[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 3 (Thursday, January 27, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: January 27, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                  FOREIGN RELATIONS AUTHORIZATION ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I think we have come to an agreement with 
the Senator from Colorado, so I yield the floor for his procedural 
motion.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). The Senator from Colorado.


                           Amendment No. 1272

  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I have had a chance to chat with the 
distinguished Senator from Massachusetts and the distinguished Senator 
from Connecticut and review with them the possibilities for ensuring 
positive action on this measure. I have reiterated my conviction about 
how important it is to have private contributions. They have 
indicated--and they can speak for themselves--concerns about the way 
the mechanism might work. Mr. President, let me summarize quickly.
  In October 1991, the Senate passed the following language. That was 
2\1/2\ years ago:

       The National Endowment for Democracy should make every 
     effort to solicit private contributions to realize the 
     purposes the endowment has set forth in section 502(B) of the 
     National Endowment for Democracy Act.

  So the concept of having contributions is not alien or foreign. It 
not only was mentioned when NED was first established, but it has 
literally been introduced into law, 2\1/2\ years ago.
  In looking at the USIA inspector general report, the IG had comments 
on the subject of contributions:

       Most of the private contributions raised by the core groups 
     were not related to NED-funded projects and activities.

  In other words, many of them raised money but did not apply them to 
NED activity. They are speaking of one core group. Of its $628,690 in 
private contributions raised between 1988 and 1990, one core group 
spent almost all of it, $616,000, on activities related to the 
convention.
  Another group spent a third of its funds on the convention. There is 
one success story, they note: A core grantee required all recipients, 
subrecipients to provide matching funds between 1988 and 1990. In 
addition, the organization provided a significant percentage of private 
funds to 13 overseas subrecipients. So raising private funds can be 
done and is being done in some cases.

  A point was made as to whether these organizations have the ability 
to raise funds, even the token 15 percent we are talking about. I refer 
my friends to simply a list of the members of the board of directors. 
Ask yourself, are these people capable of raising funds? Walter 
Mondale, past board member; Henry Kissinger, past board member. We 
have, if you look through this list of board members, the best 
fundraisers in the Nation.
  Mr. KERRY. Will my colleague yield for a question?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. BROWN. Let me complete this thought. To raise funds, all these 
people have to do is have a cocktail party before a board meeting. I do 
not mean to be trite. I think there is room to be working together. I 
think the difference is to have these people engaged more thoroughly.
  Questions have been raised about the right percentage. Questions have 
been raised about whether they should forfeit funds if they cannot meet 
the grant. Questions have been raised about how the funds are raised 
and questions about whether in-kind contributions should be allowed. 
All of those are legitimate concerns.
  My inclination at this point is to see if we cannot work this out off 
the floor, see if we cannot come to some way to better involve these 
grantees in the process. I would like to proceed by withdrawing this 
amendment and working with my colleagues to see if we cannot come up 
with some meeting of the minds that allows us to move forward to an 
objective we all share.
  Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield?
  Mr. BROWN. I will be glad to yield.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I say to my colleague from Colorado, I think 
having chatted with him about trying to come up with some in-kind 
contributions, as I am sure the Senator from Colorado knows--for 
instance, perhaps we might look at other alternatives, volunteers now. 
There are people who volunteer their services free of charge, not paid 
for, that come from various entities as examples of in-kind 
contributions.
  The Senator mentioned phones or other technical assistance and 
service that could keep down costs. I think we certainly ought to 
examine thoroughly the opportunities that we can create, done in a 
well-thought-out, planned way so it does not create the kinds of 
problems the Senator from Colorado just identified associated with a 
matching funds approach.
  I am very happy to work with my colleague from Colorado to see if we 
cannot come up with a good system by which we can keep costs down, 
invite, attract the kind of contributions in a way that will strengthen 
this organization, involve more people and assist the process.
  So I commend him for his decision and look forward enthusiastically 
to working with him on this matter.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would like to thank the Senator from 
Colorado. I think we had a good conversation in which we agreed that 
there may be some creative ways to try to avoid some of the pitfalls 
the Senator from Connecticut and I have cited, but at the same time 
have some of the up-side views we are looking for.
  I would like to thank the Senator, congratulate him because I think 
his focus on this is well-advised. I think that we are going to have a 
better endowment for democracy, we are going to have a much more 
accountable one, we are going to probably be more effective and 
efficient. If there is a capacity to achieve a maximum efficiency, I 
think it will come about because of this intensity of scrutiny.
  So I congratulate him for that. I will say to him, though, that if 
most of those people on the board were told ahead of time that they 
have to raise money, they would not go on the board. So I do not think 
you can just rely on the fact that some of them raised money in 
politics. Half of them got out of politics to get away from raising 
money. The last thing in the world they are going to do is accept a new 
responsibility and spend their time trying to raise funds.
  Has the Chair ruled on the withdrawal?
  Mr. BROWN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to withdraw his 
amendment. The Senator has withdrawn the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1272) was withdrawn.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I say again to colleagues, we are preparing 
lists on both sides of the aisle. I believe on both sides of the aisle 
it has been hot lined to inquire whether or not Senators have 
additional amendments.
  We would like to try to propound a unanimous-consent agreement with 
respect to the remaining amendments, at least fencing the amendments 
and hopefully arriving at a time agreement. So if Senators do have 
amendments, I want them to have adequate notice that we are looking to 
propound a unanimous-consent agreement and hopefully they will come 
forward.
  I know the Senator from North Carolina has two amendments which he is 
about to offer, and I would say to colleagues that these amendments 
would be voted on, I hope, en bloc, with one vote sometime in the 
vicinity of 3 o'clock or so.
  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.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1273

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Congress that the United States 
            should continue high-level contacts with Taiwan)

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, on behalf of myself and Senator Brown, 
I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski], for himself and 
     Mr. Brown, proposes an amendment numbered 1273.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following new 
     section--
       Sec.   . High-level visits to Taiwan. It is the sense the 
     Congress that--
       (a) The President should be commended for his meeting with 
     Taiwan's Minister of Economic Affairs during the Asia-Pacific 
     Economic Cooperation Conference in Seattle;
       (b) The President should send Cabinet-level appointees to 
     Taiwan to promote American interests to ensure the continued 
     success of U.S. business in Taiwan;
       (c) In addition to Cabinet-level visits, the President 
     should take steps to show clear United States support for 
     Taiwan both in our bilateral relationship and in multilateral 
     organizations of which the United States is a member.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the purpose of the amendment is to 
allow and encourage high-level visits of American State diplomatic 
people to Taiwan. It is my understanding that the amendment has been 
cleared on both sides.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, that is correct.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the floor manager as well as Senator Brown and 
appreciate the courtesy.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the amendment? If not, 
the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1273) was agreed to.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleagues.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator from Alaska.
  Mr. President, if I could ask the Senator from Colorado, the Senator 
has no other amendment at this time?
  Mr. BROWN. We have the potential of other amendments but at this 
point no.
  Mr. KERRY. If I could ask the Senator, I would be happy to meet with 
him now privately and we can try to define that.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum having been suggested, 
the clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1274

     (Purpose: To exempt certain data from freedom of information 
                             requirements)

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Pell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1274.

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the end of the bill, add the following new section:

     SEC.  . FREEDOM OF INFORMATION EXEMPTION FOR CERTAIN OPEN 
                   SKIES TREATY DATA.

       (a) In General.--Data collected by sensors during 
     observation flights conducted in connection with the Treaty 
     on Open Skies, including flight conducted prior to entry into 
     force of the Treaty, shall be exempt from disclosure under 
     the Freedom of Information Act or any other Act--
       (1) in the case of data with respect to a foreign country--
       (A) if the country has not disclosed the data to the 
     public; and
       (B) if the country has not, acting through the Open Skies 
     Consultative Commission or any other diplomatic channel, 
     authorized the United States to disclose the data to the 
     public; or
       (2) in the case of data with respect to the United States, 
     if disclosure of such data could be reasonably expected to 
     cause substantial harm to the national defense as determined 
     by the Secretary of Defense or to the foreign relations of 
     the United States as determined by the Secretary of State.
       (b) Extension of Withholding of Certain Data.--(1) For 
     purposes of subsection (a)(2), data held for a period of 5 
     years from the date of collection shall be deemed not to 
     cause substantial harm to the national defense or foreign 
     relations of the United States and shall be released unless 
     the head of the agency that made the initial determination 
     determines otherwise, in which case the data may be withheld 
     for an additional period or periods of 5 years each.
       (2) In no case may data be withheld under this subsection 
     for more than 10 years from the date of collection.
       (3) Determinations under this subsection may not be 
     delegated.
       (c) Statutory Construction.--This section constitutes a 
     specific exemption within the meaning of section 552(b)(3) of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       (d) Definitions.--For the purposes of this section--
       (1) the term ``Freedom of Information Act'' means the 
     provisions of section 552 of title 5, United States Code;
       (2) the term ``Open Skies Consultative Commission'' means 
     the commission established pursuant to Article X of the 
     Treaty on Open Skies; and
       (3) the term ``Treaty on Open Skies'' means the Treaty on 
     Open Skies, signed at Helsinki on March 24, 1992.

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, this amendment provides for a limited 
exemption to the Freedom of Information Act [FOIA] in order to ensure 
that certain kinds of data, collected by sensors during observation 
flights conducted in connection with the Treaty on Open Skies, would 
not be made public.
  The Open Skies Treaty was signed in Helsinki on March 24, 1992. The 
principal purpose of the treaty is to enhance military openness and 
transparency by providing each treaty party with the right to overfly 
the territory of the other treaty parties using unarmed observation 
aircraft. The Senate provided its advice and consent to ratification on 
August 6, 1993, and the United States formally ratified the treaty on 
December 3, 1993. The Open Skies Treaty has been ratified by 11 other 
countries. It will enter into force when eight more states, including 
Russia, ratify.
  The amendment was requested by the administration. It has stated that 
the FOIA exemption is necessary in order to effectively implement the 
treaty. Without the FOIA exemption, other treaty parties would be 
reluctant to participate in the treaty for fear that sensitive data 
regarding their national security collected under the Open Skies regime 
would be made available to the public.
  Under the FOIA exemption, data collected on non-U.S. treaty parties 
could be made public by the United States only if either the state 
party in question agreed to such release or had previously publicly 
released the data itself. Also under this provision, data collected on 
the United States would be made public, unless such release could be 
reasonably expected to cause substantial harm to the national defense 
or foreign relations of the United States.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter to me from the 
Department of State requesting this exemption be inserted in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                     U.S. Department of State,

                                Washington, DC, December 28, 1993.
     Hon. Claiborne Pell,
     Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: On behalf of the Administration, I seek 
     your consideration of the attached legislation, which 
     responds to concerns raised by Senators during ratification 
     proceedings on the Open Skies Treaty, and which has been 
     developed in coordination with the Committee staff. The 
     legislation would establish a (b)3 FOIA exemption for data 
     collected by sensors during observation flights conducted in 
     connection with the Open Skies Treaty, subject to case by 
     case determinations.
       This legislation establishes the basis for implementing 
     certain Treaty requirements for handling data. Specifically, 
     the Treaty provides that ``Data collected by sensors during 
     observation flights shall be made available to States Parties 
     . . . and shall be used exclusively for the attainment of the 
     purposes of the Treaty (Article IX, Section 1, para 4).'' In 
     order to be consistent with this provision, Open Skies data 
     must be controlled in some manner outside the Freedom of 
     Information Act, which contains no provision regulating the 
     use to which information is put, once disclosed. There may be 
     circumstances under which the data could be releasable and 
     the legislation contains standards on which determinations of 
     releasibility will be based.
       With regard to these standards, the Administration 
     considered the Treaty's integrity and basic purpose. This 
     Treaty is the first agreement to provide for aerial 
     observation of all the territory of its Parties. In 
     negotiating Article IX, a number of signatories expressed the 
     desire not to make Open Skies data available to non-Parties, 
     who had not assumed reciprocal obligations and who had not, 
     therefore, opened up their territory to observation. Others 
     expressed a concern that Open Skies data not be exploited for 
     commercial advantage. Making Open Skies data generally 
     available could impose political, security and other costs to 
     which signatory states have not agreed, while reducing the 
     incentive for potential signatories to join the Treaty. 
     Similar considerations require standards for releasibility of 
     data collected over the United States.
       We know you share our view of the need to ensure the most 
     efficient and effective means to implement this Treaty. We 
     have appreciated the opportunity to work cooperatively with 
     your staff and look forward to your favorable consideration 
     of this legislation. I hope we have been responsive to your 
     concerns. Please do not hesitate to contact me if we can be 
     of further assistance.
           Sincerely,

                                             Wendy R. Sherman,

                                              Assistant Secretary,
                                              Legislative Affairs.

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I rise to discuss the amendment. First, I 
wish to commend the chairman of the committee for the work done on this 
amendment and know that the language being proposed represents a 
significant revision and improvement from earlier drafts.
  It would be ironic if the Treaty on Open Skies were to cloud our 
citizens' rights to freedom of information. We must approach statutory 
exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act with great care. Given 
that the act has a series of exceptions that balance the public's right 
to free and open access to Government information with such competing 
concerns as national security and foreign policy, it should be rare 
that Congress is asked to create a statutory exemption from the act.
  The Freedom of Information Act has become and essential tool in our 
democracy for the public to obtain information about what their 
Government is doing. Through direct access and media access, the 
Freedom of Information Act provides a check on how the Government 
operates. Through proper implementation of the act we make openness the 
rule and Government secrecy the exception.
  I see that the language proposed in the amendment exempts data 
collected by sensors during observation flights from FOIA disclosure 
for a period of 5 years. I would have preferred that the shoe be on the 
other foot. Our general presumption of availability of information 
should govern in the absence of a specific determination that 
disclosure of certain information would be harmful to our national 
security interests or the legitimate interests of a foreign government.
  It is in this manner that we have traditionally structured statutory 
exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act. Thus, it is only after 
rulemaking and with periodic reports to Congress that Government 
information on control, accounting and security measures for the 
physical protection of special nuclear material, source materials and 
byproduct materials is excluded from FOIA disclosure.
  I ask for the chairman's understanding of the standard that is to be 
applied by the Secretaries of Defense and State. Subsection (a)(2) of 
the amendment requires a determination that data with respect to the 
United States be restricted only if its disclosure ``could be 
reasonably expected to cause substantial harm.'' Is it the chairman's 
understanding that the standard is akin to that for classification of 
information as ``secret''?
  As for data with respect to a foreign country, the exemption applies 
if the country has not disclosed the data to the public. The amendment 
allows for the foreign country, acting through the open skies 
consultative commission or diplomatic channels to authorize the United 
States to disclose the data to citizens of the United States.

  I intend no harm to the integrity of the treaty, but ask whether the 
basic purposes of the treaty are not served by the presumption of 
openness with exceptional treatment being reserved to data from other 
countries on the same basis as that from this country; namely, some 
identifiable national security interest.
  I suggest that our treaty negotiators are well-advised to explain the 
benefits of openness on this and future treaty subjects to their 
counterparts from other countries. Certainly there can be exceptions, 
but experience has taught us that such exceptions to the rule of 
openness should be narrowly created and specifically applied.
  I ask my colleagues to join with me to urge the Department of State 
to use its good offices and those of the open skies consultative 
commission to urge foreign signatories of the treaty to enjoy the 
benefits of maximum disclosure and the rule of openness.
  Indeed, by title IV of this bill we are establishing a Commission on 
Protecting and Reducing Government Secretary for the express purpose of 
reducing the volume of classified information.
  I recognize that overflight data can contain sensitive security 
information. Such data, when otherwise secret, should not become 
available to hostile forces through participation in Open Skies. The 
need for legitimate exception for such information is not the issue.
  We should encourage signatories to Open Skies by protecting 
participants. We should not and need not do so by doing damage to our 
domestic law or disserving our democratic interests in expanding 
information and participation of the citizenry in our public policy. I 
do not wish to see the language or processes of this amendment become a 
precedent.
  Mr. PELL. I ask that we go ahead and vote on this measure if there is 
no objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, this has been cleared on both sides.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. No further debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the amendment? Without 
objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1274) was agreed to.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1275

(Purpose: To transfer certain obsolete surplus defense articles in the 
         war reserve allies stockpile to the Republic of Korea)

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I send an additional amendment to the desk 
and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Pell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1275.

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 179, after line 6, insert the following:

     SEC.   . TRANSFER OF CERTAIN OBSOLETE OR SURPLUS DEFENSE 
                   ARTICLES IN THE WAR RESERVE ALLIES STOCKPILE TO 
                   THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA.

       (a) Authority.--(1) Notwithstanding section 514 of the 
     Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321h), the 
     Secretary of Defense is authorized to transfer to the 
     Republic of Korea, in return for concessions to be negotiated 
     by the Secretary, any or all of the items described in 
     paragraph (2).
       (2) The items referred to in paragraph (1) are equipment, 
     tanks, weapons, repair parts, and ammunition that--
       (A) are obsolete or surplus items;
       (B) are in the inventory of the Department of Defense;
       (C) are intended for use as reserve stocks for the Republic 
     of Korea; and
       (D) as of the date of enactment of this Act, are located in 
     a stockpile in the Republic of Korea.
       (b) Concessions.--The value of the concessions negotiated 
     by the Secretary of Defense shall be at least equal to the 
     fair market value of the items transferred. The concessions 
     may include cash compensation, services, waiver of charges 
     otherwise payable by the United States, and other items of 
     value.
       (c) Advance Notification of Transfer.--Not less than 30 
     days before making a transfer under the authority of this 
     section, the Secretary of Defense shall transmit to the 
     Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, the Committee 
     on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives, and the 
     congressional defense committees a notification of the 
     proposed transfer. The notification shall identify the items 
     to be transferred and the concessions to be received.
       (d) Expiration of Authority.--No transfer may be made under 
     the authority of this section more than two years after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act.

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, this amendment provides the Department of 
Defense with authority to transfer obsolete or surplus United States 
military equipment to South Korea from war reserve stockpiles located 
in South Korea. The equipment in question includes ammunition, old M-48 
tanks, artillery, and repair parts.
  This provision was requested by the administration. It is necessary 
because section 514 of the Foreign Assistance act requires that any 
such transfer be specifically authorized by legislation.
  The United States no longer needs the equipment in question, and 
South Korea is the only country that has expressed an interest in it. 
In exchange for receiving the equipment, South Korea would provide the 
United States with concessions that would be at least equal to the 
transferred equipment's fair market value. The Department of the Army 
has informed the Committee on Foreign Relations that passage of this 
legislation will benefit the United States by more than $200 million in 
cost avoidance through fiscal year 1996.
  Mr. President, this amendment is a good, but partial, solution to a 
lingering problem. Major war reserve stocks remain in South Korea, and 
under certain circumstances removing them from our inventory could 
prove very costly to the United States. I intend that the Committee on 
Foreign Relations this year take a thorough look at the South Korean 
stockpile situation, and devise a solution that will meet both the 
national security and budgetary needs of the United States.
  Mr. President, I ask that the letter to me from the Department of the 
Army requesting this legislation be included in the Record at this 
point.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

         Department of the Army, Office of the Deputy Chief of 
           Staff For Logistics,
                                                   Washington, DC.
     Hon. Claiborne Pell,
     Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: I am writing in support of legislation 
     permitting the transfer of obsolete and surplus ammunition 
     and weapons to the Republic of Korea, in exchange for a 
     package of monetary concessions to be negotiated by the 
     United States Army.
       War Reserve Stocks for Allies (WRSA) are those stocks owned 
     and controlled by the United States and intended for use in 
     the defense of Korea. There are existing agreements with the 
     Republic of Korea under which Korea pays for the storage 
     expenses associated with WRSA stocks; however, if the stocks 
     are removed from storage for a purpose other than the defense 
     of Korea, the United States is obligated to reimburse Korea 
     for all prior storage expenses.
       We currently have ammunition and weapons in the WRSA 
     stockpile that are either obsolete or surplus to our needs. 
     Also, we have removed and will continue to move some types of 
     ammunition from the WRSA stockpiles for the United States 
     Army training requirements. Under the terms of the existing 
     agreements with Korea, our removal of these items has 
     ``kicked-in'' the reimbursement provisions. For those items 
     requiring demilitarizing, we will incur significant expense 
     transporting the stocks back to the United States.
       The WRSA package deal legislation would permit the transfer 
     of obsolete and surplus stocks to Korea in exchange for 
     waiver of the requirement to reimburse Korea for its storage 
     costs and would eliminate any transportation or 
     demilitarization costs. Passage of this legislation will 
     benefit the United States by more than $200 million in cost 
     avoidance through Fiscal Year 1996.
       It is our intent to aggressively pursue renegotiation of 
     the current agreements concerning the WRSA storage expenses. 
     Passage of this legislation is just the first step in trying 
     to eliminate the obligation of the United States to reimburse 
     future storage cost. Based on the potential cost avoidance 
     and the benefit to the United States Government, I would 
     appreciate your support of this legislation.
           Sincerely,

                                              Leon E. Salomon,

                                    Lieutenant General, U.S. Army,
                             Deputy Chief of Staff, for Logistics.

  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I ask that we proceed to a vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment? Is 
there objection to this amendment? Without objection, the amendment is 
agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1275) was agreed to.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. PELL. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. PELL. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


                           Amendment No. 1276

(Purpose: To urge the establishment of a pilot visa waiver project for 
                  Koreans visiting Alaska and Hawaii)

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alaska [Mr. Murkowski] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1276.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 179, after line 6, add the following new section:

     SEC. 714. PILOT VISA WAIVER PROJECT FOR KOREANS VISITING 
                   ALASKA AND HAWAII.

       (a) Congressional Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) travel and tourism play a major role in reducing the 
     United States unfavorable balance of trade;
       (2) the characteristics of the Korean travel market do not 
     permit long-term planning for longer trips;
       (3) applications for United States visas cannot now be 
     processed in a reasonable period of time;
       (4) the United States Department of State has directed 
     reductions in staff at the United States Embassy in Seoul, 
     which promise to further expand the time necessary for 
     potential Korean travelers to obtain a United States visa;
       (5) most of the nations of the South Pacific and Europe do 
     not currently require Koreans entering their countries to 
     have a visa, thus providing them with a serious competitive 
     advantage;
       (6) the United States territory of Guam has been permitted 
     by the United States Government to eliminate visa 
     requirements for Koreans visiting Guam, with resultant 
     impressive increases in travel and tourism from the Republic 
     of Korea;
       (7) the existing procedures to add any nation, including 
     the Republic of Korea, to the group of favored nations 
     exempted from United States visa regulations, would require 
     many years during which time the United States could well 
     lose its competitive advantages in attracting travel and 
     tourism from the Republic of Korea; and
       (8) the Republic of Korea as a gesture of good-will has 
     already unilaterally released United States travelers to the 
     Republic of Korea from the necessity of obtaining a visa.
       (b) Policy.--The Secretary of State shall explore the 
     procedures necessary to inaugurate a pilot study project 
     which--
       (1) would be aimed at greatly reducing the time and 
     formalities needed to permit the Republic of Korea to join 
     the other visa-waiver nations of the world; and
       (2) would immediately permit the noncontiguous States of 
     Alaska and Hawaii to join Guam as visa-free destinations for 
     Korean travelers;
       (c) Description of Pilot Project.--A pilot project 
     conducted under subsection (a) should consist of the 
     following elements:
       (1) United States visas would be declared unnecessary for 
     Koreans visiting Alaska or Hawaii.
       (2) At United States Customs passport control stations in 
     Alaska and Hawaii, Koreans would be expected to display their 
     return trip airline ticket, with return to be effected within 
     2 weeks.
       (3) At the end of 1 year, if immigration violations do not 
     exceed the numbers experienced for Koreans entering other 
     United States gateways, then the Department of State should 
     consider extending visa waivers to all Koreans visiting the 
     United States.
       (d) Effective Date; Termination Date.--A pilot project 
     conducted under subsection (a) should begin not later than 
     May 1, 1994, and should terminate April 30, 1995.

  Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, the purpose of the amendment is to 
allow a study for 1 year, and if the study is favorable it would 
establish a pilot program which would allow travelers from Korea to 
visit Hawaii and Alaska, as Guam currently enjoys traveling from Korea 
into Guam which is a United States territory, without a visa 
requirement.
  As the Chair knows, most nations' citizens who come into the United 
States do not need a visa. For Korea we currently require a visa.
  So there would be a State Department study to determine the merits of 
allowing for a 1-year period of residency of Korea to travel to Hawaii 
and Alaska without a visa. The provision would be that they would have 
to show a round-trip air ticket before they could depart Korea. They 
would have to show that when they went through Customs and Immigration 
upon entering either Alaska or Hawaii. If the State Department 
determines that it is not advisable, based on their criteria of visa 
application, obviously it would not go anywhere. That is the purpose of 
the amendment.
  I have explained it to the majority, the floor leader. If he has any 
questions, I would be happy to respond. But it would be meritorious 
inasmuch as Korea is one of the few countries where we continue to 
require visas upon entry. We feel that it might extend from both Guam 
to Alaska and Hawaii inasmuch as most of the traffic that is generated 
from Korea either stops in Guam or Hawaii.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I think the concept itself is meritorious, 
let alone the study. But I think the Senator is wise to ask for a study 
to determine whether or not there are negatives that we are not at this 
time aware of. I think it is a good approach. We support it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate?
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I urge adoption.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate? Is there objection? 
Without objection, the amendment is agreed to.
  The amendment (No. 1276) was agreed to.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KERRY. I believe the Senator from North Carolina is prepared to 
propound two amendments en bloc.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, thank you very much, and I thank my 
distinguished colleague from Massachusetts. I do have two amendments. 
They are very closely related. They address the same subject. As a 
matter of fact, Senator Kerry is perfectly willing to take both 
amendments but because of my obsession about the U.S. Constitution and 
the protection of the rights of the American people and so forth, I 
would like to have a rollcall vote.
  The first one involves the first amendment of the Constitution.


                           Amendment No. 1277

 (Purpose: To prevent the U.S. from joining any international criminal 
  court which fails to protect the first amendment rights of American 
                               citizens)

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1277.

       At the appropriate place, add the following:
       Sec.  . The United States Senate will not consent to the 
     ratification of any Treaty providing for United States 
     participation in an international criminal court with 
     jurisdiction over crimes of an international character unless 
     American citizens are guaranteed, in the terms establishing 
     such a court, and in the court's operation, that the court 
     will take no action infringing upon or diminishing their 
     rights under the First Amendment of the Constitution of the 
     United States, as interpreted by the United States.

