[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 45 (Thursday, April 21, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: April 21, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                   BANKRUPTCY AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1993

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I was following the debate via 
television from my office. If I understood correctly, my distinguished 
colleague from Florida, Senator Mack, was talking in support of the 
arms embargo amendment of the Senator from Kansas, the distinguished 
Presiding Officer, and others. I wish to also support that amendment. 
But I would like to set the record straight on several points.
  The Senator from Florida was citing President Clinton as the author 
of our current policy regarding the embargo of arms shipments to 
Bosnia. This is not correct. Let me refer to the amendment itself under 
subsection (c).
  The amendment itself--of which I see now the distinguished Senator 
from Florida is a cosponsor, because the copy I have at the desk says 
Dole, Lieberman, Mack, and others--cites the policy as originating on 
July 10, 1991. What we are trying to do is change the policy of July 
10, 1991--the policy of President Bush.
  When I hear this talk asserting that President Clinton is not 
leading, I disagree. He is leading on so many issues around this 
country that the people cannot keep up with him. He is leading on 
health care; he is leading on the anticrime bill; he is leading on the 
matter of deficit reduction; and much, much more. If there is one thing 
the President has been doing, he has been leading. Many do not like 
that leadership, in many instances. But the key point with respect to 
our Bosnia policy is that President Clinton has been leading with the 
Bush policy.
  I recall after the November 1992 election and prior to the 
inauguration, the theme of the Clinton leadership was clear. The theme 
in domestic policy was change: change in housing, change in health 
care, change in education. Let us get going with change, change, 
change, on domestic policy.
  But on foreign policy, Mr. President, the theme was continuity, 
continuity, continuity. I do not say it was right or wrong. It is fact.
  The distinguished President Clinton came to town, and in the spirit 
of continuity he adopted the Bush policy on Haiti. He adopted the Bush 
policy on Somalia. He adopted the Bush policy in the Mideast. He 
adopted the Bush policy on China and Indochina. He adopted the Bush 
policy with respect to Russia. And of course he adopted the Bush policy 
with respect to Bosnia.
  So let us not have this moaning and groaning about, oh, the vision 
now is gone, and people wonder about America. I happen to think that 
the Bush policy was well founded. And I think that perhaps we ought to 
be very, very cautious in trying to reverse it. Specifically, the best 
of experienced minds on the subject of Yugoslavia is the former 
Secretary of State and former Ambassador to Yugoslavia, Lawrence 
Eagleburger.
  I happened to be impressed with his view stated several years back 
that we had no security interest in jeopardy in Yugoslavia or Bosnia.
  Likewise, it was former Secretary of State James Baker, author of the 
Bush policy in Bosnia, was said, ``We don't have a dog in that fight.'' 
At that time, there was no weeping, moaning, groaning, and howling 
about the lost vision of America, about America's failure to stand for 
freedom. I never heard any of that kind of talk.
  I thought it was a well-conceived policy to stay out of local 
conflicts that are hundreds of years old. Specifically, we know that on 
June 28, 1914, 80 years ago, when the Archduke of Austria was 
assassinated with his wife, Sophia, in Sarajevo, that very same evening 
there were riots by the Croats and Moslems against the Serbs.
  It so happens by coincidence that this morning we had the 
appropriations hearing for the Department of State, and the 
distinguished Secretary of State appeared. He was saying, well, that is 
where we made our mistake, back in 1914. We should learn.
  He was thinking of the consequences of intervention. Intervention in 
1914 was a mistake. Russia took one side and Germany took the other 
side, and the chain reaction of alliance interventions precipitated 
World War I.
  Now we are trying, as I understand it, to show that we have learned 
something. It is a lesson perhaps learned best by the countries of 
Europe, because they have resisted intervening, despite the daily 
slaughter which no one takes lightly.
  Here is my point. The responsibility for our current failed policy 
goes to a decision adopted, according to this amendment cosponsored by 
the Senator from Maryland, on July 10, 1991, almost 3 years ago, by the 
Bush administration.
  That policy could have been flawed. I guess there are those who would 
argue that that is when we took sides, because we left one side armed 
and the other side unarmed. That has disturbed this particular Senator. 
If that is the mistake we are trying to correct, then the Senator from 
South Carolina is pleased to join in the Dole-Lieberman-Mack amendment 
and lift that embargo and correct that mistake.
