[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.


                Amendment No. 1641 to Amendment No. 1640

  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I have sought recognition to support 
the pending amendment which calls for the United States to unilaterally 
remove the arms embargo preventing the sale of weapons to the 
Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina, because I think that this 
amendment, this resolution, is reasonably calculated to help the 
situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina.
  There is no doubt about the atrocities of Serbian aggression against 
those countries, about their inability to defend themselves, and about 
the failure of Serbia and the Serbs to honor the wishes and sanctions 
of the United Nations and declared world public opinion against the 
atrocities which are being conducted there.
  This resolution is different in two respects from a resolution which 
was considered by the Senate on January 27, 1994.
  First, that resolution was only a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. 
This provision calls for forcible legislative enactment which will have 
the force and effect of law, contrasted with the sense of the Senate, 
which was the matter pending on January 27, 1994.
  Second, the pending amendment omits one key provision from the sense-
of-the-Senate resolution of January 27, 1994 to this effect: The 
earlier provision from January 27, 1994, said,

       ``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 1 of the 
     United Nations Charter.''

  Because of that provision, I voted against the sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution on January 27, because I was unwilling to endorse a 
proposition authorizing the President to provide appropriate military 
assistance to the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina, because I think 
that that was, in effect, a blank check, or certainly could have been 
interpreted to be a blank check.
  When the reports came forward about the vote on the January 27 
resolution, I received many objections to opposing the lifting of the 
arms embargo and explained to those who inquired that I was not opposed 
to lifting the arms embargo, but that I was opposed to the supplemental 
provision which would authorize the President, really with a blank 
check, to provide whatever military assistance he might deem 
appropriate. That is the language which was covered.

  One of the things which is frequently misunderstood is, when there 
are news reports about the votes, they do not reflect many paragraphs 
or many complications or many subtitles that may be comprehended. If 
the thrust of the amendment is to lift the arms embargo and that is all 
that is reported by the news media, the public does not understand that 
there are other provisions which are potentially very troublesome.
  So I take some time now to specify why I was against the January 27 
resolution but feel that today's resolution is appropriate. I believe 
that the atrocities which are being committed today in Bosnia and 
Herzegovina are extraordinary in the annals of warfare, even 
considering the atrocities with which we are familiar from World War II 
and from other wars. It is a matter of great anguish that the civilized 
world stands by and observes these atrocities in progress. It is a 
matter that cannot be dealt with in any definitive way without ground 
forces.
  I believe that the U.S. policy is correct in not committing American 
fighting personnel on the ground, which would be debilitating and a 
quagmire and something which is just not what U.S. policy ought to be. 
Deciding we are not going to be engaged in a ground war over there--and 
that is the view of NATO as well and the United Nations as well--there 
is no way, really, to take sufficient definitive steps in a forceful 
way to stop the fighting there. We are then left with the option of the 
air strikes, which I do support, realizing that the air strikes in and 
of themselves are not going to be sufficient. The example of the war 
against Iraq certainly demonstrates the fact that no matter how 
forceful or how pounding and repetitive the airstrikes, the air strikes 
in and of themselves are not going to be sufficient. The air strikes 
also pose the problem of endangering the United Nations peacekeeping 
forces which are on the ground there.
  It is anomalous that we have peacekeeping forces there when there is 
really no peace to keep. Questions have been directed to me: Would I 
favor having U.S. personnel on the ground as part of the peacekeeping 
force? I say categorically, no, I would not do that. I would not want 
to jeopardize U.S. personnel as part of peacekeeping forces because 
there is no peace to keep. Yet, if there are air strikes or there is 
other action, even the elimination of the embargo, the U.N. 
peacekeeping forces may be hostage there. So their safety and security 
has to be taken into account.
  It is a very complex matter. Some have suggested with some 
forcefulness--and I am not sure but that it may be most appropriate--to 
withdraw the peacekeeping forces so they are not at risk and to 
intensify the air strikes as part of an action to remove the arms 
embargo. This resolution does not go that far. We do not have to make a 
decision on that at this time.
  I am aware of the problem of the United States moving unilaterally. I 
am aware of the administration's concern in not wanting to act 
unilaterally when the sanctions were imposed through the United Nations 
and that the United States relies upon joint international action in 
maintaining other sanctions such as sanctions against Iraq, sanctions 
which may not be working very well. So we are concerned about taking 
unilateral action, the administration is, which may weaken our request 
to other nations where we ask them to support international sanctions.
  Notwithstanding that consideration, it is my view that the United 
States ought to act unilaterally as the proposal is pending today, even 
though it is contrary to a very important general principle of 
supporting joint action with the United Nations. In supporting this 
amendment, which has the force of law, it is then still subject to a 
veto by the President and the necessity for a veto override. Judging 
from the fact that the last resolution was agreed to by a vote of 87 to 
9, there would be sufficient votes to override a veto. I would be 
joining, so there would be no more than eight, and I am joining because 
this amendment does not contain the blank check for the President to 
use whatever force he may deem appropriate.
  Madam President, it is my thought that when the international 
community, including the Serbs, see this amendment having the force of 
law and it moves forward in the legislative process and may come to the 
President's desk for signature and may be signed and may be subject to 
being enacted into law on an override, they will see that the United 
States means business. At least the Senate means business. The House 
will have an opportunity to pass upon all this.
  Even though it is unilateral, perhaps it will have the effect of 
expediting the United Nations or NATO to move with the United States in 
eliminating the arms embargo. Certainly what is going on at the present 
time is totally intolerable. This at least offers some hope to improve 
that desperate situation.
  For these reasons, I will be voting in support of this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Is the Senator from Massachusetts seeking recognition, 
also?
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I had just wanted to ask a question of 
the Senator from Pennsylvania. I will be happy to wait.
  Mr. GREGG. I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts. I noticed he 
was here earlier.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts is recognized.
  Mr. KERRY. Madam President, I listened to the Senator from 
Pennsylvania. I am very sympathetic to much of what he said. I do not 
think any of us here are arguing about the level of atrocity or what 
the civilized world ought to do. But the Senator has raised the issue 
of unilateralness and sort of pushed it aside. He said: Notwithstanding 
the unilateral issue, I think we ought to vote this way.
  I wonder if the Senator really feels that is good policy on its face. 
Or, perhaps, if there were an alternative way to approach this so, if 
the resolution embraced an exhortation to the President to first move 
multilaterally with some room for the President to be able to try to do 
that immediately and then, in the event of the failure of the President 
doing that, the embargo would be lifted notwithstanding a Russian veto 
or any other excuses why it failed--but first to give the opportunity 
to keep faith with the multilateral effort--does the Senator from 
Pennsylvania not think that perhaps might be a way of accommodating a 
lot of concerns of Senators and at the same time keeping faith with our 
international responsibilities?
  Mr. SPECTER. If I may respond, I think the Senator from Massachusetts 
raises a very valid point. If we can achieve the elimination of the 
arms embargo in a multilateral way, that would be preferable, instead 
of the United States going its own way unilaterally. That matter is not 
now before the Senate. I think the practical effect of this amendment 
will be what the Senator from Massachusetts seeks to accomplish.
  Right now, as I understand it, the administration is trying to 
persuade our NATO allies and others in the United Nations that there 
ought to be a multilateral elimination of the arms embargo. I think if 
there is a strong vote out of the Senate, that will arm President 
Clinton and the administration in their negotiating efforts.
  One might ask why that was not accomplished with the 87-to-9 vote 
before. I do not know the answer to that. Maybe they said it is only a 
sense-of-the-Senate resolution, those are passed all the time and they 
do not mean anything. I do not know that was the result. I have seen 
some reactions to a sense-of-the-Senate resolution taken very 
seriously. But whatever happened in the past we do not know. Now it 
will have the force of law and it will move forward as part of this 
bill as an attachment to the bankruptcy bill. It may be passed by the 
House.
  Then, if the President is unsuccessful in getting other nations to 
join in a multilateral way, he may be forced to veto the bill. But we 
are ratcheting it up. We are raising the stakes and, I think, 
strengthening the President's hand in a very real sense, saying to our 
allies: Go along because I am facing a legislative body which can make 
law over my veto if you do not.
  Mr. KERRY. I thank the Senator. I take it then if we were able to 
come together, the Senator obviously would support it. I appreciate 
that and appreciate his sensitivity to try to make that happen. I thank 
the Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, if I might be recognized for another 
second or two, and I do not want to impede on the Senator from New 
Hampshire. There have been negotiations to try to modify the language 
of this amendment. If it cannot be modified to take the multilateral 
step initially--I think that will be a step in the right direction--but 
absent that, I am prepared to vote in favor of this amendment.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mr. GREGG. Madam President, I rise to address this amendment. I 
believe it is reflective of some very significant problems which we 
have in our foreign policy issues as a government, as a country. We 
appear to be stumbling in our approach to foreign policy, something 
like a bear coming out of hibernation, hitting this tree and that tree 
and not having a distinct direction on the issue of how we handle 
ourselves in the post-cold war period.
  Unfortunately, this amendment which has been brought forth is just an 
expression of that stumbling activity. It is more appropriate that we 
should have a very specific framework that we should be acting on 
rather than taking this piecemeal drip-drip-drip approach to foreign 
policy. It is equally appropriate that the leadership for a coherent 
and pervasive policy should be coming not from the Senate but from the 
administration.
  The fact that this type of amendment is being brought forward by this 
body and that this body feels the compulsion to address this issue in 
this way, I think, reflects the very serious problem which this 
administration is having in the area of foreign policy in general, 
Bosnia specifically, but more important, in defining for the American 
people what the role of our country is in the post-cold war era.
  This amendment represents a road to intervention, and I do not think 
we should see it as anything other than that. It represents a step--and 
a fairly significant one--down the path that will lead to or could lead 
to involvement of American military personnel in Bosnia and in the 
former Yugoslavia.
  Before we step onto that path, we should know why we are on that 
path, and we have not heard an explanation of that from this 
administration. I think it is absolutely essential that we get such an 
explanation before we pass this type of a resolution.
  I would like to suggest that there are three basic standards that we 
should be looking at in the post-cold war period as to when we use 
American force and when we will put at risk American prestige in issues 
that involve conflict.
  Those three tests should involve: First, a question of defining the 
conflict and whether it is a resolvable conflict; second, defining our 
national interest; and third, defining a strategy for not only entering 
the conflict but for getting out of the conflict. That should be done 
in each instance where this administration or this body decides to go 
forward and put at risk American lives.
  In defining the conflict, we must first establish what is the nature 
of the conflict. Is it an ethnic conflict? Is it a religious conflict? 
Is it a conflict that has strong historical roots, or is it a conflict 
that involves individuals desiring aggrandizement, either through 
expansion of political base or expansion of land or expansion of 
control over other individuals?
  We have examples in very recent history of these different types of 
conflicts. We have the situation that occurred in Iraq where you had an 
individual who was attempting to expand his own personal role in the 
world by using military force. A dictatorial action, a totalitarian 
state taking action that was of a military nature, and we addressed 
that.
  We also have examples--and I think Bosnia is one of them--of 
conflicts which go much deeper which are ethnic and religious and which 
do not have a clear, defined good guy or bad guy, do not have a clearly 
defined winner-loser scenario, that involve generations of hatred and 
intense feelings within a community.
  In the issue of Bosnia, it transcends towns and streets. It goes 
throughout the former nation of Yugoslavia.
  Another instance of that type of conflict is what happened in Lebanon 
only a few years ago, where you had the various ethnic and religious 
factions fighting each other in a conflict that was not easily 
resolvable.
  The second test is the issue of national interest. What is the 
national interest? Is there a national interest? On that test, we, once 
again, could look at the Iraqi situation where there was clearly a 
national interest: Oil supply for the world was threatened. Or we can 
look at North Korea where there is a national interest, because we are 
talking about a renegade nation that contains or possesses, or soon 
will possess, it appears, a capacity to deliver nuclear weapons, with 
the vehicles to deliver those weapons and which will threaten, 
therefore, a broad spectrum of the world.
  The use of nuclear weapons is something we should be concerned about 
and have a national interest in and contain it. But in Bosnia, we do 
not have a national interest. In Bosnia, we have a conflict which is 
regional in a part of the world where the United States has no 
immediate national interest. If we are going to go into Bosnia, does 
that mean we are also going to go into Rwanda? Are we going to go into 
Azerbaijan? Are we going to go into the Kashmir? Are we going to go 
into any number of hot spots around the world where there is conflict 
going on and where the horror of that conflict equals or exceeds, as in 
the case of Rwanda, what is happening in Bosnia?
  So on the first two tests: Is the conflict resolvable? No, it 
probably is not. This is an ethnic and religious conflict in which 
today's events are a page in a long history, and it is just going to 
continue. So that test is not met.
  The second test is: Is there a national interest for the United 
States if we get involved? No, I do not believe you can insert a clear 
national interest for our Nation. If the national interest is defined 
as stopping a horrific event--which this clearly is--then we cannot 
limit ourselves to Bosnia.
  Clearly, we must be in Rwanda, also. I do not think America wishes to 
assert its strength across the globe in that manner. Rather, we must 
pick those areas where we do have a national interest and where the 
conflict is resolvable.
  The third test is: If you get into the conflict, how do you get out? 
Do we have an exit strategy? This proposal which is on the table today, 
this amendment, is the first entry step into the conflict. Is there a 
discussion of how we get out? What happens next? There has been a great 
deal of that on this floor. But is there a clear definition of it 
coming from the administration? No, there is not. Without that 
definition, we make a very serious error to step into this arena.
  So why are we at this point? Well, we are at this point because we 
have not heard from the administration a clear defining of the national 
role in conflicts like Bosnia, and because the administration and our 
people and the Western World generally are being inexorably pulled into 
the Bosnian morass by the fact that it is on television as a nightly 
occurrence.
  I would suspect that if we were getting the same type of video we are 
getting from Bosnia, from Rwanda, or from Azerbaijan, we would be 
equally outraged as a people and equally concerned. But we are not. Why 
are we not? I think we have to be honest about it. We are not getting 
it because Rwanda and Azerbaijan are not Western countries, they are 
not part of the European Continent and, therefore, they are not readily 
accessible to the international media, and also, they do not have a 
certain similarity to the Western media that is demanded in order to 
have the coverage.
  But were the coverage there, it would be equal to or worse in showing 
and displaying human suffering.
  So we find ourselves being drawn by television into a conflict on 
which there has been no clear, defined national policy set out for why 
we should be in there other than the fact that it does appear on 
television every night and that people are concerned about it.
  That is not a legitimate reason to go into Bosnia. It is not a 
legitimate reason to go into any part of the world where conflict is 
going on and put at risk American lives. The last count I had, there 
are today 42 conflicts going on in 39 different countries around this 
world, and we cannot police them all. We should not choose the ones we 
decide to police by the pressure which comes to us from the electronic 
media. We should choose the ones that we decide to police by the tests 
that I have laid out. First, is the conflict resolvable? Second, is 
there a national interest? And third, is there a strategy for not only 
entering the conflict but also exiting the conflict?
  There is also a whole subset of issues which are raised by the Bosnia 
situation which I think need to be fully aired before we go down this 
road any further, and a major element in that subset, independent of 
the question of having a national policy as to why we are choosing this 
arena, a major element of that has to be the question of our 
relationship to the United Nations and the U.N. command and control 
over American troops.
  It is a serious error for us to put American lives at risk because of 
a decision made by a political leader serving at the behest not of the 
President but of the United Nations. When American lives are put at 
risk, it should be because an American commander has received a 
directive from an American President or an authoritarian figure below 
the Presidency in the American chain of command. We should never 
abrogate that authority to another institution, another political 
institution, as has already occurred in the Bosnian situation. We have 
already heard reports of American military action being initiated as a 
result of directives coming from political figures who are outside the 
American chain of command and who are responsible to the United 
Nations. And that is wrong.
  Why is it wrong? People will say, well, the United Nations is a world 
body, it is a police organization, and there are a lot of different 
military forces attached to it from different countries. That is true. 
But the United States is unique as a military force in the world today. 
We are not like many of our allies or many of the other nations in this 
world that maintain military force. We are the only superpower. We are 
the only nation that has the capacity to project power around the globe 
with devastating authority.
  When American troops are put at risk, it draws that power into any 
action that occurs. And to use that power arbitrarily or without a 
thoughtful national policy, as was the first point I was making, or to 
put that power at the disposal of a nonelected American official is a 
serious error of public policy, because it draws much more weight to it 
and much higher ramifications to it than when an agency of the United 
Nations directs into action another nation's military forces.
  And, also, as we learned regrettably, in Somalia Americans become 
targets, not because they are with the United Nations but because they 
are Americans. When you put American forces into a conflict situation 
and you put them under the command of the United Nations, they become 
the targets of activists in the nation where they are, regrettably, 
because they are Americans.
  So when you are putting them at that risk, you must be very careful 
that they are under American command because the bottom line is you 
have to explain this. You have to explain it to the mothers and the 
fathers and the wives and the husbands and the children of the people 
who lose their lives because they put themselves in harm's way as 
American soldiers. That is a very difficult explanation to give unless 
you, first, have a national policy, and, second, make it absolutely 
clear that what they risk their lives for and, in some instances, 
regrettably, gave their lives for, is American policy under American 
command.
  Right now we have neither in this instance. I have heard innumerable 
talks on this floor from a variety of different, very eloquent 
speakers, but one consistent theme appears to be for those who support 
the resolution and those who oppose it, for those who support this 
administration and those who feel the administration may vary on this 
issue, that we as a nation have no national policy yet on how to handle 
the situation. And until that national policy is elicited and defined 
by this Presidency, it will not have such a policy because it is the 
focus of the President from which that comes, not from the focus--as 
important as we are in the process--of the Senate.
  That brings up a broader issue, which is the whole question of how 
this administration has approached the post-cold-war period, and I 
think it has been obviously an administration finding its way. That has 
been fairly clear to anyone who has watched and counseled or attempted 
to view these activities.
  But in the post-cold-war period we need more than that. We need a 
very defined purpose of what America's role is in the world. That 
defined purpose, in my opinion, must acknowledge that the new threat to 
the world comes from renegade nations which have nuclear arms and may 
use those arms. And when you want to rate what American national 
interest is relative to other nations, you must put at the top of the 
list to assure that renegade nations do not get nuclear arms and, if 
they do get nuclear arms, they are put in a position where they will 
not use them.
  That, of course, moves to the top of the list the North Korean issue, 
on which, again, we seem to have no policy as a country. But, clearly, 
if we are to function in this post-cold-war period, we are not going to 
be confronting ideological components. We may confront people who view 
us in religious terms as opponents, but we are not going to be 
confronting the Soviet concept of communism versus capitalism and a 
world struggle over that issue.
  What we are most likely going to confront is the renegade leader of a 
nation who has had the capacity to develop a nuclear weapon and is 
threatening to use that weapon or who is in the process of developing a 
nuclear weapon. We must--unfortunately, the time has come--in North 
Korea, make a very clear and definitive policy as to how we are going 
to handle that situation the first instance it occurs. And the first 
instance it is occurring is in North Korea.
  So as we look at this proposal, I think we need to watch the whole 
ball game. We need to look at the entire forest and not just look at 
this tree, which it is. We cannot allow ourselves to sort of dribble 
into this issue. We need, first, to have a clear definition of what the 
American role is in Bosnia, what our national interest is, how we see 
the conflict being resolved, and how American troops--if they are going 
to be put in--get out. We need to understand that we cannot be drawn 
into every conflict which becomes a national or international media 
occurrence or dominant event.
  We need to choose very intelligently and thoughtfully when and where 
we are going to put American lives at risk. We need to understand that 
putting American soldiers under the command of political figures within 
the United Nations is something that should never occur. We need to 
have an intelligent and thoughtful approach to what is the real threat 
in the post-cold-war period, which is those nations which are obtaining 
nuclear weapons or may be obtaining nuclear weapons and do not have 
responsible leadership for the management of those weapons.
  Those are the concerns that should be addressed, and that is the 
priority that we should put in moving forward on the Bosnia issue.
  For that reason, I do not support this resolution. I recognize I am 
in a minority probably on that. But I see it as a step to the road to 
American intervention, which has not been thought out; and as part of a 
process in which we, if we proceed on, will end up losing American 
lives without any way of explaining to American parents, wives, 
husbands, and children the reason for the loss of that life.
  I yield the remainder of my time.
  Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. ROTH. Madam President, I support and cosponsor this amendment to 
terminate the United States' arms embargo of the Government of Bosnia. 
I believe this measure is necessary to provide much needed assistance 
to the men, women and children of that nation--people who are fighting 
for their property, their lives and future.
  I believe this amendment follows the successful Reagan doctrine--that 
the United States can, under proper circumstances, help people help 
themselves. We all saw how well this doctrine worked in Afghanistan 
where, with the assistance of United States arms, the Afghan people 
turned back the world's single largest military, that of the former 
Soviet Union. In that conflict, because of America's willingness to 
help the freedom fighters, we did not--over the course of the 
conflict--have to commit U.S. forces.
  Rather, then, as now, our purpose was to help a valiant people defend 
themselves. With the right policies, we were able to do just that.
  Madam President, I do not believe there are any among us, who would 
say that the people of Bosnia do not have the right to protect their 
lives, their families and their property. Even today we hear the heart-
wrenching report of the Serb attack on the hospital in Gorazde. How 
long do we suffer these atrocities to continue before we give the 
people of Bosnia the wherewithal to defend themselves. Frankly, it 
makes no sense for U.S. airmen to risk their lives to defend people who 
we simultaneously deny the ability to defend themselves.
  None of us wants to see this war escalated. Frankly, I hope that by 
lifting this embargo we send a clear message that America wants to see 
a speedy and equitable negotiated settlement. But I am afraid that 
unless this embargo is lifted what we will see, instead, is continued 
wholesale slaughter--as President Clinton said yesterday, the slaughter 
of innocents.
  Let me be clear, madam President, this measure in no way authorizes 
or indicates a commitment of American men and women into this conflict. 
I believe our troops must stay out of Bosnia. But it does allow our 
Nation to assist men, women and children who are suffering needlessly 
and with little opportunity for recourse.
  Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, I have chosen to cosponsor the amendment 
of the distinguished minority leader concerning lifting the arms 
embargo on Bosnia because I have become convinced that the embargo 
violates article 51 of the U.N. Charter. Like the U.S. Constitution, 
the Charter is not a suicide pact. The inviolability of article 51 is 
fundamental to the bargain entered into by nations when they ratify the 
Charter. They agree to be bound by the decisions of the Security 
Council, but on the basis that ``Nothing in the present charter shall 
impair the inherent right of individual and collective self-defense * * 
*.'' Such is the importance of the principle that the phrase is 
redundant in its protections: ``Nothing'' in the charter shall impair 
the right and the right is ``inherent''.
  Hence I have cosponsored this amendment mandating that the United 
States cease its support for the embargo.
  That is not to say that I do not have concerns about whether this is 
precisely the right approach or whether the wording of the amendment 
could not be further refined in conference. If this were an easy issue 
the blood would not now be flowing in the streets of Gorazde. The 
President has just announced a new initiative; negotiations are about 
to begin. I hope--and believe--that the Senate's vote on this 
resolution will strengthen his hand, not weaken it. He has said that he 
supports lifting the embargo. This amendment will demonstrate that the 
Senate strongly supports this view.
  There is another important issue--a constitutional issue--about which 
I have some concerns regarding the precise language of the amendment. 
Namely, I think that it might be desirable to clarify the meaning of 
subsection (a) which states that the President shall not interfere with 
the transfer of arms to the Government of Bosnia. I interpret this 
prohibition narrowly to reach those areas in which the Congress has the 
constitutional power to restrict the President. I do not believe, for 
instance, the amendment should be read to imply that the President 
could not say that he opposes lifting the embargo or even argue that 
other states should continue to enforce the embargo. The constitutional 
power of the President to articulate his own views or to communicate 
with other nations cannot be controlled by Congress. I know that this 
is not the intention of the minority leader and the amendment should 
not be read to attempt to control the President's speech.
  Nor does the amendment affirmatively mandate that the United States 
provide arms to Bosnia. It prohibits interference with Bosnia receiving 
arms. There is a difference.
  Mr. President, there is a long history of congressional involvement 
on questions of arms embargoes and neutrality acts. It is appropriate--
indeed, essential--that the Senate speak on this issue and I commend 
the minority leader and also the distinguished Senator from Connecticut 
on their leadership on this issue.
  Mr. KEMPTHORNE. Mr. President, like every American, I am appalled and 
shocked by the killings, rape, ethnic cleansing, and other atrocities 
currently taking place in Bosnia.
  Last year, in response to these outrages, I cosponsored a resolution, 
Senate Resolution 79, offered by Senator Feingold to lift the arms 
embargo on Bosnia. Today, I will join the distinguished Republican 
Leader, Senator Dole, and Senator Lieberman, in cosponsoring the 
amendment currently before the Senate. I will cosponsor this amendment 
to once again signal my support for lifting the U.N. arms embargo on 
Bosnia.
  Americans and people everywhere understand the right of self-defense. 
After the breakup of the former nation of Yugoslavia, the Serbs took 
possession of the bulk of weapons from the Yugoslavian military. As the 
three-way civil war erupted, the United Nations enacted an arms embargo 
on Bosnia, Serbia, and Croatia. In effect, however, this arms embargo 
denied the Bosnian Moslems the right to acquire arms to defend 
themselves against Serbian aggression. As a result of the arms embargo, 
Serbia and Bosnian Serbs had a monopoly on the heavy weapons they 
needed to conquer and carve up Bosnia. The ebb and flow of violence and 
atrocities we have seen are the tragic result of this policy.
  For some time, the U.S. Senate has called on the President to lift 
the arms embargo on Bosnia so that the Bosnian Moslems can defend 
themselves. Unfortunately, because of opposition from our allies with 
troops on the ground, the President failed to convince our NATO 
partners to lift the arms embargo. Given the current siege of Gorazde 
and my opposition to increased United States military involvement in 
Bosnia, I believe it is time for American to show its leadership and 
lift the arms embargo against Bosnia.
  While I want to allow the Bosnian Moslem to acquire the weapons they 
need to defend themselves, I strongly oppose any effort to increase the 
U.S. military involvement in this quagmire. Likewise, I continue to 
strongly oppose the Clinton administration policy of giving the U.N. 
commanders on the ground the authority to call for NATO and U.S. 
airstrikes. I fear we are seeing mission creep like we saw in Somalia, 
where U.S. military involvement escalates in support of United Nations' 
policies.
  I strongly oppose any increased United States military involvement in 
Bosnia because, to begin with, the President has not given the American 
people a clearly defined objective for our military involvement. As far 
as I can tell, no one in this Government can tell us how our air 
attacks are supposed to bring about peace in Bosnia. Indeed, as 
recently as 2 weeks ago, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 
General Shalikashvili, warned that air attacks won't stop the Serbian 
attacks on Gorazde because, unlike Sarajevo, where the Serbes used 
tanks and heavy artillery, the Serbs are now using small arms to take 
Gorazde.