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

       Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of 
     religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 
     abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the 
     right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition 
     the Government for a redress of grievances.

  This amendment stipulates that the U.S. Senate will not consent to 
the ratification of any treaty providing for U.S. participation in an 
international criminal court unless American citizens are guaranteed 
that nothing in the terms establishing such an international criminal 
court or in its operation shall infringe upon or diminish the rights of 
American citizens under the first amendment of the Constitution as 
interpreted by the United States.
  As the distinguished occupant of the chair knows, the first amendment 
of the U.S. Constitution refers to freedom of speech and freedom of the 
press. What do these matters have to do with international criminal 
courts? A lot, Mr. President; a lot.
  It is important to realize that when we talk about an international 
criminal court, there is not only no agreed-upon list of what 
constitutes a ``crime of an international character'' but there is not 
even an agreed-upon procedure of how a list of international crimes is 
to be drawn up or who will do it.
  So at this point to get some hint of what should be considered a 
crime of an international character we have to look at the academic 
literature.
  The leading proponent of an international criminal court is Professor 
Bassiouni of De Paul University in Chicago. Writing in the spring 1991 
issue of the Indiana International and Comparative Law Review at page 
20, the professor argues for the widest possible jurisdiction of the 
court.
  Within that widest possible jurisdiction, the professor notes, 
apparently with his approval, such possible international crimes as 
insults to a foreign state or dissemination of false or distorted news.
  If insults to a foreign state means Iraq, I plead guilty right here 
and now.
  And I am sure the rulers of Communist China have their particular 
views of what constitutes false or distorted news. This body knows of 
their repeated denials of credible newspaper accounts of major arms 
exports to Middle Eastern dictatorships, for example.
  Let us not forget who may be determining what is an insult to a 
foreign state or what is false or distorted news. Under the most likely 
scenario of an international criminal court, at least some of the 
judges will come from such places as North Korea or Iran which have no 
tradition of freedom of the press or freedom of speech.
  Therefore, both parts of this amendment are required: The prohibition 
on infringement of our first amendment liberties and the right to 
determine for ourselves what constitutes such an infringement.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that amendment be laid 
aside temporarily.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           amendment no. 1278

 (Purpose: To prevent the United States from joining any international 
 criminal court which fails to protect the fourth amendment rights of 
                           American citizens)

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1278.
       At the appropriate place, add the following:
       Sec.  . The United States Senate will not consent to the 
     ratification of any Treaty providing for United States 
     participation in an international criminal court with 
     jurisdiction over crimes of an international character unless 
     American citizens are guaranteed, in the terms establishing 
     such a court, and in the court's operation, that the court 
     will take no action infringing upon or diminishing their 
     rights under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the 
     United States, as interpreted by the United States.

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

       The right of the people to be secure in their persons, 
     houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches 
     and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall 
     issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or 
     affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be 
     searched, and the person or things to be seized.

  That is the fourth amendment. The pending amendment stipulates that 
the U.S. Senate will not consent to the ratification of any treaty 
providing for international criminal court, unless and until American 
citizens are guaranteed that nothing in the terms establishing such an 
international criminal court or in its operation shall infringe upon or 
diminish the rights of American citizens under the fourth amendment of 
the Constitution, as interpreted by the United States.
  The fourth amendment concerns itself, as is obvious, with 
unreasonable searches and seizures, as well as the need for probable 
cause before a warrant can be issued.
  There is no indication that proponents of an international criminal 
court understand or respect these basic rights of the American people. 
For example, in the case of the United Nations' effort to establish an 
international tribunal for war crimes in Bosnia, the Secretary 
General's report on May 3, 1993, at page 24, simply states that the 
prosecutor may ``conduct on-site inspections.''
  Mr. President, we cannot have that. We cannot have that action by the 
United Nations, that decision by the Secretary General, and this 
involving an American citizen or any American institution.
  There is no reference to unreasonable searches and seizures or to the 
need for probable cause.
  On page 27 of the same report, the Secretary General gives a list of 
rights of the accused. Again, there is no reference to unreasonable 
searches and seizures or probable cause.
  Some American specialists have also noted this problem. For example, 
Mr. Ralph Mecham, Director of the Administrative Office of the United 
States Courts, addressed this issue in a letter to Speaker Foley on 
October 28, 1991. Mr. Mecham said the following:

       What protection would exist to prevent the use of evidence 
     obtained by unlawful search and seizure? The International 
     Institute of Higher Studies in Criminal Sciences' draft 
     statute adopts the exclusionary rule, but other draft 
     statutes are silent on the point. None of them addresses the 
     practical question of what standards would govern enforcement 
     in the U.S. courts of search warrants and arrest warrants 
     issued by an international tribunal.

  It is worth noting there is nothing to keep judges from North Korea 
or Syria serving on this international criminal court. It would be they 
who would determine whether a search was proper or not.
  Therefore, both parts of this amendment are required: The prohibition 
of infringement of our fourth amendment liberties and the right to 
determine for ourselves what constitutes an infringement.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the two pending 
amendments, which I have just submitted, be considered jointly, with 
one vote. I will ask for a rollcall vote and ask that it be counted as 
one vote.
  Mr. KERRY. Reserving the right to object, and I do not want to 
object, but I want to see if there is a way to deal with a procedural 
problem here. I intend to vote for the amendment. I have no problems 
with it. I would be happy to accept them without a rollcall vote. But 
the Senator, which is his right, would like a rollcall vote. I am 
advised that the only time we have ever voted en bloc is on treaties, 
and that there is a difficulty in voting en bloc because one person 
might have a problem with one of the amendments--and I am not sure they 
would, but they might. So the question is either whether the Senator 
would be willing to fold the two into one amendment, or I will accept 
one, and then we pick one to have a rollcall vote on.
  Mr. HELMS. We will just have two rollcall votes. I ask for the yeas 
and nays on the first amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Amendment No. 1278 is the pending amendment.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I withdraw the two amendments at this time. 
I have the right to modify both amendments, and I will so modify them 
and combine them into one.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  The amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 1278), as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place, add the following:
       Sec.  . The United States Senate will not consent to the 
     ratification of any Treaty providing for United States 
     participation in an international criminal court with 
     jurisdiction over crimes of an international character unless 
     American citizens are guaranteed, in the terms establishing 
     such a court, and in the court's operation, that the court 
     will take no action infringing upon or diminishing their 
     rights under the First and Fourth Amendments of the 
     Constitution of the United States, as interpreted by the 
     United States.

  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I request the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. We will obviously have a rollcall vote on this amendment, 
but we want to delay that for a little while. So I put colleagues on 
notice that there is a rollcall backed up here.
  I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be temporarily set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I just want to briefly say to my colleague 
and friend from North Carolina that the Senator from Connecticut has no 
objection whatsoever to this amendment.
  Again, I state he and I discussed this at some length yesterday. 
There is a fundamental difference that we have as to whether or not 
there ought to be any kind of international court.
  Aside from that issue is the sense-of-the-Congress resolution which 
is included in this particular bill that is now before us and was 
supported yesterday by a majority of our colleagues on a motion to 
table an amendment to strike.
  The purpose of that sense-of-the-Senate resolution was merely to 
state our generic interest in pursuing the idea and the concept of an 
international court of criminal justice. None of us know what that 
proposal will include. Certainly, I would not ask my colleagues nor 
myself to endorse something we have not seen or been able to judge. But 
on the concept of an international criminal court I believe it is in 
the interest of our country to pursue one.
  This amendment offered by our colleague from North Carolina merely 
states that in the terms establishing such a court, the court will take 
no action infringing upon or diminishing the rights of any citizen of 
the United States under the fourth and first amendments of the United 
States Constitution.
  I thoroughly endorse that proposition and urge the adoption of the 
amendment either by voice vote or recorded vote, whatever our colleague 
from North Carolina desires. But it certainly is consistent with the 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution that the Senate approved of yesterday.
  So I urge the adoption of this amendment in any manner that our 
colleague in North Carolina intends to seek approval of this amendment.
  Mr. HELMS. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  The Chair thought the Senator from North Carolina was seeking 
recognition.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1279

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding participation in 
                the North Atlantic Treaty Organization)

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1279.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the 
reading of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       Sec. (  ) The Congress finds that:
       (1) The Warsaw Pact has been disbanded and replaced by 
     governments with legitimate political, economic and security 
     interests;
       (2) It is in the national interests of the United States to 
     preserve European regional stability through the promotion of 
     political and economic freedom and respect for territorial 
     integrity and national sovereignty;
       (3) The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has served and 
     advanced U.S. and European interests in political stability 
     and collective security for forty-five years.
       Therefore, it is the sense of the Senate that,
       (1) European nations which have demonstrated both 
     capability and willingness to support collective defense 
     requirements and established democratic practices including 
     free, fair elections, civilian control of military 
     institutions, respect for territorial integrity and the 
     individual liberties of its citizens share the goals of the 
     North Atlantic Treaty Organization; and
       (2) The United States should urge immediate admission to 
     NATO for those nations which support and advance this common 
     agenda.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on my 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, let me briefly describe the amendment 
which I have sent to the desk and then offer an account of why I hope 
the Senate will adopt it.
  My amendment is simply a sense-of-the-Senate amendment urging the 
United States to support immediate admission to NATO of those nations 
which share and advance a common set of principles. U.S. support is 
predicated upon a nation having a demonstrated capability to commit 
resources to our common defense, as well as established democratic 
practices, including free elections, civilian control over the 
military, respect for territorial integrity, and the individual 
liberties of all citizens.
  I believe we face a crisis in Europe which has been created by a 
failure to define our vital interests--an unwillingness to set an 
American course of conduct separate and apart from Boris Yeltsin.
  Mr. President, earlier this week, the Subcommittee on Foreign 
Operations met to review our assistance programs to the New Independent 
States of the former Soviet Union. It was no surprise to any of us that 
Ambassador Talbott's opening comment was he would only address his 
remarks to one of those states, the Russian Federation.
  This emphasis, what I now call the administration's Moscow myopia is 
not new. Last year, during consideration of the foreign operations bill 
I tried to link the provision of assistance for any country to its 
respect for territorial integrity and national sovereignty. At that 
time, we had all received an urgent plea for help from the President of 
Georgia, Mr. Shevardnadze. He had publicly accused the Russian military 
of aiding and abetting an insurgent movement that was threatening to 
bring down his democratically elected government. His cry for help, met 
deaf ears in this administration.
  Now these events occurred in the early stages of the Russian test of 
their policy toward the near abroad. There were no speeches or policy 
statements clarifying their ambitions to exercise influence, extend 
their military reach, and assert control over the political and 
economic affairs of their neighbors.
  We now have both actions and words which make clear Russian policy in 
the region. Foreign Minister Kozyrev, a so-called reformer, has spelled 
out Russian intentions in ambitious and aggressive terms. Before the 
world last fall at the General Assembly and in a speech just last week 
to the Russian ambassadors serving in the former republics he has 
established a Russian Monroe doctrine for the region. To prevent what 
he called a ``security vacuum'' in the area, Kozyrev said Russia must 
maintain a military presence in the former republics to protect Russian 
interests.
  The U.S. response was strangely silent.
  As I said, although I strongly oppose Russia's imperial reach, I have 
grown accustomed to the administration turning a blind eye to this 
advance. Just as they opposed linking aid to respect for territorial 
integrity, they also opposed earmarking funds for Ukraine. In 
establishing an account for Ukraine, I made clear I wanted to clarify 
United States support for its independent status. Among other 
arguments, I was told that this would be viewed as an insult to Moscow.
  I believe this preoccupation with Moscow's sensitivities is directly 
contributing to the slow down in talks for full withdrawal of Russian 
troops from the Baltics. Although, Congress has made clear this is a 
high priority and designated funds to house returning troops to 
accelerate the process, a high level delegation from Latvia in town a 
few weeks ago concluded that the Russians have little interest and less 
incentive to withdraw. After their elections, the Russians suspended 
the withdrawal negotiations. Prior to this they were demanding extended 
leases on military bases as they continued to build a new radar 
facility on Latvian soil. These are not the signs of retreat.
  In the past year, I have expressed my concern about Russian 
domination of the new republics. Whether it is stalled talks in the 
Baltics or the periodic suspension of oil shipments to Ukraine 
amounting to economic terrorism, the pattern is ominous and from my 
perspective, stands unchallenged by the United States Government.
  Conceding Russian influence and control over the republics is 
inexcusable, but the administration has now taken the outrage one giant 
step forward. I believe we have essentially given Russia veto authority 
over our European policy over all of Europe.
  Although the Partnership for Peace was broadcast by the United States 
and Russian Governments as a major achievement, few in Europe privately 
agreed. Having pressed the case for formal admission to NATO, 
Lithuania, Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic were flatly rejected. 
Having pleaded for acceptance and protection, these nations were left 
out in the cold.
  Let me read some of Lech Walesa's comments about the Partnership for 
Peace and the NATO summit. ``You can't talk about partnership but of 
blackmail. There is no partnership in blackmail * * * Russia is putting 
pressure on NATO by setting conditions. What kind of partner exerts 
pressure? That's how I see it today and I am not happy about it because 
no one, neither NATO nor other western countries has anything to gain 
by it.''
  After meeting with President Clinton and the other Visegrad leaders 
in Prague, Walesa offered a grim observation. ``The world's big powers 
settled the matter. We'll try to make the best we can of it.'' Hardly a 
ringing endorsement.
  An envoy of Poland's government in exile during the war and one of 
the nation's leading commentators summed up the situation in Europe 
this way: ``The greatest threat is that the lack of reaction to 
Moscow's imperialist rhetoric could be understood as silent approval or 
even encouragement.'' He want on to characterize the Partnership as 
appeasement of Russia--as we all know, appeasement is a word loaded 
with volumes of history in Europe.
  Concerned about the Central Europeans' point of view at the hearing 
early this week, I asked Ambassador Talbott what these nations would 
have to do to guarantee admission to NATO.
  His answer: ``Well, the President made clear in Brussels that the 
issue of actually expanding the membership of NATO Alliance per se will 
have to take into account a fairly wide range of issues which one can 
only speculate about now, but they will include the whole security 
picture in Europe and, indeed, Eurasia.'' I am not quite sure what that 
says, Mr. President.
  Well, we all know the President did not make clear in Brussels the 
exact terms for expanding NATO. He could not make clear the conditions 
because it would demonstrate beyond a shadow of any sinister doubt that 
we have accorded Russia veto authority over NATO's membership.
  Instead of a reluctance to draw lines, I view the Partnership as a 
reluctance to make a decision, an unwillingness to define U.S. 
interests apart from politics and personalities in Moscow.
  I had thought we had learned our lesson about yielding U.S. 
leadership and interests in the streets of Mogadishu.
  By refusing Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic admission to NATO 
we have capitulated to Russian interests and Russian pressure. We have 
bowed to the Russian desire to blur the lines between democracy and 
despots--the line between freedom and fascism.
  I was struck by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger's ever 
cogent analysis of the European scene which appeared a few weeks ago in 
the Los Angeles Times. He said, ``A moderate Russian foreign policy 
will be impeded by turning a blind eye to the reappearance of Russian 
imperial pretensions. Russia's efforts at reform cannot exempt it from 
accepted principles of conducting foreign policy.''
  I share his view that in allowing Russia veto authority over our 
European interests we may damage the very cause we hope to advance--
Russian political and economic reform. That is what we all want to see. 
Ambassador Talbott and the President take the view that drawing new 
lines, including the Visegrad democracies within the NATO circle of 
security will inflame nationalist elements in Russia. This could, in 
turn, complicate if not jeopardize the future of reform and reformers.
  But once again, I am cautioned by Mr. Kissinger who noted:

       It is, in fact, ambiguity about dividing lines not their 
     existence, and ambivalence about Western reactions, not their 
     certainty that tempt militarists and nationalists.

  Mr. President, left out in the cold, I fear the worst for the new 
democracies in Central Europe. Let us accept for one moment the 
prospect outlined yesterday in the Washington Post, that Ukraine is on 
the verge of economic implosion. Just for the subject of discussion, 
let us assume that Ukraine is on the verge of economic implosion. 
Although there are fierce advocates of independence in the western part 
of Ukraine, it is unclear how long the eastern part would or could 
withstand Russia's declared interests in reestablishing dominion. The 
Visegrad nations have repeatedly and publicly clear that an independent 
Ukraine is an essential buffer in maintaining geostrategic stability 
and security. Envision this, Mr. President. Faced with Russian 
predators, what is to stop the Central Europeans from forging a 
security coalition with the remnants of the Ukrainian Government 
shielded by Ukrainian nuclear weapons?
  A year ago it was unthinkable, but a year ago, the democracies of 
Europe believed they would be accepted into NATO with open arms.
  I offer this history, this overview to put my amendment in a context, 
to explain why I think the Partnership for Peace is inadequate to the 
task of preserving European stability and security.
  We all want Boris Yeltsin to succeed. That is not the issue. For 
myself, I worked hard to achieve passage of the foreign operations bill 
which provided $2.5 billion in aid to the New Independent States just 
last year. But, wanting Yeltsin and reforms to succeed should not mean 
we allow our agenda to fail.
  Leadership brings with it the responsibility to make decisions, to 
draw lines. Those lines should be based on principles, not the 
personality or politics of the moment.
  The Senate must speak with confidence--we must assure our friends in 
Europe that as they meet specific standards--when they share and 
advance the agenda of political and economic freedom, when they are 
willing and able to commit resources to our mutual defense, they will 
be welcome in NATO. There should be no doubt that if you share our 
agenda, you share our security blanket, as well.
  So, basically what I am suggesting here is that the Senate, through 
this sense-of-the-Senate resolution, indicate that it believes that 
countries in Central Europe which meet the standards applicable to any 
other NATO applicant be welcomed to that important organization. I hope 
the amendment will be adopted.
  For the moment, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Feingold). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.


                Amendment No. 1280 to Amendment No. 1279

(Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding participation in 
                the North Atlantic Treaty Organization)

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the 
desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kentucky [Mr. McConnell] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1280 to amendment No. 1279.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       Strike all after ``Sec.'' and insert the following:
       (  ) The Congress finds that:
       (1) The Warsaw Pact has been disbanded and replaced by 
     governments with legitimate political, economic and security 
     interests;
       (2) It is in the national interests of the United States to 
     preserve European regional stability through the promotion of 
     political and economic freedom and respect for territorial 
     integrity and national sovereignty;
       (3) The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has served and 
     advanced U.S. and European interests in political stability 
     and collective security for forty five years.
       (4) The Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic have 
     expressed interest in joining NATO. Therefore, it is the 
     sense of the Senate that,
       (1) European nations which have demonstrated both 
     capability and willingness to support collective defense 
     requirements and established democratic practices including 
     free, fair elections, civilian control of military 
     institutions, respect for territorial integrity and the 
     individual liberties of its citizens share the goals of the 
     North Atlantic Treaty Organization; and
       (2) The United States should urge immediate admission to 
     NATO for those nations which advance and support this common 
     agenda.

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
second-degree amendment that I sent to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is not a 
sufficient second.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HELMS. I call for regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is amendment 1278 offered by 
the Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment?
  Mr. HELMS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending 
amendments be temporarily set aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. What we are intending to do at this time, I believe 
Senator Dole has an amendment and we would like to proceed forward with 
business on this bill while we work out some of the parliamentary 
situations surrounding the amendments currently before the Senate.
  So if Senators have additional amendments at this time--and it is my 
understanding that Senator Dole was prepared to come forward with an 
amendment on the Bosnia embargo. I think Senator Simpson wanted to 
speak momentarily.
  Until they arrrive, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll. The assistant 
legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I am going to send an amendment up 
momentarily on behalf of myself, Senators Lieberman, Lugar, 
Moynihan, Helms, D'Amato, Biden, and Feingold.
  I thought first I might explain the amendment, and I will not take a 
great deal of time. I know the managers are trying to get amendments 
out of the way, and I am very happy to cooperate. The majority leader 
would like to get a list of the amendments so we will know precisely 
what may be ahead.


                  united states arms embargo on bosnia

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the siege of Sarajevo began on April 6, 
1992, and since that time, the world has watched with horror as the 
citizens of Bosnia and Herzegovina have been systematically terrorized, 
driven out of their homes, and murdered by the tens of thousands.
  The leaders of the international community have failed to respond 
adequately or effectively to this blatant and brutal act of aggression 
against a U.N. member state.
  Sanctions were imposed against Serbia in May 1992. But, by the summer 
of 1992--with about 65 percent of Bosnia under Serbian occupation--it 
became clear that hard liner Slobodan Milosevic and Serbian-backed 
irregular forces would not respond to economic or diplomatic pressure 
by the United Nations and the European Community. How did the 
international community react to Serbian intransigence? By boldly 
moving forward with more resolutions, more speeches, and more 
diplomatic handwringing.
  Indeed, the only real U.N. Security Council action was undertaken by 
the clerks who typed and photocopied numerous pages of resolutions and 
reports. Sure, a NATO no-fly zone exists, safe havens have been 
established, and air strikes are a possibility, but only in theory, in 
U.N. and NATO documents.
  In the fall of 1993, when it became evident that these paper threats 
would fail to do the trick, the international community redefined the 
war in Bosnia as a civil war, turning a blind eye to Serb and Croat 
support of irregular forces, and to the presence of regular Yugoslav 
Army and Croatian Army units in Bosnia. For the past few months, the 
Europeans and United Nations, through their envoys, Lord Owen and 
Thorvald Stoltenberg, have been pressuring the Bosnians to surrender 
and sign a deal leading to a three-way division of Bosnia, leaving the 
Bosnian Government in control of about one-third of their original 
territory.
  Mr. President, let us face it, the Europeans never had the resolve to 
take on the second-rate forces directed by Belgrade. And, the United 
Nations lacked the will to use force even in limited ways--to implement 
the so-called safe havens resolutions or to facilitate the delivery of 
food to starving Bosnians. The fact is that almost any thug with a gun 
can stop a U.N. convoy.
  But, putting the international community's lack of courage and 
principle aside, what is most egregious and indefensible is that the 
international community has maintained an arms embargo on the Bosnian 
Government. In effect, the world has said, ``we will not defend you and 
we will not let you defend yourself. Your only option is to 
surrender.'' And so, the trigger-happy terrorists in the hills around 
Sarajevo can target a school, a hospital, or a playground and know with 
almost complete certainty that they need not fear any reprisals--they 
can slaughter innocent children at play. If you watched TV over the 
weekend, you saw six children slaughtered in a playground and many 
others injured. They can do it without any consequence.
  I cannot forget the pictures shown this week on CNN of blood-soaked 
snow which only moments earlier had been the scene of children 
sledding. What if these had been pictures of Paris or London? Would the 
U.N. Security Council claim that the British and French do not have the 
right to defend themselves? Is the right to self-defense limited to the 
permanent members of the Security Council?
  I am deeply disappointed that both this administration and the 
previous one failed to assert the leadership necessary to move the 
international community toward policies that would let the Bosnians, at 
the very least, defend their families and their homes.
  President Clinton, when he was a candidate and through the early 
months of his Presidency, publicly supported the idea of lifting the 
arms embargo. Unfortunately, to date, President Clinton has not used 
the tremendous influence of his office to build support in favor of 
this option, but he still believes in it because I heard him say so 
myself.
  I do not think it is too late to do the right thing. I believe that 
in light of growing frustrations with the ineffective U.N. peacekeeping 
operation in Bosnia, another opportunity has presented itself to 
revisit the issue of lifting the arms embargo. Citizens in countries 
such as Canada which have sent troops to join UNPROFOR in Bosnia are 
becoming weary of a situation where their troops seem to be sitting 
ducks; public sentiment is growing to pull UNPROFOR forces out. You 
hear it almost every night on television.
  The administration is right to oppose the introduction of United 
States ground forces into Bosnia to impose a peace settlement as has 
been urged by the French. Bosnia is not a colony, it is a member state 
of the United Nations with rights under the U.N. Charter, including the 
right to self-defense. But, opposing bad ideas is not enough. The 
United States must assert leadership in support of a better course of 
action.
  Now is the time for the administration to push again for lifting the 
U.N. arms embargo. And, the first step should be the United States 
lifting its embargo on the Bosnian Government. By providing arms to the 
Bosnians we not only improve their ability to defend themselves, but 
enable them to protect and deliver critically needed humanitarian aid.
  Clearly, the President is focused on his domestic agenda, but lifting 
the U.S. embargo and pressing for the U.N. Security Council to do the 
same will not require a great deal of the President's time--probably 
just a few phone calls to Prime Minister Major, President Mitterand, 
and of course, President Yeltsin--who has been staunchly supported by 
President Clinton and the U.S. Congress--to the tune of $2.5 billion 
this year alone. Indeed, such a move will be a big step toward the just 
resolution of this tragic war in a manner that does not involve a 
massive commitment of U.S. resources--to include U.S. military 
personnel.
  Therefore, in the hope of urging the President toward this course of 
action, I am offering this amendment, together with Senators Lieberman, 
Lugar, Moynihan, Helms, D'Amato, Feingold, and Biden. It states that it 
is the sense of the Senate that the President should terminate the 
United States embargo against Bosnia, pursuant to article 51 of the 
U.N. Charter, and provide military assistance to the Government of 
Bosnia and Herzegovina upon receipt of such a request.
  This amendment is essentially the same language that was passed by 
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee during its markup of the foreign 
aid authorization bill--a modification of the bill I introduced last 
year, S. 1044. It is also similar to language passed last year in the 
House, based on the companion bill to S. 1044 introduced by Congressman 
Hyde.
  Mr. President, maybe this is not going to have any impact. We all 
have to be very careful about passing resolutions, handwringing, 
speeches, and things that really do not help.
  But it seems to me at least this sends a message and supports the 
President in a very ticklish situation, with the British and the French 
on the other side. It seems to me that many of us on the floor on both 
sides of the aisle and the President himself and the Vice President 
have been talking about lifting the arms embargo for a long, long time. 
We have not been able to persuade our allies. But, what is at stake 
here is not just Bosnia but the international order.
  So I hope we could at least send a signal and underscore the support 
in the U.S. Senate, bipartisan support for this sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of the Republican 
leader's bipartisan measure, and I would like to echo his theme, which 
is to say that it is not too late. It is possible, I know, to have 
reached the contrary judgment. It is possible, that when CNN broadcast 
a mortar shell killing 6 children playing with sleds, that one just 
moved to another channel. It is possible, I suppose, to ignore the 
account in this morning's press that regular Serbian Army units are 
operating in Bosnia. It is possible to assume that nothing having been 
done, nothing will be done.
  But I say, as Senator Dole has said: it is not too late. What is at 
issue is far too important to let go by. The resolution speaks to 
Article 51 of the United Nations Charter which guarantees the right of 
self-defense.
  What we have allowed to happen so far is indefensible. We have 
suborned violations of international law. In the first instance by 
standing by while the Serbian Army invaded Bosnia. And then compounding 
that violation of the Charter by denying the Bosnian Government the 
means of self-defense. We have helped create a caricature of what the 
United Nations was meant to be.
  Can we ever imagine that that Charter, which grew out of the invasion 
of nations around the world by Nazi Germany, fascist Italy, imperial 
Japan and by such like nations, would permit this? It says that the one 
absolute rule of international law is that armies will not cross 
borders, armies will not invade and partition other nations. The 
drafters of the Charter could not have imagined that we would first see 
an invasion occur and then place an embargo on the injured, the 
aggrieved party, the invaded nation. Denying it even that elemental 
residual right of Article 51 which says that if the international 
community will not maintain international law you can at least defend 
your own lives and land.
  The Republican leader said that the invasion began April 1992. Mr. 
President, I was in Sarajevo in November 1992. I made my way in there. 
The Canadian Air Force took me in and the next day the British Air 
Force took me out. As hard as it was to believe what you saw already, 
the playing fields in the high schools, the soccer fields being turned 
into cemeteries, there being no room left in the regular cemetery.
  As difficult as it was to believe that, it was surely not possible to 
believe that it would last through another winter and through that 
winter and on into another winter. Military men of great morale and 
endurance have been getting food in there. According to the United 
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, there were two persons 
directing the relief effort in the whole of Sarajevo when I was there, 
but they were feeding a city that had no food. Whatever came in by 
airlift or convoy one day, was eaten the next.
  And yet, it has gone on another year. George Soros, a man of great 
stature who has made great endeavors on this subject, said something 
painful; rending. He said, ``Sarajevo has become a concentration camp 
run by the United Nations.''
  I spoke with the Deputy High Commissioner for Refugees in Geneva not 
long ago and I asked him about this. He said, we can indeed say it is a 
camp, a refugee camp of people, deprived of every means of existence, 
being maintained by others. And I say that is indefensible.
  We will not forgive ourselves if, in the first large event of the 
post-cold-war era, we allow international law to be shredded, when we 
deny even the capacity of self-defense to a nation being torn apart by 
ethnic hatred and foreign invasion.
  When I was in the region in November 1992, the city of Mostar was 
still there. That 16th century bridge, a world monument, was still 
there. It is all gone, destroyed by the Croatian side, which has joined 
in preying on the remains of the Moslem population and a Bosnian 
Government that cannot defend itself.
  And it does not stop here. Will Macedonia be next? Will Albania be 
next? Will the violence in the Balkans spread? Will Serbia find that 
its huge northeastern region is in fact Hungarian? Will 
ethnonationalism, to use Walker Connor's term, spread across Europe, as 
indeed it is waiting to do? And will it have been invited to do because 
we have done nothing?
  Senator Dole said the previous administration has done nothing, nor 
has the present. President Clinton has made clear his conviction that 
we should lift this embargo. I have heard it from him myself, as the 
Senator from Kansas said he had done. And it is time to do. It is time 
to say, ``enough.''
  And it is not too late. That is the proposition I would put. Despite 
all probabilities, Sarajevo is still alive. Despite enough horror to 
numb a population, to turn it into a passive and doomed community, that 
has not happened.
  I would say to you that everything America has stood for in the 
international order for the last 50 years, from the time of Woodrow 
Wilson, is at issue here.
  I have served as Ambassador to the United Nations. I have served as 
President of the Security Council. I could not have imagined in those 
days that we would let such an event as this take place.
  I see the Republican leader has returned to the floor. I want to say, 
I am honored to be associated with this amendment. The honor of the 
Senate is at issue, the Senate that ratified the United Nations Charter 
which absolutely forbids the invasion of one country by another and 
absolutely guarantees the right of self-defense. Those matters are at 
issue. And to say once again, as Senator Dole has said, it is not too 
late.
  I hope that we might vote on this amendment. I do not wish to 
interfere too much with the proceedings, but I would like to inquire of 
the distinguished manager, does he intend to have a vote on this?
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I would say to the Senator from New York 
that we are just determining that now. I am a supporter of this. I 
voted for it in committee. I would like to say a few words about it in 
a moment.
  I am prepared to accept it, but the issue is whether or not we want 
to have a rollcall vote.
  Mr. DOLE. I am checking on this side. I think it is a very important 
issue. I am not certain that we would want to do it on a voice vote. 
But I will let the manager know very shortly.
  I did listen to all of what the Senator from New York had to say. I 
certainly appreciate it, because he was there and he probably 
understands it better than I.
  If the manager would permit me to send the amendment to the desk, 
because I failed to do that. And I want to add the distinguished 
Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Feingold] and the distinguished Senator 
from Michigan [Mr. Levin] as cosponsors.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. The distinguished Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden] is 
already a cosponsor.


