that nearly 1 million bankruptcy filings were made in 1992, triple the number just 8 years earlier. Some of the worthwhile provisions in the bill include: Small Business Investment Corporations: This provision would prohibit Small Business Investment Companies, or SBIC's, from filing for bankruptcy under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. As a result of this change, financially troubled SBIC's would opt instead for liquidation under the receivership laws regulated by the Small Business Administration. Under Chapter 7, the Small Business Administration recovers little of nothing, since the SBA claim is unsecured. On the other hand, when the SBA acts as a receiver, it normally recovers up to 100 percent of its claim. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that prohibiting SBIC's from filing for bankruptcy under chapter 7 would save the Federal Government $52 million in fiscal year 1994. Temporary Small Business Bankruptcy Program: Many observers claim that the current chapter 11 reorganization procedure has proven too costly and cumbersome for many small businesses seeking bankruptcy relief. As a result, a second provision would establish a temporary small business bankruptcy program -- chapter 10 of the Bankruptcy Code -- for small businesses with debts of less than $2.5 million. This program, which will be tested in eight pilot districts throughout the country, is designed to improve efficiency by accelerating the reorganization time for bankrupt small businesses. It's my hope that the pilot program will work as expected, but if it fails to achieve its intended goals, it can be easily discontinued. National Bankruptcy Review Commission: A third provision would establish a National Bankruptcy Commission to identify those areas in the Bankruptcy Code that need further improvement. The Commission is required to report its findings to Congress. Finally, Mr. President, I want to congratulate my distinguished colleague from Iowa [Mr. Grassley] for his hard work in crafting this bill and ensuring its passage by the Senate. Because of Senator Grassley's leadership, our bankruptcy laws will be made more efficient and more equitable, and will reflect the commonsense approach that is Senator Grassley's trademark. Mr. President, in a moment I am going to send an amendment to the desk with reference to the Housing Authority's policies. But first I want to thank my colleague from Oklahoma, because I do believe that we should vote, we should send a statement, whatever. At 3:45 or 4 o'clock today, we had a call from Prime Minister Silajdzic from Sarajevo telling us how bad it was in Gorazde today and how they have been told, if they did not vacate, get all the troops out of the city by 4 o'clock, they were going to come in with the tanks and level the city. The Serbs know no end to violence. They shelled the Red Cross, shelled the hospital, innocent children. It is almost unbelievable the atrocities that are occurring there. Now, maybe lifting the arms embargo is not going to happen overnight, but I think the Bosnians are prepared for the long haul. They have a pretty good army. But we were told again by the Vice President, Mr. Ganic, today that they have one rifle for every four men. They have eight tanks. The Serbs have 300. They are outnumbered, they are outgunned, they are out-everything, except they have the will and they want freedom and they want a right to defend themselves. It seems to me if we cannot do anything else, we ought to give them that right. I hope that we will vote on the amendment tonight. It seems to me that it is fairly clear. This is what the Vice President, Mr. Ganic, said: They are not looking for offensive weapons. They want antitank weapons to protect themselves. Prime Minister Silajdzic said: That was some of the information we received on the telephone. Obviously, they are desperate. They do not know where to turn, because everywhere they turn, they are turned down. And so I hope the amendment that I have offered with the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, and others, will prevail. We are prepared to make at least one change with reference to prohibition, which we thought might satisfy some colleagues on the other side. But failing that, it seems to me we ought to vote to table it. If they cannot table it, we ought to pass it. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are laid aside. The clerk will report. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered. Mr. President, it is my understanding Senator Wellstone will offer a second-degree amendment. He may be willing to enter into a time agreement of 40 minutes. I am not going to take a lot of time. In fact, I probably will take 20 minutes of the 40 minutes. So I hope we could have a vote here by shortly after 8 o'clock. I know this Senator is supposed to be receiving an award somewhere tonight, but I may not make it. I am certain they can mail it to me or something. Mr. President, in an article last year, columnist George Will asked an important question -- one directed specifically at Republicans. He asked, "What does conservatism have to say to my friend Karen McCune?" Now, who is Karen McCune, you may ask? Mr. Will explains that: Mr. President, Karen McCune is not a citizen of Bosnia, or Rwanda, or the Gaza Strip. She is a child of America, and her life of terror is one lived by thousands like her in the public housing projects throughout the United States. The criminals who terrorize public housing are not the victims of society, as the root-cause liberals would have us believe. The real victims are the law-abiding tenants -- children like Karen McCune -- whose lives are spent dodging bullets, avoiding the drug dealers, just hoping to get through another day without incident -- alive. In an effort to combat gang and drug-related violence, the Chicago Housing Authority recently established a policy of conducting warrantless apartment-to-apartment searches of C.H.A. projects. Not surprisingly, a majority of the law-abiding tenants in C.H.A. buildings supported this policy. Earlier this month, the Federal district court in Chicago got involved, ruling that the C.H.A. search policy violated the fourth amendment's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. The court then enjoined C.H.A. officials from undertaking any additional searches. To his credit, President Clinton quickly responded to the court decision, directing Attorney General Reno and Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Henry Cisneros to develop measures that would be both constitutionally valid and effective in reducing violent crime in public housing. These measures were unveiled last Saturday, during the President's weekly radio address. Under the President's new policy, public housing officials are encouraged to implement the following anticrime measures: First, erecting fences around public