  I oppose increased United States military involvement in Bosnia 
because its a bad idea that will not end the suffering--but may prolong 
it. I oppose United States military involvement in Bosnia because it 
will not lead to negotiations between the parties--but may even delay 
them. I oppose military involvement because it leads us to the slippery 
slope of intervention--and none of us can see an end to it.
  Mr. President, I rise in strong support of the Dole-Lieberman 
amendment to lift the arms embargo against Bosnia. I do so with the 
hope and belief that by giving the Bosnia Moslems the ability to defend 
themselves, this terrible ethnic civil war can be brought to an end. I 
support this amendment with the recognition that my support for this 
action in no way authorizes or encourages a greater United States 
military involvement in Bosnia. I support this amendment to forestall 
the looming danger of allowing the United Nations to drag the Armed 
Forces of the United States and NATO more deeply into this centuries 
old conflict.
  Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Harkin). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, we have been working all day long to reach 
accommodating language for various Senators that have had differences 
on amendments that were before us. We have reached accommodation on a 
number of amendments, and so we will go forward at this time.


                           Amendment No. 1642

 (Purpose: To amend section 522 of title 11, United States Code, with 
     respect to avoiding certain liens that impair exempt property)

  Mr. HEFLIN. On behalf of Senator Johnston and Senator Breaux, I send 
an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the other amendments will 
be set aside and the clerk will report this amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin], for Mr. Johnston, 
     for himself and Mr. Breaux, proposes an amendment numbered 
     1642.

  Mr. HEFLIN. 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 235, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:

     SEC. 311. NONAVOIDABILITY OF FIXING OF LIEN ON TOOLS AND 
                   IMPLEMENTS OF TRADE, ANIMALS, AND CROPS.

       (a) Admendment.--Section 522(f) of title 11, United States 
     Code, as amended by section 303(c), is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Notwithstanding any waiver of 
     exemptions,'' and inserting ``(1) Notwithstanding any waiver 
     of exemptions but subject to paragraph (2)'';
       (2) by striking ``(1) a judicial'' and inserting ``(A) a 
     judicial'';
       (3) by striking ``(A) is not assigned'' and inserting ``(i) 
     is not assigned'';
       (4) by striking ``(B) includes a liability'' and inserting 
     ``(ii) includes a liability'';
       (5) by striking ``(2) a nonpossessory'' and inserting ``(B) 
     a nonpossessory'';
       (6) by striking ``(A) household'' and inserting ``(i) 
     household'';
       (7) by striking ``(B) implements, professional books, or 
     tools,'' and inserting ``(ii) implements, professional books, 
     or tools''
       (8) by striking ``(C) professionally'' and inserting 
     ``(iii) professionally''; and
       (9) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2) In a case in which State law that is applicable to 
     the debtor--
       ``(A) permits a person to voluntarily waive a right to 
     claim exemptions under subsection (d) or prohibits a debtor 
     from claiming exemptions under subsection (d); and
       ``(B) permits the debtor to claim exemptions under State 
     law without limitation in amount, except to the extent that 
     the debtor has permitted the fixing of a consensual lien on 
     any property,

     the debtor may not avoid the fixing of a lien on an interest 
     of the debtor or a dependent of the debtor in property if the 
     lien is a nonpossessory, nonpurchase-money security interest 
     in implements, professional books, or tools of the trade of 
     the debtor or a dependent of the debtor or farm animals or 
     crops of the debtor or a dependent of the debtor.''.
       (b) Application of Amendment.--The amendments made by 
     subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to a case 
     commenced under title 11, United States Code, before the date 
     of enactment of this Act.

  Mr. JOHNSTON. Mr. President, today we are considering legislation 
which streamlines one of the most litigated sections of the United 
States Code. The amendment that I am offering will expand this 
legislation to clarify a section of the Bankruptcy Code which has had a 
chilling effect on the extension of credit to agriculture producers and 
caused great concern among agriculture lenders who have been impacted 
by section 522(d) of title 11 of the United States Code.
  As a result of various exemptions set forth in the Federal Bankruptcy 
Code, some States, including Louisiana, have chosen to opt out of the 
Federal exemption format under section 522(d) and create their own list 
of exemptions from seizure in bankruptcy cases. Thus, when a debtor 
files for bankruptcy he or she can avoid certain liens if they affect 
property that is exempt under State statutes. The purpose of these 
exemptions is to protect the debtor and his family from being reduced 
by financial misfortune to absolute want and becoming a public charge.
  The exemptions provided by States like Louisiana have not been a 
problem until recent rulings on a new line of bankruptcy cases which 
have allowed debtors in bankruptcy to avoid liens and security interest 
affecting property which is exempt from seizure, generally including 
collateral consisting of the tools of the trade by which the debtor 
earns his or her living. For example, in Owen v. Owen, 111 S.Ct. 1833 
(1991), the court held that since Federal law determines the 
availability of lien avoidance, the State may not ``opt out'' of the 
lien avoidance provision of section 522(f) regardless of a State 
exemption, giving the debtor the opportunity to avoid the security 
interest irrespective of a possible waiver within the security document 
itself of the exemption. More recently, a Texas bankruptcy court held 
that a farmer's statutorily exempt tools of the trade included two John 
Deere tractors valued at over $47,350 and that the farmer could 
therefore avoid security interests in them.
  Because of this situation, many bankers in rural areas and especially 
agricultural lenders are restricting credit to farmers who voluntarily 
want to secure such a loan with farm equipment or other assets 
construed as tools of the trade. Consequently, this has impacted the 
availability of needed credit to farmers and raised concerns from the 
agricultural community in affected States about the overriding weight 
of possible protection provided under the tools of the trade statutes 
in the event of a chapter 7 or 12 bankruptcy proceeding.
  My amendment would make it clear that in States similar to Louisiana 
that have opted out of the Federal exemption format under section 
522(d) debtors could not avoid the fixing of a lien if the lien is a 
nonpossessory, non-purchase-money security interest in tools of the 
trade and the State law prohibits the debtor from avoiding the fixing 
of the lien.
  Mr. President, the Owen decision, in particular, is having a serious 
impact on the extension of credit to agricultural producers, 
particularly in those cases where tractors, combines, and other big 
ticket items form a substantial, if not a majority, portion of a 
farmer's assets available for collateral purposes. On the other hand, 
banks are being denied a good loan opportunity based on the financial 
risks associated with current interpretation of the Federal exemption 
format under section 522(d). I hope my colleagues will join me in 
support of this amendment. I ask unanimous consent that the texts of 
letters from the Louisiana Farm Bureau and Louisiana Bankers 
Association be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:
                                             Louisiana Farm Bureau