                           Amendment No. 1281

 (Purpose: To express the sense of the Senate regarding termination of 
    the United States arms embargo of the Government of Bosnia and 
                  Herzegovina, and for other purposes)

  Mr. DOLE. I send the amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole], for himself, Mr. 
     Lieberman, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Moynihan, Mr. Helms, Mr. D'Amato, 
     Mr. Biden, Mr. Feingold, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Levin proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1281.

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the 
amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Reid). Without objection it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 179, after line 6, insert the following new 
     section:

     SEC.  . POLICY ON TERMINATION OF UNITED STATES ARMS EMBARGO.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress makes the following findings:
       (1) On July 10, 1991, the United States adopted a policy 
     suspending all licenses and other approvals to export or 
     otherwise transfer defense articles and defense services to 
     Yugoslavia.
       (2) On September 25, 1991, the United Nations Security 
     Council adopted Resolution 713, which imposed a mandatory 
     international embargo on all deliveries of weapons and 
     military equipment to Yugoslavia.
       (3) The United States considered the policy adopted July 
     10, 1991, to comply fully with Resolution 713 and therefore 
     took no additional action in response to that resolution.
       (4) On January 8, 1992, the United Nations Security Council 
     adopted Resolution 727, which decided that the mandatory arms 
     embargo imposed by Resolution 713 should apply to any 
     independent states that might thereafter emerge on the 
     territory of Yugoslavia.
       (5) On February 29 and March 1, 1992, the people of Bosnia 
     and Herzegovina voted in a referendum to declare independence 
     from Yugoslavia.
       (6) On April 7, 1992, the United States recognized the 
     Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
       (7) On May 22, 1992, the Government of Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina was admitted to full membership in the United 
     Nations.
       (8) Consistent with Resolution 727, the United States has 
     continued to apply the policy adopted July 10, 1991, to 
     independent states that have emerged on the territory of the 
     former Yugoslavia, including Bosnia and Herzegovina.
       (9) Subsequent to the adoption of Resolution 727 and Bosnia 
     and Herzegovina's independence referendum, the siege of 
     Sarajevo began and fighting spread to other areas of Bosnia 
     and Herzegovina.
       (10) The Government of Serbia intervened directly in the 
     fighting by providing significant military, financial, and 
     political support and direction to Serbian-allied irregular 
     forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
       (11) In statements dated May 1 and May 12, 1992, the 
     Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe declared 
     that the government of Serbia and the Serbian-controlled 
     Yugoslav National Army were committing aggression against the 
     Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina and assigned to them 
     prime responsibility for the escalation of bloodshed and 
     destruction.
       (12) On May 30, 1992, the United Nations Security Council 
     adopted Resolution 757, which condemned the Government of 
     Serbia for its continued failure to respect the territorial 
     integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
       (13) Serbian-allied irregular forces have occupied 
     approximately 70 percent of the territory of Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina, committed gross violations of human rights in 
     the areas they have occupied, and established a secessionist 
     government committed to eventual unification with Serbia.
       (14) The military and other support and direction provided 
     to Serbian-allied irregular forces in Bosnia and Herzegovina 
     constitutes an armed attack on the Government of Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina by the Government of Serbia within the meaning of 
     Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.
       (15) Under Article 51, the Government of Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina, as a member of the United Nations, has an 
     inherent right of individual or collective self-defense 
     against the armed attack from the Government of Serbia until 
     the United Nations Security Council has taken measures 
     necessary to maintain international peace and security.
       (16) The measures taken by the United Nations Security 
     Council in response to the armed attack on Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina have not been adequate to maintain international 
     peace and security.
       (17) Bosnia and Herzegovina has been unable successfully to 
     resist the armed attack from Serbia because it lacks the 
     means to counter heavy weaponry that Serbia obtained from the 
     Yugoslav National Army upon the dissolution of Yugoslavia, 
     and because the mandatory international arms embargo has 
     prevented Bosnia and Herzegovina from obtaining from other 
     countries the means to counter such heavy weaponry.
       (18) On December 18, 1992, with the affirmative vote of the 
     United States, the United Nations General Assembly adopted 
     Resolution 47/121, which urged the United Nations Security 
     Council to exempt Bosnia and Herzegovina from the mandatory 
     arms embargo imposed by Resolution 713.
       (19) In the absence of adequate measures to maintain 
     international peace and security, continued application to 
     the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina of the mandatory 
     international arms embargo imposed by the United Nations 
     Security Council prior to the armed attack on Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina undermines that government's right of individual 
     or collective self-defense and therefore contravenes Article 
     51 of the United Nations Charter.
       (20) Bosnia and Herzegovina's right of self-defense under 
     Article 51 of the United Nations Charter includes the right 
     to ask for military assistance from other countries and to 
     receive such assistance if offered.
       (b) Policy on Termination of Arms Embargo.--(1) The 
     President should terminate the United States arms embargo of 
     the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina upon receipt from 
     that government of a request for assistance in exercising its 
     right of self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations 
     Charter.
       (2) As used in this subsection, the term ``United States 
     arms embargo of the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina'' 
     means the application to the Government of Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina of--
       (A) the policy adopted July 10, 1991, and published in the 
     Federal Register of July 19, 1991 (58 Fed. Reg. 33322) under 
     the heading ``Suspension of Munitions Export Licenses to 
     Yugoslavia''; and
       (B) any similar policy being applied by the United States 
     Government as of the date of receipt of the request described 
     in subsection (a) pursuant to which approval is routinely 
     denied for transfers of defense articles and defense services 
     to the former Yugoslavia.
       (c) Policy on Military Assistance.--The President should 
     provide appropriate military assistance to the Government of 
     Bosnia and Herzegovina upon receipt from that government of a 
     request for assistance in exercising its right of self-
     defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.

  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I will just take a moment before my 
colleague from Wisconsin speaks. I would like to take a moment in 
support of the amendment and then defer to my colleagues.
  There are some who will not like this, and maybe some in the 
administration who do not.
  On my way back from China and Vietnam, I had 2 days of meetings in 
both Paris and London with the Defense Minister and those negotiating 
the question of Bosnia. I must say, I was struck by the decision that 
seems to have settled in in Europe that this is somehow something that 
they cannot really do anything about; that it does not necessarily 
represent a vital interest of any kind; and if it did amount to 
something, they would want to do something about it.
  What strikes me even more about this situation is that we have joined 
in the United Nations in a resolution that has fundamentally created a 
disequilibrium and that has denied a State that we recognize and that 
the United Nations has accepted for membership, denies that State their 
own access to the capacity to defend themselves.
  It is contrary not only to the charter of the United Nations itself, 
but I think it is contrary to any sense of fairness or common sense 
that someone might have.
  We should note that the Bosnians appear on the battlefield at this 
point to be doing quite well and to have proven that even 
notwithstanding this embargo they know how to defend themselves and are 
prepared to do so.
  Nevertheless, you cannot help but recognize that over the course of 
time the Serbs--particularly supported from the outside over this 
entire period of time--have had an extraordinary ability to work their 
will and to create a disequilibrium at the negotiating table, and in 
the process of trying to achieve a peace.
  If it is to be that Europeans and Americans decide that they do not 
have a dog in this fight or that they do not have any interest worth 
our being involved--and that may well be--they at least should not 
leave it to others to fight it out in an unfair situation created by 
our own policy.
  What we have done is restrain the ability of Moslems to address their 
own vital interests of national security and defense. And it has cost 
lives. There is no doubt about that.
  So I think the Senator from Kansas is absolutely correct. It is not 
too late to at least redress that imbalance. And if it is to be that 
this is going to be resolved by the parties, then let them resolve it 
on the basis of the Charter of the United Nations, the right to defend 
oneself, and let them resolve it without the United States of America 
joining with other countries in denying the ability to fairly be able 
to do that.
  That is not an ideal outcome. But nobody has suggested an outcome in 
this event that somehow is ideal and no one has suggested a way that 
anybody is willing to shed the blood. They are shedding the blood and 
they are doing it at remarkable disadvantage--at a disadvantage placed 
on them by us.
  That is not only unfair, it is absurd.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin.
  Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from Massachusetts. I rise to join 
as an original cosponsor of this resolution. As I do it, I am both 
pleased to be a part of it, and also saddened. I am pleased because, if 
I have ever seen anything that is long overdue, it is taking this 
action, lifting the arms embargo. I am saddened because there really 
was no reason at all why this could not have been done a year ago.
  I must say, the first resolution I ever introduced in the United 
States Senate was Senate Resolution 79 last March that called for 
lifting the arms embargo against Bosnia. At the time there did not seem 
to be much talk about that. There was a six-point plan the 
administration was talking about. There was a discussion of bombing. 
There was a discussion of sending 25,000 or 50,000 troops. People 
seemed unable to talk about just lifting the arms embargo in isolation, 
as if it was just a minor step, as if it would not do much good.
  The sad commentary is because we failed to act, there has been an 
unbelievable amount of unnecessary suffering on the part of the people 
of Bosnia in the past year. Even at the time when we were commemorating 
the Warsaw Ghetto tragedy and the opening of the Holocaust Museum--we 
all went to the ceremonies, the extremely moving ceremony in the 
Capitol Rotunda--everyone made the statement: ``Never again.''
  This was, in Bosnia, similar to what had happened in the Warsaw 
Ghetto; that just a few people in the Warsaw Ghetto, with just a few 
arms could defend themselves for an unbelievable length of time. But 
still no action was taken.
  I confess I was concerned that we should not act unilaterally, as 
this resolution has us do, because, after all, we had supported a 
Security Council resolution that called for this arms embargo to exist. 
As the Senator from New York pointed out, we created this situation. We 
put an arms embargo on all of the former Yugoslavia. The result was 
that the Serbians had all the arms, and the Bosnians had virtually 
none. And I was concerned that, somehow, it would be a breach of our 
commitment to the United Nations, and to the Security Council 
resolution if we voted to act unilaterally.
  That is why I am fortunate to serve on the Senate Foreign Relations 
Committee with the Senator from New York. Because he came into that 
committee a few months ago and he pointed out that even though there 
may be a Security Council resolution calling for an arms embargo, there 
is a higher law within the United Nations Charter. That is Article 51, 
which says the right of self defense is paramount for all member 
nations. Bosnia became a member nation in April 1992.
  That argument was persuasive to me, not only because it made sense 
but because it came from somebody who was president of the Security 
Council--awfully well-qualified to talk about the legal position. In 
the Foreign Relations Committee we did vote to lift the arms embargo.
  The President, as the Senator from Kansas pointed out, did indicate 
his support for lifting the arms embargo. He did seek that action but 
was blocked by some of our European partners in NATO, in particular, 
France and England. We were able to persuade them to allow us to drop 
the pallets of food and medicine but they blocked us from lifting the 
arms embargo.
  One of the misunderstandings people have about this situation is that 
somehow we will help solve the problem by dropping a few bombs or by 
sending American troops in there. They refuse to acknowledge the basic 
fact. There actually are far more Bosnian Moslems than Bosnian Serbs 
and that many of them are ready to fight. They just do not have the 
arms. That is why it is so sad that we have let a year go by without 
providing them with the basic opportunity to defend themselves.
  I think the most important thing that has been said on this issue so 
far has been said by the Senator from New York. To me it is really the 
first message of hope I have heard on this subject for many, many 
months; that is, that it is not too late.
  I confess I started feeling, after a few months, that we were not 
getting anywhere on this issue. You look at Sarajevo, you look at the 
tragedies, and you figure, ``What good will these arms do?'' It is easy 
to buy into that kind of an argument. It is easy to become fatalistic 
about this situation. But the Senator from New York is right. It is a 
terrible mistake to say it is too late. It is a terrible mistake to 
stand back and say this one is just too complicated for us, let us not 
get involved.
  The Senator from Massachusetts correctly points out that something 
has changed on the ground very recently in Bosnia. The Bosnian Moslems 
are making progress. They are making progress against some of the 
Serbian positions. And, it is even a little bit of a sad commentary--
they are making progress against the Croatian positions because, before 
this whole situation became completely messed up, there was some 
cooperation between the Croatian and Bosnian sides against the 
Serbians.
  Why is that progress being made, though? Why, all of a sudden, are 
the Bosnian Moslems able to move forward? My reading of this and the 
information I have is they have, despite the embargo now, been able to 
obtain some arms. And the result has been dramatic. It has been a 
reversal on the ground.
  Of course, what country is now crying out for a sudden peace 
settlement? What country is saying it is urgent? All of a sudden, 
France, the country that would not allow us to lift the arms embargo, 
is saying we have to stop this operation right away. Now that finally 
the Bosnians are gaining ground, now that finally they are able to move 
away from the humiliation of not being able to defend themselves 
because they are not even being given a gun to stand against an 
aggressor, they want action now.
  I will be the first to say no side in this controversy is without 
blame. All sides have committed atrocities. And the arguments you hear 
about which side has committed the worst atrocity at the worst time is 
open. The fact is, only one side has been almost completely disarmed 
and that is the Bosnian Moslem side.
  We were, a few minutes ago, beginning to debate the question of 
whether various countries should be admitted to NATO. That is a very 
important question. But what that question raises is not whether a 
country can defend itself, but whether we will commit our own troops 
and our own Armed Forces to defend another country?
  Of course, Poland and the Czech Republic and other countries have a 
strong right to ask that question. And we need to respond. But what 
about Bosnia? They are not asking us to be a part of NATO. They are 
just asking us for the basic human right to defend themselves. And we 
hem and haw. And we fail to correct the error that we made by putting 
the arms embargo into effect.
  I know there are others who want to speak but let me just conclude by 
reading a quote from Bosnia's Prime Minister, Haris Silajdzic. A few 
months ago this gentleman had some of the most important comments on 
this issue. He was not the Prime Minister then. He is now the Prime 
Minister. And he still has some of the strongest things to say about 
this issue. What Mr. Silajdzic says now is not that the Bosnians are 
desperately losing and need the arms, but that they are making progress 
and need the help. He says:

       As soon as we begin to defend ourselves, it's as if they're 
     saying, ``How dare you? You, a helpless victim? A victim over 
     which we can cry, quote principles, have conferences and pass 
     resolutions, and mention in our campaigns?''
       The civilized world not only stayed away, in a flagrant 
     breach of the United Nations charter, but they have also 
     prevented us from defending ourselves by refusing to lift the 
     United Nations arms embargo.

  Mr. Silajdzic concludes by saying:

       We want one of two things from the West. Either defend us, 
     or let us defend ourselves.

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

  Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, first let me commend the Republican leader 
for this amendment. It is a very important amendment. I believe it 
speaks the majority sentiment of this body--maybe unanimous--but surely 
the majority of this body that at least we should allow the Bosnians to 
defend themselves. It is one thing not to come to their assistance 
militarily as the capital, Sarajevo, is being pounded day after day, 
week after week, month after month, year after year. The siege goes on 
of a capital of a European country recognized by all of us, a member of 
the United Nations, a capital under siege being pounded by Serbian 
artillery.
  It is bad enough that the world does not come to the military aid of 
that country, but it is absolutely shameful that we will not let them 
defend themselves. I find that to be the totally unacceptable response 
to this tragic situation.
  We had a visit a couple months ago here in Washington by a newspaper 
publisher in Sarajevo, a newspaper called the Liberator. His name is 
Kemal Kurspahic. This brave man has published a paper for the last 2 
years while that capital has been under siege. His staff is 
multiethnic. There are Moslems on his staff; there are Serbs on his 
staff; there are Croatians on his staff, day after day being able to 
get out a paper reflecting the diversity of that capital under those 
circumstances. They are living proof not just of the bravery of people 
in the newspaper business under extreme difficult conditions, they are 
living proof of the fact that Sarajevo is a multiethnic capital.
  This is not just a case of one ethnic group fighting and slaughtering 
another. This is a capital which is diverse. It is made up of people of 
all races and ethnic backgrounds that are together trying to hold off 
and stave off the end of their country. Surely--surely--in the name of 
human decency, at a minimum, we can permit them to defend themselves. 
Surely if this world is not yet strong enough and, in my book, wise 
enough to come to the defense of a country which is the subject of such 
obvious aggression, if we are not yet in a position to do that, 
morality, common sense, decency requires us to allow them to defend 
themselves. For us to tell them that we will not even permit them to 
defend themselves against this aggression, it seems to me, is nothing 
less than shameful.
  We have to end this embargo. I think we should do more, and I always 
felt we should do more, but we have been divided on that. I understand 
the complication of even air strikes. Although I favor them, I 
nonetheless understand the arguments against. But for the life of me, I 
do not understand how we can impose an embargo that affects but one of 
the three parties that are involved in this war. That, to me, is 
unacceptable. That is what would be ended if this resolution is adopted 
and the administration pursues the recommendation of this resolution.
  I am proud to be a cosponsor of the amendment of the Senator from 
Kansas. He has been a fighter in the effort to at least let the 
Bosnians defend themselves. The people of Sarajevo and the other cities 
inside Bosnia have that basic human right. It is supposed to have been 
guaranteed to them under the U.N. Charter at a minimum. For heaven's 
sake, let us allow them to fight for their own survival and their own 
freedom. I yield the floor.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.