housing buildings, issuing identification cards to tenants, and installing metal detectors at building entrances; Second, searching the packages and clothing of anyone seeking to enter public housing buildings and refusing entry to anyone who does not submit to inspection; Third, conducting weapons searches without consent or a warrant in common areas, such as stairwells, and in vacant apartments; Fourth, frisking suspicious-looking individuals for weapons, if police or security personnel have a reason to believe that the individuals are involved in criminal activity and are armed; Fifth, including consent clauses in lease agreements permitting routine, warrantless apartment-by-apartment police searches for illegal weapons or illegal drugs; and Sixth, conducting warrantless searches of individual units where there is a justification for a search but insufficient time to obtain a judicial warrant. Mr. President, this amendment is nothing more than an endorsement of the administration's new policy, as outlined in a recent letter to President Clinton from Attorney General Reno and Secretary Cisneros. This amendment does not break new ground, nor does it proposes anything that President Clinton has not already endorsed. It simply recites some of the key elements of the new administration policy, and puts the Senate four-square behind them. Of course, the new administration policy is a small step, and we should not expect it to put an end to the violence at Cabrini-Green, or at the Robert Taylor Homes, or at the other bullet-ridden public housing projects that line the urban landscape. But I am prepared to hope that the policy, if acted upon, can -- and will -- make a difference. Of course, there are those who argue that the administration policy goes too far, that it may even violate the fourth amendment to the Constitution. I happen to disagree, and Attorney General Reno, the Justice Department, and the President of the United States happen to disagree, as well. I understand my distinguished colleague from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone] intends to offer a second-degree amendment that would not only water down my amendment but also represent a retreat from the administration's own policy. Again, I have not seen the amendment so maybe I should reserve. But it is my understanding it would explicitly provide that residency or continued residency in public housing could not be made contingent on the inclusion of a consent clause in a lease agreement. I think at that point I hope the Senator from Minnesota might -- the Senator from Minnesota is on the floor. I hope we might, first of all, get a time agreement. Then I understand he will second-degree the amendment I have sent to the desk. I will at the appropriate time move to table the second degree amendment. If it fails, I assume we will adopt my amendment as an amendment; if the motion to lay on the table is agreed to, I hope then we would vote on the original amendment. So, I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition? The Chair recognizes the Senator from Minnesota, [Mr. Wellstone]. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. President, first of all let me say this. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? I will be pleased to. Is there a possibility of getting a time limit on this amendment? Yes. How much time? I would say 15 minutes on each side? If that is OK with the minority. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a time limit until 8:30, equally divided. At 8:30 a vote will occur on or in relation to the amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered. I thank the Senator. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota retains the floor. Mr. President, let me just read a portion of the administration's policy. Really what I am trying to do is improve upon that policy. I believe, actually, this amendment is quite consistent with what the minority leader has presented to us in his resolution. Mr. President, I think all of us on the floor of the Senate, Republicans and Democrats alike, are concerned about the violence and the guns. But I would just like to explain my amendment and talk a little bit about why I think it is so important. To put that into plain English, let me first of all identify the problem and let me tell you why I think this is actually a helpful solution which I believe my colleagues would want to vote for. The New York Times had an editorial yesterday in which they talked about this policy. I think the most important part of their editorial reads as follows: My point is this. If we are talking about public housing and we are talking about poor people, people who are desperate for housing, with huge, long backlog, long, long waiting lists, people who are absolutely desperate, the only alternative is to be homeless, then it would seem to me that what you want to make crystal clear to people is: Look, we ask you to sign a waiver so as a matter of fact we can come in and search your apartment. But, what we want to make clear to you is that if you do not sign that waiver, you are being accepted into this housing project and being able to live here is not contingent on it. In other words, it is extremely coercive. We are talking about the fourth amendment to the Constitution. We are talk about the most important principle in our country that has to do with search and seizure. I introduced this amendment as a safeguard, which I believe the administration and I believe colleagues here would be very supportive of. We are not saying that we do not want to take all steps necessary -- and there is much in the administration's policy that goes in that direction of trying to go after these guns. We are not saying that we would not ask a prospective tenant to sign a waiver. The only thing we are saying is it ought to be crystal clear to that tenant that if he or she does not sign the waiver then they are not going to be without housing. That is what makes it not coercive. My colleagues I know are going to say that this is not coercive. I know they are going to say that that they are concerned about making sure that poor people do not have to live under a different standard. And all this amendment does is make sure that is the case. One more time, let me just state what is at issue here. Let me make two points. The A part of what is at issue here in my view is that I really am glad that now we have a focus on how it is we are going to reduce this violence in these housing projects. I certainly wish that part of that focus was making sure that we pass strict laws that dealt with assault weapons. Get them out of the housing projects. I certainly hope and wish that part of what we do is make sure there are real educational opportunities, that we support child care, that we have good community police. I am for all of that, and I hope that we do that. But it does seem