                                             Federation, Inc.,

                                  Baton Rouge, LA, March 28, 1994.
     Hon. J. Bennett Johnston,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Johnston: I am writing on behalf of the Board 
     of Directors of Louisiana Farm Bureau Federation to advise 
     you that we considered some proposed amendments to the 
     Bankruptcy Code concerning the ``tools of the trade'' 
     exemption during our meeting here last week. I have copies of 
     correspondence sent to you earlier by various banking 
     interests in the state, and it appears from that 
     correspondence that a full explanation of the problem would 
     be cumulative. We believe that the availability of credit to 
     persons actually engaged in farming overrides any 
     consideration of the possible protection of ``tools-of-the-
     trade'' assets in the event of a Chapter 7 or 12 bankruptcy 
     proceeding. Since the Supreme Court decision in Owen v. Owen 
     has led some bankruptcy courts to set aside security 
     interests in ``tools of the trade'' that heretofore could 
     accompany assets otherwise exempt from seizure under state 
     law, we believe the best solution is an amendment to the code 
     that allows state law to follow and encumber otherwise exempt 
     assets for those states that have opted out of the federal 
     list of exemptions in Section 522(d) of Title 11. The Owen 
     decision is having a chilling effect on the extension of 
     credit to agricultural producers, particularly in those cases 
     where tractors, combines and other big ticket items form a 
     substantial, if not a major, portion of a farmer's assets 
     available for collateral purposes.
       At the time of our board meeting, we did not have a copy of 
     Congressman Sarpalius' bill and have not yet had the 
     opportunity to read it. If the bill is confected the way we 
     understand it to be however, we are urging that the 
     provisions of H.R. 339 be incorporated in S. 540 by Senator 
     Heflin, or at the very least, that you lend your support to 
     the House bill as it makes it way through Congress. While 
     some argument can be made on the opposite side of this 
     question, we believe that the best interests of farmers are 
     served by the ability to collateralize assets used in the 
     actual farming operation where that is necessary. I will be 
     pleased to discuss this matter with you should the need 
     become apparent at a later date.
       With best wishes, I am
           Sincerely yours,
                                                  Ronald Anderson,
                                                        President.
                                  ____



                                Louisiana Bankers Association,

                                  Baton Rouge, LA, April 19, 1994.
     Hon. J. Bennett Johnston,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Johnston: On behalf of Louisiana's banking 
     community, I request your help in correcting a tremendous 
     problem that has arisen in the application of the ``tools of 
     the trade'' in personal bankruptcy. If left unresolved it 
     will have an increasingly negative impact as lenders will be 
     unable to lend to otherwise credit-worthy borrowers. Already 
     bankers have had to decline loans because of this problem. 
     Below is a brief background on the problem.
       A new line of cases allows debtors in bankruptcy to avoid 
     liens and security interest affecting property which is 
     exempt from seizure generally, including collateral 
     consisting of the ``tools of the trade'' by which the debtor 
     earns his living. First, in Owen v. Owen, the U.S. Supreme 
     Court overturned established 5th Circuit precedent (In re 
     McManus, 681 F.2d 353 (5th Circuit 1982), and held that a 
     debtor could avoid a lien on property which would, but for 
     the lien, be exempt from seizure under state law (or, if the 
     state did not provide a list of exemptions, those given in 
     the Bankruptcy Code). More recently, a Texas Bankruptcy court 
     held a farmers statutorily exempt ``tools of the trade'' 
     included two John Deere tractors and that the farmer could 
     therefore avoid security interests in them, In re Nash 142 
     B.R. 148 (Bkrtcy., N.D. Tex. 1992).
       The Bankruptcy Code itself provides that certain listed 
     types of property are exempt from seizure to satisfy the 
     debtors' creditors; it was also possible for the states, 
     after enactment of the Bankruptcy Code, to ``opt out'' of the 
     federal exemption list and create their own list of 
     exemptions from seizure. Many states, including Louisiana, 
     have done so. Thus when a debtor files for bankruptcy he can 
     avoid certain liens if they affect property that is exempt. 
     This has not been a problem in Louisiana until Owen case was 
     decided, since Louisiana had defined exempt property to 
     exclude items which the debtor had voluntarily encumbered, In 
     re McManus. However, in Owen v. Owen the U.S. Supreme Court 
     said that the test for determining whether a debtor can avoid 
     a security interest in exempt property--whether exempt on the 
     federal or state list--is to ``ask not whether the lien 
     impairs an exemption to which the debtor is in fact entitled, 
     but whether it impairs an exemption to which he would have 
     been entitled but for the lien itself.'' Owen v. Owen by 
     Justice Scalia.
       In the agricultural context exemplified by In re Nash this 
     principle can permit a debtor to avoid a nonpurchase-money 
     security interest in expansive farm equipment if it is 
     characterized by a court as the debtor's tools of the trade.
       Do not be misled because purchase money security interests 
     are not jeopardized by this avoidance power. While a debtor 
     may not use the Bankruptcy Code to avoid a purchase money 
     security interest in farm equipment, if he refinances that 
     purchase money debt it loses the purchase money status and he 
     can then avoid the security interest. A recent Louisiana 
     bankruptcy court decision permitted exactly that result with 
     respect to office equipment: refinancing of a purchase money 
     loan caused the collateral to lose its purchase money 
     security interest status and the debtor avoided the security 
     interest under the Bankruptcy Code, In re Nader, No. 92 BK-
     112880507, Jan. 26, 1992, Shreveport Div., W.D. La.
       Clearly the borrower would now be unable to use his assets 
     as collateral. Borrowers are denied credit otherwise 
     available and bankers denied a good loan opportunity.
       I greatly appreciate the efforts of Mike Gougisha and Jeff 
     Martin of your office in assisting us in resolving this 
     problem. They are to be commended for their genuine concern 
     and persistence.
       Thanks for your attention to this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Robert T. Taylor,
                                 Director of Government Relations.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in regard to this amendment, I am 
agreeing to take this amendment. I had concerns about how the original 
amendment would affect farmers in my State of Iowa. I have discussed 
with the Senator from Louisiana my concerns without fully knowing the 
impact of this amendment on that. And he knows I am reserving my right 
to work on this language further in conference to clarify its intent.
  I appreciate Senator Johnston's efforts that he has already taken to 
narrow his original amendment. So I do accept the amendment at this 
point in time.
  Mr. HEFLIN. I urge the amendment be agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1642) was agreed to.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1643

  (Purpose: To amend section 1328 of title 11, United States Code, to 
 exclude from discharge debt for money, property, services, or credit 
      obtained by false pretense, false representation, or fraud)

  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk by Senator 
Bryan, dealing with matters pertaining to money, property, services 
obtained by false pretenses, false representation or fraud, and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection the pending amendments are 
set aside and the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin], for Mr. Bryan, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1643.

  Mr. HEFLIN. 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 235, between lines 13 and 14, insert the following:

     SEC. 311. NONDISCHARGEABILITY OF DEBT FOR MONEY, PROPERTY, 
                   SERVICES, OR CREDIT OBTAINED BY FALSE PRETENSE, 
                   FALSE REPRESENTATION, OR FRAUD.

       Section 1328(a)(2) of title 11, United States Code, is 
     amended by inserting ``(2)(A),'' after ``paragraph''

  Mr. HEFLIN. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1643) was agreed to.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GRASSLEY I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1644

    (Purpose: To amend section 152 of title 28, United States Code, 
     concerning recommendations by the Judicial Conference for the 
              appointment of additional bankruptcy judges)

  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment by Senator 
Feinstein dealing with the matter of recommendations by the judicial 
conference for the appointment of bankruptcy judges and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection the pending amendments will 
be set aside. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin], for Mrs. Feinstein, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1644.

  Mr. HEFLIN. 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 160, between lines 6 and 7 insert the following:

     SEC. 116. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE FOR THE 
                   APPOINTMENT OF BANKRUPTCY JUDGES.

       Section 152(b) of title 28, United States Code, is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(4)(A) If, as a result of a review of judicial districts 
     under paragraph (3), the Judicial Conference determines that 
     there is a need for a number (including a fractional number) 
     of additional bankruptcy judges for any judicial district, 
     but the Judicial Conference determines to submit to Congress 
     a recommendation that the appointment of a lesser number of 
     bankruptcy judges be authorized for that district, the 
     Judicial Conference shall submit with the recommendation a 
     statement detailing--
       ``(i) the difference between the number of additional 
     bankruptcy judges that has been determined to be needed and 
     the number recommended to be authorized; and
       ``(ii) the methods by which those numbers were determined.
       ``(B) If the Judicial Conference has submitted to Congress 
     a recommendation that a lesser number of additional 
     bankruptcy judges be authorized to be appointed than a review 
     of judicial districts shows is needed for a judicial 
     district, the Judicial Conference shall submit a subsequent 
     recommendation that satisfies the continuing need for 
     additional bankruptcy judges for that judicial district 
     unless--
       ``(i) the Congress, without having received such a 
     recommendation, authorizes the requisite number of additional 
     bankruptcy judges to be appointed for that district; or
       ``(ii) a subsequent review of judicial districts shows that 
     that number of additional bankruptcy judges is no longer 
     needed for that district.''.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want to first thank the managers of 
this complex and comprehensive legislation for their courtesy and 
cooperation in accepting my amendment, which will assist Congress in 
accurately determining how and where to meet the judgeship needs of the 
Nation's bankruptcy courts.
  Under current law, Mr. President, the Judicial Conference of the 
United States is required to conduct what is called a biennial survey 
every 2 years to determine the continuing need for bankruptcy judges in 
every judicial district in America. The data collected forms the basis 
of recommendations that the statute requires the Conference to make to 
Congress as to how many judges are needed, and where they should 
preside.
  Congress is not bound to follow the Conference's advice. The 
Conference's suggestions are intended, however, to keep judicial 
caseloads--and, therefore, bankruptcy processing times--at or near an 
acceptable level set by the Conference.
  This is no easy task, Mr. President, and I commend the Conference for 
the efforts that it has made in the past to expedite bankruptcy cases 
for both debtors and creditors. Such speed serves all who come into 
contact with the court system and is a stabilizing force in our economy 
at large.
  In recent years, however, the Judicial Conference's recommendations 
have left several judicial districts across the country--including 
California's four districts--short of the number of judges needed to 
achieve the caseload targets established by the Conference itself.
  My amendment is intended, Mr. President, to strike a balance between 
the deference owed by Congress to the Judiciary in operating the 
Nation's courts and the pressing need in California and many other 
States to obtain adequate judicial resources. To that end, it would 
modify title 28 of the United States Code at section 152(b)(3) to: 
First, require that, if the Judicial Conference recommends that 
Congress create fewer judgeships in a given district than its biennial 
survey finds to be actually needed to establish normal caseloads, the 
Conference must disclose that fact and its calculation methods to 
Congress and quantify the degree to which the district is being 
understaffed; and second, require the Conference to recommend to 
Congress an adequate number of judges to meet the needs of any district 
whose needs were not satisfied by the conference's previous 
recommendations.
  My amendment does not--I hasten to add--create new judgeships, modify 
any existing judgeships, affect the Conference's discretion to conduct 
its biennial survey in the manner it thinks best, or change the target 
caseload used by the Conference to make its recommendations. 
Accordingly, Mr. President, I believe that it is both budget- and 
deficit-neutral.
  In conclusion, Mr. President, I want to again thank the managers of 
the bill and the Judicial Conference for its hard work in the past. As 
a member of the Appropriations Committee, I look forward to working 
with all three in the future to provide America's bankruptcy courts 
with the resources that they--and the public--so seriously need.
  Mr. HEFLIN. I urge passage of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1644) was agreed to.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1645

           (Purpose: Substitute section on professional fees)

  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk by Senator 
Metzenbaum, dealing with professional fees in regard to bankruptcies, 
and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection the pending amendments will 
be set aside. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin], for Mr. Metzenbaum, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1645.

  Mr. HEFLIN. 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 231, strike line 11 and all that follows through 
     page 234, line 6, and insert the following:

     SEC. 309. PROFESSIONAL FEES.

       Section 330(a) of title 11, United States Code, is amended 
     to read as follows:
       ``(a)(1) After notice to the parties in interest and the 
     United States Trustee and a hearing, and subject to sections 
     326, 328, and 329, the court may award to a trustee, an 
     examiner, a professional person employed under section 327 or 
     1103--
       ``(A) reasonable compensation for actual, necessary 
     services rendered by the trustee, examiner, professional 
     person, or attorney and by any paraprofessional person 
     employed by any such person; and
       ``(B) reimbursement for actual, necessary expenses.
       ``(2) The court may, on its own motion or on the motion of 
     the United States Trustee for the District or Region, the 
     trustee for the estate or any other party in interest, award 
     compensation that is less than the amount of compensation 
     that is requested.
       ``(3)(A) In determining the amount of reasonable 
     compensation to be awarded, the court shall consider the 
     nature, the extent, and the value of such services, taking 
     into account all relevant factors, including--
       ``(A) the time spent on such services;
       ``(B) the rates charged for such services;
       ``(C) whether the services were necessary to the 
     administration of, or beneficial at the time at which the 
     service was rendered toward the completion of, a case under 
     this title;
       ``(D) the total value of the estate and the amount of funds 
     or other property available for distribution to all 
     creditors, both secured and unsecured;
       ``(E) whether the services were performed within a 
     reasonable amount of time commensurate with the complexity, 
     importance, and nature of the problem, issue, or task 
     addressed; and
       ``(F) whether the compensation is reasonable based on the 
     customary compensation charged by comparably skilled 
     practitioners in cases other than cases under this title.
       ``(4)(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the court 
     shall not allow compensation for--
       ``(i) unnecessary duplication of services; or
       ``(ii) services that were not--
       ``(I) reasonably likely to benefit the debtor's estate; or
       ``(II) necessary to the administration of the case.
       ``(B) In a chapter 12 or chapter 13 case in which the 
     debtor is an individual, the court may allow reasonable 
     compensation to the debtor's attorney for representing the 
     interests of the debtor in connection with the bankruptcy 
     case based on a consideration of the benefit and necessity of 
     such services to the debtor and the other factors set forth 
     in this section.
       ``(5) The court shall reduce the amount of compensation 
     awarded under this section by the amount of any interim 
     compensation awarded under section 331, and, if the amount of 
     such interim compensation exceeds the amount of compensation 
     awarded under this section, may order the return of the 
     excess to the estate.
       ``(6) Any compensation awarded for the preparation of a fee 
     application shall be based on the level and skill reasonably 
     required to prepare the application.''.

  Mr. HEFLIN. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1645) was agreed to.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1646

 (Purpose: To clarify the effect of conversion of a case under chapter 
                         13 to another chapter)

  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk by Senator 
Metzenbaum dealing with clarifying the effect of conversion of a case 
under chapter 13 to another chapter and I ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection the pending amendments will 
be set aside. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin], for Mr. Metzenbaum, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1646.

  Mr. HEFLIN. 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 235, between lines 13 and 14 insert the following:

     SEC. 311. CONVERSION OF CASE UNDER CHAPTER 13.

       Section 348 of title 11, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(f) When a case under chapter 13 is converted to another 
     chapter--
       ``(1) property of the estate in the converted case shall 
     consist of property of the estate, as of the date of filing 
     of the petition, that remains in the possession of or is 
     under the control of the debtor on the date of conversion; 
     and
       ``(2) valuations of property and of allowed secured claims 
     in the chapter 13 case shall apply in the converted case, 
     with allowed secured claims reduced to the extent that they 
     have been paid in accordance with the chapter 13 plan.''.

  Mr. HEFLIN. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1646) was agreed to.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1647

   (Purpose: To amend section 525 of title 11, United Sates Code, to 
 prohibit denial of a student grant or loan on the ground that a loan 
        applicant has been a debtor in a bankruptcy proceeding)

  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment by Senator Metzenbaum 
to the desk which amends section 525 of title 11 to prohibit denial of 
a student grant or loan on the grounds that the loan applicant has been 
a debtor in a bankruptcy proceeding and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection the pending amendments will 
be set aside and the clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin], for Mr. Metzenbaum, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1647.

  Mr. HEFLIN. 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 242, between lines 7 and 8 insert the following:

                   TITLE V--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC. 501. PROTECTION AGAINST DISCRIMINATORY TREATMENT OF 
                   APPLICATIONS FOR STUDENT LOANS.

       Section 525 of title 11, United States Code, is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(c)(1) A governmental unit that operates a student grant 
     or loan program and a person engaged in a business that 
     includes making of loans guaranteed or insured under a 
     student loan program may not deny a grant, loan, loan 
     guarantee, or loan insurance to a person that is or has been 
     a debtor under this title or a bankrupt or debtor under the 
     Bankruptcy Act, or another person with whom the debtor or 
     bankrupt has been associated, because the debtor or bankrupt 
     is or has been a debtor under this title or a bankrupt or 
     debtor under the Bankruptcy Act, has been insolvent before 
     the commencement of a case under this title or during the 
     pendency of the case but before the debtor is granted or 
     denied a discharge, or has not paid a debt that is 
     dischargeable in the case under this title or that was 
     discharged under the Bankruptcy Act.
       ``(2) In this section, `student loan program' means the 
     program operated under part B, D, or E of title IV of the 
     Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1070 et seq.) or a 
     similar program operated under State or local law.''

  Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, the Bankruptcy Code, section 525, 
prohibits governmental units from discriminating against a person 
because of a prior bankruptcy or discharge of a debt. Specifically, the 
code provides that a governmental unit may not discriminate in cases of 
a ``license, permit, charter, franchise, or other similar grant'' 
because of a prior bankruptcy. Some courts have construed this 
provision very narrowly. For example, if a person has filed for 
bankruptcy and later applies for a Government-sponsored student loan, 
some courts have upheld the denial of the loan because the Bankruptcy 
Code does not specifically mention student loans as a category in which 
the Government may not discriminate. This interpretation seriously 
undermines the fresh start that section 525 was meant to ensure. It 
also may prevent a person from going back to school.
  The Metzenbaum amendment would specifically list student grants and/
or loans as an area in which the Government may not discriminate. Under 
current law, most student loans cannot be discharged in bankruptcy. 
This amendment will not change that law.
  Mr. HEFLIN. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1647) was agreed to.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1648

(Purpose: To amend the Bankruptcy code, 11 U.S.C. section 541(b)(4) to 
   exempt the debtor's estate in bankruptcy certain interests in the 
             production of liquid or gaseous hydrocarbons)

  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk by Senator 
Simpson, for himself, Mr. Wallop, Mr. Brown, Mr. Breaux, Mrs. 
Hutchison, and Mr. Johnston, and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendment will 
be set aside. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin], for Mr. Simpson, for 
     himself, Mr. Wallop, Mr. Brown, Mr. Breaux, Mrs. Hutchison, 
     and Mr. Johnston proposes an amendment numbered 1648.

  Mr. HEFLIN. 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:

       Amend 11 U.S.C. 541(b)(4) to read as follows:
       (4) any interest of the debtor in liquid or gaseous 
     hydrocarbons to the extent
       (A)(i) the debtor has transferred or has agreed to transfer 
     such interest pursuant to a farmout agreement or any written 
     agreement directly related to a farmout agreement; and
       (ii) but for the operation of this paragraph, the estate 
     could include such interest only by virtue of section 365 or 
     544(a) of this title; or
       (B) the debtor has transferred such interest pursuant to a 
     conveyance of a production payment or an oil and gas lease.
       Paragraph (4) shall not be construed to exclude from the 
     estate any consideration the debtor retains, receives, or is 
     entitled to receive for transferring an interest in liquid or 
     gaseous hydrocarbons pursuant to a farmout agreement, 
     production payment, or oil and gas lease.
       Amend 11 U.S.C. 101 by adding the following:
       (42.A) ``production payment'' is not a gross royalty. A 
     production payment is a term overriding royalty which is an 
     interest in liquid or gaseous hydrocarbons in place or to be 
     produced from a property or properties, that entitles the 
     owner thereof to a share of production, or the value thereof, 
     for a term limited by time, quantity, or value realized, or 
     any formula based on one or more of such factors.

  Mr. SIMPSON. Mr. President, this is an amendment to the Bankruptcy 
Code which is similar to another amendment that I offered last year to 
the energy bill and which was enacted into law during the 102d 
Congress.
  This amendment will exclude interests owned in oil and gas production 
from bankruptcy proceedings. It is important to note, however, that the 
interest in production that is excluded from bankruptcy is not owned by 
the debtor. Any debtor-owned production is still available to the court 
to satisfy claims of creditors. The interest being protected by my 
amendment is referred to in the industry as a ``production payment''.
  I would take just a moment to describe what a production payment is 
and how it comes into existence, so my colleagues will understand how 
necessary and fair this amendment is.
  There are instances when owners of a right to drill for and to 
produce oil or gas cannot afford to drill the well themselves. Drilling 
an oil or gas well often costs millions of dollars. It is a high risk 
venture, and there is no guarantee that production will be established 
after undertaking that phenomenal expense.
  Companies that purchase the product, of course, have an interest in 
seeing oil and gas wells being drilled. The production is the ``life 
blood'' of their business and they often are willing to share in the 
expense of drilling in return for a share in production. When the 
companies involved enter into an agreement to share in the risk of 
exploration in the hope of obtaining a share in production, a contract 
is signed where, in return for providing capital--money--for drilling a 
well, the funds are repaid not in cash, but in the form of oil or gas 
produced from the well. That share of production is a ``production 
payment''. Simply stated, it is a payment of oil or gas in lieu of 
cash.
  The production payment extends for a limited term--and likely for a 
term shorter than the life of production from the specific well. The 
term of payment in production is a part of the contract the parties 
enter into at the beginning of the venture.
  In some cases, Mr. President, one of the parties subsequently must 
declare bankruptcy. In these days of declining oil prices and increased 
imports, that is becoming more of a concern. If the entity that drilled 
the well and established production is later forced into bankruptcy, 
the payments owed to the partner in the venture--the production 
payments--could be taken over to satisfy the claims of other creditors.
  Such a result would be grossly unfair. The owner of a production 
payment is a blameless party in the bankruptcy. The production payment 
owner shared in the risk of drilling the well and is entitled to have 
that debt repaid. Therefore, my amendment would allow for this by 
excluding these interests from bankruptcy proceedings.
  Other creditors also stand to benefit from the passage of this 
amendment. If production is maintained to satisfy the obligation due 
the owner of the production payment, excess production will continue to 
be sold as well. The proceeds from those sales will be available to 
satisfy other creditors' claims. Even though the other creditors likely 
had no part in drilling a particular well, there will be an additional 
cash stream maintained into the debtor's estate to satisfy their 
claims, too.
  I have been working closely with my distinguished colleagues on the 
Judiciary Committee, Senators Heflin and Grassley, on this amendment 
since they first reintroduced their legislation in the 103d Congress. 
Through their able assistance, we have refined and simplified this 
amendment to accomplish its narrow purpose: to protect innocent non-
debtor owners of oil and gas production and to do so at no loss to 
other creditors. We have accomplished that goal and I am most 
appreciative of their hard work and that of their fine staff.
  I would mention one modification that is particularly relevant. 
Senator Grassley had suggested that without clarification, some would 
believe that this exclusion of production payments, also known as an 
``overriding royalty'', would cause some to believe all royalties are 
being excluded. So we made that distinction in the definitional 
section: A production payment is not a gross royalty. The term ``gross 
royalty'' is not commonly used in the oil and gas industry, but is 
rather a general term in property law. We made that change to be 
absolutely clear that we are addressing a specific and unique class of 
``royalties''.
  Mr. President, I am informed that the managers of the legislation now 
pending are prepared to accept this amendment and I would yield the 
floor.
  Mr. HEFLIN. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1648) was agreed to.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1649

 (Purpose: To enable the Internal Revenue Service, during the pendency 
  of an automatic stay, to assess (but not seek to collect) a tax for 
  which there is no procedure for issuance of a notice of deficiency)

  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk by Senator 
Metzenbaum dealing with tax assessments, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection the previous amendments will 
be set aside. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin], for Mr. Metzenbaum, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1649.

  Mr. HEFLIN. 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 160, strike lines 1 through 6 and insert the 
     following:
       ``(9) under subsection (a), of--
       ``(A) an audit by a governmental unit to determine tax 
     liability;
       ``(B) the issuance to the debtor by a governmental unit of 
     a notice of tax deficiency;
       ``(C) a demand for tax returns; an assessment of an 
     uncontested or agreed upon tax liability; or
       ``(D) the making of an assessment for any tax issuance of a 
     notice and demand for payment of such an assessment (but any 
     tax lien that would otherwise attach to property of the 
     estate by reason of such an assessment shall not take effect 
     until the property is no longer property of the estate).''.

  Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, in current S. 540, there is a 
provision--tax administration, section 115, tax assessment--that would 
allow the assessment of uncontested or agreed upon prepetition tax 
liabilities. While of some assistance to the Internal Revenue Service, 
the provision does not cover taxes that may not require a return or 
those that do not involve the deficiency procedures of the Internal 
Revenue Code such as excise taxes and employment taxes. The amendment 
proposed would extend the ability of the Service to make assessments 
with regard to all taxes that it administers.
  Under the proposal, the Service would still be prohibited from taking 
steps to collect the tax. It would simply be allowed to make an 
assessment and send the first bill notifying the taxpayers of the 
liability.
  In addition, the restrictions on assessment contained in the Internal 
Revenue Code will continue in full force and effect. The proposal would 
not allow the Service to assess a deficiency in income taxes while the 
stay is in effect until either the automatic stay is lifted, the 
Bankruptcy Court determines the liability, or the Bankruptcy Court 
allows the Tax Court to continue the proceeding. The proposal is 
consistent with a recommendation made by the General Accounting Office. 
(See GGD 83-47, June 20, 1983.)
  Because there has been concern expressed that somehow the Service 
might get an advantage because of its lien under Internal Revenue Code 
if it is allowed to assess during bankruptcy, the provision provides 
that any lien arising by operation of the Internal Revenue Code does 
not take effect until after property is no longer part of the 
bankruptcy estate. This is consistent with the Internal Revenue 
Service's position that it seeks no advantage over other creditors by 
being allowed to assess taxes during the pendency of a bankruptcy.
  Mr. HEFLIN. I urge adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there be no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1649) was agreed to.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1650

   (Purpose: To provide that consumer rent-to-own contracts shall be 
                 treated as secured purchase contracts)

  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf 
of Senator Metzenbaum dealing with the consumer rent-to-own contracts 
as being treated as secured purchase contracts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments will 
be set aside. The clerk will report.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin], for Mr. Metzenbaum, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1650.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 235 between lines 13 and 14 insert the following:

     SEC. 311. RENT-TO-OWN CONTRACTS.

       (a) Definition.--Section 101 of title 11, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting in their proper alphabetical 
     positions the following new definitions:
       ```consumer good' means an item of personal property (not 
     including a motor vehicle) acquired by an individual 
     primarily for a personal, family, or household purpose.''.
       ```rent-to-own contract' means an agreement, in the form of 
     a terminable lease or bailment of a consumer good, between a 
     person regularly engaged in the business of making consumer 
     goods available to individuals and an individual, under 
     which--
       ``(A) the lessee or bailee--
       ``(i) has the right of possession and use of the consumer 
     good; and
       ``(ii) has the option to renew the agreement periodically 
     by making payments specified in the agreement; and
       ``(B) the lessor or bailor agrees, orally or in writing, to 
     transfer ownership of the consumer good to the lessee or 
     bailee upon the fulfillment of all obligations of the lessee 
     or bailee for the transfer under the agreement.''.
       (b) Treatment of Rent-To-Own Contracts as Secured Purchase 
     Contracts.--
       (1) Chapter 7.--Subchapter II of chapter 7 of title 11, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 729. Rent-to-own contracts

       ``In a proceeding under this chapter in which the debtor is 
     in possession of a consumer good under a rent-to-own 
     contract, the debtor and the lessor or bailor shall be 
     accorded the same rights and obligations with respect to the 
     consumer good, respectively, as they would be accorded if the 
     rent-to-own contract had been a purchase contract.''.
       (2) Chapter 13.--Subchapter I of chapter 13 of title 11, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new section:

     ``Sec. 1308. Rent-to-own contracts

       ``In a proceeding under this chapter in which the debtor is 
     in possession of a consumer good under a rent-to-own 
     contract, the debtor and the lessor or bailor shall be 
     accorded the same rights and obligations with respect to the 
     consumer good, respectively, as they would be accorded if the 
     rent-to-own contract had been a purchase contract.''.
       (c) Technical Amendments.--
       (1) Chapter 7.--The chapter analysis for chapter 7 of title 
     11, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the 
     item for section 728 the following new item:

``729. Rent-To-Own Contracts.''.

       (2) Chapter 13.--The chapter analysis for chapter 13 of 
     title 11, United States Code, is amended by inserting after 
     the item for section 1307 the following new item:

``1308. Rent-To-Own Contracts.''.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, this amendment resolves the debate 
over how rent-to-own contracts should be treated in bankruptcy cases.
  Rent-to-own agreements are consumer transactions in which consumers 
agree to make weekly payments for appliances or furniture with the 
promise of owning them after a period of time. The rent-to-own 
companies attempt to avoid credit sales and usury laws by writing the 
agreements as leases, terminable by the consumer at any time. Typically 
the consumers pay many times the true value of the property under these 
agreements, amounts which the Pennsylvania attorney general has found 
to be the equivalent of 100-200 percent in interest.
  Consumers have argued that these agreements should be treated as 
credit sales in bankruptcy and many courts have agreed that this is 
correct. If the transaction is treated as a sale for purposes of 
bankruptcy, the consumer is treated like any other purchaser of goods 
on credit, and may keep possession of the goods by paying to the 
creditor the lesser of the balance of the contract or the property's 
current value, the same amount the creditor would realize if the goods 
were repossessed. In a chapter 7 case, this payment is normally in a 
lump sum. In a chapter 13 case it is made under the chapter 13 plan, 
with interest--at a fair rate--added.
  However, other courts have ruled that to keep their appliances, 
consumers must pay the entire remaining balance of the rent-to-own 
contract, which is usually many times what the property is worth, and a 
burden that makes it more difficult for the debtor to pay basic living 
expenses and pay other creditors.
  A clear treatment of these transactions in the bankruptcy code would 
promote uniformity and end litigation on these issues. It would also 
serve the goals of consumer protection by limiting the effects of these 
unfair and overreaching contracts.
  This amendment would clarify the law in a way that treats debtors 
with rent-to-own contracts in the same way the bankruptcy code treats 
those with installment sale contracts. It preserves for the rent-to-own 
dealer the right to receive either a return of the property in question 
or its fair market value and at the same time ensures that the debtor 
gets the fresh start bankruptcy is intended to provide.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, even though we are going to move forward 
with this amendment, I want to make the point that I believe that this 
amendment is not the right amendment. I am opposed to it at this point.
  I am going to take the amendment now in the interest of moving this 
bill forward. I will work with Senator Metzenbaum on this issue, but I 
reserve my right to oppose this amendment in conference.
  I also note that the Banking Committee will hold hearings on the 
rent-to-own subject next month which may lead to a more acceptable 
resolution of this issue.
  Mr. HEFLIN. I send to the desk at this time a statement on behalf of 
Senator Metzenbaum and ask that it appear in the Record as if read in 
full.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I have some reservation on this rent-to-
own matter, too. We will work in conference to try to improve this with 
the House relative to this matter.
  I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1650) was agreed to.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1651

 (Purpose: To amend section 522(f) of title 11, United States Code, to 
     clarify the method of determining whether a lien is impaired)

  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf 
of Senator Metzenbaum dealing with lein avoidance, which we have 
considered and several changes have been made pertaining to it. But I 
think it is now agreeable to the Senators who are interested in it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments will 
be set aside, and the clerk will report this amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin], for Mr. Metzenbaum, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1651.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 213, between lines 5 and 6 insert the following:

     SEC. 303. IMPAIRMENT OF EXEMPTIONS.

       (a) In General.--Section 522(f) of title 11, United States 
     Code, is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``Notwithstanding'';
       (2) by redesignating paragraph (1) as subparagraph (A);
       (3) by redesignating (2) as subparagraph (B) and 
     subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) of that paragraph as clauses 
     (i), (ii), and (iii); and
       (4) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(2)(A) For the purposes of this subsection, a lien shall 
     be considered to impair an exemption to the extent that the 
     sum of--
       ``(i) the lien;
       ``(ii) all other liens on the property that are equal or 
     greater in seniority to the lien; and
       ``(iii) the amount of the exemption that the debtor could 
     claim if there were no liens on the property,

     exceeds the value that the debtor's interest in the property 
     would have in the absence of any liens.
       ``(B) In the case of a property subject to more than 1 
     lien, a lien that has been avoided shall not be considered in 
     making the calculation under subparagraph (A) with respect to 
     other liens.''.
       (b) Rule of Construction; Application of Amendment.--
     Section 522(f)(2) of title 11, United States Code, as added 
     by subsection (a)--
       (1) shall not be construed to apply with respect to a 
     judgment arising out of a mortgage foreclosure; and
       (2) shall not apply with respect to a nonpossessory, 
     nonpurchase-money security interest given before the date of 
     enactment of this Act (including a security interest with 
     respect to which the value of the collateral increases after 
     a case under that title is commenced).
       On page 215, strike lines 14 through 16 and insert the 
     following:
       (c) Protection of Liens.--Section 522(f) of title 11, 
     United States Code, as amended by section 303, is amended by 
     amending paragraph (1)(A) to read as follows:
       ``(A) a judicial lien (other than a judicial lien
       On page 216, line 1, strike ``(A)'' and insert ``(i)''.
       On page 216, line 3, strike ``(B)'' and insert ``(ii)''.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1651) was agreed to.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1652

        (Purpose: To add provisions to combat bankruptcy fraud)

  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I send to the desk an amendment on behalf 
of Senator Metzenbaum dealing with fraud in bankruptcy proceedings and 
to add provisions to combat bankruptcy fraud.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments will 
be set aside, and the clerk will report this amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin], for Mr. Metzenbaum, 
     proposes an amendment numbered 1652.