                      ending the murder in bosnia

  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, while the Senate has been out of 
session these past 2 months, we have witnessed the enormous power of 
nature and seen the death and disaster which can occur because of 
forces beyond the control of men. Each of us was touched in some way by 
the devastation of the earthquake in California or by the unrelenting 
bitter cold and ice of the winter storms which have struck the Midwest 
and East. I have great sympathy for all of our citizens who suffered 
from these natural disasters and I hope that we will be expeditious in 
our consideration of relief measures particularly for the California 
earthquake victims.
  But, Mr. President, these events pale in comparison to the death and 
destruction we have seen in these past years, months and even days, 
brought about not by the hand of God, but by the destructive and 
purposeful evil of one man's hand turned against another. Who among us 
was not heartsickened and outraged by the report from Sarajevo this 
weekend of the deaths of Jasmina and Indira Brkovic, Nermin Rizvanovic, 
Merza Dedovic, Admir Subasic, and another whose name I do not know? 
Were these soldiers who died fighting on a battlefield in what was once 
the civilized land of Yugoslavia? Were this true, we might be saddened 
at the continued loss of life and perplexed by the inability of the 
world community to end this senseless slaughter. But these were not 
soldiers. They were not even adults. These were children: Jasmina was 
5, Merza was 8, Admir was 9, Indira was 11, and Nermin was the eldest 
at 12. What was the crime that these children were guilty of? What was 
it that brought them to their deaths before any of them even reached 
their teenage years? They were sledding in the fresh fallen snow 
outside their apartment building in Sarajevo. They were sledding when 
four mortar shells--perhaps from the Serbian artillery which overlooks 
Sarajevo and often fires into residential areas of that once beautiful 
city--landed in their midst.
  I have a daughter who is the same age as some of these children. She 
and I took advantage of the fallen snow in Connecticut during the 
congressional recess and played together, of course without fear. Why 
should mothers and fathers in Sarajevo, or anywhere in the former 
Yugoslavia, have to worry that if their children play in the snow, they 
could be blown to bits by shrapnel from a well-aimed or totally unaimed 
mortar round?
  I have spoken on the war in Bosnia before in this Chamber, but never 
have I been more outraged than I am today. This is not the time for 
more hand-wringing and finger-pointing. Now is the time for America to 
act like the great and moral power that we are. We must stop making 
empty threats which only seem to amuse the criminals who authorize 
these shellings; we must act to end the slaughter. No more children can 
be allowed to lose their lives in Sarajevo while the world stands idly 
by. In the name of all that is decent and right let us act now to end 
the murder of innocents.
  But how do we do that? What is there that we can do after so much 
blood has been shed to restore a modicum of sanity and humanity to this 
devastated land? A few weeks ago, I joined Senator DeConcini, former 
Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci, Ambassadors Max Kampelman and 
Jeane Kirkpatrick, Representatives Susan Molinari and Frank McCloskey, 
former Carter administration official Hodding Carter, and Morton 
Abramowitz, Lane Kirkland, and Aryeh Neier in calling on President 
Clinton to lead NATO in resolving the unfinished business of peace in 
the Balkans. The proposals we made were entitled ``Bosnia First'' for 
they attempt to restore a meaningful division of responsibility for 
Bosnia and the Balkans. Based on the fundamental principles of the 
Atlantic Charter, the United Nations Charter, and the Helsinki Final 
Act, ``Bosnia First'' calls for NATO to focus its considerable 
resources on saving civilian lives by ensuring that humanitarian relief 
is actually delivered, stopping war crimes, and preventing a wider 
Balkan war. It also asserts the right and demands the restoration of 
the ability of the Bosnian people to defend themselves.
  Our proposals do not call for the deployment of United States troops 
to Bosnia. But we do call for the United States and the world community 
to stand up for what is right and to exercise the same moral courage 
which our soldiers would show if they were ordered to Bosnia. First, 
the United States should invoke the United Nations Genocide Convention 
and support the International War Crimes Tribunal. Those who authorize 
the use of artillery against civilians and those who aim and fire such 
artillery as they did again this weekend merit condemnation as 
criminals. The International War Crimes Tribunal is the right first 
step to bring these people to international justice. Second, we call 
for the end of the arms embargo against Bosnia. We can no longer assert 
that the killing will end while one side has no legitimate access to 
the means of their own defense. Third, we must provide the legitimate 
Government of Bosnia the means to deliver humanitarian supplies and 
vital services to its own people. It is time to recognize that the U.N. 
effort to deliver humanitarian supplies is insufficient. Too little of 
the aid destined for the suffering in Bosnia actually gets to those for 
whom it was intended. The United Nations forces which are on the ground 
in Bosnia are too few in number, too lightly armed, and too restricted 
by their rules of engagement to effectively deliver aid when faced with 
hostile forces trying to prevent these deliveries or, worse, to divert 
them from their intended destinations. In assisting the Bosnian 
Government, air forces of willing NATO member states, including the 
United States, should be used as necessary to protect convey routes and 
aid corridors, to break roadblocks and sieges, and to prevent 
interference with the U.N.-Bosnian transfer of responsibility for 
delivery assistance.
  Mr. President, we must at long last stand up to those who kill 
children in Sarajevo, who would commit genocide in Bosnia, and who 
ignore the cries of the civilized world for an end to this madness. It 
is time for us to say ``Enough!'' I ask my colleagues to join me today 
in telling the President of Serbia: ``Mr. Milosevic, stop the 
slaughter!'' If Milosevic turns a deaf ear to us as he has done in the 
past, then the leaders of the United Nations and NATO must act 
decisively and expeditiously to do it for him.
  In summary, Mr. President, the State Department authorization bill, 
which the Senate is currently considering, has become every year that I 
have been in the Senate not just an authorization bill for the State 
Department, but an opportunity for Members of the Senate to speak out 
in various ways on pressing foreign policy problems and issues. I must 
say in that regard that it would have been irresponsible of the Members 
of this Chamber not to use this occasion to make some statement of 
concern, of anger, and hopefully of action in regard to what is 
happening in the former Yugoslavia. That is why I am grateful to the 
Senate Republican leader, the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole], for 
initiating this amendment and why I am proud to be one of the original 
cosponsors of the amendment.
  Mr. President, this Senator has spoken out in the past on the floor 
of the Senate about what has been happening in Bosnia--about the war in 
Bosnia. The situation there continues to be, not just in gross 
geopolitical terms but in direct palpable human terms, one of the most 
painful and perplexing experiences that has occurred in the world since 
I have come of age.
  I cannot help but view it as a continuing and terrible failure of 
diplomacy and statecraft, and a failure of will, a failure of the 
civilized world to take action to stop the aggression, to stop what has 
been a genocide against the people because of their religion--namely, 
that they are Moslems--to stop the slaughter of innocent human beings. 
There are those who say that this is too complicated a situation for us 
to enter in any meaningful way. It is, of course, a complicated 
situation, but our failure to enter it at least within the terms of 
this amendment, which is to give the Bosnian Moslems the right to 
defend themselves, would, in my opinion, not only be irresponsible but 
immoral. It would at this moment in history, as the cold war ends and 
the former organizing principals of the world fall by the wayside, be 
an invitation to further extreme violence among ethnic groups in what 
was the Soviet Union.
  Mr. President, there are those who say what is happening in Bosnia is 
just a continuation of centuries of ethnic conflict. But as the Senator 
from Michigan, who has spoken before me, has said, the conflicts may 
have come and gone over the years but the memory of many in the modern 
period has been of what was recently Bosnia as a multicultural society 
in which the various groups actually lived quite well together.
  Perhaps one of the most painful and yet graphically illustrative 
tragedies in Bosnia in recent times was the picture of that elderly 
woman lying dead in the streets of Sarajevo, three people walking by 
almost looking casually at her body because the appearance of corpses 
in the streets of Sarajevo and other Bosnian cities is commonplace.
  Then the story that followed: This was a Serbian woman who lived in 
Sarajevo and who had gone to try to pass a message to a granddaughter 
over the line, beyond this predominantly Moslem city of Sarajevo. She 
was hit by Serbian fire. All the complexity, all the irony, all the 
futility of the conflict and all the inaccuracy of the claim that this 
is just a continuation of centuries old violence seen in the tragic 
death of this Serbian woman falling at the hands of Serbian fire in the 
city of Sarajevo.
  Mr. President, on every occasion of this awful story, when the United 
States or the Western World has seemed to be ready to act with force to 
stop the Serbian aggression, to stop the ethnic cleansing, the Serbs 
have hesitated, have pulled back, have begun to cooperate and yet, on 
every occasion, when the Western World--or the United States, in 
particular--has backed down from that forceful action, the Serbian 
aggression has begun again and the Moslems have been the major victims 
of that lack of will in the world community to press forward in some 
minimal way to come to their aid to allow them to negotiate a more 
reasonable end to this conflict.
  Mr. President, a few weeks ago I was privileged to join with a 
bipartisan group, including our colleague, Dennis DeConcini; former 
Secretary of Defense during the Reagan administration, Frank Carlucci; 
Ambassadors Max Kampelman and Jeane Kirkpatrick; Congresswoman Susan 
Molinari; Congressman Frank McCloskey; Hodding Carter and Morton 
Abramowitz, Lane Kirkland, and Aryeh Neier in a group called Action 
Council for Peace in the Balkans, which called on President Clinton to 
lead NATO in resolving the unfinished business of peace in that 
troubled region of Europe.
  The proposals we made were entitled ``Bosnia First,'' for they 
attempt to restore a meaningful division of responsibility for Bosnia 
and the Balkans. Based on the fundamental principles of the Atlantic 
Charter, the United Nations Charter, and the Helsinki Final Act, 
``Bosnia First'' calls on NATO to focus its considerable resources on 
saving civilian lives by ensuring that humanitarian relief is actually 
delivered, stopping war crimes, and preventing a wider Balkan war. It 
also asserts--and I say that particularly in support of this amendment 
which the distinguished Senate Republican leader has taken the 
leadership in introducing--the right and it demands the restoration of 
the ability of the Bosnian people to defend themselves.
  The proposals of this group went well beyond that right of self-
defense to asking the United States to invoke the United Nations 
Genocide Commission and support the International War Crimes Tribunal, 
to actually involve air forces of willing NATO member states including 
the United States, as necessary, to protect convoy routes and aid 
corridors, to break roadblocks and sieges, and to prevent interference 
with the United Nations-Bosnia transfer of responsibility for 
delivering assistance.
  But today with this amendment we have the opportunity to fulfill a 
minimal moral obligation and not only an opportunity to carry out a 
strategic responsibility, which is to try to bring an end to a conflict 
in Europe before it spreads wider and involves Europe and perhaps the 
rest of us in fighting that we will regret. Twice in this century we 
have turned our back on conflicts in Europe only to be drawn in later 
at a much larger price in blood and resources.
  Mr. President, this amendment recognizes the right of self-defense of 
the people of Bosnia under article 51 of the U.N. Charter. It asks and 
urges the President to terminate the United States embargo on the 
Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina upon receipt from that Government 
of a request for assistance in exercising its right of self-defense 
under article 51 of the U.N. Charter. It encourages the President to 
provide appropriate military assistance to the Government of Bosnia and 
Herzegovina upon receipt from that Government of a request for such 
assistance; namely, in the form of arms.
  Mr. President, once again we have an opportunity to do something 
meaningful, to do more than wring our hands and look at the dreadful 
stories of this weekend--as the Senate Republican leader remarked, this 
terrible story of these five or six children playing in the snow, 
sleigh riding, in Sarajevo, killed by mortar shells. This is an 
opportunity to do something that can affect the balance of military 
action and the imbalance in moral action in the former Yugoslavia.
  I thank the Senate Republican leader for taking the lead on this. 
Again, I am proud to be a cosponsor. I hope that we will have a 
rollcall vote on this because it seems to me we have spoken on other 
amendments here by way of rollcall. This is so pressing and profound an 
issue that I hate it to go by with just silent assent. I think we all 
ought to stand up and vote and send this message to our administration 
and also, send a small message of hope to the people in Bosnia.
  I thank the Chair and I yield the floor.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas, the minority leader.


                    amendment no. 1281, as modified

  Mr. DOLE. I send a modification of the amendment to the desk. I said 
in my statement it was a sense-of-the-Senate resolution, and that does 
not appear in the appropriate place in the amendment, so I send a 
modification to the desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has the right to modify his own 
amendment, and the amendment is so modified.
  The modification is as follows:
       On page 6, line 7, after ``1)'' insert ``It is the sense of 
     the Senate that''

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, could I ask for the yeas and nays on the 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  I withhold.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lieberman). If the Senator will withhold, 
the Chair recognizes the Senator from Nevada [Mr. Reid].
  Mr. REID. I thank the Chair. I also extend my congratulations to the 
Republican leader for offering this amendment.
  Mr. President, about a year ago, the Democrats had a retreat in 
Virginia. At the retreat there was a long debate on what should be done 
in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The discussion included whether there should 
be bombings, led by American planes. That discussion ended by saying 
perhaps, maybe. The discussion of sending American troops was a 
resounding no, and the discussion on arms for Bosnia was also a no.
  Now, during the past 10 or 11 months, I have stood by the belief that 
the United States should not be involved in exporting arms to other 
countries. We should in fact try to help other countries through other 
means. Economic aid certainly is appropriate in many instances. But 
rarely have I believed that there is a need for the United States to 
export arms to another country.
  In fact, I can remember very clearly appearing before a large group 
of Pakistani physicians. There are about 3,000 or more of them in the 
United States. Under some very intense questioning I stated to those 
assembled physicians that I did not believe it was appropriate to send 
arms to the people in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
  Now, during the period of time that has transpired since the debate, 
the discussion in Virginia at the Democratic conference, a lot has 
taken place. About 70 percent of the territory of Bosnia and 
Herzegovina has been overrun by the Serbs. There is rarely a day goes 
by that we do not see depicted on television, and in the newspapers, 
the terrible tragedies that are taking place there.
  Mr. President, even I have had enough. Even I can take no more. I 
think the time has come, where one of those rare opportunities has 
presented itself to this Congress that we have to say to the rest of 
the world that we, the most powerful nation in the world, are not going 
to send troops to Bosnia and Herzegovina. I do not personally believe 
that we should do bombing, but should we not at least allow those 
people to have some type of weapons to defend themselves?
  I say again, Mr. President, even I, who rarely believes we should 
export arms, believe the time has come we should do away with all of 
the niceties and do what the United Nations articles call for.
  Article 51 of the United Nations Charter says that a country has an 
inherent right of self-defense. This does not mean that we are saying 
that Bosnia is going to overrun Europe. We are saying that these men 
and women and children should be defended. By whom? By the Bosnians and 
Herzegovinans, by the Moslems who are in control of that part of the 
world, what little part remains to them, the 30 percent of their 
previous country.
  So I say that the United States should provide appropriate military 
assistance to the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina upon receipt 
from them, which I am sure will come very quickly, of a request for 
assistance to exercise their right for self-defense. The time has come. 
We can wait no longer.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I am advised that Senator Lugar is on the 
way to the Chamber and wishes to speak on the amendment. I suggest the 
absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, is time under control of anyone?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is no time control at this time.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will not take much time. I rise in 
support of and as a cosponsor of the Dole amendment on Bosnia.
  Mr. President, I expect this body might be tired of hearing me speak 
so many times on this issue.
  Mr. President, the distinguished chairman of the Finance Committee, 
and genuinely an expert on foreign policy, no one knows more about its 
impact on international events and domestic events in other countries 
than the Senator from New York, chairman of the Finance Committee, who 
has already spoken. And he asked a number of questions: Does this mean 
the war will spread? He asked four questions. I will presumptuously 
answer them all. The answer is yes, yes, yes, yes.
  There is nothing good that comes from our continued inaction and 
paralysis, nothing good for the United States, nothing good for world 
peace.
  I stood on this floor about a year ago, asking for the embargo to be 
lifted. I stood on this floor 8 months ago, 6 months ago, 4 months ago, 
asking for the embargo to be lifted.
  I also might tell you very bluntly that I think we should also be 
using air power. I think we should have been using it a year ago, a 
year and a half ago. And each time I heard the same argument that I am 
hearing today when I hear arguments against this proposition; too late, 
does not work, beyond our control. That was wrong then, wrong 18 months 
ago, wrong 12 months ago, wrong 8 months ago, wrong 6 months ago, wrong 
4 months ago, and is wrong now.
  Mr. President, last April, after traveling to Bosnia, to Sarajevo, to 
Tuzla, to Croatia, to Serbia, I submitted a report to the Foreign 
Relations Committee in which I called on the administration to seek the 
lifting of the arms embargo and to use military power against Serbian 
military targets.
  What was said then was true then. What was predicted then has 
occurred now. And what has not occurred, yet that is predicted in this 
report, I will bet my political career on, will occur.
  Our failure as a nation to exert leadership over the Western 
alliance, to deal with the situation in Bosnia has resulted in an 
exacerbation of the crisis and has undermined the identity and the 
rationale for NATO, has diminished the possibility of prospects for the 
United Nations taking on a new role in a new world order to bring about 
a change in world politics for the next two decades, if not the next 
two generations.
  All we are asking here is for a simple, simple proposition. How in 
God's name can we argue against lifting the embargo? For God's sake. We 
put the embargo on in the name of diminishing bloodshed. Do I need to 
make the point any more than to submit for the Record the total number 
of casualties that have occurred in Bosnia and Herzegovina since we put 
the embargo on? What in the devil could have happened more? Perversely, 
the British and French have argued that if we lift the embargo we are 
going to perpetuate the bloodshed. They are idiots. And we are acting 
collectively as a free world like cowards.
  We stood on the floor 18 months ago, I said in this report several 
months ago, and a lot of times in between, and said Yugoslav forces are 
fighting in Bosnia, sent across the Drina River by Milosevic, against 
the Bosnian Government.
  At one point Milosevic even acknowledged that he was doing it when 
the United States put pressure on that they might lift and strike--lift 
the embargo and use air strikes. He even went so far as to say he would 
allow international observers to stand on every bridge along the Drina 
River to check cargo going across, whether or not fuel, ammunition, or 
troops were being sent. Everybody said this is progress. The man wants 
peace. The moment after we withdrew the pressure, he withdrew the 
offer.
  This guy is a thug, a war criminal. What is going on is an atrocity 
that rivals, not in its scope, but rivals in its intensity the 
atrocities that took place in Central Europe in the 1930's.
  Mr. President, it is truly a shame what we are allowing to happen. It 
is absolutely an outrage. I remember standing on this floor over the 
last year arguing with my good friends, particularly on the Republican 
side, about the use of air power. They said it would not be wise and it 
could not be used. Then they said it does have efficacy. It can work to 
knock out the heavy artillery sitting up in the mountains around 
Sarajevo, where in the summer the Serbs, irregulars and regulars, sip 
their wine, eat their cheese, and drop in one big Howitzer shell after 
another, randomly firing at populations of children, elderly, women, 
hospitals, drinking fountains, and water resource centers.
  I stood there in the streets of Sarajevo in a flak jacket and a 
helmet being told to walk out of the way because 3 days earlier, at the 
water distribution center, 17 women and children had been blown to bits 
by a shell, and it had only just begun.
  (Mr. LIEBERMAN assumed the chair.)
  Mr. BIDEN. I feel so strongly about this issue and, to tell you the 
truth, some of my political advisers tell me not to speak to it, 
because I say things they say will be imprudent about us as a nation, 
about our allies, and about the legacy we are going to leave for my 
son's and daughter's generation. Mark my words. I will not be around 
here, so it is easy to say it because I will be gone.
  Twenty years from now, they will be debating on the floor of the 
Senate about a similar situation occurring, and they will ask the same 
question that John Kerry's and Joe Biden's generation asked of our 
fathers' generation: How could guys like Vandenberg and others have 
stood on the floor of the Senate in the thirties, knowing what was 
going on in Central Europe, and have done nothing? How could they do 
that? They will teach it in school, just like they taught our 
generation, just like these young pages learn in their history books 
about world war.
  Everybody who looks at that era today is incredulous about how could 
we have not known? How could we have not acted? How could it have been? 
It is so clear. I never understood it until this issue came up. I now 
understand it. The American people, back then, did not want to be 
involved unless you could paint for them a scenario where there was no 
cost, period, no cost. And no Senator, or sufficient group of Senators, 
or Congresspersons, wanted to stand up and talk to the American people 
about the fact that Americans would lose their lives.
  You young pages know about this in your history books. Had we acted 
when Hitler began to mobilize and started flying those glider airplanes 
and practicing back in 1934, 1935, and 1936, had we acted when he did, 
we would have been able to save the world. The truth is, had we acted 
then, Americans would have died. Granted, probably one one-hundredth as 
many, or one one-thousandth would have died as in World War II. Had we 
acted then, Frenchmen would have died, Englishmen would have died. 
People would have been killed--a small number--stopping Hitler in the 
1930's.
  When it became clear to the people who knew better in the world that 
Hitler was running concentration camps in the late thirties, we could 
have stopped it. There still would have been maybe 800,000 Jews that 
had died. There would have been Americans that would have died in 
larger numbers than would have occurred in 1934 had we acted. But they 
would have died. Had we acted 2 years ago on this issue, it is possible 
a couple of Americans, literally a handful, may have died, which is an 
important thing; I do not take it lightly. Had we acted a year ago, 
maybe two dozen Americans would have died. If we act now--and the 
Senate is not even asking what I am asking. Were we to act, more than a 
handful will die. It is a harder problem, more intractable now.
  But I want to tell you that I believe with every fiber in my being 
that if we do not at least let what is left of the Bosnian Government, 
which admittedly now is almost all Moslem--and, by the way, when I 
stood on the floor a year ago with the Senator from Arizona and the 
Senator from Massachusetts, it really was a multiethnic government. The 
Bosnian army was made up of about 18 percent Bosnian Croats. It was 
made up of about 22 percent Serbian, if I am not mistaken--Bosnians of 
Serbian extraction--and the rest were Moslem. It really was a 
multiethnic government and army. It is not now. People say, you know, 
everybody is an equal malfeasor over there.
  I try to explain to people, and I am going to say it here for the 
record, that the Vance-Owen peace plan was an atrocity for a simple 
reason: We sent this signal to every ethnic group in Bosnia and the 
surrounding areas: Here is what we are going to do, folks. We, the 
world, are going to carve up this nation into ethnic enclaves, and the 
way we know that is going to end up--whether this piece of real estate 
is Serbian and this piece of real estate is Moslem, and this piece of 
real estate is Croatian--depends on --it is like musical chairs, where 
you are standing when the music stops is what you control.
  The reason I bother to point that out is, you know why the Serbs and 
Croats and Moslems started going after one another 8 months ago in 
earnest? Because they knew the world was walking away. They have been 
moved out. All the Croats were moved out of this area by the Serbs, but 
you had Moslems that filtered into that area. At some point along the 
way, the world is going to stop the music here. And they knew if we do 
not have a place in which to stand, it is going to be given to whoever 
is standing there. So as a Croat in Bosnia, it is easier to move out a 
Moslem than it is a Serb, because the Serbs are being backed up by the 
Yugoslav Army, funded by, equipped by the Serbian Government.
  So you had Serbs in Bosnia, former allies of the Moslems in Bosnia 
moving the Moslems. They turned against the Croats. For what reason? 
They knew that nothing is left for them, and the one force that is the 
perpetrator of the problem--the Serbs--was too big to move. Then guess 
what happened? Everybody, including me, underestimated the absolute 
tenacity of the Bosnian forces and the Bosnian people in Sarajevo and 
other cities, after the merciless pounding they had suffered. The only 
analogy I can think of is what happened to the Brits during the blitz. 
They got tougher during the blitz. They did not crack. They got 
fortified. Guess what happened then? Now the Moslems, unequipped, ill-
equipped, with the whole world letting them go, they are starting to 
make some gains.
  Guess what happens then? There used to be a song when I was a kid 
with the refrain and it said, ``And then along came Jones.'' The 
Moslems, with sticks and single-shot rifles, come along and they 
started to beat these Serbs. They start to make gains. Guess what 
happens? In comes the Serbian army again. Read the headlines in the 
paper. Milosevic crosses the Drina again.
  What do we do? We keep the embargo on. Why do we keep the embargo on? 
Well, we keep the embargo on because we do not want to offend our 
European allies. I say to our European allies, so what? So what?
  What the devil use is NATO? And I have been an absolute ardent, 
consistent, vehement supporter of NATO for its military as well as its 
political and economic reasons for 21 years in the United States 
Senate. But if it cannot affect the carnage in the middle of Europe, 
what do we need it for? The Russians?
  So the answer, we do not want to offend our NATO allies, I say the 
hell with them. I said that before. They got angry with it. I say it 
again. What is the other rationale for not lifting the embargo? We will 
spread the carnage.
  As the foreign minister of Bosnia said to me, a guy named Silajdzic, 
now the prime minister, I asked a bunch of Senators to come in 8 months 
ago when I tried to convince some of you--I did not have to convince my 
friend from Arizona because he convinced me --convince others to change 
their view on what we should do. One of my colleagues came in the 
conference room. There were 10 or 12 of us. I think the Senator from 
Arizona was there. Silajdzic was there. One of them said: If we lift 
the embargo, you will start getting sophisticated weapons and other 
things. First of all, you do not know how to use them. Silajdzic 
pointed out there has been universal conscripts in that area of the 
country for the last 20 years. It did not seem anybody knew.
  By the way, you notice even our military guys are saying these guys 
are pretty good. They know how to use the equipment.
  The Senator then said: ``If in fact we lift the embargo, we are just 
going to cause more people to be killed.''
  I will never forget Silajdzic's answer to that particular Senator. He 
looked that Senator square in the eye, and he said: ``Senator, my 
children, my family, literally and figuratively in a national sense is 
being killed and maimed now. At least give me the dignity to choose to 
die the way I want to die. And, Senator, even if you are right, I would 
rather die fighting than die sitting.''
  Let us let them die their own way, if we do not have the courage to 
help them live. Let them choose. Who are we to sit here and say, oh, my 
God, we are not going to let you have weapons, even though the other 
side has weapons, because if you have weapons more people will die. It 
is a bizarre argument that has an incredible, to me, resonance in this 
town and in the capitals of Europe.
  I promised myself I would not let myself get upset about this because 
I know what is going to happen here. So let me stop and conclude with 
the sentence saying we are all going to be judged by this. You will not 
be judged now. Your constituency will like it better probably if you 
vote against Dole, Biden, DeConcini, and others who share this view or 
who have shared this view for a long time. They will like you better 
because they are going to be less involved.
  So, this is not a tough political vote. You are not going to pay any 
political price. And even if you vote for this you are not going to pay 
much of a political price because we are not going to have the courage 
to really do anything in the end, probably. But I will make you a bet. 
I will make you a bet. Four years, 6 years, 8 years, 10 years down the 
road, if we cross paths outside this body, and you are honest, you will 
acknowledge this is a vote you regretted.
  Now, that is easy for me to say because of my position. And I thought 
I had the President convinced when I came back and wrote this report. I 
went down to the White House, gave it to him. I sat with him and with 
the Secretary of State. He came out and called for a policy of lift and 
strike which I proposed in this legislation. I thought I had actually, 
one of the few times in my career in the Senate, actually affected 
events. The truth of the matter is if he stuck with what I and others 
proposed, maybe it would be worse for the United States of America. Who 
knows? I may be wrong.
  It is easy for me to sit here and say what I just said. But I will 
promise you 10 years from now if we continue to do nothing and you were 
part of not putting pressure on the administration to do something at 
least to lift the embargo, it will be a vote that the pages sitting on 
that step 10 years from now will question. You will not go down to them 
and say, ``You know, 10 years ago when I was a junior Senator, or a 
younger Senator, I cast a vote on this floor against lifting the 
embargo in a place called Bosnia.'' They will look at you and say: 
``You mean that place where the larger war broke out back there when 
all those people died and were killed?''
  Let us at least have the decency to paraphrase the foreign minister 
of Bosnia. Let them choose the way they want to die. At least let them 
have that right. Let us lift the embargo.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Moseley-Braun). The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KERRY addressed the Chair.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, I am glad to yield to the Senator 
from Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that after the 
Senator from Arizona speaks for a period of 5 minutes or 7 minutes----
  Mr. DeCONCINI. I will not be long.
  Mr. KERRY. For a period not to exceed 7 minutes.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Do not limit me. I guarantee the Senator I will not be 
long.
  Mr. KERRY. How long does the Senator from Washington want to speak to 
this amendment?
  Mr. GORTON. I wish to speak, but only briefly.
  Mr. KERRY. Does the Senator have a time limit? We would like to try 
to get an agreement if we can.
  Mr. GORTON. This Senator will not speak for longer than 5 minutes.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that after the 
Senator from Arizona has spoken and the Senator from Washington has 
spoken, we proceed immediately to a vote on the amendment of Senator 
Dole with no intervening business and no second-degree amendment 
allowed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, let me assure the Senator from 
Massachusetts I am not going to speak 5 or 7 minutes. I did not want to 
be restricted.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be added as an 
original cosponsor of the pending amendment by the Senator from Kansas.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, the Senator from Delaware has been a 
leading advocate of lifting the embargo and taking demonstrative 
military action. He has been out there in front on this issue for more 
than a year since the beginning of this conflict some 2\1/2\ years ago.
  I have joined him. I have been to Bosnia, to Sarajevo, Macedonia, to 
Kosovo, to Croatia, to Yugoslavia, to the surrounding countries four 
times now, and all I can say is, it is a tragedy what is happening and 
something that the United States and the people here, as the Senator 
from Delaware has so articulated, will regret as history goes along for 
not taking some action.
  I do not blame anybody, per se, except the fact that the people of 
this country have not really seen it. When I say that they see bits and 
pieces of it, they read a story in the Washington Post or perhaps the 
Arizona Republic, of a family that lost its home, all of the three 
generations of the family, and they hear some reports on national 
broadcasting networks, indicating the severity of the problem, the 
tragedy, the blood, the deaths, and they hear statements now and then 
from political leaders of various countries, Serbia, Bosnia and 
Herzegovina, Croatia and hear Vance-Owen, and wonder what that is, and 
see the United States make an earnest attempt but failed.
  I have to say I think we could do more. I am not saying that we could 
convince our allies, but I wish we would have the courage to devote our 
time to both the President, the Secretary of State, and other members 
of the Cabinet as well as Members in this body, to go to our allies as 
we do when we need something like NAFTA; go to the allies in our 
country and other countries to explain it to them to get their support; 
go to the political leaders in this country to get their support.
  Truly, what has happened there is genocide in the first order, 
something that no one is going to question who has followed it at all 
or reads about it. It is always the qualm that is put before us, the 
dilemma, that some say do we want to involve American forces, whether 
it is on the air, on the land or the sea?
  Do Americans want to fight a war that is between ethnic groups, 
religious groups, within the former Yugoslovia? Well, the answer is no, 
we do not want to fight a war.
  But if you understand and if you know what is happening there, like 
we did not want to fight the war in the Second World War, I truly 
believe the American public will come forward.
  That has not happened. And I am not here naive enough to think the 
fine speech the Senator from Delaware has made and others on the 
subject matter that that is going to change. I do not think it is.
  So we are confronted here with kind of a lukewarm, leftover soup, I 
guess you would say. Sometimes that can be very healthy. If you are 
sick and your mother makes it for you or some loved one makes it for 
you, you feel pretty good, even if it is leftover or canned soup. And I 
say that in no criticism of the Senator from Kansas who offers this 
amendment, because he, too, has been out there forcefully advocating 
military action.
  He has asked the Senate, he has asked this body, to stand up and say 
the arms embargo should be lifted. It is a sense of the Senate. It is 
not binding. It does not unilaterally commit the United States or NATO 
or the EC or the United Nations to a military action. It does not 
require the United States to do anything.
  So I make reference to it as somewhat warmed over only because to me 
it is all we have. It is all we have before us that could at least 
demonstrate, hopefully, the majority and the will of this body that, 
yes, the people of this country, through their elected representatives, 
are willing to let the people of Bosnia and Herzegovina defend 
themselves.
  Under article 51 of the United Nations, of which Bosnia and 
Herzegovina are members equal to any other member of that body, as 
members of the United Nations they have the right to protect 
themselves. And how the United States can support an arms embargo that 
prohibits them, as the Senator from Delaware pointed out better than I 
can, to at least die with dignity, if that is their choice, is beyond 
me.
  I am saddened, and I somewhat put it out of my mind time and time 
again because I just cannot believe that this great Nation of ours that 
has stood for human rights, that has stood up--this administration is 
standing up now with courage toward North Korea--that has demonstrated 
our ability to go after Saddam Hussein when he invaded another country, 
that has peacekeepers almost all over the world, that we have not 
shrunk into an isolation mentality here--although some will support 
that I suppose--that we have not taken a forceful, demanding position 
in the United Nations and internationally to lift the arms embargo that 
prevents the Bosnian people from defending themselves.
  There is no explanation. There is no explanation. I think any 
American needs can be satisfied.
  The argument that this is going to involve us in some kind of a land 
war is not true. The argument, as the Senator from Delaware pointed 
out, that Foreign Minister Silajdzic answered the Senator about being 
able to use equipment and defend themselves does not hold any water. 
The argument that, well, the embargo is also against Serbia, we know so 
clearly how that has been violated, how the arms of Serbian soldiers 
that are being deployed within the Bosnian territory today, along with 
the Serbs from Bosnia that are fighting against the Bosnia and 
Herzegovina Moslems, are equipped with some current, modernized 
equipment that has come into that country since the arms embargo. That 
is no secret. That is not classified information. It has been reported. 
As well as the armament and the staff that is there left over when 
Serbia, or Yugoslovia at the time, was an ally of the Soviet Union.
  Madam President, the least we can do tonight is support this in a 
bipartisan way. This is no slap, no affront to this administration. It 
is no political upsmanship.
  I understand this body as well as anyone. I know we all have our 
political objectives and duties and responsibilities and obligations as 
we see fit. This is not that. I know the Senator from Kansas can be as 
partisan and political as anybody in this body. But he is here because 
of his long belief under a previous administration before this 
administration that the arms embargo should be lifted, that stronger 
action should be taken.
  I am hopeful that this body would vote to lift that embargo and do it 
tonight. At least I would sleep better. Even though it is not near 
enough to really resolve the problem, at least I would feel that we 
have met some responsibility toward the murder, the genocide that is 
going on in Bosnia and Herzegovina this very moment. At this very 
moment, I daresay, there are people dying and there are people dying 
who do not have armaments, do not have the capability to shoot back.
  This amendment, if it did pass, might be the momentum, the beginning 
of the momentum that would reverse the U.S. policy in the United 
Nations, and maybe the United Nations. That may be wishful thinking.
  But without some action from this deliberative body indicating that 
the time has come to let those people defend themselves, I do not think 
there is any hope for them. They will be destroyed. There will be 
literally no Bosnia and Herzegovina except what is forced on them 
against their will. There will be a division contrary to the U.N. 
principles and articles, contrary to the Helsinki Commission, which 
Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia and Herzegovina have all signed, that 
recognizes that there is a violation of human rights by the incursion 
of any one sovereignty. And there is no question that that has already 
occurred there. And I guess there is no question that that is 
ultimately going to occur if peace is ever made. The Bosnia that we 
knew before this conflict is not going to be the same Bosnia.
  But, again, I can only say that we have some responsibility to let 
these people defend themselves. I am truly hopeful that this body will 
have the courage to stand up and say so.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, in 1776, when this Nation declared its 
independence, Great Britain attempted to enforce an arms embargo 
against our newly declared Independent States. Fortunately, France and 
a number of other European countries refused to abide by that 
embargo. And it may well be that that was a key to our success in 
securing our independence.