to me that at the very minimum, if we are going to be talking about knocking someone's door down -- that is what we are talking about -- that what we say to people who live in this public housing is, "Look" -- and if you were to take a referendum, by the way, among the tenants, they will tell you they are absolutely desperate to do something about the violence, the shooting, the threats to their children. But I am quite sure, having done a fair amount of community work in organizing, they will say, "Look, it is reasonable. Please, Senators, if you are going to have us sign this waiver and you are going to have it say it is not coercive, then make it crystal clear that if somebody should decide or should wish not to sign the waiver and not to grant permission for the housing authority people, police -- whatnot -- to come to our door anytime and come right into our apartment, that we will not be in jeopardy of having a place to live." That is all this does, really, is give people that constitutional assurance. I think it is due process, and it is fairness. I see my colleague, the Senator from Illinois, is here, and I want to ask him whether he may want to speak at this moment. I also want to make it clear that Senator Feingold is an original cosponsor of this amendment. Again, let me say to my colleagues one more time that I am absolutely not opposed to these initiatives. I just want to make sure that people understand that if they should choose not to sign the waiver, they will not be homeless. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Republican leader, Senator Dole. Mr. President, I am going to try a second time today to help the administration. I have not had much luck yet. I started on Bosnia and somehow that got derailed. Now I am trying to help the President on public housing. That is all I am trying to do here today. I understand the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota. It just takes the teeth out of it. It says if you do not want to sign a waiver, you can still live in the building; so you can put all the weapons in that tenant's building, whatever you have in mind. It explicitly provides residency, or continued residency, in public housing could not be made contingent on the inclusion of a consent clause in a lease agreement. The Reno-Cisneros letter to President Clinton, on the other hand, does not make exceptions. It does not prohibit public housing officials, nor the tenants themselves, from making residency contingent on the inclusion of a consent clause in a lease agreement. It simply says: That is not my quote. That is how it is interpreted by the administration. The Reno-Cisneros letter goes on to say: So, Mr. President, the administration's policy is clear, and a vote for the Wellstone second-degree amendment is a vote against this policy. Finally, I want to go back to George Will's original question and direct it not to conservatives, but to those at the ACLU and the New York Times who oppose some of the administration policy's key elements, including the proposal to allow public housing tenants to consent to police searches through their lease agreements. To these dyed-in-the-wool liberals, I simply ask this: What does liberalism have to say to Karen McCune? Does it say, We will give you more rights or more laws or more due process? I suspect, when all is said and done, the Karen McCunes of our country would choose something quite different, but much needed, in their young lives, which would be more safety, more security, and more hope. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter to President Clinton from Attorney General Reno and Secretary Cisneros be printed in the Record. Mr. President, let me also quote from a news story from the Washington Post where Mr. Cisneros, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, says: Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Will my colleagues give me 2 minutes? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota. Mr. President, I want to say to my good friend, the minority leader, in his resolution he talks about including noncoercive consent clauses. That is all this is. That is exactly what I have done. If you are in favor of that, then you certainly would not be opposed to this. Second of all, I simply say I am quite sure the Attorney General and the Secretary of HUD make no bones about it, and would not at all object to a specific reference to making clear this is noncoercive. That is all this amendment does, for gosh sakes. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Mr. President, I yield, first of all, to the senior Senator from Illinois, and then I will yield to the junior Senator. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois, [Mr. Simon], is recognized for up to 14 minutes 51 seconds. Mr. President, I shall not use 14 minutes 51 seconds. I regret the minority leader has left the floor because I visited the Robert Taylor homes, the area in controversy, on Monday morning. I took no reporters with me, no television cameras, so I could just talk to the people who are in that area. Overwhelmingly, they want the police to do the job. They want people to come in and inspect and take the guns and the drugs, and so forth. I visited one room where they must have had 200 or 300 weapons. I am not talking about just small weapons. These were AK-47's, and all kinds of things, including rifles with sights so you could see 300 yards at what you are aiming. I am for the Wellstone amendment. If the Wellstone amendment is defeated, I am going to vote for the Dole amendment. But Senator Wellstone is absolutely correct that his amendment is not contrary to the administration position. I met late Monday afternoon with Vince Lane, the chairman of the Chicago Housing Authority, and talked to the people at HUD. They said they want this to be a voluntary thing, and they are going to make clear that people have to voluntarily sign up. I think you will see in the Robert Taylor homes, the area in question, that 75 to 95 percent of the people will voluntarily sign up. There is some fear of abuse by police. No question about it. But there is much greater fear of the gangs and the weapons and everything else. I would be personally surprised if at least 95 percent of the people did not sign up voluntarily. I think we are making a big issue out of something that is not a big issue. Second, what the Wellstone amendment does is to make this constitutional. You can criticize the ACLU and Judge Anderson, who, incidentally, is a Republican appointee as a Federal judge, but we cannot do something that violates the Constitution. In terms of strict constitutionality, I think the Federal judge rendered the proper decision. What we have to do is to fashion something that can go after the weapons, can go after the drugs, and provide security for the people there. I think the Wellstone amendment moves in that direction. I do not know if my friend, Senator Dole, is hearing my words right now or not, because he went into the Republican cloakroom. I hope he will recognize that his amendment and the Wellstone amendment are not in conflict. The letter that was sent by Secretary Cisneros and Attorney General Reno is not completely clear in the waiver, but what they have made clear and what Vince Lane, the Chairman of the Chicago Housing Authority, made clear to me is that it has to be voluntary; otherwise, it is not constitutional. They recognize that. So I think we have created a huge controversy over nothing. My hope is that the Wellstone amendment would be adopted by voice vote, and then the Dole amendment would be adopted. Frankly, I am going to vote for the Dole amendment even if the Wellstone amendment is defeated. But I think by implication certainly the administration policy includes precisely what the Wellstone amendment has. Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN addressed the Chair. How much time do I have? The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator controls 10 minutes. I yield 5 minutes. That will be fine. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). The Senator from Illinois is recognized. Mr. President, I have done more than visit Robert Taylor homes. I know people who live there. I know people who used to live there, and I am intimately familiar as a product of the inner city with conditions facing public housing today and particularly public housing in the City of Chicago. We have seen this epidemic of violence. Mr. President, public housing is one of the cornerstones of our urban dilemma. Residents have become inhabitants of cordoned-off islands with very little relief, opportunity or tools with which to do a job or have some hope and an opportunity. To solve the problem of crime and joblessness and hopelessness, I believe we have to address the issue of providing a decent living environment. We have to focus on what are the issues pertaining to security, not just the sweeps. Now, there is an old expression in legal circles that "hard cases make bad law." It seems to me that the crisis of violence that we are seeing in public housing now makes precisely the kind of hard case that can, if we are not careful, give us not only bad law but bad policy as well. A fever pitch of debate over the mass searches known as sweeps and as represented in this amendment has commanded the attention of the country, as has the horror of the frightened residents and gunshot wound victims. I hope, however, that the energy we direct toward the debate about sweeps gives rise to an equally energetic debate about what we do to cure the dangerous place to live. I hope that our only response to poverty and the hopelessness of these communities is not to build fences, cordon off the developments and take away people's fourth amendment rights. I hope that we have the capacity to address this issue in a more serious manner. Last year, Mr. President, there were 50 homicides in the CHA complexes in Chicago. At the same time, those communities were living with the following statistics: An 89 percent poverty rate; a median family income of $5,400; only 32 percent of the adults had more than a high school education; unemployment averages of 60 percent; only 8.5 percent of the residents were employed in private sector employment, so the private sector has abandoned these areas altogether; and 45 percent of the residents being children under the age of 14. Now, when you aggravate that mix with drugs and guns -- and they have confiscated almost 1,200 in the last year -- and overcrowding -- Robert Taylor has about 13,000 people, which is more than the population of most Illinois towns. So when you aggravate the situation, what you wind up with is the crisis of violence that we have. Now, the sweeps have been used before in response to the peaks of violence, but there is no question, Mr. President, that Band-Aids will not provide the domestic security that the law-abiding residents of public housing deserve. The hard case of what to do to provide a safe and secure living environment for poor people who live in public housing does demand a commitment, a commitment by this body, by this Congress and by this administration to change the conditions that make that environment presently uninhabitable. Now, I am not going to argue that the residents of CHA who support the sweeps are entirely wrong. Those are people who are confronted by the realities of life there and who are frightened by the gangs, by the intimidation, and who really want, at this point are prepared to forgo what might be considered to be esoteric constitutional protection in favor of the physical protection against the raging violence. I think our community as a whole has a right to say this level of violence is unacceptable and we will resort, if necessary, to something approaching martial law. But I daresay, Mr. President, that the court was right in saying that we cannot, that a landlord cannot unilaterally take away the fourth amendment proscription against unreasonable search and seizure from somebody just because that person happens to be poor, and that is the issue with the Wellstone amendment. What Senator Wellstone is trying to do is say that we are not going to set up a new category. Everybody but poor people who live in public housing enjoys the right under the fourth amendment to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures. So if we start at CHA today, then where do we go tomorrow? Do the big apartment complexes that do not have poor people living in them become subject to mass warrantless searches, be subject to, as this amendment says, a search of the packages and clothing of anyone seeking to enter public housing and refuse entry to anyone who does not submit to an inspection, just because the neighborhood is violent? Now, in another higher-rent district, do we forgo the fourth amendment there also? I daresay I for one believe that we have an obligation to look beyond sweeps. But if the issue specifically is sweeps, if the issues specifically are the plans to try to secure the buildings, then what is wrong with doing what Senator Wellstone wants us to do? All he wants us to do is to say for a tenant to give up his fourth amendment right, for a tenant to say I am going to be less than a citizen because I am too poor to live anyplace other than public housing, then that person ought to at least have the right to consent, that person ought to at least have the right to say I am going to sign away my right voluntarily because I do not mind giving up my citizenship in order to live in this subsidized housing. Mr. President, I think this is a dangerous road to go down, and I daresay -- I may be running out of time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired. One more minute. One more minute. It is a dangerous precedent to set, it seems to me. It is bad policy. It is bad law. But what is even more frightening, Mr. President, is that this amendment is floating around without a whole lot of public discussion in terms of legislative initiative. I understand the minority leader says he just wants to help us. Well, my attitude is do not love us quite so much, or at least if you are going to love us, let us talk about it first. The fact is that this amendment without the protections of the Wellstone amendment is constitutionally infirm, sets a dangerous precedent and, frankly, tries to put a Band-Aid on a bad situation, on a cancer that is not going to be cured by taking away the dignity of people who are poor and live in public housing. Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? Mr. President, I will just take 2 minutes right now. Let me take the really strong words of Senator Moseley-Braun from Illinois and translate them into human terms, personal terms. I cannot even understand any opposition to this amendment. I wish to say that to my colleagues. I think the Senator from Illinois, Senator Simon, is right. It is consistent with the resolution. All I am saying to the Senator from Illinois [Ms. Moseley-Braun] is you have a mother and several children, and she is applying to public housing, and the only alternative to that public housing given those long, long waiting lines is to be homeless. At the very minimum, she should know that there is (A) a clause she is being asked to sign, and (B) she should know that if she does not want to sign that clause, which means that police could come into her apartment at any time, she has the right to do so and not have her family out on the streets. An older woman. She is 80 years old, and she does not know what this is about. Do we not have the obligation to inform her, to let her know (A) there is this clause that you are supposed to sign, and this clauses essentially says that police can come in, if they think there is a gun or weapon in your home -- Even if they do not. And even if they do not -- and (B) we want you to know that you do not have to sign that. That does not mean you will be put out in the cold. That is all this says. If we are going to say it is not going to be coercive and we are going to say it is going to be voluntary, which is what the administration is saying, then I think this makes all the sense in the world -- not makes all the sense in the world. This is exactly what we should go on record supporting. To not do so makes me very worried about why any Senator would be opposed to this amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? If my colleague will yield. Yes. I would point out simply that is the policy of this administration as spelled out in the Wellstone amendment. That is why I am hoping that maybe we can still work out some kind of a compromise with the Senator from Kansas because I do not think we are really that far apart. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Arizona on another matter. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized. Mr. President, I am very interested in this debate. I have to say it seems to me something that ought to be able to be worked out. But I do not have a dog in this fight, I guess, and I will stay out of it. I really feel that we all have a lot in the fight that is going on this afternoon regarding the resolution offered by the Senator from Connecticut and amended by the Senator from Kansas, the distinguished minority leader. Mr. President, it saddens me to listen to the debate today, really saddens my heart and brings tears to my eyes, that in my travel to Bosnia and Herzegovina on four different occasions in that part of the world, to see the tragedy that is going on. And to see the "excuses," as I have termed them, in all due respect that have been offered here today, not to vote to lift the embargo and to legislatively lift the embargo. I realize the President is on the spot. I realize he has labored and has been in turmoil regarding this. But the time is long overdue. We cannot afford to not take this action. It is a moral obligation. Believe me, it is a moral obligation. I have interviewed people who have been in the concentration camps run by the Serbs who saw their brother beaten to death over a 7-hour period, who left their mother on the mountain to die so they would not be taken prisoner and beaten up by the Serb military. I have listened to them and looked in their eyes and saw the pain and suffering. Now we see it on our TV screens. We see it in the most tragic way, the most descriptive way of what is occurring there, and it is genocide. It is murder. As I said last night on a program I was being interviewed on, yes, there have been atrocities by the Moslems towards the Croats and toward the Serbian Bosnians. Yes, there have been aggressive offensives by the Croats and by the Moslems toward the Croats, the Croats towards the Moslems, and all parties have been guilty of some very heinous crimes or offenses. But today, that has stopped between the Croats and the Moslems; it has stopped between the Moslems towards the Serbs. Here we have now the worst egregious offenses that we have seen since the ethnic cleansing of some months ago, and it is time that we stand up and vote what is morally correct; and, that is to lift this embargo. So I frankly think we are doing the President a great favor by passing the Dole amendment and the amendment of the Senator from Connecticut, [Mr. Lieberman], tonight. We should do it. It is the right thing to do. Mr. President, lives of tens of thousands of innocent civilians are threatened as the Serbs advance against the U.N.-designated safe haven of Gorazde in eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina. If they continued and get away with it, it is only a matter of days before they will start to proceed towards the other "safe havens" -- and there are six of them. We have only seen two of them attempted to be wiped out by the Serbs, and one they backed away. That was Sarajevo. They did not back away because we -- when I say "we," I mean collectively the Western World -- could not proceed with the courage to deliver the air strikes that would have forced them to back away. The tragedy that is unfolding in this beleaguered enclave demonstrates yet a failure of diplomatic efforts to check Serbian aggression and genocide which has claimed hundreds of thousands of victims over the past 2 years. I applaud President Clinton's latest initiative on Bosnia. There is a broad recognition that air strikes alone will not work. We are not talking about winning a war with air strikes. We are talking about punishing the worst aggression toward humanity since the Second World War. We cannot continue to sit here and debate this and not take some offensive action. Those who say, "Oh, we are just being led down the path to another Vietnam, or another