  The amendment is as follows:

       On page 242, between lines 7 and 8 insert the following:
                       TITLE V--BANKRUPTCY FRAUD

     SEC. 5146. BANKRUPTCY FRAUD.

       (a) In General.--
       (1) Offenses.--Chapter 9 of title 18, United States Code, 
     is amended--
       (A) by amending sections 152, 153, and 154 to read as 
     follows:

     ``Sec. 152. Concealment of assets; false oaths and claims; 
       bribery

       ``A person who--
       ``(1) knowingly and fraudulently conceals from a custodian, 
     trustee, marshal, or other officer of the court charged with 
     the control or custody of property, or, in connection with a 
     case under title 11, from creditors or the United States 
     Trustee, any property belonging to the estate of a debtor;
       ``(2) knowingly and fraudulently makes a false oath or 
     account in or in relation to any case under title 11;
       ``(3) knowingly and fraudulently makes a false declaration, 
     certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of 
     perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, in or in 
     relation to any case under title 11;
       ``(4) knowingly and fraudulently presents any false claim 
     for proof against the estate of a debtor, or uses any such 
     claim in any case under title 11, in a personal capacity or 
     as or through an agent, proxy, or attorney;
       ``(5) knowingly and fraudulently receives any material 
     amount of property from a debtor after the filing of a case 
     under title 11, with intent to defeat the provisions of title 
     11;
       ``(6) knowingly and fraudulently gives, offers, receives, 
     or attempts to obtain any money or property, remuneration, 
     compensation, reward, advantage, or promise thereof for 
     acting or forbearing to act in any case under title 11;
       ``(7) in a personal capacity or as an agent or officer of 
     any person or corporation, in contemplation of a case under 
     title 11 by or against the person or any other person or 
     corporation, or with intent to defeat the provisions of title 
     11, knowingly and fraudulently transfers or conceals any of 
     his property or the property of such other person or 
     corporation;
       ``(8) after the filing of a case under title 11 or in 
     contemplation thereof, knowingly and fraudulently conceals, 
     destroys, mutilates, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any 
     recorded information (including books, documents, records, 
     and papers) relating to the property or financial affairs of 
     a debtor; or
       ``(9) after the filing of a case under title 11, knowingly 
     and fraudulently withholds from a custodian, trustee, 
     marshal, or other officer of the court or a United States 
     Trustee entitled to its possession, any recorded information 
     (including books, documents, records, and papers) relating to 
     the property or financial affairs of a debtor,
     shall be fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned not more than 
     5 years, or both.

     ``Sec. 153. Embezzlement against estate

       ``(a) Offense.--A person described in subsection (b) who 
     knowingly and fraudulently appropriates to the person's own 
     use, embezzles, spends, or transfers any property or secretes 
     or destroys any document belonging to the estate of a debtor 
     shall be fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned not more than 
     5 years, or both.
       ``(b) Person to Whom Section Applies.--A person described 
     in this subsection is one who has access to property or 
     documents belonging to an estate by virtue of the person's 
     participation in the administration of the estate as a 
     trustee, custodian, marshal, attorney, or other officer of 
     the court or as an agent, employee, or other person engaged 
     by such an officer to perform a service with respect to the 
     estate.

     ``Sec. 154. Adverse interest and conduct of officers

       ``A person who, being a custodian, trustee, marshal, or 
     other officer of the court--
       ``(1) knowingly purchases, directly or indirectly, any 
     property of the estate of which the person is such an officer 
     in a case under title 11;
       ``(2) knowingly refuses to permit a reasonable opportunity 
     for the inspection by parties in interest of the documents 
     and accounts relating to the affairs of estates in the 
     person's charge by parties when directed by the court to do 
     so; or
       ``(3) knowingly refuses to permit a reasonable opportunity 
     for the inspection by the United States Trustee of the 
     documents and accounts relating to the affairs of an estate 
     in the person's charge,

     shall be fined not more than $5000 and shall forfeit the 
     person's office, which shall thereupon become vacant.''; and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new sections:

     ``Sec. 156. Knowing disregard of bankruptcy law or rule

       ``(a) Definitions.--In this section--
       ```bankruptcy petition preparer' means a person, other than 
     the debtor's attorney or an employee of such an attorney, who 
     prepares for compensation a document for filing.
       ```document for filing' means a petition or any other 
     document prepared for filing by a debtor in a United States 
     bankruptcy court or a United States district court in 
     connection with a case under this title.
       ``(b) Offense.--If a bankruptcy case or related proceeding 
     is dismissed because of a knowing attempt by a bankruptcy 
     petition preparer in any manner to disregard the requirements 
     of title 11, United States Code, or the Bankruptcy Rules, the 
     bankruptcy petition preparer shall be fined under this title, 
     imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

     ``Sec. 157. Bankruptcy fraud

       ``(a) Offense.--A person who, having devised or intending 
     to devise a scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining 
     money or property by means of a false or fraudulent pretense, 
     representation, or promise, for the purpose of executing or 
     concealing such a scheme or artifice or attempting to do so--
       ``(1) files a petition under title 11;
       ``(2) files a document in a proceeding under title 11; or
       ``(3) makes a false or fraudulent representation, claim, or 
     promise concerning or in relation to a proceeding under title 
     11, at any time before or after the filing of the petition, 
     or in relation to a proceeding falsely asserted to be pending 
     under that title,

     shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 
     years, or both.
       ``(b) Requirement of Intent.--
       ``(1) In general.--The degree of intent required to be 
     shown in the case of an offense described in subsection (a) 
     is that which is generally required to be shown in cases of 
     fraud.
       ``(2) Violation not established.--A violation of subsection 
     (a) is not established if the defendant committed the act 
     that is alleged to constitute fraud for a lawful purpose.
       ``(3) Violation established.--A violation of subsection (a) 
     may be established if the defendant committed the act that is 
     alleged to constitute fraud with a purpose of--
       ``(A) preventing the proper application of title 11 in a 
     particular case; or
       ``(B) using a proceeding under title 11 in a manner that, 
     while on its face may appear to be legitimate, is in fact 
     part of a scheme to defraud.''.
       (2) Technical amendments.--The chapter analysis for chapter 
     9 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) by amending the item relating to section 153 to read as 
     follows:

``Sec. 153. Embezzlement against estate.'';
     and
       (B) by adding at the end the following new item:

``Sec. 156. Knowing disregard of bankruptcy law or rule.
``Sec. 157. Bankruptcy fraud.''.
       (b) RICO.--Section 1961(1)(D) of title 18, United States 
     Code, is amended by inserting ``(except a case under section 
     157 of that title)'' after ``title 11''.

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, this amendment is also in the crime 
bill. I just want to point that out to Members of the body. This will 
be passing the Senate twice in a recent period of time.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I urge the adoption of the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment.
  The amendment (No. 1652) was agreed to.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.


                           Amendment No. 1653

 (Purpose: To provide that the amendment made by section 205 will not 
   apply to an unexpired lease of real property in a shopping center)

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments will 
be set aside, and the clerk will report the amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1653.

  Mr. HATCH. 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:

       On page 197, line 22, strike ``The'' and insert ``(1) 
     Except as provided in paragraph (2), the''
       On page 198, between lines 3 and 4, insert the following:
       ``(2) This subsection does not apply to an executory 
     contract that is related to, or to an unexpired lease of real 
     property in, a shopping center.''.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I understand my colleagues will accept this 
amendment. I want to thank them for accepting this technical amendment, 
and I also appreciate Senator Kohl's efforts to work this out. So as 
far as I know, it will be accepted.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, this is the amendment dealing with 
shopping centers. I do not think there was ever any disagreement on 
this. I think this is one everybody agrees with.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on the amendment of the Senator from Utah.
  The amendment (No. 1653) was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the 
amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.


                           Amendment No. 1654

  (Purpose: To strike the provision relating to payment of insurance 
                     benefits to retired employees)

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for 
its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments will 
be set aside, and the clerk will report this amendment.
  The legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Utah [Mr. Hatch] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1654.

  Mr. HATCH. 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:
       On page 211, strike lines 1 through 12.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I understand the managers have agreed to 
accept my amendment to strike section 220. I really wish to extend my 
thanks to the managers, Senator Heflin and Senator Grassley, for their 
cooperation and assistance.
  I would also like to thank Senator Metzenbaum for his efforts and 
cooperation to resolve this matter, because I believe that this 
amendment--the motion to strike--is in the best interest of retirees 
and employees.
  I also would like to thank Senator Helms for his assistance and also, 
in particular, I would like to take just a second and thank the 
distinguished Senator from Alabama [Mr. Heflin], and the distinguished 
Senator from Iowa [Mr. Grassley], for the marvelous way in which they 
have handled this bill from beginning to end. They have done a 
tremendous job in committee and on the floor. I have tremendous respect 
for both of them. So I just want them both to know that.
  This whole S. 540, the bankruptcy bill, is long overdue and these two 
Senators have really worked hard to do it.
  Having thanked all of those people, I urge the adoption of the 
amendment.
  Mr. METZENBAUM addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I rise not in opposition to the 
amendment of the Senator from Utah, but rather to address myself to 
this particular subject and the conduct of some lobbyists who have been 
working the halls of the Senate.
  It has nothing at all to do with my colleague from Utah. It does have 
to do with the Bankers Association.
  This is an amendment that has to do with the question of whether or 
not retirees will be protected when a company is in bankruptcy and when 
a bank is making a loan to that particular company that is in 
bankruptcy. It is a subject that has been one of some travail, some 
concern. And this Senator, in cooperation with the Senator from South 
Carolina [Mr. Thurmond], some years ago was able to protect the 
interests of the retirees in connection with the LTV Steel Co.
  This amendment does not have to do with any particular company. It 
has to do with the general subject of whether or not retirees are going 
to be given consideration and how much consideration, as far as their 
health benefits are concerned, when a company is in bankruptcy.
  There have been questions about the language that is in the law at 
the moment. The Senator from Ohio had an amendment that he thought 
clarified the matter. Yesterday we learned--I guess we actually learned 
prior to that--that the Bankers Association was not in agreement with 
the language of the Senator from Ohio. And so my staff entered into 
considerable negotiations with the Bankers Association.
  After they had been handling those negotiations for some time, I came 
out into the hallway near the Senate and said, ``Well, what is it that 
you want?'' The woman spokesperson--I gather she is a lawyer--for the 
Bankers Association said they wanted certain language in it. I found 
some difficulty with that. My staff had great reservations about it, 
but in an effort to get the matter resolved, I said, ``All right, let's 
go with it.''
  The lady then came back with some additional language and said, 
``Well, we also would like this language in.'' I looked at it, and I 
had some difficulty with it, and a representative of the White House 
was present, and she suggested we pick up some language from I think it 
is section 1114, if I remember correctly, of the Code and use that 
specific language and it be included in the amendment. I said fine. The 
lady representing the Bankers Association said fine.
  There was then considerable additional discussion, and finally, they 
got what they wanted. I wanted to move the matter forward. I did not 
want to hold up the bankruptcy bill. Both the manager of the bill and 
the comanager of the bill have been extremely cooperative and I said, 
``All right let's go with it.''
  I am frank to say to my colleagues in the Senate that my own staff 
was not happy with my agreeing to take that amendment. As a matter of 
fact, my staff felt very strongly about the subject. I had to just go 
ahead and say we are going to go ahead anyhow, and I actually had to 
apologize because I was so curt with her.

  So I had made a statement. My staff was not happy. But I said, ``I 
made a deal; let's go.''
  The next thing I knew, I went out there, and I said, ``Where is the 
amendment?'' They said, ``It is being typed in the Vice President's 
office.'' I said, ``Fine. As soon as you have it, let me know.''
  Several minutes later, they came back to me and said that their 
lawyers in New York, with whom they had already been in contact, 
talking back and forth, because a representative of the bankers had a 
telephone with her, a hand-held telephone, the Bankers Association 
lawyers have changed their minds; they now want to change it.
  Now, I have to say, I have been here 18 years, more than 18 years. I 
have negotiated with all sorts of groups. I have disagreed with some 
and agreed with others. But I have never seen conduct of any lobbying 
group as reprehensible as that of the Bankers Association yesterday.
  You make a deal. You live by your deal. Your word is good. You do not 
change your word. And to me, the last people in this country who ought 
to be changing their word are those who are in the banking business.
  They had agreed to it. Then they went back. No, they had to fine tune 
it. They had to change some language in it.
  I have agreed now to take the amendment, the whole matter, out of 
this bankruptcy bill and let the law stand as it is. But I say publicly 
that I condemn the conduct of the American Bankers Association in their 
dealing with Members of the Senate. If they cannot keep their word, 
they should not be traveling the Halls of this body; they should not be 
representing their group. This is an organization that owes it to the 
American people to have a sense of integrity. It is the last 
association that ought to have a lack of integrity.
  Having said that, Mr. President, I have no objection to the amendment 
of the Senator from Utah. And I wish to make it very clear my language 
is in no way any reflection upon the Senator from Utah. He was not a 
party to the negotiations.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I thank my dear friend and colleague from 
Ohio. I am very happy to get this amendment done, because I think it is 
in the best interests of everybody.
  My dealing with the bankers has been totally favorable. I could find 
nothing but praise on my part for their activities and efforts, without 
which we probably would not have arrived at this conclusion, which I 
think is a very good one.
  So I urge adoption of the amendment at this time.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, those familiar with the details of this 
legislation are aware that section 220 of the bill requires a 
corporation reorganizing under chapter 11 first to fund retiree health 
and insurance benefits. If this section should become law--and I cannot 
believe it will--it would eliminate jobs, discourage viable companies 
from reorganizing, harm lending institutions, and hurt retirees--the 
very group it purports to assist.
  That is why, Mr. President, I filed amendment number 1581 to strike 
completely this section. Senators can find this amendment in the 
Congressional Record of March 24 on page S 3777. The able Senator from 
Utah [Mr. Hatch] and the Senator from Ohio [Mr. Metzenbaum] have agreed 
that section 220 of the bill be removed, and I appreciate that.
  Mr. President, I was first made aware of the onerous impact of this 
section by John Medlin, Jr., chairman of the board of Wachovia Bank in 
Winston-Salem, NC. In addition to being a leader of our Nation's 
banking industry, John Medlin has demonstrated a prescient 
understanding of how our economy works--and of the impact the Federal 
Government has on the economy.
  John detailed his concerns about section 220 in his letter of March 8 
to me, and I ask unanimous consent that the text of Mr. Medlin's 
letter--as well as the text of a letter from John McLaughlin of United 
Carolina Bank--be printed in the Record, and I extend my appreciation 
to Senator Hatch for his fine work.
  There being no objection, the letters were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                                                     Wachovia,

                                 Winston-Salem, NC, March 8, 1994.
     Re S. 540--The Bankruptcy Amendments Act of 1993.