  But I think it would be an even greater mistake if we turn to a 
policy whereby we are requesting the United Nations, we are requesting 
NATO, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, to carry out further 
raids, further use of air power. As we all know, so-called peacekeepers 
went in when there was not any peace. There have been dozens of 
peacekeepers killed, and there were 16 Canadians taken hostage just 
recently. The so-called peace force has been constantly harassed, and, 
of course, there is no peace. So they say, well, we have to have air 
raids in order to protect the peacekeepers. That was one part of the 
policy.
  And then, Mr. President, the policy has evolved now into raids to 
protect safe havens. This reminds me of the Vietnam war and how we got 
deeper and deeper. When I got up here in 1966, there were only two of 
us presiding in the President's chair, the distinguished Senator from 
Virginia, Senator Spong, and myself. We logged 200 hours and got two 
Golden Gavel Awards. We used to have to listen to debate on the Gulf of 
Tonkin and the debate back and forth. I remember how one Senator would, 
every evening, call President Johnson a murderer. Let us not again get 
into those kinds of things. Let us look at the policy.
  I happen to have asked the Secretary of State just a year ago, at 
that fiscal year 1994 appropriations hearing, I inquired, ``What is the 
policy, Secretary Christopher?''
  He said, ``Well, before we adopt the use of military force, there has 
got to be a four-way check.'' He said,

       We will not use military force except when, one, we are 
     able to state to the American people the goal for which the 
     force would be used; two, there must be a strong likelihood 
     that we will be successful in the use of force; three, there 
     must be an exit strategy, as we must know how we are going to 
     get out; four, it must be a program that will be sustained by 
     support from the American people.

  Mr. President, we have not met that four-way test with regard to 
Bosnia.
  One, we are not able to state to the American people the goal to 
which the force would be used.
  It is a moving target. We do not have a goal there. We are trying, 
and I am just as grieved as anybody else and shocked by the slaughter, 
but we also see slaughter in Rwanda. We have a U.N. force there, and 
they just watched the slaughter of civilians. There have been some 
20,000 killed in recent weeks in Rwanda. But we hear nothing about the 
slaughter there and how we ought to intervene.
  There are other places around the globe, such as Northern Ireland. Of 
course, it is not quite the scale of slaughter as in other places, but 
it is just as horrifying--with explosions and blowing people to bits, 
and murders. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. If we are 
wondering about the effectiveness of NATO, why not NATO intervention in 
Northern Ireland?
  My point is that we are very judicious in our affirmative policy of 
trying to stay out of wars. We are not that one superpower left. There 
is no such thing as a superpower. You can use your nuclear to defend, 
but you cannot use your nuclear weapons offensively. We could have, 
should have, but did not in Korea. We could have and should have and 
did not in Vietnam. So the so-called superpower of nuclear force is 
absolutely useless when it comes to intervention.
  So I am concerned about Senators on the floor asking the President to 
lead. He is leading with the Bush position. Now we are trying to 
correct that position. But President Clinton has not lost his vision, I 
can tell you that.
  The second Christopher test is that there must be a strong likelihood 
that we will be successful in the use of force.
  Well, we went into Gorazde twice, we bombed it twice, and they have 
shot down one NATO plane. That bombing was totally ineffective. It has 
exacerbated the situation rather than bringing about peace.
  The third Christopher test is that there must be an exit strategy; we 
must know how we are going to get out. We have 500 troops in Macedonia. 
We do not want to have them dragged into combat in next-door Bosnia.
  The fourth Christopher test asks, is this a policy that will be 
sustained by support from the American people.
  Mr. President, the American people have not been asked. We are 
Congress, and here we are and we have no request from the 
administration. If there is a fault, therein is the fault. As Senator 
Dick Russell of Georgia said when he put in that resolution--war 
commitments resolutions--looking ahead to the next intervention. He 
said, next time when we go, we all go together. But, thus far, the 
administration has not asked the Congress. They have asked NATO and the 
United Nations.
  Concerning the United Nations, let me note that we have gone from 
spending $20 million for peacekeeping four years ago, to now spending 
up to $1.5 billion annually for peacekeeping. Everybody is talking 
about cutting spending. We are increasing it by billions in an unknown 
policy. This peacekeeping has gone into 16 countries, and you and I 
have to pay 30.4 percent of the bill. Down in Rwanda, there is no 
particular solace to the point that we do not have American troops 
there and in some of these other countries. However, we are paying 30.4 
percent, almost a third of the bill, wherever peacekeepers are 
deployed. All things totaled, it is almost a $5 billion bill. So we are 
looking at this in very close terms.