Somalia," that is nonsense. The Dole amendment and the Lieberman amendment make very clear that there is no involvement of American troops here in lifting the embargo. That is why I have for more than a year supported the strike-and-lift approach, and we should do it. We know it can be done successfully. It was done successfully before -- just the threat of it. General McPeak, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, testified last April and 3 weeks ago that the air strikes would bring little or no risk to United States pilots or Western pilots. That does not mean there will not be some -- but "little or no risk" are the words he used. And in addition to that, he said "Give us the time and we can take out all the artillery targets that the Serbians have." That is not a ground war that involves us for a long period of time. It is a demonstrative military action that will punish genocide and the perpetrators of it. I hope this body will look itself individually in the face in the mirror when they come to vote on that, whether it is tonight, or Tuesday, or whenever it is. The time has come, Mr. President, for the United States to be the leader, as we are, but as we have failed to be in this instance. It is not too late, though some have said after today that it may be too late. It may be too late for a number of dozens or hundreds of people who die. But it is not too late for our country to regain that moral ground and demonstrate that we can lead, and we are not afraid. We have a great opportunity here. Yes. It is too bad that it has to be dealt with on a bankruptcy bill before us that is important. But that is the time. This body is constructed to just do that any time that we feel it is necessary. I feel it is necessary. I truly hope that this amendment will pass. I thank the distinguished minority leader, the Republican leader, for yielding me time on this subject matter. Mr. President, when the Senate began consideration of the Dole-Lieberman amendment this morning, I was participating in a hearing before the Appropriations Committee. The witness was Secretary of State Christopher. The major subject was U.N. peacekeeping, and many of the questions pertained to the situation in Bosnia. As the ranking Republican on the Commerce-Justice-State subcommittee, I had to do some preparation and consultation. I listened carefully to the comments of Secretary Christopher and the questions of Chairman Hollings. I reached the following conclusions. If there is a crisis in Bosnia that involves American national interests, and I believe that such a case could be made, it requires additional explanation by the President and rapid deliberation by the Congress. This is too serious an issue to be handled through private consultations. The American people need to know what we are doing, and our justifications for our actions or inactions. If a Bosnia peace settlement is negotiated, it will be contingent on the subsequent deployment of tens of thousands of U.S. ground combat forces. Long before then, the President needs to know whether Congress concurs in his offer of ground combat forces to the United Nations. Congress needs to determine now the human and fiscal costs of an extended deployment of 25,000 American troops in Bosnia. At this morning's hearing, I suggested that it would have a major impact on force structure and cost many billions of dollars. That can not be accommodated within the President's proposed force structure and its accompanying budget. This morning, Secretary Christopher could provide no useful information about the impact on our own national defense posture of a large, extended commitment of U.S. forces to U.N. peacekeepers in Bosnia. He couldn't cite any specific DOD studies of the impact. A few hours ago, Senator Cohen suggested that no one in this body publicly favors the introduction of American ground troops in Bosnia. That may be so, but the President and the Secretary of State are telling us that a peace settlement in Bosnia will, inevitably, lead to the introduction of American ground combat troops under U.N. auspices. I repeat, our ground forces will go into Bosnia if the President's plan for peace in Bosnia succeeds. I have concentrated on the risks ahead if the President's efforts in Bosnia succeed, as we all hope they will, whatever our doubts. The risks of failure on our Nation's self-confidence and credibility have been discussed by others. Whatever the outcome, there is a human and policy consequence of our decisions to engage in Bosnia. If the proposed policy of expanded air support and air protection of the declared U.N. safe zones in Bosnia is implemented, it is likely there will be casualties in the U.S. Air Force, Navy, or Marines. We must be prepared for those casualties. Let us begin defining United States national interests in Bosnia. The President and the Secretary of State offered us some suggestions to consider. Then, we need to consider a resolution authorizing use of U.S. Armed Forces in the region. Those are the issues, not just American participation in an arms embargo. Mr. President, we have had a discussion with the Senator from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, and with both Senators from Illinois, and I think we have worked out an arrangement where the Senator from Minnesota would withdraw his second-degree amendment, I would modify my amendment, and I think it would then be acceptable. In my view, it would be not the President's policy. But if that is what the Senator from Minnesota understands and interprets in maybe discussion with the administration officials, I am just trying to support the President's view. If it should turn out that it is not the President's view, I guess they can deal with that on the House side. That would be my guess. Mr. President, I thank the minority leader. I think the operative language, if I can just clarify this, would simply be that "residency, or continued residency, in public housing is not contingent upon the inclusion of such a consent clause as a provision of a lease agreement." I will say to the minority leader that I actually think that is quite the administrations policy. I think we really want to avoid people being put into a situation which is coercive. I think this takes care of that. So with full knowledge that the Senator is going to modify his amendment, I will withdraw my amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator withdraws his amendment. So the amendment (no. 1656) was withdrawn. Mr. President, I send a modified amendment to the desk, and I ask for its immediate consideration. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. President, this amendment has been described by the Senator from Minnesota. In fact, it is the language taken from the first paragraph of his amendment. Mr. President, I want to thank the minority leader for working through this issue with Senator Wellstone. I think it is acceptable and in the right direction. I appreciate the willingness to work toward consensus on this issue. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment, as modified? Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back any time I have. I thank the Senator from Illinois for her contribution, and also my colleagues, Senator Simon and Senator Wellstone. I yield back the remainder of the time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The proponents of the second-degree amendment yield back the remainder of their time. All time has been yielded. The question is on agreeing to the amendment, No. 1655, as modified. Mr. President, I want to suggest the absence of a quorum until we determine if it is all right to do it by a voice vote. I think it is. I understand that some people have been told there would be a rollcall at 8:30. My view is that we can vote on the Bosnia amendment at 8:30. We will check that out. 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. Mr. President, as is often the case, we are attempting to accommodate the largest number of Senators possible with respect to the schedule of this evening. We unfortunately have some Senators moving away from the Capitol and some moving toward the Capitol, and we are trying to find the proper balance to accommodate them. I believe, after consulting with the distinguished Republican leader and the other participants in this debate, that the course of action that produces the least amount of inconvenience would be to have this vote at 8:45. Therefore, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate vote on the Dole Amendment No. 1655, as modified, at 8:45 p.m. this evening, and I ask for the yeas and nays. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a sufficient second. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that no other second-degree amendments be in order to this amendment. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. President, 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. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Dole amendment to lift the embargo on the Bosnian Moslems. But I do so with reservations about taking this step unilaterally, against the wishes of our NATO allies, who presently have troops deployed on peacekeeping duty in Bosnia. I must point out that any step we take in the Balkan quagmire carries risks. There simply are no good solutions. Because the situation is so complex and seemingly defies a solution, the crisis has left us befuddled and floundering, and has virtually paralyzed our will. While I cannot say with any assurance that this step or any other will bring about a peace settlement or even lower the level of violence, one thing I can assert with absolute confidence. Without firm, consistent leadership from the United States and the Commander in Chief, the crisis will only grow worse. We will continue to stumble from one humiliating episode to another unless the President and the national security apparatus of the world's one remaining superpower break the paralysis and confusion, and begin to act resolutely and clearly. I would much prefer to see the arms embargo lifted in concert with our allies. Acting unilaterally and contrary to the views of our NATO allies could undermine that important relationship. However, I feel the situation has deteriorated to the point where some decisive action is needed to change the equation. The embargo has left the Bosnian Moslems defenseless against the rapacious cruelty and aggression of the Serbs, armed with tanks and heavy artillery. With good reason the West has refused to enter the war on the side of the Moslems, or on any side. We have tried honestly, if ineffectually, to broker a just and lasting peace. But it is no longer morally defensible or strategically sound to deprive the Bosnian Moslems of the means to defend themselves. Many Senators have already spoken eloquently in support of the Dole- Lieberman amendment. I will not consume the Senate's time to repeat the case that has been made in favor of letting the Moslems at least have the means to defend themselves, so that the Serbs cannot continue to shell hospitals and kill women and children with impunity. Taking this step, preferably with our allies, but unilaterally if we must, could prove to be a decisive act of U.S. leadership. If the Serbs see their advantage in heavy weaponry slipping away, if they see a Moslem community armed and capable of retaliating for the indiscriminate slaughter, perhaps they will seek a settlement at the peace table and not on the battlefield. But, Mr. President, even if lifting the embargo does not achieve that result, I for one can no longer support a policy that guarantees the slaughter of the innocent, and keeps the conflict going. Muddled half- measures, abdicating our leadership to the U.N., and deluded wishful thinking have not worked. The current policy has proven to be neither practical nor moral. The time has come to try something else. I believe the action called for by the Dole amendment is necessary, and in fact long overdue. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware. Mr. President, I rise to speak to the amendment we are about to vote on. Parliamentary inquiry: Is there a time certain ordered for a vote? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the unanimous consent agreement, at 8:45, we will vote on amendment numbered 1655, proposed by Senator Dole, relating to standards in the Chicago Housing Authority. Mr. President, I will then make my remarks necessarily short. I rise to speak to the issue of the constitutionality of the proposal proposed by the President of the United States and endorsed here by Senator Dole and others in this amendment that relate to whether or not there is able to be a genuine consent given in a lease or a contract by a public housing resident in essentially giving up their fourth amendment rights. I will speak to this in much more detail, but let me say I think it is a close call, whether it can be done. There is no question that there is a need for greater law enforcement, greater police presence, greater security for public housing residents. There is no doubt about that. This precedent holds that citizens may waive their constitutional right to be free from police searches, and that consent searches are constitutionally valid, so long as the consent is freely given. A tenant who signs a lease agreement incorporating a "consent-to- search" clause -- so the argument goes -- does so voluntarily and of his own free will. That being the case, the consent to search is freely given and is valid and enforceable. Supporters of this provision point out that leases commonly include a clause that permits the landlord to enter without advance permission in the event of emergencies or for repairs. Supporters argue that the "consent-to-search" clause