     Hon. Jesse R. Helms,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Jesse: Wachovia Corporation and its member banks join 
     with those who strongly oppose Section 220 of S. 540, the 
     Bankruptcy Amendments Act of 1993. This bill was reported 
     from the Senate Judiciary Committee on September 15, 1993 and 
     is expected to be taken up by the full Senate prior to the 
     Easter recess. S. 540 contains many salutary provisions which 
     would effect important and necessary reforms in the 
     Bankruptcy Code.
       However, Section 220, requiring first use of any cash on 
     hand to fund retiree health and insurance benefits, would 
     have a severely detrimental impact on companies with 
     substantial retiree benefit obligations and their employees. 
     This section and the controversy it created was one of the 
     primary reasons for the failure of this reform legislation 
     last year.
       Due to the extreme negative effect which Section 220 would 
     have upon jobs and the economy, we strongly urge your support 
     to strike or modify this provision of S. 540 when it is 
     considered by the full Senate. It is my understanding that 
     Senator Hatch may introduce an amendment to either strike 
     this provision or substantively amend it.
       Although Section 220 is aimed at companies in Chapter 11 
     bankruptcy proceedings (and would have tremendous negative 
     effect on their ability to reorganize), it would also 
     substantially raise financing costs for companies with large 
     retiree benefit obligations that have never contemplated or 
     elected Chapter 11 protection. It will also have a 
     deleterious effect upon the credit quality of those 
     companies. Private credit will become less available and more 
     expensive due to the increased risk to lenders of their 
     collateral being used to finance retiree benefits rather than 
     company operations. Capital market financing will also become 
     more difficult, as bond rating agencies can be expected to 
     downgrade a company's commercial paper as they take into 
     account the ``leapfrogging'' of retiree over bondholders' 
     claims that would be effected by Section 220.
       The employees of companies with substantial retiree 
     obligations could also be negatively affected. Experience has 
     shown that added burdens on retiree health benefits, such as 
     the accounting changes of FASB 106, have had the unintended 
     consequence of companies cutting back or eliminating these 
     benefits. Thus, if Section 220 were enacted, additional 
     cutbacks in retiree benefits could result.
       For companies seeking to reorganize under Chapter 11, the 
     damaging consequences of the changes made by Section 220 
     result from the creation of an unworkable rule that would 
     modify the working of existing Section 1114 of the Bankruptcy 
     Code, which sets forth standards and procedures for the 
     modification of retiree health and insurance benefits in 
     Chapter 11 cases. In many Chapter 11 situations, the debtor 
     company lacks sufficient assets to make required plan 
     payments during reorganization and must postpone such 
     contributions until confirmation of a plan of reorganization. 
     Under current Section 1114, any payments required to be made 
     during the pendency of the case are awarded administrative 
     expense status, the highest payment priority in the 
     Bankruptcy Code. A company is prohibited from emerging from 
     Chapter 11 without complying with its retiree obligations, or 
     modifying them in accordance with the Section 1114 
     procedures. Thus, the existing Section 1114 protects retiree 
     benefit rights while maintaining necessary flexibility and 
     encouraging labor-management negotiations.
       In contrast, Section 220 of S. 540 would create an 
     inflexible and unworkable rule under which a company entering 
     Chapter 11 would be required to make first use of any cash on 
     hand, including cash collateral pledged as security to 
     lenders, as well as any new credit, to fund retiree health 
     and insurance benefits. This inflexible mandate will force 
     troubled companies in reorganization to divert substantial 
     funds needed for current obligations, including the payment 
     of wages and benefits of current employees, as well as for 
     critically needed supplies, to the payment of insurance 
     benefits to former employees. While creditors are willing to 
     release cash collateral or provide new credit for activities 
     which increase the value and enhance the survival of a 
     company in Chapter 11, they will undoubtedly be unwilling to 
     extend post-petition financing to fund expenses such as 
     retiree health benefits because such expenses do not create 
     new collateral for the lenders or capital for the borrower. 
     Consequently, if a company cannot obtain adequate post-
     bankruptcy financing to fund Chapter 11 reorganization, the 
     reorganization attempt will quickly collapse and it will be 
     forced to liquidate under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. 
     This will harm the nation's economy and permanently eliminate 
     thousands of jobs, and destroy any additional funding for 
     retiree health benefits.
       In addition to the damaging effect this provision will have 
     on the ability to reorganize, it also results in an 
     unconstitutional taking of property. Section 220 conflicts 
     with the Bankruptcy Code requirement that a court order 
     releasing cash collateral over lenders' objections must 
     provide those lenders with ``adequate protection'' of their 
     interest in this property; this Bankruptcy Code requirement 
     is based upon the Constitutional prohibition against takings 
     without compensation. Section 220 destroys the balance 
     between the ability of the debtor to use assets to reorganize 
     and the requirement that a creditor's rights in its 
     collateral be adequately protected.
       Section 220 would also increase delay and legal expenses in 
     Chapter 11 cases, and increase the likelihood that unsecured 
     creditors would file motions for involuntary conversion of 
     the case to Chapter 7 liquidation.
       While some minor modifications of the protections reflected 
     in current Section 1114 of the Bankruptcy Code may be 
     advisable to reflect experience in administering that 
     provision, Section 220 of S. 540 goes far beyond procedural 
     revision by putting in place substantive imbalances 
     detrimental to the interests of all parties in bankruptcy. 
     Ironically, retirees would suffer under this provision, as 
     emergency court orders terminating retiree benefits to ensure 
     a company's survival in Chapter 11 would become more likely--
     or, in the alternative, more companies would liquidate, 
     leaving their retirees with no benefits.
       Jesse, governmental agencies and Congress continue to spew 
     forth regulations and legislation which strangle private 
     enterprise. I respectfully urge you to oppose Section 220 of 
     Senate Bill 540.
       My deep respect and gratitude remain with you for the 
     excellent work you perform in the Senate.
       With highest personal regards, I am
           Sincerely,
                                               John G. Medlin, Jr.
                                  ____



                                         United Carolina Bank,

                                                   April 19, 1994.
     Hon. Jesse Helms,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Helms: My associates and I wish to express our 
     support for your and Senator Faircloth's efforts to eliminate 
     Section 220 from S. 540, the bankruptcy reform bill.
       It is easy to see the intended benefits proposed in Section 
     220 and to identify with those desired ends, but the actual 
     results will accomplish the opposite and are already better 
     addressed in Section 1114 of the Bankruptcy Code.
       The real impact of Section 220 will make Chapter 11 
     reoganization unavailable in many cases. No lender is going 
     to be enthused about advancing money that is not going to be 
     used to run the company until the company is out of the 
     danger of being forced into Chapter 7 liquidation. If the 
     company can be brought back to health, everybody benefits, 
     including current retirees, and there is future income 
     available to fund future retiree health benefits instead of a 
     loss of jobs.
       The second major impact would be on companies with 
     substantial unfunded retiree benefits that are not yet in, 
     nor necessarily going into Chapter 11. They will become much 
     more restricted in their ability to obtain credit and stay in 
     business. If Section 220 is enacted, creditors would be 
     reluctant to lend to companies with high retiree health 
     benefit obligations, for fear that Chapter 11 would be 
     unavailable to them if they get in trouble. This will result 
     in higher borrowing costs and less credit available for such 
     companies.
       We all want retiree health benefits to be protected, but we 
     believe the current procedural protections already contained 
     in the Bankruptcy Code provide for them while the proposed 
     Section 220 would reduce the chances for the recovery of 
     ailing employer companies.
           Sincerely yours,
                                               John F. McLaughlin,
                                            Senior Vice President.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question is 
on agreeing to the amendment of the Senator from Utah.
  So the amendment (No. 1654) was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. HATCH. I thank the Chair. I thank my colleagues.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, what is the pending business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The pending business is amendment No. 1640, by 
Senator Dole and others.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I rise to support the Dole amendment. It has become 
clear to people in the United States and around the world that the U.N. 
policies with regard to Bosnia and Herzegovina are not comprehensible; 
they are not coherent. In fact, Mr. President, the problem is there is 
no policy.
  Once again, those whom we hope will abide by international norms have 
demonstrated with impunity that their lust for blood will not be 
satiated until they have laid waste to Bosnia.
  The lessons of Munich have been clear ever since Neville Chamberlain 
handed over to Hitler all of his demands. Now we stand idly while Serb 
forces slaughter innocent men and women. While it is not in our 
interest to deploy United States forces into Bosnia, it is most 
certainly in our interest to allow those who would fight for their 
lives to do so.
  If Lafayette had been sent to our shores with only humanitarian aid 
during the American Revolution, we would still be a crown colony today.
  I am not advocating sending United States ground troops to Bosnia. In 
fact, I do not think, although we have an interest in Bosnia as a 
country, sending our troops in under any circumstances is correct. But 
I am most certainly advocating giving the people who have the will to 
fight the ability to do so.
  The fledgling United States was given that opportunity in our 
struggle for freedom. It is only just that we give the opportunity to 
those who only wish to fight for their lives. We have a moral 
responsibility to support those who would do for themselves what the 
West collectively cannot do, will not do, and should not do.
  It is fitting that this amendment would be offered to the bankruptcy 
bill because bankrupt is a fitting description of our policy toward 
Bosnia.
  We must act now, Mr. President, to allow the Bosnian people to defend 
themselves, and I hope this body will speak clearly and firmly and 
swiftly that that should at least be the United States policy and we 
should press it forward.
  Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The absence of a quorum has been suggested. 
The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Ohio is recognized.
  Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, I rise to speak about a lady who has 
been extremely helpful to me on this bill, as well as a great deal of 
other legislation. She is about to leave my staff and go over to Fannie 
Mae.
  Pam Banks has done yeoman's work in connection with this bankruptcy 
bill. I think the managers of this bill have been good enough to accept 
8, 9 or 10 of my amendments. She has been involved in all of the 
negotiations. She has worked many additional hours, over and beyond the 
normal time that all of us work in the Senate.
  She has been dedicated to the concerns of the bankrupt, the concerns 
of the would-be bankrupt, and she has been one of the finest 
legislative aides that any Member of the Senate could possibly have. I 
say this evening this may be one of the last bills she will be working 
on, but no Senator could have had a better aide, supporter and helper 
in connection with the legislative process than the kind of assistance 
that I have received over the years from Pam Banks. I am sorry to see 
her leave, but I congratulate her new employer. She gives more than a 
full day's work for a full day's pay.
  I would hope that every Member of the Senate would have staff 
assistants as able, as conscientious, and as concerned as Pam Banks has 
been. I thank her for her many years of service.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Robb). The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. 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. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to add as 
cosponsors of S. 540 Senator Hatch and Senator Cochran.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRASSLEY. 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. PRESSLER. 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. PRESSLER. Mr. President, I believe very strongly that we should 
avoid the loss of American life in the former Yugoslavia. I believe 
very strongly that Europe should take the lead in any actions taken in 
the former Yugoslavia. For too long the American taxpayer has been 
burdened with the United States always taking the lead. This is a 
European problem. We should help out and be supportive. But there has 
been an attitude developed by some that the United States is 
responsible for sending troops to resolve any matter. Whether it is 
leading the bombing in Bosnia or feeding the hungry in Somalia.
  I support the concept of lifting the arms embargo unilaterally, if 
necessary, but I am also pleased that this resolution contains a 
provision that there shall be no use of U.S. troops.
  I have pointed out before, on this floor, the need for reform in the 
way the U.N. military command does things. The U.S. taxpayer pays for 
about 31.7 percent of the cost of U.N. peacekeeping operations. I think 
this is very unfortunate. In 1947, there was a 25 percent cap placed on 
the U.S. assessed contribution.
  I introduced legislation during the State Department Authorization 
that passed and was adopted by the House-Senate conference. My 
amendment would withhold a portion of U.S. assessed contributions to 
the United Nations unless an inspector general is established by the 
United Nations. The United Nations requires a real inspector general, 
because there has been so much corruption and waste. But there is also 
a need for great reform in the way U.N. peacekeeping operations and 
their command and control are run.
  We are told, for example, that many countries have troops in Bosnia 
and the United States should have more, but some of the countries 
participating in the Bosnian operation are making a profit on their 
troops, that is the untold story. Many of these countries pay their 
soldiers $50 a month, which they continue to pay them when they are 
serving in a U.N. peacekeeping operation. The government of that 
country is subsequently reimbursed close to $1,000 per troop per month.
  So it is not necessarily out of nobility that some countries 
participate in U.N. peacekeeping operations, nor is it out of a sense 
of duty. In addition to monetary compensation, these countries are 
getting valuable training for their troops wherever they serve. I find 
it disturbing that some governments are actually making a profit on the 
troops they send to Yugoslavia and other U.N. peacekeeping operations.
  So, Mr. President, it is my strongest position that we should pass 
this resolution, but I am more comfortable knowing that no United 
States troops will be committed in Bosnia. We should not shed a single 
drop of American blood in this conflict. We should ask our Europeans 
allies to take the lead. If they wish to, we will be supportive.
  How long will American taxpayers continue to pay for peacekeeping 
costs at the high rate of over 31 percent while other countries pay 
little or nothing? Indeed, as I have noted, many countries profit from 
their participation in peacekeeping operations.
  Let us get the facts straight. Let us remember that our taxpayers are 
asking how long they will continue to finance the United Nations Let us 
make a rule that not a single drop of American blood should be shed in 
this conflict. Those should be the ground rules by which President 
Clinton and this body proceed. I hear from my constituents and from 
Americans all over this great country that they do not want the United 
States to commit ground troops. They do not want us to lead the 
bombing. They do not want us to become enmeshed in a dispute that has 
been going on since the 14th century and a dispute that will probably 
be going on long after we are all gone.
  So let us establish some ground rules primarily that not a single 
drop of American blood should be shed in the former Yugoslavia, and let 
us ask ourselves how long the American taxpayer must continue to bear 
the major burden of U.N. peacekeeping expenses. We contribute 31.7 
percent of the total, far more than any other country. I believe 
strongly that those countries in Europe that are in the region should 
bear more of the burden.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Oklahoma 
[Mr. Nickles].
  Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to compliment Senator Dole for his 
leadership in--I am saying Bosnia but really I mean in Yugoslavia.
  I had the pleasure of traveling with Senator Dole and several 
colleagues a couple years or three ago to the former Yugoslavia. I 
think all of us came away from that trip with a real concern for the 
people of Yugoslavia for each of the republics and certainly those 
republics that were oppressed, in many cases really being strongly 
oppressed, by the Serbian Government headed by Mr. Milosevic. I think 
we felt that we wanted to do something.
  As a matter of fact, we did do a couple things. We did pass an 
amendment on a foreign operations appropriations bill that said we 
should allocate our foreign aid only to those republics in the former 
Yugoslavia that made moves and progress toward democracy.
  I might mention at that time that amendment was opposed by at that 
time the State Department in the Bush administration. They did not want 
to have any strings tied by Congress on foreign aid in Yugoslavia, but 
we still passed the amendment despite some objections by the 
administration.
  I remember being involved in that in a very long conference, but I 
felt like it was important.
  Mr. President, no question there is some significant tragedy in 
Yugoslavia today, certainly in Bosnia, and our hearts go out to all the 
innocent victims, and there are thousands of innocent victims. And 
certainly when you see the atrocities, when you see the murders, when 
you see the rapes, when you see the former very beautiful, lovely, 
peaceful villages pounded by artillery, it makes your heart go out to 
those people. What should we be doing?
  I am critical of the administration for their--I am going to say 
vacillating policy on Bosnia, really for the last year and half but 
especially in the last 2 or 3 months.
  I am critical of their tendency to delegate so much authority to the 
United Nations, and I remind my colleagues that last summer this 
Senator offered an amendment that said we should not be delegating our 
responsibility certainly in combat roles to the United Nations.
  Yet we see that is exactly what has happened in Bosnia, when we 
looked at some of the reports of NATO or the commander in the field 
saying, well, we want to call in air strikes, and they would run that 
through the chain of command of the commander in the field through 
NATO, and then they had to get the permission of the United Nations. In 
some cases it took over 4 hours to get the permission to respond to an 
attack that was ongoing. By that time, it was too late. I think it 
shows some of the confusion, some bureaucracy in the chain of command 
that is present and really makes it a very inept military operation.
  Mr. President, part of my complaint or part of my objection to the 
Clinton administration is that we do not have a clear or a defined 
military objective. This is a significant deviation from what we have 
had from previous administrations, both in President Reagan's 
administration and President Bush's administration. We said that our 
military should not be engaged in a military operation unless they had 
clearly defined objectives, stated goals, accomplished the objective, 
end of mission.
  That is what we had in the Persian Gulf, and it worked very 
effectively. I remember one time we did not have that objective, and 
that was in Lebanon and we saw a real disaster happen in Lebanon. Many 
were critical of that. We hated to see that happen. We had unnecessary 
loss of life. The administration took remedial action and we pulled our 
troops out of Lebanon.
  My heart goes out to the innocent people in Lebanon, another 
beautiful country, with lovely people, and you had this uncontrolled 
chaos and fighting. But this was not a problem in my opinion that was 
appropriate for American soldiers to solve.
  I look at Bosnia, and I will confess to being more willing a couple 
years ago to be interventionist militarily but not with this 
administration and certainly not with the chaos that is there. I say I 
do not think we could solve the military situation in Bosnia with 
500,000 troops on the ground. Certainly we cannot solve the situation 
in Bosnia with air strikes, as President Clinton mentioned that last 
night.
  Yet he is escalating the tensions and he is escalating the investment 
of the United States. By investment I am talking about risking lives of 
men and women of the United States armed services, risking the prestige 
of the United States by saying, yes, we are going to have air strikes, 
we are going to try to protect these five various corridors as safe 
havens. They have been safe havens declared by the United Nations, but 
we have not enforced that. Certainly it has not happened in Gorazde.
  And then when you see vacillation, you see the Secretary of Defense, 
Mr. Perry, on TV I think about 3 weeks ago saying we would not 
intervene militarily and a week later we were, that kind of a mixed 
signal is almost an invitation for the Serbs in Bosnia to attack, and 
they did. They escalated their bombardment and shells and artillery 
fire in Gorazde, and we have seen a real atrocity as a result.
  Again, this vacillation in foreign policy I think has cost the United 
States in leadership and prestige, and I think has contributed to a 
real decline in our influence not only in the United Nations but in 
NATO and in the world today.
  Then, Mr. President, I will just say, looking at the President's 
press conference last night and some statements, well, we are going to 
extend air power, yet air power is not going to be enough and will not 
be effective, that concerns me. We are going to use air power to maybe 
increase the punishment and the pressure on the Serbs so they come to 
the bargaining table. That sounds so reminiscent of Vietnam. It was not 
successful in Vietnam. I doubt it will be successful in Bosnia. I hope 
it would be. I would like to say maybe this would work. When I look at 
the President who says this is what he is going to try to sell the 
allies, and we talk about Britain and the French, neither of whom have 
endorsed this proposal. The Russians have not endorsed it. So we do not 
even have support from some of our closest allies within NATO. We lost 
a great deal of influence in NATO and lost a great deal of influence 
within the United Nations.
  President Clinton even mentioned last night, yes, he would like to 
lift the arms embargo, but we have not been successful in convincing 
the United Nations.
  Two years ago President Bush was quite successful in convincing the 
United Nations if there was a resolution that we needed to pass we 
could get our allies on board and pass it. We had influence in the 
United Nations. Obviously we have lost that clout.
  Now a lot of people have spent a lot of time debating whether we 
should have this resolution, whether we should do it unilaterally or do 
it through the United Nations. Presently, the United Nations says we 
are going to have an arms embargo on all of Yugoslavia, and some people 
say that is still in effect even though there no longer is a 
Yugoslavia. We have not been successful in convincing our allies this 
is not in the best interest in Bosnian to be able to defend themselves.
  Let us pass a resolution repealing it or modifying it or changing it. 
The administration and President Clinton said he has been in favor of 
this for a year. We still have not done anything.
  So, it makes me think that we have lost a great deal of influence and 
prestige in the United Nations.
  And if you look at the United Nations and their resulting efforts not 
only in Bosnia but in Somalia, in Rwanda--I mean, read the paper today. 
You have U.N. troops in Rwanda who are destroying their uniforms and 
fleeing. In Somalia, we had a change in mission in the United Nations 
from humanitarian to nation-building, and that was a disaster. Six 
months ago, people were talking about the United Nations putting up to 
50,000 troops into Bosnia. And one time people were talking about 
whether the United States might put in 25,000 or maybe a third of 
whatever contingency would be put in.
  Yet, again, you see all this confusion of who is going to be in 
charge in the chain of command. Will NATO be in charge? Will the United 
Nations be in charge? We find today a great deal of confusion and 
ultimately the United Nations having the final say. And, again, that is 
no way to run a military operation.
  We have gotten so far away from what we have had in the past, where 
we stated we would only use our military to carry out clearly 
definable, winnable military objectives. And that is not the case in 
Bosnia.
  One thing we could do--and I agree with Senator Dole--one thing we 
could do is lift the arms embargo.
  And Senator Dole and others of us offered a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution last year, and it passed overwhelmingly, saying we should do 
this. But the administration has not followed up.
  So now Senator Dole is taking the next step and saying, let us make 
it legislative language. I just hope that our colleagues will agree 
with this.
  Maybe this language is not perfect. Well, it can be changed. Maybe 
the language could be changed in conference if we were successful in 
passing it or it would be changed on the floor of the Senate. But we 
need to send a signal if we want to do something.
  Should we not allow the people in Bosnia to be able to defend 
themselves? I would hope so. They may not be able to win the war. I 
doubt they can. They may not be able to overturn the gains the Serbs 
have made by acquiring something like 70 percent of Bosnia. They may 
not be totally successful, but at least they should have the right to 
be able to defend themselves.
  I might mention that I, along with many of our colleagues, have met 
with many people in Bosnia. They have not asked for U.S. troops. Maybe 
one or two individuals have, but, for the most part, they have not 
asked for U.S. troops. They have asked for the right to be able to 
defend themselves.
  So I concur with the Republican leader, Senator Dole, and others who 
say, let us do something. I think the amendment that Senator Dole has 
on the floor is a big step in the right direction, and I hope that our 
colleagues will concur.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, the drive by the Bosnian Serbs into 
Gorazde shattered the hopes that protected areas could not be 
established without significant numbers of United Nations peacekeepers 
and possibly, without military support for those peacekeepers.
  Any United States action in former Yugoslavia must be taken in the 
context of our own national interest as well as out of concern for the 
fate of the Bosnians. Determining our national interest is difficult. I 
disagreed with those who thought that the war with Iraq was in our 
national interest. Some Americans may believe that it is in our 
national interest to intervene in Rwanda, where already 100,00 people 
have died in only a few short weeks of fighting. And some congressional 
leaders are calling for military intervention in Haiti.
  The supporters of these pending amendments argue that the United 
States should break with the international community and unilaterally 
lift the arms embargo on the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina. And 
the amendment's backers would also argue that the United States should 
be the first to arm the Bosnian Moslem government.
  I cannot support this amendment. While I clearly understand the 
concern of the authors, I do not agree with their reasoning. If this 
amendment passes, the United States will go on record as rejecting the 
multinational, comprehensive approach to ending the war in former 
Yugoslavia. The response to the lifting of the embargo could endanger 
allied troops assigned to the peacekeeping effort.
  I believe it is disingenuous--if not naive--to argue that our lifting 
of the embargo and weapons support to the Bosnian government does not 
constitute military intervention by the United States. I do not know 
how such an action would be interpreted by the Serbian leadership, but 
the very fact that such a question exists means that this proposal does 
not provide certainty. Rather than risk extension of the war, I believe 
we should put in place an economic and diplomatic choke hold which will 
take away the Serb's means to conduct the war.
  Lifting the arms embargo does not guarantee that there will be peace. 
It guarantees that there will be more war, more deaths and we will have 
played a part.
  Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, as a cosponsor of the Lieberman-Dole 
amendment, I rise today in support of lifting the arms embargo on 
Bosnia.
  With the coming fall of Gorazde, it is obvious that the Serbs will 
not relent. Time after time, we have seen that the Serbs have violated 
their own ceasefires, four this week alone. They have no plans to stop 
because they know that the world will do nothing to prevent their 
constant attacks on the Bosnian people. For this reason, I believe that 
the United Nations arms embargo against Bosnia must be lifted.
  We have all seen the horrors of this war of aggression by the Serbs. 
Inhumane attacks by the Serbs against innocent Bosnian men, women, and 
children have not stopped for over 3 years now. The Serbs have given a 
new name to their mass slaughter: ethnic cleansing. They have conducted 
mass murder and mass rapes of Bosnian women, and have caused over 2 
million people to flee the country as refugees. After all this, we have 
done nothing.
  Similarly, over 50 years ago, the United States refused to act on 
very persuasive information from a variety of credible sources, that 
said that the Nazis were killing Jews and other groups of people by the 
thousands and eventually millions. Not until our forces actually 
liberated the death camps, did we gain the full understanding of what 
went on inside of Germany and occupied Europe.
  Mr. President, the Serbs understand only one thing: force. When 
confronted with opposition, they backed down and abided by the 
ceasefire. Our waffling in Gorazde, though, has encouraged the Serbs to 
continue their war of aggression and killing rampage.
  The Bosnian people are poorly armed, fed, and clothed, but they are 
willing to fight fiercely to defend themselves to avoid certain death 
at the hands of the Serbians. While self-defense is Bosnia's right as 
an independent nation, we have denied her the right to obtain any 
weapons. Thus far, we have stood by and allowed a nation we recognize 
diplomatically to be extinguished. This policy must not continue.
  Muhammad Sacirbey, Bosnia's representative to the United Nations, 
told me in my office, that they do not want United States troops. They 
want our weapons. ``Give me weapons and we will fight,'' he told me. 
Let's do what is right. Let's give them the few small weapons they need 
to defend themselves.
  Mr. President, the victimized people of Bosnia deserve our help. We 
have ignored the death and destruction by the Serbs for far too long. 
Now is the time for action, not the sellout of an entire people. At the 
end of World War II, we said ``Never Again.'' It is apparent, that we 
have broken our word. What is at stake is the survival of an entire 
nation. We must not allow the people of Bosnia to be snuffed out. Let's 
lift the arms embargo now.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, it has become clear to people in the 
United States and around the world that the United Nations policies 
with regard to Bosnia and Herzegovina are not comprehensible, are not 
coherent, in fact the problem is there is no policy. Once again, those 
who we hope will abide by international norms have demonstrated with 
impunity that their lust for blood will not be satiated until they have 
laid waste to Bosnia.
  The lessons of Munich have been clear ever since Neville Chamberlain 
handed over to Hitler all his demands. Now, we stand idly by while Serb 
forces slaughter innocent men and women. While it is not in our 
interest to deploy United States forces into Bosnia, it is most 
certainly in our interest to allow those who would fight for their 
lives to do so.
  If Lafayette had been sent to our shores with only humanitarian aid 
during the American Revolution we would still be a crown colony today.
  I am not advocating sending United States ground troops to Bosnia, 
but I am advocating giving those with the will to fight--the means to 
fight.
  The fledgling United States was given that opportunity in our 
struggle for freedom. It is only just that we give that opportunity to 
those who only wish to fight for their lives.
  We have a moral responsibility to support those who will do for 
themselves what the West collectively will not and should not.
  It is fitting that this amendment would be offered to the bankruptcy 
bill, because bankrupt is a fitting description of our policy toward 
Bosnia.
  We must act now to allow the Bosnian people to defend themselves.
  Mr. HEFLIN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Alabama, 
Senator Heflin.
  Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, other than 
the pending amendments numbered 1640 and 1641, the only remaining floor 
amendments in order to S. 540, that is the bankruptcy bill, be those 
relevant to the subject of Bosnia and those sense-of-the-Senate 
amendments relevant to the Housing Authority's policies.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the unanimous consent 
request as propounded by the Senator from Alabama?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Republican leader, 
Senator Dole.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I want to take a few moments to express my 
support for the Bankruptcy Amendments Act.
  As my colleagues know, this bill is designed not to overhaul the 
current bankruptcy system, but rather to streamline a system that has 
worked relatively well since 1978, when the current Bankruptcy Code was 
adopted. Modernizing the bankruptcy system is vitally important today, 
as the number of bankruptcy filings continues to increase. The 
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, for example, estimates that 
nearly 1 million bankruptcy filings were made in 1992, triple the 
number just 8 years earlier.
  Some of the worthwhile provisions in the bill include:
  Small Business Investment Corporations: This provision would prohibit 
Small Business Investment Companies, or SBIC's, from filing for 
bankruptcy under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. As a result of this 
change, financially troubled SBIC's would opt instead for liquidation 
under the receivership laws regulated by the Small Business 
Administration. Under Chapter 7, the Small Business Administration 
recovers little of nothing, since the SBA claim is unsecured. On the 
other hand, when the SBA acts as a receiver, it normally recovers up to 
100 percent of its claim.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that prohibiting SBIC's 
from filing for bankruptcy under chapter 7 would save the Federal 
Government $52 million in fiscal year 1994.
  Temporary Small Business Bankruptcy Program: Many observers claim 
that the current chapter 11 reorganization procedure has proven too 
costly and cumbersome for many small businesses seeking bankruptcy 
relief. As a result, a second provision would establish a temporary 
small business bankruptcy program--chapter 10 of the Bankruptcy Code--
for small businesses with debts of less than $2.5 million. This 
program, which will be tested in eight pilot districts throughout the 
country, is designed to improve efficiency by accelerating the 
reorganization time for bankrupt small businesses. It's my hope that 
the pilot program will work as expected, but if it fails to achieve its 
intended goals, it can be easily discontinued.
  National Bankruptcy Review Commission: A third provision would 
establish a National Bankruptcy Commission to identify those areas in 
the Bankruptcy Code that need further improvement. The Commission is 
required to report its findings to Congress.
  Finally, Mr. President, I want to congratulate my distinguished 
colleague from Iowa [Mr. Grassley] for his hard work in crafting this 
bill and ensuring its passage by the Senate. Because of Senator 
Grassley's leadership, our bankruptcy laws will be made more efficient 
and more equitable, and will reflect the commonsense approach that is 
Senator Grassley's trademark.
  Mr. President, in a moment I am going to send an amendment to the 
desk with reference to the Housing Authority's policies. But first I 
want to thank my colleague from Oklahoma, because I do believe that we 
should vote, we should send a statement, whatever.
  At 3:45 or 4 o'clock today, we had a call from Prime Minister 
Silajdzic from Sarajevo telling us how bad it was in Gorazde today and 
how they have been told, if they did not vacate, get all the troops out 
of the city by 4 o'clock, they were going to come in with the tanks and 
level the city.
  The Serbs know no end to violence. They shelled the Red Cross, 
shelled the hospital, innocent children. It is almost unbelievable the 
atrocities that are occurring there.
  Now, maybe lifting the arms embargo is not going to happen overnight, 
but I think the Bosnians are prepared for the long haul. They have a 
pretty good army. But we were told again by the Vice President, Mr. 
Ganic, today that they have one rifle for every four men. They have 
eight tanks. The Serbs have 300. They are outnumbered, they are 
outgunned, they are out-everything, except they have the will and they 
want freedom and they want a right to defend themselves. It seems to me 
if we cannot do anything else, we ought to give them that right.
  I hope that we will vote on the amendment tonight. It seems to me 
that it is fairly clear.
  This is what the Vice President, Mr. Ganic, said:

       All we ask for is a limited quantity of defensive weapons, 
     not for victory, but for survival.

  They are not looking for offensive weapons. They want antitank 
weapons to protect themselves.
  Prime Minister Silajdzic said:

       The news I received from Gorazde makes me shudder, and the 
     best description for what is going on there is silence. The 
     best description of death is silence * * * 
       We are all sick and tired of a fascist junta being called a 
     side in the conflict, and the legal government being called 
     another side in the conflict * * * 
       The United States of America should not go on record as 
     holding an embargo on a country, a member of the United 
     Nations, a victim of fascist aggression of the Belgrade 
     regime.

  That was some of the information we received on the telephone. 
Obviously, they are desperate. They do not know where to turn, because 
everywhere they turn, they are turned down.
  And so I hope the amendment that I have offered with the 
distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, and others, 
will prevail. We are prepared to make at least one change with 
reference to prohibition, which we thought might satisfy some 
colleagues on the other side. But failing that, it seems to me we ought 
to vote to table it. If they cannot table it, we ought to pass it.


                           Amendment No. 1655

  Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk with reference to 
public housing, and I ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the pending amendments are 
laid aside.
  The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1655.

  Mr. DOLE. 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, add the following:
       Findings.--The Senate finds that--
       (1) It is the fundamental obligation of government to 
     protect its citizens;
       (2) In many federally-financed public housing projects, the 
     level of violence has reached epidemic proportions, 
     threatening on a daily basis the lives of the majority of the 
     tenants, who are law-abiding;
       (3) In an effort to combat gang and drug-related violence, 
     the Chicago Housing Authority (``CHA'') instituted a policy 
     of conducting warrantless, apartment-to-apartment searches of 
     CHA projects, including the Robert Taylor Homes;
       (4) On April 7, 1994, federal district court judge Warren 
     Andersen ruled that CHA's search policy violated the Fourth 
     Amendment to the Constitution of the United States and 
     enjoined CHA officials from undertaking these searches;
       (5) After the court decision, President Clinton directed 
     Attorney General Janet Reno and Secretary of Housing and 
     Urban Development Henry Cisneros to develop law enforcement 
     measures that would be both constitutionally valid and 
     effective in reducing violent crime in public housing 
     projects; and
       (6) President Clinton subsequently announced new federal 
     guidelines designed to assist public housing officials in 
     maintaining order and protecting the security of their law-
     abiding tenants.
       Therefore, it is the sense of the Senate that the Senate 
     fully endorses the new Administration guidelines, outlined in 
     a letter to President Clinton from Attorney General Reno and 
     Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Cisneros, dated 
     April 14, 1994, including the guidelines allowing public 
     housing officials to 1) erect fences around public housing 
     buildings, issue identification cards to tenants, and install 
     metal detectors or magnetometers at the building entrances; 
     2) search the packages and clothing of anyone seeking to 
     enter public housing buildings and refuse entry to anyone who 
     does not submit to inspection; 3) conduct weapons searches 
     without consent or a warrant in common areas of the 
     buildings, such as stairwells, and in vacant apartments; 4) 
     frisk ``suspicious-looking'' individuals for weapons, if 
     police or security personnel have a reason to believe that 
     the individuals are involved in criminal activity and are 
     armed; 5) include non-coercive consent clauses in lease 
     agreements permitting routine, warrantless apartment-by-
     apartment police searches for illegal weapons and illegal 
     drugs; and 6) conduct warrantless searches of individual 
     units where there is justification for a search but 
     insufficient time to obtain a judicial warrant.

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, it is my understanding Senator Wellstone 
will offer a second-degree amendment. He may be willing to enter into a 
time agreement of 40 minutes. I am not going to take a lot of time. In 
fact, I probably will take 20 minutes of the 40 minutes. So I hope we 
could have a vote here by shortly after 8 o'clock.
  I know this Senator is supposed to be receiving an award somewhere 
tonight, but I may not make it. I am certain they can mail it to me or 
something.
  Mr. President, in an article last year, columnist George Will asked 
an important question--one directed specifically at Republicans. He 
asked, ``What does conservatism have to say to my friend Karen 
McCune?''
  Now, who is Karen McCune, you may ask? Mr. Will explains that:

       She's 9 years old, 47 pounds, and full of life and bravery. 
     She needs bravery because she lives in the Cabrini-Green 
     housing project in Chicago. She goes to the Jenner School, 
     named after the man who invented the small pox-vaccine. Three 
     grade-schoolers, in the span of 1 year, were killed 
     accidentally, getting from Cabrini-Green across the free-fire 
     zone that is Chicago in those areas, into the Jenner School. 
     Karen sleeps, in a bed near a window except when the gunfire 
     gets too fierce, and then she and her siblings go into the 
     hall and hide.