  From 1776, almost until 1990, the United States has believed that 
distinct nations, recognized nations, fighting against external 
aggression, attempting to secure their independence, deserved our aid 
not our interference with that fight for independence.
  As recently as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan we provided 
literally billions of dollars worth of aid to people expressing ideas 
with which we did not agree, and do not agree today, except for their 
desire to be free and to be independent.
  Yet, almost from the time that the United Nations recognized Bosnia, 
we have accepted the notion that its citizens were not entitled to 
fight for their own independence with arms secured, not just from the 
United States, but from anyplace in the world, and have adhered to what 
I consider to be an immoral resolution of the United Nations, 
superficially evenhanded but on the ground overwhelmingly favorable to 
Serbian aggressors, prohibiting any kind of arms aid to an originally 
almost defenseless and certainly victimized people.
  That arms embargo was wrong when it was imposed. It was wrong when it 
was enforced by President Bush. It was wrong when President Clinton 
changed his own views on it after being sworn in as President and 
continued it. And it is wrong today.
  I do not believe that at any point in this conflict we should have 
risked the lives of American men and women in uniform, even in the 
worthy cause of Bosnian independence. It is not an area vital to the 
security of the United States. And, clearly, no proposal including the 
now almost laughable threats of bombing seemed likely to be decisive in 
gaining any worthy goal.
  But it is perhaps just because a great majority of Americans and the 
U.S. believe we should not intervene in this conflict ourselves, that 
the arms embargo represents such bad policy, that it approaches and 
surpasses the boundary between pure policy and immorality. The arms 
embargo, Madam President, is wrong. It is immoral. It penalizes the 
victims and benefits the aggressors. Its removal is every bit as likely 
to cause those aggressors to make peace as it is to increase the 
bloodshed. So the arms embargo on top of everything else is impractical 
and significantly contributes to the deaths which occur daily.
  I am more than pleased that we have had so many eloquent speeches 
from both sides of the political dividing line, from liberals and 
conservatives, on behalf of at least being neutral but primarily being 
encouraging of the independence of the small country, far away, which 
is something we once were, and is the cause for most of our history.
  Let us return to our own origins and remove this arms embargo.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I believe under the prior agreement we 
will proceed directly to a vote now.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I originally denounced the U.N. arms 
embargo in an op-ed article published in October 1991. I have returned 
to this issue in print, in speeches, and in statements time and time 
again. I want to join my colleagues in supporting the Dole amendment 
today.
  I would go farther than this resolution. I would also support the 
lifting of the embargo against Croatia and the use of limited air 
strikes against the Serbian positions in Bosnia. It is time to act.
  Mr. President, the horror of the human suffering in Bosnia is matched 
only by the horror of the increasing complicity of Europe in Serbia's 
genocidal aggression in Bosnia. Instead of following Europe's lead, the 
United States must compel Europe to adopt President Clinton's March 
1993 proposals to lift the U.N.-imposed arms embargo.
  During the last 2 months, the spectacle of Western disarray in the 
face of the total defiance of Serbia's leaders calls into question our 
ability to manage European affairs. During the NATO summit this month, 
NATO leaders stuck their heads in the sand while Serbia shoved more 
shells into artillery guns pounding Sarajevo and other Bosnian cities.
  Mr. President, NATO's purported goal at the summit was to define its 
post-cold-war role. But the future of the alliance will be defined not 
by artful communiques. Instead, its relevance will be determined by 
whether its policies and actions address the leading European security 
issues in this new era.
  Front and center among those issues is Bosnia. In that conflict, NATO 
has been sleepwalking its way through history. If its policies remain 
unchanged, the United States and its allies not only will lose 
credibility as security partners for the still vulnerable states of the 
former Soviet bloc but also will embolden aggressors in Europe and 
elsewhere.
  Last December, President Clinton rightly distanced the United States 
from the European proposals to lift the sanctions against Serbia if 
Bosnian Serbs put another meaningless signature on an unenforceable 
peace agreement. It was bad enough that the European Community has 
persistently opposed stronger actions in Bosnia. Its gambit to throw 
away the sanctions--our only real leverage against Serbia--was the last 
straw. Compared to Europe's mediators, Neville Chamberlain is starting 
to look good by comparison.
  Mr. President, Western leaders have declared that Serbian ethnic 
cleansing is unacceptable and that sending Western ground forces to 
impose peace is also unacceptable. To prevent genocide without sending 
combat troops, the indispensable first step is the lifting of the U.N. 
arms embargo that has denied the victims of Serbian aggression the 
weapons with which to defend themselves.
  President Clinton reached that conclusion last spring but backed down 
against European objections. With the rejection by Serbian leaders of 
any suggested compromise, the White House ought to seize the moment 
presented by Europe's failure to resurrect its proposals. By seeking to 
raise Bosnia at the NATO summit, the Europeans themselves appear to 
concede that their approach has reached a dead end.

  To be sure, the setting is more difficult now. The Croatian and 
Moslem communities, which represented 65 percent of the prewar 
population, have been forced into a third of Bosnia's prewar territory, 
resulting in sometimes brutal conflicts between the two former allies. 
Extremists in the Croatian and Moslem camps have both gained strength 
as a result of the cycle of escalating violence.
  But if the arms embargo were partially lifted, the United States 
could use the leverage of arms supplies to broker a deal between the 
Croatians and Moslems. Initial supplies should be made contingent on 
the removal of extremists and fundamentalists from positions of power 
in each group and the demobilization of units implicated in atrocities. 
Continuing arms supplies should then be linked to sustained military 
and political cooperation and respect for human rights.
  For almost 2 years, the Serbians have used threats to attack U.N. 
peacekeepers to blackmail the West. But that specter is exaggerated. 
Access by land would already be possible to most Croatian and Moslem 
areas if these two groups restore their alliance. With adequate arms, 
Croatian and Moslem forces could open up corridors to many besieged 
cities and enclaves, while others could receive supplies by air drops 
and by smuggling through Serbian-held areas.
  The West has made a fatal mistake in overestimating the capabilities 
of the Serbian forces in Bosnia. Serbian successes so far are 
attributable not to the size or strength of their forces but to the 
weakness of their opponents, who have greater numbers but who have been 
deprived of needed defensive weapons. In Slovenia and Croatia, Serbian 
aggression ground to a halt when its adversaries demonstrated the will 
and the means to resist. The same would be true in Bosnia.
  Those who decry any involvement in Bosnia overlook one fact: Through 
the arms embargo, the West is already intervening in the war--but on 
the wrong side. Serbia and its clients in Bosnia inherited the arms 
industry of the former Yugoslavia, a major exporter of equipment and 
ammunition, and suffer no detriment from the arms embargo. As President 
Clinton recognized last spring, simple justice requires that the United 
Nations allow Bosnia the means to defend itself.
  Mr. President, the crisis in Bosnia will not disappear. Just as the 
United States supported the Afghan resistance for more than 10 years 
until Moscow withdrew its occupation armies, the West can achieve its 
objectives in Bosnia without the loss of a single American or European 
life. It may be too late to prevent massive deaths among Moslem and 
Croatian civilians in Bosnia this winter. But if we act now, there's 
still time to turn the tide of the war in the spring and avoid their 
annihilation.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I want to indicate my reasons for supporting this 
expression of the view of the Senate on the provision of arms to the 
Bosnian Moslems. For many months, I opposed providing arms to the 
Moslems out of concern that it would just exacerbate the bloodshed. But 
now, after returning from a sobering--even at times heartbreaking--trip 
to the former Yugoslavia, I believe we must send a strong signal of our 
willingness to at least allow the Bosnian Moslems to defend themselves. 
This amendment does that.
  For months, the administration has pressed our Western allies 
unsuccessfully to provide arms to the Bosnian Moslems. But if the 
international community is unwilling to act, and is unwilling to 
intervene militarily to protect humanitarian convoys, then the time has 
come for the administration to provide these arms to the Bosnian 
Moslems.
  The debate today has made clear that military assistance as used in 
this amendment is limited to the provision of appropriate arms that 
would allow the Bosnian Moslems to defend themselves in accordance with 
its right of self-defense under article 51 of the U.N. Charter. It does 
not urge, nor would it authorize, the dispatch of U.S. military 
advisers or other troops to the region. Even in the face of the 
continuing horrible tragedy there, that would be a serious mistake.
  If we are to become more engaged in the conflict there, either in the 
air or on the ground, we must clearly define in law the goals and 
purposes of any military action, the rules of engagement, the 
respective roles of U.S. and U.N. forces, and the plan for 
disengagement of Western forces there.
  For many months I have believed that the United States and other 
western nations should take forceful action, under NATO auspices, 
against those who have been blocking humanitarian assistance to the 
Moslems. That has not yet taken place, to my deep regret and to the 
shame of those of us in the West who have watched the tragedy unfold. 
And today we read in the New York Times that Serbian regular army 
troops are on the march, presumably to engage in preemptive strikes 
against Bosnian Moslems forces in Eastern Bosnia. In response, we must 
send a strong political and diplomatic signal of our willingness to 
take more forceful steps than we have thus far. This amendment is 
designed to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the yeas and nays 
have been ordered. The question is on agreeing to Amendment 1281.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus] and 
the Senator from Washington [Mr. Murray] are necessarily absent.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mr. Kassebaum] 
and the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Pressler] are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 87, nays 9, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 8 Leg.]

                                YEAS--87

     Akaka
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hollings
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McCain
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--9

     Burns
     Coats
     Danforth
     Durenberger
     Faircloth
     Gregg
     Hatfield
     Pell
     Specter

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Baucus
     Kassebaum
     Murray
     Pressler
  So the amendment (No. 1281), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KERRY and Mr. DeCONCINI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. I notice colleagues are asking what the order of business 
is going to be and whether or not we can go home, and so forth.
  I do not know if it is any consolation, if you believe me or the 
weatherman less. But apparently they say it is going to warm up later 
and it is safer driving later. I do not know if that is believable.
  Madam President, we are trying to get the narrow list down at this 
point in time, Senator Helms I know has hotlined on his side. We have 
hotlined on our side. We have an outside chance of finishing tonight. 
We will not finish tonight if a couple of contentious amendments that 
we have heard are out there are going to be brought to the floor.
  There are a number of individuals who have held places on the list 
with relevant amendments. We do not know what the amendments are at 
this point in time. If you do have an amendment and you are in fact 
planning to bring it, it would help us enormously in terms of planning 
and scheduling if you could come to the appropriate manager at this 
time and give us the subject matter of the relevancy, and the time that 
you believe your amendment might take if indeed it is going to be one 
that we can accept. That will enable us obviously to be able to inform 
everybody about where we are going.
  The majority leader, however, has said that he wants to continue 
working at this point in time. We do have an amendment on Partnership 
for Peace and NATO which will require, I believe, a vote depending on 
the outcome of the discussion between Senator McConnell and Senator 
Levin at this moment in time.
  Pending that, we could continue at this time if the Senator wants to 
do so.
  Mr. DeCONCINI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, I have an amendment which I believe 
is cleared, and I ask unanimous consent that the pending Helms 
amendment be set aside.
  Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. HELMS. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DeCONCINI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Arizona? 
Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. I thank the Senators from North Carolina and 
Massachusetts. I also thank the majority leader. He has cleared this 
amendment.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, may we have order, please?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be order in the Senate.
  The Senator from Arizona has the floor.


                           Amendment No. 1283

  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Arizona [Mr. DeConcini] proposes an 
     amendment numbered 1283.

  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, add the following new 
     section:
       Sec.   . Beginning ninety days after the enactment of this 
     Act, and annually thereafter on the day the budget of the 
     United States is submitted to the Congress, the Secretary of 
     State shall submit to the Congress a detailed budget 
     justification on the costs to provide security and protection 
     to the Secretary of State both domestically and 
     internationally. Such justification shall include the number 
     of full-time permanent personnel assigned to Secretarial 
     protection, the cost of salaries, overtime, per diem, travel, 
     equipment and vehicles for carrying out such protective 
     activities.

  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, this amendment evolves from a recent 
trip when I traveled to Europe with the Secret Service in advancing 
President Clinton's trip to Europe to participate in the NATO 
conference and meet with President Havel of Czechoslovakia and other 
leaders. I went to only two of these advanced countries to see what, in 
fact, was involved in the Secret Service's protection for going and 
coming and preparing for the President's visit.
  I chair the appropriations subcommittee which funds the Secret 
Service. And as many of the Members of this body have witnessed, the 
President's protection provided by the Secret Service is very 
sophisticated, and rightfully so. It is very manpower-intensive, and it 
is very costly.
  Like other Members, I do want to get a handle on the needs of these 
costs, and we have done so in the appropriations process.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, it is awfully hard to understand when the 
Chair asks the colleagues to respect another Senator when he is making 
a statement, and they continue to do the same thing. I would hope that 
the Chair would not allow the Senator from Arizona to speak until the 
Chamber is in order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point is well taken.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Madam President, I thank my friend from Kentucky. I 
will not be long.
  Madam President, over the recess, I traveled with the Secret Service 
on President Clinton's trip to Europe to participate in the NATO 
conference and meet with President Havel of Czechoslovakia. I chair the 
appropriations subcommittee which funds the Secret Service. As many of 
the Members of this body have witnessed, the Presidential protection 
provided by the Secret Service is very sophisticated, manpower 
intensive, and costly. Like other Members, I do want to get a handle on 
the needs and the costs to find out if the Service is overdoing the 
protection or if it is in fact justified. Hence, the purpose of my trip 
was to review the Secret Service operations for international travel of 
the President. This particular Presidential trip was unique in that 
President Clinton made stops and visits in several different countries 
and the Service had to leap-frog equipment, agents, and technicians 
from one country to another to prepare for the next stop. During the 
course of the trip, I questioned the Secret Service on the large number 
of Presidential protection personnel, what their specific 
responsibilities were, why they needed so many, the costs and the use 
of sophisticated investigative and surveillance equipment, and overtime 
costs. I talked to the representatives of several of these governments, 
et cetera. Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, accompanied 
President Clinton on the trip for many of the meetings. In Brussels I 
was struck by the number of security details, vehicles, armored limos, 
and equipment being used by the Diplomatic Security Service for the 
Secretary's protection, particularly since the Secret Service presence 
for the President was very substantial. There did not appear to be any 
coordination between the State Department and the Secret Service with 
respect to security. In fact, you would see the President's motorcade 
departing the hotel at one moment and the Secretary's arriving a few 
minutes later. I noticed that the license plates on the State 
Department vehicles were from the District of Columbia and assumed that 
the vehicles, including the armored limo were transported by C-5 
transport specifically for the Secretary's visit.
  I believe the costs for security by the State Department should be 
properly scrutinized to ensure that the security level is commensurate 
with existing threat levels and assessments and that there is no 
duplication of effort by the State Department at sites where secure 
zones have already been established by the Secret Service. I am not 
here on the floor today to criticize the performance of the security 
detail nor am I concluding that from this one trip that the State 
Department security was unnecessary or excessive. Madam President, I 
recognize the terrorism around the world targeted at American officials 
is still very much a threat. I am not making a case here that this 
security for our Secretary of State is not warranted or needed. I am 
not here asking to list or limit the security provided for the 
Secretary of State. What I am concerned about, however, is the costs of 
all of this protection. We are dealing with a State Department 
authorization bill here today and I believe it is legitimate to expect 
the State Department to provide detailed justification information on 
an annual basis to the Congress on the specific costs of protecting the 
Secretary of State.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, the Senator from Arizona has raised an 
important concern about accountability. We share the concern. And in 
view of the agreement with respect to the classified aspects of this, 
we have agreed, I believe, to proceed forward. We are prepared to 
accept this amendment.
  Mr. DOLE. There is no objection on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1283.
  The amendment (No. 1283) was agreed to.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. DOLE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           amendment no. 1278

  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I believe the pending business is the 
Helms amendment, is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is----
  Mr. KERRY. I believe we left it when the regular order was requested 
some time ago. We have subsequently, temporarily, set aside the 
combination of the Helms amendment and the McConnell amendments. The 
primary and preceding amendment is the Helms amendment to be followed 
subsequently by the two McConnell amendments. The first amendment is a 
perfecting amendment; is that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending business is 
amendment No. 1278 offered by the Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. KERRY. I believe the yeas and nays have already been requested on 
that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct.
  Mr. KERRY. We are prepared to vote, I believe.
  Mr. DOLE. Will the manager permit me to offer an amendment related to 
disability, which has been agreed to on both sides?
  Mr. KERRY. Yes.
  Mr. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendments be set 
aside.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                           Amendment No. 1284

  (Purpose: To provide for international exchange programs involving 
                      disability-related matters)

  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole], for himself, Mr. 
     Hatfield, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Harkin, Mr. Helms, and Mr. 
     Murkowski, proposes an amendment numbered 1284.

  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of 
the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 123, between lines 19 and 20, insert the following:

     SEC.  . INTERNATIONAL EXCHANGE PROGRAMS INVOLVING DISABILITY-
                   RELATED MATTERS.

       (a) Authority.--Section 102(b) of the Mutual Educational 
     and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2452(b)) is 
     amended--
       (1) by redesignating paragraphs (9) through (11) as 
     paragraphs (10) through (12), respectively; and
       (2) by inserting after paragraph (8) the following:
       ``(9) promoting educational, cultural, medical, and 
     scientific meetings, training, research, visits, 
     interchanges, and other activities, with respect to 
     disability-related matters, including participation by 
     individuals with disabilities (within the meaning of section 
     3(2) of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 
     U.S.C. 12102(2)) in such activities, through such nonprofit 
     organizations as have a demonstrated capability to coordinate 
     exchange programs involving disability-related matters;''.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Director of the United States 
     Information Agency shall submit a report to the Congress 
     describing the steps taken during the period since the date 
     of enactment of this Act to implement section 102(b)(9) of 
     the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (22 
     U.S.C. 2452(b)(9)).
       (c) Annual Summary of Activities.--As part of the 
     congressional presentation materials submitted in connection 
     with the annual budget request for the United States 
     Information Agency, the Director of the Agency shall include 
     a summary of the international exchange activities carried 
     out under section 102(b)(9) of the Mutual Educational and 
     Cultural Exchange Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2452(b)(9)) during 
     the preceding calendar year.

  Mr. DOLE. Very briefly, this amendment would authorize disability 
related educational and cultural exchange programs for USIA.
  Madam President, I want to thank the bill managers for accepting my 
amendment, which I offer on behalf of myself and Senators Hatfield, 
Kennedy, Harkin, Helms, and Murkowski, that gives 
the U.S. Information Agency [USIA] specific authority to address 
disability issues in its educational and cultural exchange programs, 
and, most important to increase participation by people with 
disabilities in these programs. I know this is a matter of considerable 
interest to many other Members of Congress as well. For example, in its 
report on fiscal year 1994 USIA funding, the House Committee on 
Appropriations requested the Director of USIA to place more emphasis on 
programs which include the disabled.
  Madam President, this amendment is important because it reaffirms 
America's growing commitment to be a global leader in ensuring the full 
participation of people with disabilities worldwide. I recall the first 
time I spoke before the Senate on an international disability issue. In 
August 1970, I made a short floor statement introducing the newly 
designated sign of a wheelchair as the international symbol of 
accessibility.
  In the 24 years since, we have gone way beyond symbols. In 1990, the 
Congress passed the Americans With Disabilities Act, in which we 
determined unequivocally to base our national disability policy on the 
principles of equal opportunity and full participation. And last July, 
to extend these principles to American foreign policy, I introduced 
with strong bipartisan support, the Disability Rights in American 
Foreign Policy Act (S. 1256), which recognized for the first time that 
discrimination against the disabled is a human rights violation.
  But there can be no more powerful way of advancing these principles 
than by example. This is where USIA's exchange programs come in. By 
sending Americans abroad, and bringing international visitors to the 
United States, we show rather than simply preach. And I can think of no 
better ambassadors of America's commitment to disabled people than its 
own citizens with disabilities.
  Today, USIA does conduct some disability-related exchanges, and I 
commend USIA's staff for their initiative in this regard. However, I 
hope that this amendment will give USIA the charter it needs to 
systematically expand its exchanges in all domains--including public 
policy, architectural and environmental design, rehabilitation science, 
assistive technology, the arts, and in sports.
  In the area of sports, for example, the Special Olympics 
International is a fine organization, and is currently organizing a 
major soccer exhibition with representatives from 24 countries to 
celebrate World Cup '94. And in 1995 the World Special Olympics Games 
will be held in New Haven. USIA support could importantly assist these 
efforts.
  My amendment also asks for a report in 6 months on the steps USIA has 
taken to implement this new provision, and an annual report thereafter 
on disability-related exchanges. I look forward to carefully reviewing 
both reports.
  In closing, I would like to thank Elizabeth Lambird and Steven Berry 
of the Committee on Foreign Relations for their assistance to my staff 
in preparing this amendment.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the distinguished minority leader. Indeed, this is 
acceptable. There is no need nor further debate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1284.
  The amendment (No. 1284) was agreed to.
  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. KERRY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, we have now worked out the two amendments 
of the Senator from Kentucky that were pending. I want to thank the 
Senator from Kentucky for his willingness to do that. It will save the 
Senate a certain go-around on Senator Helms' amendment. That means that 
after the Senator has asked for a modification on his amendment we will 
have two rollcall votes lined up.
  In fairness to everybody, so we are not going back and forth, we are 
prepared to stack those and try to proceed further with amendments to 
see what else may need a vote. And then we can set a time for them 
sometime a little later in the evening.
  Mr. COHEN. Madam President, if the Senator will yield, until what 
time does the Senator intend to stack votes this evening?
  Mr. KERRY. At the moment the majority leader is very anxious to get 
this bill into a position where we know where we are going to finish, 
and at this point in time we are making good progress. We are now 
narrowing down on both sides the scope of the available amendments with 
the hope of propounding unanimous-consent requests that will allow us 
to know what the final list is. I would say it is now only 6:10 p.m. I 
think we have several hours of work ahead of us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I respectfully disagree. The weather is 
getting bad outside. A lot of offices shut down about 3 o'clock. I am 
prepared to stay here for a while.
  We are trying to get a list together in an effort to accommodate the 
majority leader. We are now making a hotline. I hope we can go ahead 
and have the votes. By that time we will have the list. Once we get 
everybody named in the net, then we get something we can work with. 
There is a chance we might be able to complete that within the next 30 
minutes. We got the hotline out, I might say to the managers.
  Mr. KERRY. Let me just say, Madam President, I am not willing to ever 
disagree with the Republican leader's judgment about what they can get 
done on that side in a short span of time, especially when the weather 
is bad and people want to go home.
  I am delighted to work with that list, and I am happy to help that 
process to proceed with a vote at this time. I see no reason to not do 
it.
  Mr. HELMS. Let us go ahead and do it.
  Mr. KERRY. I see the Senator from Kentucky wishes to say a few words 
and modify his amendment, so we can do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is amendment No. 1278 
offered by the Senator from North Carolina.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I ask that the pending amendment be 
temporarily laid aside and that amendment No. 1279, the second-degree 
amendment to amendment No. 1280, be the pending business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                    Amendment No. 1280, as Modified

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I send to the desk on behalf of 
myself, Senator Levin, Senator Simon, Senator Gorton, Senator Mack, 
Senator McCain, Senator Cohen, and Senator Brown, a modification of 
that amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator wish to withdraw his second-
degree amendment?
  Mr. McCONNELL. Does the Senator have to withdraw the second-degree 
amendment in order to modify it? It is my understanding that I can 
modify my own amendment. Is that not correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right.
  Without objection, the amendment is so modified.
  The amendment (No. 1280), as modified, is as follows:

       At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following:
       Sec.   . The Congress finds that:
       (a) The Warsaw Pact has been disbanded and replaced by 
     governments with legitimate political, economic and security 
     interests;
       (b) It is in the national interests of the United States to 
     preserve European regional stability through the promotion of 
     political and economic freedom and respect for territorial 
     integrity and national sovereignty;
       (c) The North Atlantic Treaty Organization has served and 
     advanced U.S. and European interests in political stability 
     and collective security for forty-five years.
       (d) That the Partnership for Peace is a positive step 
     towards maintaining and furthering that security, a step that 
     gives the nations of the east time to prepare for membership.
       Therefore, it is the sense of the Senate that,
       (1) European nations which demonstrate both the capability 
     and willingness to support collective defense requirements 
     and established democratic practices including free, fair 
     elections, civilian control of military institutions, respect 
     for territorial integrity and the individual liberties of its 
     citizens, share the goals of the North Atlantic Treaty 
     Organization; and
       (2) The United States should urge prompt admission to NATO 
     for those nations after they have demonstrated such 
     capability and willingness as set forth in paragraph (1).