is really no different. Like the standard "right of access" clause, it is a voluntary reduction in a tenant's privacy in the tenant's greater good. Supporters of this provision also point out that courts have upheld similar "consent-to-search" clauses in the context of probationers and parolees. These individuals must commonly agree, when they are released from prison, to submit to warrantless searches by law enforcement officials at any time, as part of their rehabilitation. On the basis of these arguments, the supporters say, the Government should be permitted to require limited "consent-to-search" clauses from tenants who voluntarily move into public housing. The President's proposal is carefully drawn to limit the intrusive nature of the proposed searches, with constitutional objections in mind. As the Attorney General wrote in her letter to the President outlining these proposals: The Attorney General also suggests that in some cases advance notice of the search might be given, thus reducing any constitutional objections. These careful limitations lend support to the supporters' claims that the provision is constitutional. In summary, the supporters of the measure argue that given the narrow scope of the proposed consent clause, and by analogy to existing "right of access" clauses in leases and to "consent to search" provisions required of probationers and parolees, it is constitutional. These arguments have great force, both constitutionally and logically. They have even greater force when you consider the atmosphere of real crisis that now pervades our public housing projects. When tenants and tenants organizations together clamor to take drastic measures -- even forced reductions in their basic right to be free from random police searches -- we must pay careful attention. The constitutional arguments against the measure go as follows: Leases for public housing are not contracts freely entered into by equal parties. They are contracts, say the critics, imposed by the State on persons who have no real alternative. We all have to agree that people don't live in public housing because they want to -- they live there because they have to. The opponents of constitutionality argue that to require our poorest and most defenseless citizens to give up their right to be secure in the privacy of their own homes, and to agree in advance to warrantless police intrusions without probable cause of any wrongdoing, flies in the face of the fourth amendment. How, the critics ask, can we require these citizens to give up one of their most fundamental rights just because they are too poor to live anywhere but public housing? For these reasons, the critics argue that any consent on the part of tenants must be viewed as involuntary and as coerced, in the constitutional sense. Furthermore, the critics say, this is not a contract between private parties. The Government -- unlike a private landlord -- may not impose unconstitutional conditions on the use of public housing. Requiring tenants to give up their constitutional right to be free from warrantless searches is no different, the critics say, than requiring them to give up their right to vote in exchange for the right to live in public housing. Next, the critics argue, it is completely improper to compare these "consent-to-search" clauses to "right-of-access" clauses in standard leases. Giving a landlord the right to enter in an emergency for the limited purpose of fixing a maintenance problem is a far cry from permitting the police to enter at will, and to search throughout the apartment for something as small as a gun. Nor, the critics argue, is it proper to analogize these lease clauses to "consent-to-search" conditions imposed on probationers and parolees. Probationers and parolees are convicted felons; they are granted conditional liberty as an alternative to full incarceration. A tenant in a public housing project has not been convicted by a court beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no justification, say the critics, for imposing a fundamental restriction on his or her liberty, such as exists with a probationer or parolee. For all of these powerful and well-grounded reasons, the opponents of constitutionality argue, the President's proposal to require tenants to sign consent clauses cannot be supported under the Constitution. Mr. President, let me just briefly remind everyone what the essence of the constitutional argument is here. It is reasonable, and the courts have concluded, that one can, in fact, if they knowingly do it with their informed consent, give up an otherwise available constitutional protection. So if I say, "Look, you can come in and search my house. You do not need a search warrant," and I knowingly am freely consenting to that, then, no problem. So the real, central issue here is: What constitutes consent? Although I think it is constitutional, I want to raise at least a red flag. It is not beyond possibility that the Supreme Court or the Federal courts of this Nation will, in fact, conclude that a lease for public housing is not a contract freely entered into by equal partners. They are contracts, say the critics, imposed by the State on a person who has no real alternative. The Court, if it concludes that, will conclude that this is an unconstitutional provision. We all have to agree that people do not live in public housing because they want to. They live in public housing because they have to. Opponents of the constitutionality argue that to require our poorest and most defenseless citizens to give up the right to be secure in the privacy of their own home and to agree in advance to warrantless police intrusion without probable cause of any wrongdoing flies in the face of the fourth amendment. Now, how, the critics ask, can we require these citizens to give up one of the most fundamental rights just because they are too poor to live anywhere else? Now, there are countervailing arguments. The countervailing arguments are strong. I think they are stronger. But they are close. I want my colleagues to know there are court cases that have been decided at the circuit court level that suggest that the Government should be permitted to require limited consent to search clauses from tenants who voluntarily move into public housing, and the President's proposal, they argue, is carefully drawn to limit the intrusive nature of the proposed searches. The Attorney General has made a very cogent case for this. The Presiding Officer is about to tell me the time has arrived. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of 8:45 having arrived, under the previous unanimous consent, the time for debate has expired. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum having been suggested, the clerk will call the roll. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Boxer). Without objection, it is so ordered. The majority leader.