  We want to make sure that our commitment in Bosnia satisfies the 
``mother'' test. When a mother is informed that her pilot son has been 
shot down or killed, and she calls Senator Hollings, or Senator Exon, 
or Senator Lautenberg, on the phone and wants to know why, we want to 
be able to respond intelligently and not say: Well, we think we were 
trying to do the right thing. Yes, his commitment was not in vain, but 
incidentally, we never discussed the policy, we never discussed a vote 
on the particular commitment. We understand that we are in support of 
NATO, we are in support of the United Nations, and I think that is how 
he got killed.
  That does not satisfy the mother test.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Akaka). The Senator from New Jersey is 
recognized.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I want to first thank my colleagues, 
Senator Exon from Nebraska, and Senator Grassley who I know have been 
waiting to say something on the floor, but I did want to be permitted 
to participate in the discussion that is currently underway before the 
subject changed.
  Mr. President, I look at the Chair and I see someone who served in 
World War II. I look behind me and I see someone who served in World 
War II. Mr. President, I also served in World War II, and Senator 
Hollings served in World War II. I am not talking about our ages. I am 
talking about our commitment. I am talking about what it was we 
intended to do when we fought that war.
  We intended to try to save lives and free people, and we never did 
what we have an opportunity to do right now. At that time we were asked 
by some to bomb railroad tracks and extermination camps. We could have 
saved lots and lots of lives. We did not do it. But we put our boys in 
battle and what a moment we are coming to--50 years since D-day, 50 
years. It seems hard, does not it?
  I ask my colleagues who served in World War II like I to believe that 
it was 50 years ago that we had a chance to serve our country. We were 
young kids at the time. I know I speak for all of them when we say we 
treasured every moment of that service that we had to do. It was not 
always pleasant, not always happy, but nevertheless we were feeling 
good about our country and our responsibility.
  It was then that the United States established its position as a 
moral leader of the world. It was then that we said we will not stand 
by and let innocent people be killed without some response to it.
  Now I find it shocking. I talked to two fathers of two sons who were 
lost in Somalia. They were New Jersey kids, wonderful young people, 
each of whom's father served in Vietnam. One father lost a leg and in 
Somali he lost a son. He still loves his country. He still believes, as 
critical as he was of the ineptitude that surrounded our action in 
Somalia, our inability, our lack of understanding of what was required 
by way of reinforcement to protect those lives. And no one here, I do 
not care what side of the aisle or what side of the debate you are on, 
wants to sacrifice American lives.
  We have a military, Mr. President, to protect what we believe is our 
interest and our interest cannot always be defined in the borders or 
the boundaries that we are discussing. Sometimes our interest is 
fundamental to what is right and what is wrong.
  If one watches the pictures, sees the television of what is taking 
place in Bosnia, it is unacceptable in a civilized world. We finally 
have arrived at a place where we are forced to take a stand or retreat 
from the moral high ground that we occupy, that we can say without 
excessive risk that we want to supply arms to the Bosnians so they can 
fight back and make those Serbs pay a price for their wanton 
destruction of life and property, for firing on innocent civilians, for 
dropping bombs in the market square, for attacking hospitals or 
orphanages, or convents, with no restrictions. I say convents. I am 
using the term loosely. I am talking about houses or places of worship. 
There is no restriction.
  Mr. President, I think that the Dole-Lieberman amendment ought to 
move along quickly. We can figure out the process. We can figure out 
how to make deliveries. But if one takes a trip to the area or nearby, 
as I did sometime ago with some colleagues, and as others have done, 
and sees what is happening and sees what the price is for our inaction, 
and remember what the price has been in the past for inaction, Mr. 
President, if this is permitted to continue and warring or adversarial 
nations see that there is no price, none at all for taking territory or 
lives, it will embolden the worst in leadership around the world.
  Mr. President, I think if we cannot bring this to a halt we can at 
least bring it to a slower pace. I hope that we will do that, that we 
will stand up and say that we cannot bear witness to this killing, to 
this destruction and not do something about it.
  This is certainly, in my view, at the edge of relatively minimal 
risk. I hope that we will take it and give those people a chance to 
fight back.
  They have proven they have courage. They have proven that they are 
willing to do what they have to to defend themselves, but right now 
their position is one of being in the middle of a shooting gallery with 
any kind of weapons that the other guys want to bring.
  We had a terrible mistake within the last couple weeks when two 
helicopters were shot down. All of us felt the pain of that. It 
happens, unfortunately, sometimes in the military situation.
  But I believe that the situation that we are looking at now is one 
that is with minimal risk and with great opportunity to say we stand up 
for something that is decent, moral and appropriate. I hope we will 
take that action.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized.

                          ____________________