  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, the distinguished Senator from 
Michigan and I have been discussing, along with the Senator from 
Washington, Senator Gorton, the issue of expansion of NATO membership.
  I had offered an amendment earlier indicating my feeling that former 
Warsaw Pact countries, NIS countries, and others ought to have an 
opportunity with a reasonable timetable to aspire to NATO membership.
  We have been involved in negotiations of just what kind of language 
might be appropriate, and I believe we have now come up with a 
bipartisan approach to this most important issue which I believe will 
provide some hope to those countries previously dominated by the Soviet 
Union that they may at some point in the future be candidates for 
admission to NATO. I believe the way the amendment is crafted should 
not in any way be offensive to the Russians, which I know has been a 
concern of the administration.
  I particularly commend Senator Levin, Senator Gorton, and Senator 
Brown, who have been doing work in this area as well, for their 
interest in this most important issue.
  We have in this country an awful lot of Americans whose roots go back 
to Central Europe, who follow Central Europe, and the former Soviet 
States who have a great deal of concern about this issue.
  There is a good deal of nervousness in the former Warsaw Pact and in 
these other countries that there may not ever be a day in which they 
could aspire to membership in NATO. I think by the passage of this 
compromise amendment tonight, hopefully we will be sending them a 
message that we do believe that their admission to NATO at some point, 
in my view not too far down the road for some of them, is a good idea.
  Further, let me say--and I am not sure all my Democratic colleagues 
agree with this--that I do not think the administration is on the right 
track. This amendment does not seek to slap their wrist, but I do not 
think they are on the right track in allowing Boris Yeltsin to make our 
foreign policy for us in that area of the world.
  This amendment did not slap the wrist of the administration, but I 
want to say that I hope that this recent flirtation, if you will, with 
allowing our foreign policy in large portions of Europe to be largely 
determined by Russian wishes is something that will fade out in the 
coming months.
  So, Madam President, I am going to ask for a rollcall vote on this 
amendment at some point. I do think we have come up with a constructive 
bipartisan approach to the issue.
  I again thank Senator Levin for his leadership on this most important 
issue.
  Maybe this would be a good time, Madam President, to ask for the yeas 
and nays, and I so ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, this amendment as modified serves a 
number of purposes. First of all, it pays a very important 
acknowledgement to the Partnership for Peace which has been worked out 
by the President, our allies, and so many others in the recent summit.
  I believe that Partnership for Peace was a very useful step toward a 
number of goals. One is the admission of a number of countries that 
seek admission to NATO after certain conditions have been met and to do 
it in a way which does not isolate Russia or draw a new line in Europe 
which could leave a lot of nations on the other side of the line.
  We have to accomplish both of those simultaneously as we proceed. We 
want nations to become ready to join NATO and have proven that 
capability to expand NATO. That is important. That is an obligation 
which seems to be both for our own security and history that we do 
that. We have a moral commitment to nations that have been too long 
under the Soviet yoke, but we also have an obligation to our own 
security.
  Partnership for Peace accomplishes both the opening of the door to 
NATO membership and doing it in a way which does not isolate Russia, 
because if we did that, we would play right into the hands of the 
ultraright in Russia that would want us to do exactly that so they 
could prove to their people that somehow or other we are threatening, 
which, of course, we are not.
  This amendment, as modified, now acknowledges that the Partnership 
for Peace--and here I am reading--``is a positive step towards 
maintaining and furthering the security of Europe and ourselves,'' and 
it is a step that gives the nations of the East time to prepare for 
membership in NATO.
  It also did something else, and that is in its two key paragraphs. It 
says that it is the sense of the Senate that European nations which 
demonstrate both the capability and willingness to support collective 
defense requirements and established democratic practices including 
free, fair elections, civilian control of military institutions, 
respect for territorial integrity, and the individual liberties of its 
citizens, those nations share the goals of NATO; and, two, the United 
States should urge prompt admission to NATO for those nations after 
they have demonstrated such capability and willingness as has been set 
forth in that first paragraph.
  I commend my friend from Kentucky for his work on this subject. 
Particularly, I want to thank Senator Simon of Illinois who has worked 
so hard on this subject, who had a different draft which we worked with 
as we proceeded here. I do not know that Senator Simon is on the floor 
at the moment, but I know he will want to be here to speak on this 
subject because he feels so strongly, as do many Members of this body, 
about opening NATO to European nations that have for too long been 
under the Soviet yoke.
  But I think we have worked out a compromise here which meets a number 
of goals that I have outlined. It does, again, do something very 
important, which is to have this body acknowledge that the partnership 
for peace was indeed an important, positive step towards maintaining 
both European security and American interests. And with those changes, 
I not only can support this amendment, but I am proud to be a cosponsor 
of it.
  As I have indicated, Senator Simon, who has done so much work on this 
and who helped to craft this compromise, has played an absolutely 
critical role in bringing the importance of prompt membership of 
Eastern Europe to the attention of the Senate. And he is now on the 
floor.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. COHEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Maine.
  Mr. COHEN. Madam President, I rise this evening to commend my 
colleague from Kentucky for having offered this amendment. I agree with 
him in his suggestion, not that he is imposing a slap on the wrist of 
the administration, but rather than that the administration missed an 
opportunity during President Clinton's travels to Europe and to Russia 
to lay out to Boris Yeltsin exactly what the United States will seek to 
do with respect to the European nations once under the roof--some would 
say clearly within the prison--of the Soviet Union.
  I think it is important that we send a signal to the Russian military 
and to other Russian leaders who are emerging, who would seem to be 
taking that country back toward a rather dictatorial or imperialistic 
path, that the United States is going to support the opening up of NATO 
as far as its membership is concerned to those European nations who 
qualify, who measure up to the standards that we insist be met by NATO 
members; that they agree to subordinate their militaries to civil 
control; that they promote democratic values and reforms; that they, in 
fact, have protection for minorities within their countries. All the 
standards we would impose upon members of NATO today, we would ask them 
to measure up to, as well. And if they do so, then they will be invited 
to join into NATO itself.
  I think it is important to say that up front and let the Russian 
military and leadership know that that is going to come about not 
tomorrow, not perhaps next year, but certainly by the end of the 
century --and we are only talking about 5 or 6 years--and during that 
period of time we expect several of the major European nations to 
become members of NATO. So I think we have to be clear about that.
  And, yes, the Russians will object to it and, yes, they may stomp and 
puff up their chests and say this is unacceptable. But, remember, Mr. 
Gorbachev, when he was President, also opposed admission of a United 
Germany into NATO and we insisted that a United Germany would remain a 
part of NATO. And we could structure our military system as such and 
deploy our forces in a way that would not pose any sort of an imminent 
threat to Russia or to the other Soviet, former Soviet Republics.
  I think we have to do the same here. We have to say Poland or Hungary 
or the Czech Republic or others who measure up to these standards will, 
in fact, be admitted.
  It is a chance for us to signal to the European nations that we have 
not abandoned their struggle for freedom. It is also an opportunity for 
us in these intervening 5 or 6 years to send a signal to the American 
people as to whether or not the American people are prepared to commit 
U.S. forces to defend those particular nations should they ever be 
threatened.
  Frankly, we have a lot of educating to do. We have a lot of educating 
to do. Our own hesitancy in becoming involved in the conflict in Bosnia 
today, I think, is symptomatic of a problem that we in the western 
world have to face up to as to whether or not we are willing to commit 
American forces into any region for any purpose that is short of 
threatening directly U.S. territory or vital interests. And that is 
something that we have yet to come to terms with.
  We have debated what to do in Bosnia. We have made threats. We have 
talked about air strikes. We have today gone on record as being in 
favor of lifting arms embargoes. We have yet to define exactly what the 
role of the United States and NATO is to be in the forthcoming years.
  And so we need an opportunity, as well, to define exactly what NATO 
is going to be. The question is perennially asked: Whither NATO, or 
shall NATO wither? We have yet to answer that question satisfactorily. 
So I think that we have a opportunity here tonight.
  I wish to again commend Senator McConnell from Kentucky and Senator 
Levin from Michigan for working out this compromise language, along 
with Senator Simon and others. I think it is very important we go on 
record in favor of this amendment. I urge my colleagues to support it.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. BROWN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, carved over the library entrance at the 
University of Colorado are words that say ``Who knows only his own 
generation remains always a child.'' Perhaps it is a different way to 
express the hope that we will learn from history.
  If this amendment passes--and I feel sure that it will pass --there 
are surely those in our country whose hearts are in their throats. It 
does not take much of a jog of memory for Americans to recall the 
heartbreaking events of Polish history. It is fair and reasonable to 
observe that the events, the tragic events, of 1939, where Poland was 
dismembered both by Hitler and Stalin, where the Polish people were 
enslaved and murdered and tortured, took place, at least in part, 
because the aggressors did not feel that anyone would come to the aid 
of Poland.
  Put a different way, a portion of the tragedy--not all, by any means, 
but a portion of the tragedy--of World War II and the loss of millions 
of lives in that war came about partly because people were unsure that 
Poland's democracy would be defended. No American--no American--wants 
that to be repeated.
  The tragedy was compounded after the war when the United States 
intervened and asked the leaders of the Polish resistance to surrender 
to Soviet forces so that the United States and U.S.S.R. could negotiate 
a truce. We, in effect, led them to believe we would help guarantee 
their safety. Everyone remembers the tragedy that occurred when the 
Soviet forces put those valiant defenders of Poland's freedom on trial, 
then into prison or to death. Meanwhile, the United States having asked 
the brave Poles to surrender to the Soviets would not then even require 
its representative to attend the trials by the Soviets.
  Surely, with the passage of a half a century, no American can want 
the Polish people to face the tragedy of aggression again.
  Poland qualifies, as does, I believe, Hungary and the Czech Republic, 
right now for the standards we set forth in this resolution for 
immediate admission to NATO; that is, these countries support 
collective defense; they have established democratic practices, 
including free and fair elections; they have civilian control of 
military institutions; they have respect for the territorial integrity 
and individual liberties of their citizens; and they share the goals of 
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
  Madam President, we have an ability, by admitting Poland and Hungary 
and the Czech Republic to NATO, to take a major step forward and 
prevent the reoccurrence of a tragedy of almost unbelievable 
proportions. By bringing these countries into NATO we will forestall 
the question of aggressive pursuits. The very fact that they are a 
member of NATO will take the question of reexerting dominion over those 
Eastern European countries off the table for any nation or foreign 
politician who might be tempted to consider it.
  That is why I am so delighted with the leadership of Senator Simon 
and was so delighted to work with him. It is why I am so delighted with 
the leadership of the distinguished Senator from Kentucky in bringing 
this measure before us and want to join him.
  It is why Colorado has, in Denver, a park to the valiant Hungarians 
who hoped for the freedom of Hungary. It is why we recall the heroism 
of the Czech citizens who were killed in the invasion of 1968. It is 
why our hearts are in our throats as we think of the tragedies the 
Polish people have suffered.
  I believe this resolution can play a part in preventing those 
tragedies from being repeated.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter I sent to the 
President on January 7 concerning this subject, and a letter by the 
charge d'affaires of the Republic of Poland commenting on my letter be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                  Washington, DC, January 7, 1994.
     Hon. Bill Clinton,
     President of the United States, The White House, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear President Clinton: Poland, the Czech Republic and 
     Hungary should be invited to join NATO as full members at the 
     earliest opportunity. The current plan to extend these three 
     countries a ``Partnership for Peace'' appears at this point 
     more slogan than substance.
       First, the Administration's current plan for ``Partnerships 
     for Peace'' does not provide a clear and unambiguous 
     timetable for NATO membership for any of these countries. 
     Instead, it only tantalizes with calls for increased 
     cooperation. History proves that ambiguous security 
     agreements only serve to invite aggression. Never have they 
     slowed it. In 1939, the British and French commitment to 
     Poland's security was not clear-cut. The sad result was that 
     both Germany and the Soviet Union felt they could invade 
     Poland with impunity--and they did. In Korea, the U.S. 
     commitment in 1948 to defend South Korea was unclear, and 
     North Korea saw it as an opportunity to invade. An unclear 
     commitment like that currently proposed is certain to be 
     perceived by potential aggressors as no commitment 
     whatsoever.
       Second, all three countries have a tradition of democracy 
     and support for Western ideals. Poland was one of the first 
     democratic countries in Europe, initiating a democratic 
     system in the late 18th century comparable to our own 
     fledgling democracy. All three emerged as strongly democratic 
     nations after World War I, and all three risked Soviet 
     retaliation in attempts to rejoin the West. Many brave 
     Hungarian and Czech citizens lost their lives in 1956 and 
     1968. Poland spent many years under harsh martial law after 
     the Solidarity demonstrations. Culturally and historically, 
     these nations share our values and belong in NATO.
       Third, for nations that sit astride the path of history's 
     greatest invasions (the Mongol hordes, the Tartar invasions, 
     the Ottomans, Napoleon, and Hitler) a sense of security is 
     absolutely essential. NATO membership gives that sense of 
     security that will in turn permit the growth of a strong 
     democracy and a vibrant free market. Giving NATO membership 
     is essential to ensure a stable, effective transition to 
     democracy for these nations.
       Fourth, acceding to Russia's demand that these three 
     nations not be admitted to NATO only serves to strengthen the 
     radical elements in Russian society. If it becomes apparent 
     that when Russia rattles its saber on matters in Eastern 
     Europe, the United States complies, we are certain to hear 
     more--not less--from Russia's most radical elements.
       The case for membership for these three countries is 
     compelling and decisive. If we miss this historic 
     opportunity, it is unlikely we will have another chance. Once 
     rejected, these countries will not ask again. I urge their 
     earliest inclusion in NATO. At the very least, our security 
     depends on an unambiguous timetable for NATO membership for 
     these three nations.
           Sincerely,
                                                       Hank Brown,
                                                     U.S. Senator.
                                  ____



                            Embassy of the Republic of Poland,

                                  Washington, DC, January 13, 1994
     Senator Hank Brown,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Brown: I would like to thank you very much for 
     your letter of January 10, 1994, and the copy of a letter you 
     have sent to the White House concerning the future of NATO 
     and support for the idea of extending NATO membership to 
     Poland, Hungary, and Czech Republic.
       It is my believe that Poland in NATO would be an asset, and 
     not a liability for the Pact. We are willing to join the 
     nations that carry the responsibilities for protection and 
     promotion of the values represented by the Alliance. In the 
     last four years Poland has accomplished a remarkable progress 
     in our strive for democracy and stability. We are a 
     ``stability exporter'' in a region which is still far from 
     stable. Poland in NATO could be an example and an incentive 
     for other countries in the region, including Russia, that the 
     world of the rich and secure is not an exclusive club and it 
     is willing to accept, one way or another, new members. 
     Indeed, as Secretary James Baker says: ``It would be truly 
     tragic to tear down the concrete wall that divided Europe, 
     only to replace it with a ``security'' wall through exclusion 
     from NATO.''
       Dear Senator, thank you again for your strong support for 
     the proposal of Poland's membership in NATO, and final 
     overturn of the tragic consequences of the archaic Yalta 
     agreement.
           With my highest regards,
                                                 Maciej Kozlowski,
                                                Charge d'Affaires.

  Mr. BROWN. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Madam President, I thank you. I am pleased to be a 
cosponsor of this amendment.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an editorial 
from the Peoria Journal Star on this general question, and also an 
eloquent letter from our President pro tempore, Senator Robert Byrd, to 
the President, on this question.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

 NATO and absurdities--Why even have it if it's afraid to protect the 
                         European democracies?

       If Russia attacked Poland and our new friend Lech Walesa, 
     should NATO come to his defense? Would it? If Russia attacked 
     the Czech Republic and our new friend Vaclav Havel, should 
     NATO aid him? Would it?
       Wait a minute. What's this about Russia going on the 
     attack? Hasn't Boris Yeltsin just agreed to point his nuclear 
     weapons away from the West? Haven't leaders of the former 
     Russian republics promised to turn in their nuclear 
     stockpiles? Aren't the Russians too busy groveling for food 
     and leadership to attack anyone? This really is theater of 
     the absurd.
       Yet, incredibly, fear of the Russians--and vice-versa--
     became the motivation for refusing to grant the new Eastern 
     European democracies full membership in the North Atlantic 
     Treaty Organization. The 16 NATO nations couldn't promise 
     unequivocally that they'd defend the new European democracies 
     from Russian attack, which the former Soviet satellites still 
     fear. And on the other side of the old Iron Curtain, the 
     Russians were nervous about the threat a stronger and bigger 
     NATO alliance would pose. The West didn't want to give Boris 
     Yeltsin's opponents another campaign issue.
       So NATO opened its door just half way to the former Soviet 
     satellites, offering them a second-class pre-membership 
     status. The spin is that if they prove themselves, they can 
     walk through an open NATO door sometime in the not-too-
     specific future.
       Face it. The nations needing to prove themselves are not 
     Poland or the Czech Republic or Hungary. They are France and 
     Britain and Germany and the United States and NATO's other 
     full partners. It is the old democracies who must decide in 
     the next couple of years--we can't wait much longer--if they 
     have the guts to grant the new democracies NATO's guarantee 
     that ``an armed attack against one or more of them . . . 
     shall be considered an attack against them all,'' and 
     responded to as ``it deems necessary, including the use of 
     armed force.''
       The issue should be a no-brainer. If there were no NATO, 
     would we refuse to defend the Czechs and the Poles and the 
     Hungarians from the Russians? Unlikely though such an attack 
     might be, if it occurred, would it be in our interest to have 
     the Russians dominate Eastern Europe again? Then how could we 
     not come to their defense--full NATO membership or not?
       That this issue has caused great nations to pause says a 
     lot about the difficulties the United States and its allies 
     are having in shaking the old order and dealing with the new 
     one. The world's leaders seem as fearful of long-term 
     commitments as the 20-somethings who can't decide whether to 
     marry or what career to undertake, so spend 10 years of young 
     adulthood in an uncertain Purgatory, going nowhere and 
     unaware that this, too, is a decision.
       Well, we all grow up, and so must the world. When this 
     happens, then, of course, these nations must be admitted to 
     NATO. The organization has promised. And if NATO is to be 
     worth having, it must not make promises it doesn't intend to 
     keep.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                  Washington, DC, January 6, 1994.
     The President,
     The White House, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: Your upcoming NATO summit meeting in 
     Brussels will be an important event for the future course of 
     NATO, as well as our broad foreign policy toward a Europe in 
     the early stages of a new era from all perspectives--
     economic, strategic and diplomatic. As you shape your 
     policies, perceptions will play vital roles in shaping the 
     course of events throughout the European continent, but are 
     of particular importance in those newly independent Central 
     European nations, finally free from the oppressive yoke of 
     half a century of Soviet domination and control.
       While it is widely acknowledged that we should do 
     everything we can to assist Russia in its difficult path 
     toward democratic practices and structures, and economic 
     reform along the capitalistic model, our measure of influence 
     can only be limited. The dynamics of Russian politics clearly 
     have an independence of their own. Despite the massive aid 
     that the Senate approved in the context of the FY 94 Foreign 
     Aid bill, our measure of influence should not be exaggerated.
       Of particular concern to me is the growing perception, as 
     reported extensively in the media over the last week, that 
     American policy toward the newly independent states of 
     Eastern Europe--such as Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic 
     and Slovakia--is being fashioned according to what will be 
     most acceptable to political forces in Moscow, on the theory 
     that we should not antagonize conservative forces thee 
     against both President Yeltsin and the West. Nevertheless, 
     after the agony of Communist rule, it would be a cruel blow 
     to those nations for the West to once again, as in the 
     immediate post-World War II-era, assign their fate to a 
     Russian ``sphere of influence.'' I would hope that your 
     policies would be tailored according to two fundamental 
     principles: what is in the best long-term interest of the 
     United States in terms of its relationships with each of 
     these new nations, and second, what will help bring these 
     countries toward the formation of free, democratic societies 
     with increasingly solid ties with the United States and 
     Western Europe.
       I encourage you to ensure that, by our policy toward NATO 
     membership, the Russians are not misled into thinking that 
     they are free to exert any and all kinds of influence on 
     their former vassal states without jeopardizing their 
     fundamental relations with the United States, including the 
     continuation of any aid programs from the U.S.
       NATO membership on the part of these nations has become a 
     symbol of America's overall policy toward their development 
     free from unwanted outside pressures. The leadership of these 
     nations have indicated unequivocally that it is vital for 
     their independence to be seen as part of the NATO framework, 
     from the political, as well as military, points of view. It 
     is now a litmus test, perhaps the most important litmus test, 
     of your policy toward Europe.
       I would therefore urge you to indicate unequivocally during 
     your meetings in Europe at the NATO summit and with the 
     leaders of these nations that you are committed to their 
     inclusion in NATO, and that a reasonable, but very clearly 
     specified, time period of no more than three years would be 
     needed to accomplish the preliminary actions necessary to 
     gain NATO membership. Without such specificity, I fear, your 
     policies will be viewed as being excessively dictated by 
     overdrawn concerns over Russian ``sensitivities'' on the 
     matter and may well invite the kind of perceptions and 
     actions both by Moscow and in Europe which work against 
     America's long term interests in the region.
           Sincerely,
                                                   Robert C. Byrd.

  Mr. SIMON. Madam President, I had an amendment prepared somewhat 
along the same line as the amendment offered by the Senator from 
Kentucky. Senator Brown, Senator McCain, and Senator Byrd were 
cosponsors of my amendment.
  Senator McConnell offered his amendment first. I am pleased --thanks 
particularly to the interest of Senator Levin--that we worked something 
out. I commend my colleague from Kentucky for his leadership on this. 
Senator Gorton was also one who showed an interest in this. I want to 
commend him also.
  Senator Cohen mentioned before that the NATO role is changing, and 
there is no question about that. Yet in one respect it is not changing. 
NATO was to give Europe stability. The great threat to the world now, 
and the great threat in Europe, is instability. And one of the 
threats--let us be candid--right now is what is going to happen to 
Russia, in Russia. Our friends in Poland and the Czech Republic and the 
Baltic Republics and Hungary and some of the other countries, they are 
concerned. I think one of the great ways we can lend stability to that 
area is to include these countries gradually into NATO.
  It is not going to happen tomorrow. And the President has made steps 
in that direction and I hope we can make more and I hope we can make 
them fairly rapidly. I think it is extremely important that we do that.
  Then, if Russia establishes a good, solid democracy, there is no 
reason Russia cannot be part of NATO. We do not spell that out in this 
amendment but I am sure--I see my colleague from Kentucky nodding his 
head. He is either sleeping while I speak or he agrees with me and I 
think he agrees with me--there is no reason that cannot happen. And 
that could be in Russia's long-term best interests, not only because of 
stability there but Russia has an eastern frontier. Where China is 
going to be 20 years from now, no one knows. This resolution could very 
well be in Russia's best interests.
  So, I commend my colleague from Kentucky, and particularly Senator 
Levin, who is a bulldog when it comes to working out language. He 
should have been a journalist instead of a lawmaker here.
  Some of the people in Michigan probably agree with that.
  Mr. LEVIN. I hope a minority.
  Mr. McCONNELL. The Senator makes an important point that this 
amendment draws no line and does not rule anybody in that area of the 
world out, including the Russians. I think that is a very important 
point and I commend him as well for his interest in this subject.
  Mr. SIMON. I thank my colleague from Kentucky.
  I should have mentioned Senator Nunn also, who was helpful as we 
pulled this together.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, briefly, I ask unanimous consent the 
distinguished occupant of the chair be added as a cosponsor of this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Washington.
  Mr. GORTON. Madam President, as we, from the vantage point of the 
year 1994, look back through the golden haze of victory in the cold 
war, after 45 years in which the United States and the Soviet Union 
confronted one another across the frontiers of the North Atlantic 
Treaty Organization, we tend to forget that not all Americans were 
always united with respect to the policies of our country during those 
years. There were a significant number of articulate people who felt 
that there was no significant moral difference between the two sides; 
that the United States and Western Europe were as much potential 
aggressors as the Soviet Union was; that the Soviet Union could rightly 
fear aggressive tendencies from the West.
  There were those who, at the end of the cold war, rewriting history, 
asserted that it was not American purposefulness and a strong North 
Atlantic Treaty Organization which ultimately resulted in the collapse 
of the Soviet Union but the fact that, unbeknownst to any of us, the 
Soviet Union never amounted to anything from the very beginning.
  I think it is unfortunate--but I also think that it is unconscious--
that some of that revisionary thinking was in the mind of the President 
of the United States when he expressed the view that an expansion of 
the North Atlantic Treaty Organization could be considered as 
provocative by Russia. But can anyone seriously assert that Poland 
threatens the territorial or social independence of the Russian 
Republic? That Hungary does? That the Czech Republic does? That the 
Baltic States, so newly liberated, do? To state that proposition is to 
answer the query. Of course not.
  The people of Poland live in a nation whose boundaries have shifted 
east and west on half a dozen occasions over 200 or 300 years, always 
as the result of the aggression of some more powerful nation, a nation 
which was literally partitioned out of existence on four separate 
occasions. Are the Poles a threat? Can their actions be considered to 
be provocative? Of course not.
  It was the fundamental basis of American foreign policy during that 
entire 45 years, under Democratic Presidents and under Republican 
Presidents, that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization was purely 
defensive; that it united nations with a democratic heritage, with a 
devotion to freedom and to liberty, and without aggressive intent. The 
admission of other nations who meet the qualifications set out by the 
distinguished Senator from Kentucky with the help of many others will 
enhance security, stability, and freedom. It should in no way be 
considered to be a provocation.
  I guess the basic question that we face here is, should a weak Russia 
hold a veto over American and NATO foreign policy which we never 
permitted a strong and threatening Soviet Union to exercise? The answer 
should be no. The men who run the Russian Republic at the present time 
are all graduates of the years of the Soviet Union. They are all highly 
realistic. They often deserve our admiration for the changes in Russia. 
But they remain Russian nationalists. The moderate Foreign Minister of 
Russia himself claims special status and special rights for Russia not 
just in the Baltics but in every square inch of what was formerly a 
part of the Soviet empire.
  Does that lead to security and a feeling of a happy future in those 
newly liberated nations? Of course it does not.
  Have the three principal nations--Poland, the Czech Republic, and 
Hungary--done everything they possibly could to move into the free 
world both politically and economically? Of course they have, and they 
have done so because of the beacon that we and the rest of NATO held 
out to them for so long.
  I earnestly hope and pray that the President and the rest of NATO 
will see that these people who gave up so much to win that freedom 
should be considered as rapidly as possible to be a part of our 
traditional democratic, peaceful Western World. NATO is not a threat. 
Its definition is strictly and clearly defensive. I hope and I believe 
that all of us hope that the day will come when Russia itself will 
qualify for such membership. But clearly there are nations which do so 
today.
  Personally, Madam President, I would have preferred that we lay out 
the names of nations which we feel are qualified for membership in NATO 
today. We have not done so and there is an attempt on the part of the 
sponsors of the proposal to be as all-inclusive as possible, but I hope 
that the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, when he has an 
opportunity to speak again, will join me in affirming that the 
qualifications laid out in this resolution would authorize the 
admission of Poland, the Czech Republic, and of Hungary into NATO today 
and that a number of other nations, including the small Baltic 
republics and others, will meet those qualifications soon and should be 
considered as potential members promptly and favorably.
  Mr. McCONNELL. Madam President, I say to my friend from Washington, 
my own view is that the policy of this administration, which I have 
called Moscow myopia, is entirely in the wrong direction. And for us to 
have concluded that admission of any country formally under Soviet 
influence to NATO is, as the Senator said, a provocation is utter 
nonsense.
  So I certainly agree with the Senator from Washington that there are 
three obvious candidates--and the Senator from Colorado mentioned this 
as well--three obvious candidates that would seem to be worthy for 
admission now, and the Senator from Colorado and the Senator from 
Washington have named them: Hungary, Poland, and the Czech Republic.
  I hope this administration--they are not going to change their policy 
over this particular amendment--but I hope they begin to get the hint 
that there are quite a number of Senators who are not convinced that 
this is the best policy. One way to, again, shift directions in the 
not-too-distant future would be to admit the three clearly ready 
countries to NATO. The Senator is right on the mark.
  Mr. GORTON. I thank the Senator from Kentucky and conclude by stating 
that it is very difficult for me to see how leaving an unprotected and 
questionable area in Central Europe occupied by the nations which we 
discussed today at the time of Russian weakness will provide strength 
if Russia unfortunately becomes aggressive once again. We have reached 
the time--the ideal time--for the kind of expansion based on democratic 
ideals which are reflected in this resolution.
  I join the Senator from Kentucky and I join the others in hoping that 
we are adding constructively to this debate as it takes place in the 
administration in expressing what I trust will be the sense of this 
Senate that the time has come to reward democracy, to reward freedom 
and to bring in to the Western fold those countries which qualify and 
which are so desirous of being members.
  Madam President, at this point, as I conclude, I ask unanimous 
consent that an eloquent column by the distinguished former Secretary 
of State of the United States, Henry Kissinger, be printed in the 
Record.
  There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                       Be Realistic About Russia

                          (By Henry Kissinger)

       The most significant aspect of President Clinton's recent 
     progression across Europe may have been obscured by the 
     atmospherics surrounding it. In fact, the trip ushered in an 
     important reevaluation of heretofore accepted premises of 
     American foreign policy: In effect, the president's 
     statements elevated the radical critique of Cold War policies 
     into the operational premises of contemporary American 
     foreign policy.
       For nearly a half-century, that critique had maintained 
     that Soviet policies were as much caused by American policies 
     as by Communist ideology; that the Soviet Government was 
     divided, just as the American government was, between hawks 
     and doves; that it was the task of American diplomacy to ease 
     Soviet fears, many of which were quite legitimate; and that 
     an attitude of genuine cooperation would overcome Soviet 
     bellicosity.
       As late as January 1990, these propositions were 
     refurbished in a Time magazine article in which Mikhail 
     Gorbachev was anointed Man of the Decade. Its author was Time 
     correspondent Strobe Talbott, recently appointed deputy 
     secretary of state, who argued that the doves of 40 years of 
     Cold War debate had been right all along and that it had not 
     been the West's policy that brought about the Soviet collapse 
     but the inherent weakness of the Soviet system; indeed, that 
     the collapse might have occurred earlier had Western hard-
     liners not enabled the Soviet leaders to rally their people 
     on behalf of security.
       The essence of these themes was repeated by President 
     Clinton on many occasions during his European trip. To 
     explain why he did not favor the admission of Poland, 
     Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia--the so-called 
     Visegrad nations--into NATO, he argued in effect that such a 
     step might be provocative. The Atlantic Alliance, he said, 
     could not ``afford to draw a new line between East and West 
     that could create a self-fulfilling prophecy of future 
     confrontation. . . . I say to all those in Europe and the 
     United States who would simply have us draw a new line in 
     Europe further east that we should not foreclose the 
     possibility of the best possible future for Europe which is a 
     democracy everywhere, a market economy everywhere, people 
     cooperating everywhere for mutual security.''
       The assumptions behind these statements challenge the very 
     intellectual foundations of NATO--the core of America's 
     postwar foreign policy. Whether the former victims of Soviet 
     imperialism should join NATO is a complicated question. There 
     are many ways to accomplish that goal, from full membership 
     to various levels of associate membership or, indirectly, via 
     membership in the European Union. On balance, I thought that, 
     at this moment of Russian relative weakness and East European 
     uncertainty, it was an opportunity to extend NATO in some 
     way--especially as there were many measures available by 
     which to reassure Russia.
       But the key issue is not the timing of NATO expansion. In 
     putting forward the Partnership for Peace, the administration 
     did not just delay East European participation, it 
     emphatically rejected the principle despite many misleading 
     statements to the contrary. The Partnership invites all 
     the successor states of the Soviet Union and all of 
     Moscow's former East European satellites to participate 
     with NATO in a vague, multilateral entity specializing in 
     missions having next to nothing to do with realistic 
     military tasks; it equates the victims of Soviet and 
     Russian imperialism with its perpetrators and gives the 
     same status to the Central Asian republics at the borders 
     of Afghanistan as it does to Poland, the victim of four 
     partitions in which Russia participated and the route 
     across which Russia has historically invaded Europe.
       If the Partnership for Peace is designed to propitiate 
     Russia, it cannot also serve as a way station into NATO, 
     especially as the administration has embraced the proposition 
     rejected by all its predecessors over the past 40 years--that 
     NATO is a potential threat to Russia. An official traveling 
     with the president's party expressed the logic behind the 
     administration position when he stated that Eastern Europe 
     would have to find security in placating its feared neighbor 
     by ``encouraging domestic reform in Russia.''
       It is instructive to compare the current approach with that 
     of Dean Acheson when NATO was founded. Testifying before the 
     Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the secretary of state 
     was asked whether the Soviet Union had reason to fear NATO. 
     His reply was: ``Any nation which claims that this treaty is 
     directed against it should be reminded of the biblical 
     admonition that `the guilty flee where no man pursueth.'''
       No reasonable observer can imagine that Poland, the Czech 
     Republic, Hungary or Slovakia could ever mount a military 
     threat against Russia, either singly or in combination. The 
     countries of Eastern Europe are terrified, not threatening. 
     And NATO forces, doctrine and deployment are strictly 
     defensive. Moreover, Russia could easily be given additional 
     assurances, for instance, that no foreign troops would be 
     stationed on the soil of new NATO members.
       The key question, however, is what the American theory 
     means for NATO. What is to be its precise role in the new 
     dispensation? If a security guarantee along the Polish-
     Russian border creates an unacceptable dividing line, why is 
     the current eastern border of NATO any more pacifying? If 
     Russia can veto NATO membership now, when it is in need of 
     economic support, what will it veto when it has been 
     strengthened through reform and American economic assistance?
       It is high time to take another look at our Russia policy, 
     which stakes everything on a kind of psychoanalytic social 
     engineering. The world evoked by Clinton's reference to 
     ``democracy everywhere . . . people cooperating 
     everywhere'' is decades away. In the real environment of 
     today's ethnic conflict and internecine struggle in the 
     former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, how are security 
     and progress to be organized until that utopian world is 
     reached? Can it be wise to create two categories of 
     frontier--those which NATO protects and others which are 
     refused protection--when both frontiers face in the same 
     direction? The practical consequence will be to bring 
     about an unprotected no-man's-land between Germany and 
     Russia, which has historically been the cause of all 
     recent European conflicts.
       A realistic approach to Russian policy would recognize that 
     integrating Russia into the international system has two 
     components that must be kept in balance: influencing Russian 
     attitudes and affecting Russian calculations. The 
     administration deserves support in extending generous 
     economic assistance to Russian reform. And Russia should be 
     made welcome in institutions that foster economic, cultural 
     and political cooperation with the West. The European 
     Security Conference would be a far better home for this than 
     to invent, as the Partnership for Peace does, common military 
     missions within the framework of NATO whose essential 
     irrelevance underlines the artificiality of the conception.
       The administration's tendency to treat Russian leaders as 
     if they were fragile novices easily flustered by exposure to 
     the realities of international politics is an invitation to 
     disillusionment and misunderstanding. These are tough men who 
     have survived the brutal school of Communist and Russian 
     politics; they are quite capable of comprehending a policy 
     based on mutual respect for each other's national interest.
       Russia is bound to have a special security interest in what 
     it calls the ``near abroad''--the republics of the former 
     Soviet Union. The test is whether the rest of the world 
     treats this relationship as an international problem subject 
     to accepted rules of foreign policy or as an outgrowth of 
     unilateral Russian decision-making to be influenced, if at 
     all, by appeals to Russian goodwill.
       Perhaps the most serious misapprehension of the Partnership 
     for Peace proposal is that a reformist Russian government 
     would automatically abandon traditional foreign policy goals. 
     For the incentives of the most well-meaning Russian 
     government are quite different. Nationalism is on the rise, 
     and there is a great temptation to ease the pain of 
     transition to market economics for the Russian population 
     by appealing to that basic instinct.
       At the moment, Russian armies are in Moldova, Georgia, 
     Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia and Taiikistan and participate in 
     some of the local civil wars with a strategy that seems 
     designed to make these new republics--all of them members of 
     the United Nations--rue their independence. The foreign 
     minister of Russian monopoly on peace-keeping in the ``near 
     abroad,'' indistinguishable from an attempt to reestablish 
     Moscow's domination. By its silence and its repeated 
     invocation of an American-Russian partnership, the United 
     States acquiesces in these actions.
       A moderate Russian foreign policy will be impeded, not 
     helped, by turning a blind eye to the reappearance of 
     historical Russian imperial pretensions. Russia's effort at 
     reform cannot exempt it from accepted principles of 
     conducting foreign policy. It is in fact ambiguity about 
     dividing lines, not their existence, and ambivalence about 
     Western reactions, not their certainly, that tempt 
     militarists and nationalists.
       Russia and America share a mutual interest in a stable 
     Europe. This can be achieved only by America's presence in 
     Europe, which is based on NATO. Stability in Europe requires 
     reaffirming the centrality of NATO rather than diluting it in 
     an abstract multilateralism.
       The Partnership for Peace should be redefined to deal 
     primarily with political, economic and cultural issues for 
     which the proper venue is the European Security Conference, 
     not NATO.
       NATO, meanwhile, must face the fact that some form of 
     Visegrad membership is inevitable. In the wake of the NATO 
     summit, German Chancellor Helmut Kohl has urged speeding up 
     the entry of these four countries into the European Union, of 
     which they are already associate members. Since the vast 
     majority of nations in the European Union are also members of 
     NATO, it is inconceivable that the Union will for long accept 
     the notion that some of its territory is not protected. At 
     that point at the latest either the NATO guarantee will be 
     extended or NATO will fall apart.
       A statesman can always escape his dilemmas by making the 
     most favorable assumptions about the future. The new Russian 
     leadership is entitled to understanding for the anguish of 
     trying to overcome two generations of Communist misrule and 
     to help in building a new society. But in pursuing that goal, 
     American policy must not be embarrassed to emphasize that 
     domestic reform, however desirable, contributes to a better 
     world only if Russia embraces the disciples of a cooperative 
     international system as well as its benefits.


                      unanimous-consent agreement

  Mr. FORD. Madam President, some of the colleagues would like to have 
a time certain when we will have the next vote. I checked with the 
managers and the proponent of this amendment. Are there any Senators on 
the Republican side who would like to have some time? If not, we have 
Senator Nunn who would like to have 3 minutes and Senator Lieberman 
would like to have 3 minutes. That is 6 minutes.
  I ask unanimous consent that the vote on the amendment by Senator 
McConnell, which would be an amendment with a perfecting amendment--the 
Senator worked that out. We would have two votes? One vote now. So that 
we vote at 6:55. It is on amendment No. 1280.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
Senator from Georgia.
  Mr. NUNN. Madam President, I am delighted that this amendment has 
been worked out. I congratulate the Senator from Kentucky and the 
Senator from Washington, the Senator from Michigan, the Senator from 
North Carolina, and others, who worked on this amendment.
  This is an enormously important subject. I think all of us share the 
excitement of the free markets and the emerging democracies that are 
now beginning to take shape in Eastern Europe and Central Europe. I 
think we all realize that there could be another threat to those 
countries down the road. I think we all were sobered by the recent 
Russian election and some of the very extreme statements that were made 
by the so-called Liberal Democratic Party and Mr. Zhirinovsky.
  I also believe, however, the Partnership for Peace approach that was 
adopted at the NATO summit conference was the right approach. It needs 
some beef; it needs some definite criteria; it needs some resources. 
But I think it gives time to answer some crucial questions. The 
countries involved, including Czechoslovakia, Poland, and Hungary, have 
to answer some crucial questions and we have to answer some.
  The committee responsible for providing resources in a declining 
budget period will be asking some real tough questions like who is 
going to provide the forward deployment of forces if those forward 
deployments are necessary? Are we extending the nuclear umbrella? If 
so, what are the conditions of that extension? We have a lot of 
questions that need to be asked and a lot of preparation. I think this 
amendment reflects the appropriate approach. So I intend to vote for 
the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Madam President, I rise to support the amendment and 
thank my colleagues who have put it together. I think it gives the 
Senate an opportunity at this uncertain moment in Eastern and Central 
European history to make a statement, which is that we understand that 
in the post-cold war world we have some central tenets and principles 
for foreign policy.
  One is to try to sustain the newly democratic and largest nation of 
Russia, but there are other goals that we have, too. Those include 
keeping the faith, the trust with the people of Central Europe, of the 
Baltic nations, of Ukraine to whom we appealed over the years as 
captive nations to rise up and assert their freedom. Now they have done 
it. It would be a terrible dereliction of our responsibility and a 
breach of our basic principles to become so centered in our concern 
about a stable Russia that our response is to be timid in our dealings 
with other allies and friends in Europe.
  Madam President, the recent political turmoil in Russia has shown us 
how unstable that country is and raises the concern that Russia may 
become, once again, expansionist in its foreign policy--perhaps toward 
the Ukraine, perhaps toward the Baltic nations. In that event, or with 
that possibility in mind, it is even more important that we not remain 
silent about our willingness to embrace, through NATO, those nations 
that follow the principles of democracy and respect the territorial 
integrity of others in the region.
  Finally, there are those who say extending membership to the nations 
of Central Europe, particularly Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic, 
and Slovakia, draws a line in Europe. It does not.
  NATO has always been a defensive alliance--never threatened its 
neighbors--and it never will. It is there to protect those who live by 
and follow the principles of democracy to which we, as a Nation, are 
committed.
  This amendment makes that inclination of our foreign policy clear. I 
congratulate my colleagues for introducing it, and I am proud to 
support it.
  I thank the Chair.
  Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, I would like to congratulate the Senator 
from Kentucky for introducing his amendment. I have long supported the 
notion of offering NATO membership to those newly democratized nations 
of Central Europe which are seeking it so avidly.
  Our failure to respond to the Czech Republic's, Hungary's and 
Poland's desire for membership, unless rectified, could provide ominous 
for the future of this vital region of the world. Twice this century 
this region has proved turned into an East-West battlefield. If this 
situation is not to recur, we would be well-advised to cement the new 
democracies of the region into a broad stable security framework which 
can guarantee their security. NATO alone can fulfil this role.
  I have heard some of my colleagues assert, quite rightly, that Russia 
has no right to exercise a veto over Czech, Hungarian, or Polish 
membership of NATO. By shrinking from addressing this vital question, 
the Clinton administration may have played into the hands of Moscow's 
new hard liners--we have demonstrated that, indeed, they can aspire to 
have a veto over the foreign and security policies of the sovereign 
nations of Central Europe. I should also point out to my colleagues, in 
passing that the C.S.C.E. Treaty, to which Russia is a signatory, 
specifically reserves to all of its members the right to join any 
alliance they wish free from external interference.
  I would wish that the President, during his recent summit in Europe, 
had addressed this question squarely. Instead he chose to offer a 
rather vague, inclusive, partnership for peace to all members of the 
former Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union. I fail to see how Polish, Czech, 
and Hungarian security concerns can be allayed by placing them in a 
partnership alongside the very nations whom they most fear. And recent 
events in Moscow, specifically the electoral success of Vladimir 
Zhirinovsky, demonstrate that those fears are well founded.
  Now, the task before us is to make the best that we can out of the 
so-called partnership for peace. Let us use it to establish a series of 
guideposts for those nations who wish to join NATO. Let us, as the 
Senator from Kentucky has urged, lay down a set of criteria which they 
must meet and, when they have met those criteria, let us welcome into 
our alliance in a spirit of inclusion and in the fervent hope that 
Central Europe can escape its tragic history as the scene of East-West 
conflict.
  Mr. FORD. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  Mr. McCONNELL. I ask unanimous consent that Senator Byrd be added as 
a cosponsor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. FORD. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. I ask unanimous consent that I simply be allowed to 
proceed a couple minutes before proceeding to the vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I would like to thank Senator McConnell 
and Senator Levin, Senator Lieberman, Senator Nunn, Senator Simon, and 
others who worked with us together in order to try to arrive at an 
understanding on this. I am particularly grateful to Senator McConnell 
who had the prerogative to move forward previously but who held off in 
order to see if we could not reach an accommodation.
  I also want to say that I just came back from a series of discussions 
with both French and British defense ministers and those involved 
directly in some of the issues at the summit and the partnership for 
peace.
  It is my view that this is a very important statement for us to make. 
It is clear that none of these countries--Poland, Hungary, 
Czechoslovakia--are in a position today or tomorrow to immediately 
become full members. The military issues alone would boggle the mind as 
to how certain decisions could be made or implemented, and immediate 
membership is obviously not something that is available.
  On the other hand, it is also equally important that we make as 
strong a message as possible of the importance of bringing those 
countries in immediately. Things could change very rapidly in Russia if 
Zhirinovsky were, in fact, to be elected or if any number of events 
were to take place. I think the faster we can understand how to become 
amalgamated and the faster we lay the groundwork for that to happen, 
the more we underscore the importance of the transition to democracy 
that we think is taking place and that we want to have take place.
  So I congratulate my colleagues for joining together in sending this 
message and I hope that we can proceed faster to make that union a 
reality. It is in all of our interests.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we proceed to the vote 
immediately.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the question is on 
agreeing to amendment No. 1280, as modified, offered by the Senator 
from Kentucky. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call 
the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray] 
is necessarily absent.
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum] 
and the Senator from South Dakota [Mr. Pressler] are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Boxer). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 94, nays 3, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 9 Leg.]

                                YEAS--94

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Durenberger
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McCain
     McConnell
     Metzenbaum
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pryor
     Reid
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--3

     Hollings
     Stevens
     Wallop

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Kassebaum
     Murray
     Pressler
  So the amendment (No. 1280), as modified, was agreed to.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that we vitiate 
the yeas and nays on the underlying first-degree amendment No. 1279.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The question is on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1279) was agreed to.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. HELMS. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                       vote on amendment no 1278

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 
1278 offered by the Senator from North Carolina.
  The nays and yeas have been ordered.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. FORD. I announce that the Senator from California [Mrs. 
Feinstein], the Senator from Washington [Mrs. Murray], and the Senator 
from Nevada [Mr. Reid] are necessarily absent.
  I further announce that, if present and voting, the Senator from 
California [Mrs. Feinstein] would vote ``aye.''
  Mr. SIMPSON. I announce that the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. 
Durenberger], the Senator from Kansas [Mrs. Kassebaum], and the Senator 
from South Dakota [Mr. Pressler] are necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 91, nays 3, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 10 Leg.]

                                YEAS--91

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Boren
     Boxer
     Bradley
     Breaux
     Brown
     Bryan
     Bumpers
     Burns
     Byrd
     Chafee
     Coats
     Cochran
     Cohen
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     D'Amato
     Danforth
     Daschle
     DeConcini
     Dodd
     Dole
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Exon
     Faircloth
     Feingold
     Ford
     Glenn
     Gorton
     Graham
     Gramm
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Hatfield
     Heflin
     Helms
     Hutchison
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnston
     Kempthorne
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     Mathews
     McCain
     McConnell
     Mikulski
     Mitchell
     Moseley-Braun
     Moynihan
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Nunn
     Packwood
     Pell
     Pryor
     Riegle
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Sasser
     Shelby
     Simon
     Simpson
     Smith
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thurmond
     Wallop
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wofford

                                NAYS--3

     Campbell
     Hollings
     Metzenbaum

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Durenberger
     Feinstein
     Kassebaum
     Murray
     Pressler
     Reid
  So the amendment (No. 1278), as modified, was agreed to.


  ANNOUNCEMENT OF POSITION ON A VOTE--AMENDMENT NO. 1278, AS MODIFIED

  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, we all know how distracted we sometimes 
are by other matters on the Senate floor.
  During the vote on the Dole resolution on Bosnia, this Senator was 
distracted and, therefore, did not seek recognition to vote. Had I not 
been distracted and sought proper recognition, I would have voted in 
the affirmative in favor of the Dole resolution.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Madam President, I would like the Record to reflect 
that had I been able to be present for the last vote, I would have 
voted affirmatively.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I have discussed the best way to 
proceed with the manager, the distinguished Senator from North 
Carolina, the Republican leader and assistant Republican leader, and I 
will now propound a request for unanimous consent following which, if 
granted, I will have a brief colloquy with the assistant Republican 
leader pursuant to our prior conversation.


                      UNANIMOUS-CONSENT AGREEMENT

  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I now ask unanimous consent that the 
following amendments be the only first-degree floor amendments 
remaining in order to S. 1281, the State Department authorization bill, 
and that second-degree amendments be in order, provided they are 
relevant to the first-degree amendment to which they are offered; 
provided further that in order for the remaining first-degree 
amendments to be in order, they must be offered by 6 p.m. on Tuesday, 
February 1.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I send to the desk the list of 
amendments to be incorporated into this agreement and ask unanimous 
consent it be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the list was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

 REPUBLICAN AMENDMENTS TO STATE DEPARTMENT AUTHORIZATION--JANUARY 27, 
                               1994, P.M.

       Brown, World Bank.
       Brown, eliminate AID pipeline.
       Brown, Arab boycott.
       Brown, Russia study.
       Brown, relevant.
       Brown, E. Europe/NATO.
       Brown, nuclear dismantlement.
       Brown, relevant.
       Brown, relevant.
       Brown, Bosnia.
       Cochran, Taiwan.
       Cohen, Malaysia.
       Cohen/Lugar, Germany.
       Cohen, Russia.
       Coverdell, Peace Corps.
       Coverdell, Nicaragua.
       Coverdell, IDB/Nicaragua.
       Coverdell, OFM in Statute.
       D'Amato, counterterrorism.
       Dole, U.N. peacekeeping.
       Dole, U.N. peacekeeping.
       Dole, Bosnia.
       Dole, Azerbaijan.
       Dole, Vietnam.
       Dole, relevant.
       Dole, relevant.
       Dole, relevant.
       Dole, relevant.
       Dole, relevant.
       Domenici, retention of consular fee.
       Domenici, Russia Ukraine policy.
       Gorton, NATO timeline.
       Gorton, funding for Seattle.
       Grassley, terrorist assets.
       Hatfield, Cuban Democracy Act.
       Hatfield, free trade in ideas.
       Hatfield, prohibit PRM merger.
       Hatch, Israel and AID.
       Hatfield, Test Ban Treaty.
       Hatfield, Assistant Secretary for Refugees.
       Helms, Chinese refugees.
       Helms, number of assistant secretaries.
       Helms, expropriation of American property.
       Helms, expropriation of American property.
       Helms, SOS on China.
       Helms, relevant.
       Helms, relevant.
       Helms, relevant.
       Helms, relevant.
       Helms, relevant.
       Helms, report on Nicaragua.
       Helms, report on Haitian Assets.
       Hutchinson, relevant.
       Lugar, Fisheries Commission.
       Hutchinson, foreign aid balances.
       Jeffords, Peacekeeping.
       Jeffords, Africa.
       Kassebaum, illegal aliens.
       Kassebaum, Bilateral Cooperation Agreement.
       Kassebaum, NDT/relevant.
       Lott, relevant.
       Lugar, democracy in Azebaijan.
       Lugar, Sarajevo safety.
       Lugar, relevant.
       Mack, PLO.
       McCain, extension of sanctions Iran/Iraq.
       McCain, Iran terrorist.
       McCain, N. Korea.
       McCain, Thailand.
       McCain, retirement pay.
       McCain, relevant.
       McConnell, relevant.
       Murkowski, relevant.
       Murkowski, relevant.
       Murkowski, Relevant.
       Murkowski, Russian American Enterprise fund.
       Nickles, International Standing Army.
       Pressler, Relevant.
       Roth, Japan/Germany.
       Simpson, Refugees.
       Specter, Collateral aid.
                                 ______


Known Democratic Amendments to State Department Authorization, January 
                            27, 1994, 6 P.M.

       Baucus, Sustainable development.
       Biden, Article 43.
       Biden, Relevant.
       Biden, Relevant.
       Biden, Relevant.
       Biden, Relevant.
       Bingaman, Alternative MTCR sanctions.
       Bingaman, Excess Defense articles.
       Bingaman, MTCR notifications.
       Boren, Tied Aid.
       Boren, Relevant.
       Bradley, Hispanic recruiting Foreign Service.
       Byrd, Relevant.
       Campbell, SOS Re: Violence in Chiapas, Mexico.
       DeConcini, Office of Foreign Missions.
       DeConcini, International Boundary Water Commission.
       DeConcini, Intelligence support to U.N. Peacekeeping.
       Dodd, Relevant.
       Feingold, EURASIA.
       Feinstein, Satellite exports.
       Glenn, Export control non-proliferation.
       Hollings, Mexico.
       Kennedy, Kennedy/Simpson--Amend Sec. 245 of INA.
       Kennedy, Western Sahara.
       Kennedy, Slave labor in Tibet and China.
       Kennedy, U.S. Coordinator of Refugee Affairs.
       Kerry, Relevant.
       Kerry, Relevant.
       Kerry, Relevant.
       Lautenberg, Anti-Arab boycott amendment.
       Lautenberg, Burdensharing.
       Lautenberg, Refugees from former Soviet Union.
       Leahy, Middle East.
       Leahy, Middle East.
       Levin, Auto parts comm.
       Levin, Bosnian refugees.
       Mitchell, Relevant.
       Mitchell, Relevant.
       Metzenbaum, Syria.
       Metzenbaum, Relevant.
       Metzenbaum, Relevant.
       Murray, Seattle reimbursement.
       Murray, Russia/Far East.
       Pell, U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development.
       Pell, PLO waivers, make permanent.
       Pryor, IMET.
       Pell, Relevant.
       Helms, Relevant.
       Wofford, Northern Ireland.
       Wofford, USIA.

  Mr. MITCHELL. Now, Madam President, I commend the managers for their 
diligence in handling this legislation and all of the Members of the 
Senate for their patience, particularly on a day in which there is very 
inclement weather.
  Under this agreement, all amendments, if they are to be offered, have 
to first be on the list which has just been sent to the desk and was 
incorporated in the agreement; second, must be offered by 6 p.m. on 
Tuesday.
  It is apparent to any person familiar with the Senate rules on 
reading of the agreement that it is possible that absent good faith on 
both sides, some Senators could be precluded from offering amendments 
if one Senator, for example, got the floor and spoke for all the time 
we were in session until 6 p.m. on Tuesday; or, conversely, the purpose 
of the agreement, in permitting completion of the bill by Tuesday 
evening, could be frustrated were anyone to simply get up and offer on 
behalf of the other Senators all the amendments on the list.
  But we do operate, and very successfully in the Senate, in good faith 
on both sides. I have discussed it with the managers, with the 
Republican leader and the assistant Republican leader, and we agree 
that it is the purpose and intention of this agreement to complete 
action on the bill Tuesday evening and to do it in a manner which 
permits an orderly and fair consideration of amendments which Senators 
intend to offer.
  Therefore, the Senate will be in session tomorrow beginning at 9:30, 
and we anticipate that amendments will be offered on which there will 
be votes tomorrow.
  In addition, the Senate, upon the completion of its business 
tomorrow, will recess until 1 p.m. on Monday, and the managers will be 
present on Monday, so any Senator who has an amendment to offer may 
come here after 1 p.m. on Monday--and they are prepared to stay in 
session throughout the day if necessary--to offer the amendment. If an 
amendment is offered on Monday on which a vote is required, that vote 
will be set over until Tuesday, because, as I previously indicated, 
there will be no votes on Monday.
  But this will enable us to accomplish the two objectives of 
completing action on an important measure by a time certain and at the 
same time give any Senator who has an amendment that he or she wishes 
to offer a reasonable opportunity to do so tomorrow or on Monday. I 
thank all of my colleagues for their cooperation and good faith in this 
endeavor.
  I would like now, Madam President, to yield to the distinguished 
assistant Republican leader, if he has any comment to make.
  First, if I have misstated anything inadvertently if he would correct 
me and, if not, if he would be prepared to comment on the understanding 
I have just set forth.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The assistant Republican leader.
  Mr. SIMPSON. Madam President, on behalf of the Republican leader--and 
I have visited with the majority leader--I think this has been stated 
very fairly and clearly. And it does depend upon good faith.
  We also must depend on those who come forward to try to realize that 
there are others that need to be accommodated within that time limit 
and, if we can all recall that, to try to compress --I know it is very 
difficult to do--to compress our remarks on the Senate floor. I know 
that to be a tremendous challenge to us. But nevertheless that will 
help our colleagues.
  We are ready to proceed and, I think, pledge from our side of the 
aisle we will proceed with dispatch and good faith and fairness, as you 
have prescribed here. I think we can get that done and accommodate our 
fellows.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Madam President, I thank the distinguished assistant 
Republican leader, and I now am pleased to yield the floor. I again 
thank the managers for the diligent manner in which they have handled 
this measure, both the Senators from Massachusetts and North Carolina, 
and of course the distinguished chairman of the committee, the Senator 
from Rhode Island.
  Madam President, consequently, having reached this agreement with 
this understanding, there will be no further rollcall votes this 
evening. I inquire of the managers whether there is any other business 
associated with the bill which they would like to, and can, accomplish 
this evening?
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, let me just inquire of the Senator from 
Colorado. He was waiting. I do not know if it was on this bill or an 
extraneous matter.
  Mr. BROWN. There are two amendments I am aware of, one that we had 
previously conversed about, the pipeline amendment, which the Senator 
from Texas will be offering, and the antiboycott measure, which I will 
be offering tonight.
  Mr. KERRY. In that case we are prepared to continue to do business.
  I thank the leader.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I thank the managers. I thank my colleagues.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank my colleague and Senator Helms for helping to get 
us into this agreement. I thank colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
for their cooperation, and I hope if we do proceed as articulated in 
good faith--I think we ought to be able to wind up in a position on 
Tuesday where we complete this bill.
  Does the Senator from Texas wish to proceed?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Yes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.


                           Amendment No. 1285

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, on behalf of myself and the Senator 
from Colorado, Mr. Brown, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Texas [Mrs. Hutchison], for herself and 
     Mr. Brown, proposes an amendment numbered 1285.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:

     SEC.   . DEOBLIGATION OF CERTAIN UNEXPENDED ECONOMIC 
                   ASSISTANCE FUNDS.

       (a) Requirement To Deobligate.--Except as provided in 
     subsection (b), at the beginning of each fiscal year the 
     President shall deobligate, and return to the Treasury, any 
     funds that, as of the end of the preceding fiscal year, have 
     been obligated for a period of more than 4 years for 
     development assistance, economic support assistance, 
     assistance from the Development Fund for Africa, assistance 
     under chapter 4 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 
     1961 (relating to the Multilateral Assistance Initiative for 
     the Philippines), assistance under the Support for East 
     European Democracy (SEED) Act of 1989, and assistance to 
     carry out chapter 11 of part I of the Foreign Assistance Act 
     of 1961 (relating to assistance to the independent states of 
     the former Soviet Union), but have not been expended.
       (b) Exceptions.--The President, on a case-by-case basis, 
     may waive the requirement of subsection (a) if the President 
     determines, and reports to the appropriate congressional 
     committees, that--
       (1) the funds are being used for a capital or long-term 
     participant training project that requires more than 3 years 
     to complete; or
       (2) the funds have not been expended because of unforeseen 
     circumstances, and those circumstances could not have been 
     reasonably foreseen.
       (c) Comments on Subsection (b) Reports.--As soon as 
     possible after submission of a report pursuant to subsection 
     (b), the Inspector General for the administering agency for 
     part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 shall submit to 
     the appropriate congressional committees such comments as the 
     Inspector General considers appropriate with regard to the 
     determination described in that report.

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Madam President, I will compress my remarks in line 
with Senator Simpson's requirements and just say this is an amendment 
that would return to the Treasury foreign aid funds that have not yet 
been obligated at the end of 4 years.
  This is really a reform that has been in the pipeline for a long 
time. In ``Putting People First,'' President Clinton said that he 
thought we should reform the foreign aid pipeline system and, as a 
matter of fact, the U.S. Agency for International Development said at 
the end of 1992 there was $8 billion of undisbursed foreign aid 
obligations in the pipeline.
  Madam President, $6 billion at the beginning of this fiscal year was 
obligated when Ronald Reagan was President. So there is a lot of money 
that we have passed on through the years in the Senate that has just 
not been expended, for one reason or another. This amendment would 
return that amount to the Treasury. But on a case-by-case basis the 
President could waive the requirements for the return of those funds 
under certain circumstances if they have not been expended for some 
unforeseen reason.
  So I think this is just a good-fiscal-responsibility amendment. It 
would save $1 billion, according to the CBO. I offer the amendment, and 
I believe it is acceptable to the managers. If that is correct, I will 
rest my case.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, it is indeed. In fact it is, if not 
identical, very similar to an amendment which we put on the AID bill. 
We are delighted to accept it. I thank the Senator from Texas for 
compressing.
  THE PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1285) was agreed to.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BROWN. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1286

(Purpose: To prohibit the sale of defense articles and defense services 
to countries that participate in the secondary and tertiary boycott of 
                                Israel)

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask 
for its immediate consideration. The amendment is offered on behalf of 
myself, Senator Moynihan, Senator McConnell, Senator Mack, Senator 
Kempthorne, Senator Coats, Senator McCain, Senator Burns, Senator 
Lautenberg, Senator Feingold, Senator DeConcini, and Senator Grassley.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Colorado [Mr. Brown], for himself, Mr. 
     Moynihan, Mr. McConnell, Mr. Mack, Mr. Kempthorne, Mr. Coats, 
     Mr. McCain, Mr. Burns, Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Feingold, Mr. 
     DeConcini, and Mr. Grassley, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1286.

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading 
of the amendment be dispensed with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The amendment is as follows:
       On page 179, after line 6, add the following new title:

          TITLE VIII--ANTI-ECONOMIC DISCRIMINATION ACT OF 1994

     SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Anti-Economic 
     Discrimination Act of 1994''.

     SEC. 802. CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.

       The Congress finds that--
       (1) certain countries maintain an economic boycott of 
     Israel, including a secondary boycott of companies that have 
     investments in or trade with Israel;
       (2) the secondary boycott has caused economic damage to the 
     countries that maintain the boycott as well as to Israel;
       (3) the secondary boycott causes great difficulties for 
     United States firms that trade with Israel, depriving them of 
     trade opportunities and violating internationally accepted 
     principles of free trade;
       (4) the United States has a longstanding policy opposing 
     the Arab League boycott and United States law prohibits 
     American firms from providing information to Arab countries 
     to demonstrate compliance with the boycott;
       (5) many American companies may be denied contracts in the 
     West Bank and Gaza for infrastructure development because 
     they conduct business with Israel; and
       (6) many American companies may be denied contracts by the 
     Kuwaiti Government for the reconstruction of Kuwait because 
     they conduct business with Israel.
       (7) under the Administration's leadership the U.S. has sent 
     a clear, consistent and unambiguous message that the Arab 
     League boycott of companies that do business with Israel is 
     an obstacle to peace and should be terminated;
       (8) the United States has laws prohibiting United States 
     firms from providing Arab states with the requested 
     information about compliance with boycott regulations;
       (9) the United States Trade Representative, in August 1993, 
     commissioned the ITC to undertake a study of the boycott's 
     impact on U.S. businesses which will provide, for the first 
     time, a carefully researched estimate of the impact of the 
     boycott on the U.S.;
       (10) the Administration has conducted an active diplomatic 
     campaign to convince Arab League countries that the time to 
     end the boycott and economic discrimination against United 
     States businesses is now;
       (11) the Administration's efforts have produced encouraging 
     development, as for example, with statements by officials of 
     the Arab League that at its next meeting in March, the Arab 
     League states will consider ending their discrimination 
     against firms that do business with Israel and the decision 
     to postpone the October 1993 meeting of the Central Boycott 
     Committee;
       (12) under U.S. leadership, the G-7 countries have 
     unconditionally called for an end to the Arab boycott;
       (13) the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of 
     State and other senior Administration officials have assured 
     the Congress that they will speak forcefully and candidly, in 
     every forum which touches upon the search for peace in the 
     Middle East, about the need to end the boycott;
       (14) the Congress wishes to support the efforts of the 
     Administration and to help see the promises made to date 
     translated into tangible results;
       (15) the statements made by Arab leaders must be translated 
     into action, as measured by quarterly reports from the Office 
     of Anti-Boycott Compliance.

     SEC. 803. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN SALES AND LEASES.

       (a) Prohibition.--No defense article or defense service may 
     be sold or leased by the United States Government to any 
     country or international organization that, as a matter of 
     policy or practice, is known to have sent letters to United 
     States firms requesting compliance with, or soliciting 
     information regarding compliance with, the secondary or 
     tertiary Arab boycott, unless the President determines, and 
     so certifies to the appropriate congressional committees, 
     that that country or organization does not currently maintain 
     a policy or practice of making such requests or 
     solicitations.
       (b) Waiver.--
       (1) 1-year waiver.--On or after the effective date of this 
     section, the President may waive, for a period of 1 year, the 
     application of subsection (a) with respect to any country or 
     organization if the President determines, and reports to the 
     appropriate congressional committees, that--
       (A) such waiver is in the national interest of the United 
     States, and such wavier will promote the objectives of this 
     section to eliminate the Arab boycott; or
       (B) such waiver is in the national security interest of the 
     United States.
       (2) Extension of Waiver.--If the President determines that 
     the further extension of a waiver will promote the objectives 
     of this section, the President, upon notification of the 
     appropriate congressional committees, may grant further 
     extensions of such waiver for successive 12-month periods.
       (3) Termination of waiver.--The President may, at any time, 
     terminate any waiver granted under this subsection.
       (c) Definitions.--As used in this section--
       (1) the term ``appropriate congressional committees'' means 
     the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate and the 
     Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives; 
     and
       (2) the terms ``defense article'' and ``defense service'' 
     have the meanings given to such terms by paragraphs (3) and 
     (4), respectively, of section 47 of the Arms Export Control 
     Act.
       (d) Effective Date.--This section shall take effect 1 year 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.

  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays on this 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second? There is a 
sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. BROWN. Madam President, this amendment is an attempt to deal with 
a shocking continuing problem in the foreign arena. Shocking I believe 
because most Americans would find it hard to imagine that efforts are 
still being made by a number of countries around the world to effect a 
secondary and tertiary boycott against the State of Israel. 
Unbelievable in a way because at a time when Israel has made enormous 
concessions and sits at the bargaining table with the potential of 
making new and additional concessions, there is such a focused effort 
to effect cruel and almost a crippling boycott of businesses that 
attempt to trade and do business with Israel.
  Most Americans, I think, would be shocked to understand that there 
were 8,660 boycott requests that were documented by the Office of 
Antiboycott Compliance of the Department of Commerce this last year. 
Shocked because not only our Nation but dozens of other nations around 
the world have made an enormous commitment and contribution and 
sacrifice to try and bring peace to the Middle East. If Israel is 
willing to step forward and make sacrifices that threaten her very 
security and her borders, surely we should be willing to stand up and 
condemn in clear and unequivocal language an attempt to effect a cruel 
boycott against her. It strikes at the very ability of Israel to move 
forward in the peace process, and it strikes at the very heart of the 
President's efforts to bring peace to the Middle East.
  This measure is very simple. It flatly prohibits the sale of defense 
services or articles to countries that participate in the secondary and 
tertiary boycott of United States companies that do business with 
Israel. United States companies should not be punished for engaging in 
trade with Israel, one of our closest allies.
  There is an exception to this prohibition and it is an important one. 
It allows the President to grant a 1-year waiver in the interest of 
national security. That waiver is important because it gives the 
President flexibility. It is something that I believe the 
administration is interested in and wants, but no one should think the 
United States is not serious about stopping this kind of discrimination 
against our companies and businesses. Even if waivers are granted, no 
government should be so foolish to believe that they would be granted a 
second or third waiver.
  I believe with this tool in place in the law, we will find the 
President has far more leverage to end the secondary and tertiary 
boycotts, and we will certainly find much stronger protection for 
American businesses.
  This does say one thing. It says America is serious about working on 
peace in the Middle East.
  I would not want to end my comments without acknowledging the very 
significant help of Senator Moynihan, not only for the work on this 
amendment but for his leadership on the issue. And also the work of his 
staffer, Steve Rickard, who has devoted so much time and effort in this 
area. Both of them have provided leadership that I think is enormously 
helpful in bringing this amendment to the attention of the body and 
bringing it in the form that I believe will be acceptable to the 
membership of this body.
  Madam President, I might simply mention we do have the yeas and nays 
on this. I would certainly be happy to accommodate the chairman with 
whatever timing he would like to decide upon for the placement of that 
vote.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, the Arab League boycott--always 
repugnant--is now especially anachronistic and an obstacle to peace. 
Everyone agrees that in large measure the success of the peace efforts 
now underway will depend upon whether peace produces tangible benefits 
for the parties involved. In part, that means jobs and economic 
development. For the Arab States to encourage the administration to 
contribute American tax dollars to the development of the West Bank and 
Gaza at the very time that they are seeking to strangle economic 
activities with Israel and discriminating against American companies is 
intolerable.
  I commend the Senator from Colorado for his leadership on this issue 
and for his willingness to craft an amendment which both strongly 
expresses the repugnance which the Congress feels for the Arab League 
boycott and yet at the same time gives the administration considerable 
flexibility to use the amendment to compliment its efforts.
  The administration has made admirable efforts to have the boycott 
lifted. This issue has received the sustained personal attention of the 
Secretary. And others within the administration. This amendment is not 
intended to express frustration with their considerable efforts. On the 
contrary. It is intended to supplement their efforts by giving them 
another tool. It permits the administration to continue their 
diplomatic efforts for 1 full year before the sanctions even take 
effect. And it permits the President to waive the sanctions of the bill 
in an appropriate case.
  There have been some encouraging statements made by Arab League 
officials concerning the boycott. And we are told that in private, Arab 
officials have said that they are taking steps to end their 
discrimination against American companies. But these statements must 
now be converted into action. As the amendment states, we need to see a 
tangible reduction in the number of reports that Arab States have 
demanded compliance with the boycott. So far such measurable results 
have not appeared. Put most simply, the boycott must end.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the vote on 
the amendment of the Senator from Colorado on or in relation to the 
amendment of the Senator from Colorado take place immediately following 
the first vote that occurs tomorrow at such time as that may develop; 
and that the second vote, which would be the vote on the amendment of 
the Senator from Colorado, be a 10-minute vote at that time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, let me just say, if I may, with respect 
to the Senator's amendment, he singles out an egregious practice that 
many of us have run into in the course of travels in that region. It is 
incongruous in the context of any true movement toward peace and I 
think has for far too long been ignored as one of the ingredients of 
oppression and of war, in a sense, against the State of Israel.
  So I congratulate the Senator for bringing this forward. I think he 
will find that there is enormous support within the U.S. Senate for 
this effort.
  Mr. PELL addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. PELL. Madam President, this Arab League boycott is an 
anachronism, a repugnant reminder of events and hostilities of the 
past. It is not fitting that the boycott continue, and this amendment 
does a lot to unravel it, to take it apart.
  I support the amendment, which would prohibit American arms sales to 
nations that engage in the economic boycott against Israel. This 
amendment properly links U.S. arms sales to compliance with the 
boycott. It is also crafted to give the President flexibility in its 
application.
  The adoption of this amendment will serve a real purpose and send a 
strong message to the Near East.


             kerry amendment no. 1263 to amendment no. 1262

  Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I wish to express my thoughts on the 
amendment offered by the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator kerry.
  This amendment presents us with a very difficult and emotional issue. 
Different people can legitimately come to different conclusions about 
what is the best for our country, and most important, what may be best 
for Americans who could possibly have been left behind in Vietnam, 
Cambodia, or Laos.
  Adm. Philip Larson, the commander in chief of our Pacific forces and 
one of our most experienced military officers, recently returned from a 
visit to Vietnam. He said his mission received full cooperation on POW/
MIA cases, and that he is satisfied with Vietnam's overall cooperation. 
Further, he said, we will be more likely to resolve all of the 
outstanding cases if Americans are free to travel in Vietnam, whether 
on diplomatic missions, for business or other reasons. I take his views 
very seriously.
  I believe this amendment is in our best interest. We would make a 
mistake if we tie the President's hands and thus reject the advice of 
senior officers who have seen the situation on the ground for 
themselves.
  However, if we are to move in this direction, we should move 
cautiously. For example, the Vietnamese Government hopes for resumption 
of normal diplomatic relations. We should not take such a step until we 
have further proof of good faith and progress on POW/MIA 
investigations. Rather, we should proceed by degrees. We should open 
economic relations first, and then pause to evaluate Vietnam's 
continued cooperation. Thus we can both continue to push Vietnam in the 
right direction, and reserve some of our most important steps for 
future leverage.


               lifting the trade embargo against vietnam

                       amendments no. 1262, 1263

  Mr. DASCHLE. For almost 20 years, diplomatic and economic relations 
between the United States and Vietnam have been severed. Although the 
United States was quick to restore relations with Germany and Japan 
after World War II, our relationship with Vietnam has been strained by 
the controversy surrounding the American POW/MIA issue. I support the 
amendments offered by Senators Kerry and McCain that urge the President 
to lift the trade embargo against Vietnam. I do so in hopes that it 
will help, not hinder, our efforts to account for American POW/MIAs.
  I would like to begin by thanking Senators Kerry and McCain for 
sharing their thoughts and experiences about this controversial issue 
on the Senate floor yesterday. I had the fortunate opportunity to serve 
with both of these highly decorated Vietnam veterans on the Senate POW/
MIA Committee, and I can attest that their dedication and commitment to 
resolve the POW/MIA issue is simply unparalleled. The POW/MIA issue is 
a very emotional one for them, as it is for all veterans and Americans 
who lost loved ones in Vietnam. I sincerely hope, however, that we can 
follow their example and find the courage we need to work with the 
Vietnamese Government toward finding an acceptable resolution to this 
sad and agonizing chapter in our history.
  Before I offer my comments and thoughts about lifting the trade 
embargo against Vietnam, I think it is important that my colleagues 
understand the provisions of the Kerry and McCain amendments. They are 
sense of the Senate amendments that only urge the President to lift the 
United States trade embargo against Vietnam. Neither amendment calls 
for the President to restore diplomatic relations with Vietnam. On the 
contrary, lifting the trade embargo should only be seen as a step 
toward normalization of relations with Vietnam.
  Like Senators Kerry and McCain, I support lifting the trade embargo 
against Vietnam for a number of reasons. First, it would acknowledge 
the cooperation that the United States has received from Vietnam. 
Although it has been almost 20 years late, the fact of the matter that 
the Vietnamese Government is finally cooperating on the POW/MIA issue.
  Senator Kerry described some examples of the cooperation we received 
from the Vietnamese Government. Without revisiting all those examples, 
I will only reiterate that when Gen. John Vessey began serving as an 
emissary to Vietnam for POW/MIA affairs under President Reagan in the 
late eighties,there were 196 cases where it was thought that an 
American servicemember might have survived. Due in large part to the 
efforts of General Vessey, that number is now down to 73 cases. That is 
more than 120 cases that have been resolved during the past few years.
  In addition to reciprocating the cooperation that we have already 
received from Vietnam, I believe that lifting the trade embargo will 
facilitate further cooperation. It seems to me the new leadership that 
has emerged in Vietnam has demonstrated a strong desire to cooperate. I 
fear, however, that unless we make a serious good faith effort in 
return, the current environment of cooperation could recede.
  General Vessey believes that if cooperation is to continue, the trade 
embargo against Vietnam must be lifted. Upon visiting Vietnam recently, 
Admiral Larson, Commander of U.S. Military Forces in the Pacific, also 
offered his view that progress on accounting for POW/MIAs is contingent 
upon lifting the trade embargo to Vietnam. Several other senior 
military people involved in our current effort to resolve the POW/MIA 
issue agree with General Vessey and Admiral Larson. For instance, 
Generals Needham and Christmas similarly advocated lifting the trade 
embargo against Vietnam.
  Mr. President, I know some of my colleagues will not support the 
amendments offered by Senators Kerry and McCain. In addition, I realize 
that some veterans will question whether lifting the trade embargo 
against Vietnam is the right course of action. Although I respectfully 
disagree with their assessment, I want to emphasize that we share the 
same goal of finding a resolution to the American POW/MIA issue.
  A full and accurate accounting of American POW/MIAs is a mission that 
the American Government has a sacred responsibility to execute to its 
finite conclusion. I look forward to working with my colleagues and 
veterans in South Dakota and throughout the country as we continue to 
achieve that goal.

                          ____________________