  Mr. President, Karen McCune is not a citizen of Bosnia, or Rwanda, or 
the Gaza Strip. She is a child of America, and her life of terror is 
one lived by thousands like her in the public housing projects 
throughout the United States.
  The criminals who terrorize public housing are not the victims of 
society, as the root-cause liberals would have us believe. The real 
victims are the law-abiding tenants--children like Karen McCune--whose 
lives are spent dodging bullets, avoiding the drug dealers, just hoping 
to get through another day without incident--alive.
  In an effort to combat gang and drug-related violence, the Chicago 
Housing Authority recently established a policy of conducting 
warrantless apartment-to-apartment searches of C.H.A. projects. Not 
surprisingly, a majority of the law-abiding tenants in C.H.A. buildings 
supported this policy.
  Earlier this month, the Federal district court in Chicago got 
involved, ruling that the C.H.A. search policy violated the fourth 
amendment's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. The court then 
enjoined C.H.A. officials from undertaking any additional searches.
  To his credit, President Clinton quickly responded to the court 
decision, directing Attorney General Reno and Secretary of Housing and 
Urban Development Henry Cisneros to develop measures that would be both 
constitutionally valid and effective in reducing violent crime in 
public housing. These measures were unveiled last Saturday, during the 
President's weekly radio address.
  Under the President's new policy, public housing officials are 
encouraged to implement the following anticrime measures:
  First, erecting fences around public housing buildings, issuing 
identification cards to tenants, and installing metal detectors at 
building entrances;
  Second, searching the packages and clothing of anyone seeking to 
enter public housing buildings and refusing entry to anyone who does 
not submit to inspection;
  Third, conducting weapons searches without consent or a warrant in 
common areas, such as stairwells, and in vacant apartments;
  Fourth, frisking suspicious-looking individuals for weapons, if 
police or security personnel have a reason to believe that the 
individuals are involved in criminal activity and are armed;
  Fifth, including consent clauses in lease agreements permitting 
routine, warrantless apartment-by-apartment police searches for illegal 
weapons or illegal drugs; and
  Sixth, conducting warrantless searches of individual units where 
there is a justification for a search but insufficient time to obtain a 
judicial warrant.
  Mr. President, this amendment is nothing more than an endorsement of 
the administration's new policy, as outlined in a recent letter to 
President Clinton from Attorney General Reno and Secretary Cisneros. 
This amendment does not break new ground, nor does it proposes anything 
that President Clinton has not already endorsed. It simply recites some 
of the key elements of the new administration policy, and puts the 
Senate four-square behind them.
  Of course, the new administration policy is a small step, and we 
should not expect it to put an end to the violence at Cabrini-Green, or 
at the Robert Taylor Homes, or at the other bullet-ridden public 
housing projects that line the urban landscape. But I am prepared to 
hope that the policy, if acted upon, can--and will--make a difference.
  Of course, there are those who argue that the administration policy 
goes too far, that it may even violate the fourth amendment to the 
Constitution.
  I happen to disagree, and Attorney General Reno, the Justice 
Department, and the President of the United States happen to disagree, 
as well. I understand my distinguished colleague from Minnesota [Mr. 
Wellstone] intends to offer a second-degree amendment that would not 
only water down my amendment but also represent a retreat from the 
administration's own policy.

  Again, I have not seen the amendment so maybe I should reserve. But 
it is my understanding it would explicitly provide that residency or 
continued residency in public housing could not be made contingent on 
the inclusion of a consent clause in a lease agreement.
  I think at that point I hope the Senator from Minnesota might--the 
Senator from Minnesota is on the floor. I hope we might, first of all, 
get a time agreement. Then I understand he will second-degree the 
amendment I have sent to the desk. I will at the appropriate time move 
to table the second degree amendment. If it fails, I assume we will 
adopt my amendment as an amendment; if the motion to lay on the table 
is agreed to, I hope then we would vote on the original amendment.
  So, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks recognition?
  The Chair recognizes the Senator from Minnesota, [Mr. Wellstone].


                Amendment No. 1656 to Amendment No. 1655

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

       The Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], for himself and 
     Mr. Feingold, proposes an amendment numbered 1656 to 
     amendment No. 1655.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. 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 amendment, add the following--
       Provided, however, with respect to ``consent clauses in 
     lease agreements'' referred to above--
       (a) Residency or continued residency in public housing is 
     not contingent upon the inclusion of such a consent clause as 
     a provision of a lease agreement, and
       (b) Residents or prospective residents are informed that 
     residency or continued residency in public housing is not 
     contingent upon the inclusion of such a consent clause as a 
     provision of a lease agreement.

  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all let me say this.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I will be pleased to.
  Mr. FORD. Is there a possibility of getting a time limit on this 
amendment?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes.
  Mr. FORD. How much time?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I would say 15 minutes on each side? If that is OK 
with the minority.
  Mr. FORD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a time 
limit until 8:30, equally divided. At 8:30 a vote will occur on or in 
relation to the amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. FORD. I thank the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota retains the floor.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, let me just read a portion of the 
administration's policy. Really what I am trying to do is improve upon 
that policy. I believe, actually, this amendment is quite consistent 
with what the minority leader has presented to us in his resolution.
  The policy reads

       A search is lawful if it is conducted pursuant to an 
     uncoerced consent. Leases in housing projects, as elsewhere, 
     typically include a standard consent clause permitting the 
     housing authority to conduct routine maintenance inspections 
     and to enter the tenants' apartment in case of emergency. 
     Where crime conditions in housing developments make unit-by-
     unit inspections essential, similar lease consent clauses 
     could be employed to authorize periodic administrative 
     inspections of tenants' units for unlicensed or unauthorized 
     firearms.

  Mr. President, I think all of us on the floor of the Senate, 
Republicans and Democrats alike, are concerned about the violence and 
the guns. But I would just like to explain my amendment and talk a 
little bit about why I think it is so important.
  My amendment essentially says, and this would be at the end of the 
Dole resolution amendment--``provided, however, with respect to consent 
clauses in lease agreements referred to above''--and what I am really 
talking about is that--

       * * * continued residency in public housing is not 
     contingent upon the inclusion of such a consent clause as a 
     provision of a lease agreement, and residents or prospective 
     residents are informed that residency or continued residency 
     in public housing is not contingent upon the inclusion of 
     such a consent clause as a provision of a lease agreement.

  To put that into plain English, let me first of all identify the 
problem and let me tell you why I think this is actually a helpful 
solution which I believe my colleagues would want to vote for.

  The New York Times had an editorial yesterday in which they talked 
about this policy. I think the most important part of their editorial 
reads as follows:

       Yet among his proposals was the highly suspect idea of 
     requiring public housing leases to include a tenant's waiver 
     of the very privacy rights Judge Andersen ably vindicated--a 
     standing consent to a warrantless search. What could be more 
     coercive than an implicit demand for a waiver of rights as a 
     condition of shelter? It is hard to imagine a waiver 
     provision in a lease form that an applicant could feel free 
     to reject. Nor is it easy to imagine such a waiver surviving 
     a constitutional challenge in Judge Andersen's courtroom.

  My point is this. If we are talking about public housing and we are 
talking about poor people, people who are desperate for housing, with 
huge, long backlog, long, long waiting lists, people who are absolutely 
desperate, the only alternative is to be homeless, then it would seem 
to me that what you want to make crystal clear to people is: Look, we 
ask you to sign a waiver so as a matter of fact we can come in and 
search your apartment. But, what we want to make clear to you is that 
if you do not sign that waiver, you are being accepted into this 
housing project and being able to live here is not contingent on it.
  In other words, it is extremely coercive. We are talking about the 
fourth amendment to the Constitution. We are talk about the most 
important principle in our country that has to do with search and 
seizure.
  I introduced this amendment as a safeguard, which I believe the 
administration and I believe colleagues here would be very supportive 
of. We are not saying that we do not want to take all steps necessary--
and there is much in the administration's policy that goes in that 
direction of trying to go after these guns. We are not saying that we 
would not ask a prospective tenant to sign a waiver. The only thing we 
are saying is it ought to be crystal clear to that tenant that if he or 
she does not sign the waiver then they are not going to be without 
housing. That is what makes it not coercive.
  My colleagues I know are going to say that this is not coercive. I 
know they are going to say that that they are concerned about making 
sure that poor people do not have to live under a different standard. 
And all this amendment does is make sure that is the case.
  One more time, let me just state what is at issue here. Let me make 
two points.
  The A part of what is at issue here in my view is that I really am 
glad that now we have a focus on how it is we are going to reduce this 
violence in these housing projects. I certainly wish that part of that 
focus was making sure that we pass strict laws that dealt with assault 
weapons. Get them out of the housing projects. I certainly hope and 
wish that part of what we do is make sure there are real educational 
opportunities, that we support child care, that we have good community 
police.
  I am for all of that, and I hope that we do that. But it does seem to 
me that at the very minimum, if we are going to be talking about 
knocking someone's door down--that is what we are talking about--that 
what we say to people who live in this public housing is, ``Look''--and 
if you were to take a referendum, by the way, among the tenants, they 
will tell you they are absolutely desperate to do something about the 
violence, the shooting, the threats to their children.
  But I am quite sure, having done a fair amount of community work in 
organizing, they will say, ``Look, it is reasonable. Please, Senators, 
if you are going to have us sign this waiver and you are going to have 
it say it is not coercive, then make it crystal clear that if somebody 
should decide or should wish not to sign the waiver and not to grant 
permission for the housing authority people, police--whatnot--to come 
to our door anytime and come right into our apartment, that we will not 
be in jeopardy of having a place to live.''
  That is all this does, really, is give people that constitutional 
assurance. I think it is due process, and it is fairness.
  I see my colleague, the Senator from Illinois, is here, and I want to 
ask him whether he may want to speak at this moment. I also want to 
make it clear that Senator Feingold is an original cosponsor of this 
amendment.
  Again, let me say to my colleagues one more time that I am absolutely 
not opposed to these initiatives. I just want to make sure that people 
understand that if they should choose not to sign the waiver, they will 
not be homeless.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time? The Republican leader, 
Senator Dole.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I am going to try a second time today to 
help the administration. I have not had much luck yet. I started on 
Bosnia and somehow that got derailed. Now I am trying to help the 
President on public housing. That is all I am trying to do here today.
  I understand the amendment of the Senator from Minnesota. It just 
takes the teeth out of it. It says if you do not want to sign a waiver, 
you can still live in the building; so you can put all the weapons in 
that tenant's building, whatever you have in mind.
  It explicitly provides residency, or continued residency, in public 
housing could not be made contingent on the inclusion of a consent 
clause in a lease agreement.
  The Reno-Cisneros letter to President Clinton, on the other hand, 
does not make exceptions. It does not prohibit public housing 
officials, nor the tenants themselves, from making residency contingent 
on the inclusion of a consent clause in a lease agreement. It simply 
says:

       A search is lawful if it is conducted pursuant to uncoerced 
     consent. Leases in housing projects, as elsewhere, typically 
     include a standard consent clause permitting the housing 
     authority to conduct routine maintenance inspections and to 
     enter the tenant's apartment in case of emergency. Where 
     crime conditions in the housing development make unit-by-unit 
     inspections essential, similar lease consent clauses could be 
     employed to authorize periodic administration inspections of 
     tenants' units for unlicensed or unauthorized firearms.

  That is not my quote. That is how it is interpreted by the 
administration.
  The Reno-Cisneros letter goes on to say:

        * * * tenant associations should be encouraged to endorse 
     the use of building entrance security devices and the 
     inclusion of consent clauses in lease agreements. A 
     resolution by a tenant association would demonstrate 
     widespread tenant support for such measures, which is an 
     important factor in determining whether to include such a 
     clause in the lease. In addition, a showing of widespread 
     tenant support would be helpful in responding to challenges 
     by particular tenants to the constitutionality of 
     restrictions on entry and consent clauses in leases.

  So, Mr. President, the administration's policy is clear, and a vote 
for the Wellstone second-degree amendment is a vote against this 
policy.
  Finally, I want to go back to George Will's original question and 
direct it not to conservatives, but to those at the ACLU and the New 
York Times who oppose some of the administration policy's key elements, 
including the proposal to allow public housing tenants to consent to 
police searches through their lease agreements.
  To these dyed-in-the-wool liberals, I simply ask this: What does 
liberalism have to say to Karen McCune? Does it say, We will give you 
more rights or more laws or more due process? I suspect, when all is 
said and done, the Karen McCunes of our country would choose something 
quite different, but much needed, in their young lives, which would be 
more safety, more security, and more hope.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter to President 
Clinton from Attorney General Reno and Secretary Cisneros be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                               Office of the Attorney General,

                                   Washington, DC, April 14, 1994.
     The President,
     The White House,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. President: On April 8, 1994, you asked us to work 
     together to devise law enforcement measures that would be 
     effective and constitutionally valid in dealing with the 
     severe problems of violent crime in urban public housing 
     developments such as Robert Taylor Homes and Stateway in 
     Chicago. During the past week, we have worked productively 
     toward that end. This letter outlines the conclusions we have 
     reached regarding a variety of law enforcement techniques 
     that might be used in combatting this grave problem.
       You are familiar with the background: In response to the 
     escalation of violence and the prevalence of firearms in 
     public housing projects in Chicago, the Chicago Housing 
     Authority [CHA] instituted a policy of conducting 
     warrantless, apartment-to-apartment searches of CHA public 
     housing projects. On April 7, 1994, a federal court in 
     Chicago held that CHA's search policy violated the Fourth 
     Amendment. On that basis, the court enjoined CHA from 
     undertaking further warrantless apartment-to-apartment 
     searches of CHA housing units. The court made clear, however, 
     that its ruling did not preclude CHA from taking other steps 
     to conduct searches in and around the housing projects.
       In the Chicago case, although some tenants opposed the 
     CHA's ``sweep search'' policy, many others supported the 
     policy and supported CHA's efforts to maintain order and 
     combat gang violence in the housing projects. The case also 
     made vividly clear once again how pervasive violence has 
     become in many of our inner-city housing projects. While 
     striking down the particular ``sweep search'' policy employed 
     by CHA, the judge recognized that the level of violence in 
     the housing projects represents a grave threat to the lives 
     and safety of innocent persons in and around the CHA 
     buildings.
       Following the court's ruling and your request for us to 
     focus intensively on this issue, the Department of Justice 
     consulted with the Department of Housing and Urban 
     Development regarding the options available to a public 
     housing agency such as CHA in conducting searches on the 
     premises of public housing projects that suffer from very 
     high rates of violent crime. We outline here the options 
     that we considered, and which we concluded are 
     constitutionally valid, at least in the extraordinary 
     circumstances presented by the crime problem in the Robert 
     Taylor Homes and Stateway developments.
       1. Securing the Building Entrances and Lobbies. Any effort 
     to stem violence in crime-ridden public housing projects must 
     begin in the lobbies of the buildings. In some high-rise 
     public housing projects, gang members effectively control 
     access to the buildings. They move freely in and out of the 
     buildings. While some buildings are protected by security 
     guards, those guards are often intimidated by gang members, 
     and they therefore let unauthorized persons enter the 
     buildings unchallenged.
       It is essential that the housing authority gain control of 
     building lobbies and common areas. To accomplish that end, 
     the authority can erect fences around buildings, issue 
     identification cards to tenants, and install magnetometers or 
     metal detectors a the building entrances. Security personnel 
     should be accorded the authority to conduct follow-up 
     searches with hand-held metal detectors when necessary. They 
     should also be authorized to search packages and clothing, 
     and to refuse entry to anyone who does not submit to 
     inspection. Most importantly, the authority and the local 
     police must cooperate to ensure that the security guards have 
     sufficient protection to do their screening work effectively. 
     If the ground floor of the building is secure, other 
     techniques may not be necessary; if it is not, other 
     techniques are likely to prove futile.
       2. Consent Searches. A search is lawful if it is conducted 
     pursuant to an uncoerced consent. Leases in housing projects, 
     as elsewhere, typically include a standard consent clause 
     permitting the housing authority to conduct routine 
     maintenance inspections and to enter the tenant's apartment 
     in case of emergency. Where crime conditions in the housing 
     development make unit-by-unit inspections essential, similar 
     lease consent clauses could be employed to authorize periodic 
     administrative inspections of tenants' units for unlicensed 
     or unauthorized firearms.
       As in the case of maintenance inspections, such firearms 
     inspections should be conducted on a routine basis, during 
     daylight hours, and should be no more intrusive than 
     absolutely necessary to determine whether weapons are present 
     in the tenant's unit.
       If the agency gives advance notice of the fact that an 
     inspection will be conducted and the general period within 
     which it will take place the intrusiveness of the inspection 
     will be lessened and any constitutional objection to the 
     inspection thereby reduced.
       In appropriate circumstances, tenant associations should be 
     encouraged to endorse the use of building entrance security 
     devices and the inclusion of consent clauses in lease 
     agreements. A resolution by a tenant association would 
     demonstrate widespread tenant support for such measures, 
     which is an important factor in determining whether to 
     include such a clause in the lease. In addition, a showing of 
     widespread tenant support would be helpful in responding to 
     challenges by particular tenants to the constitutionality of 
     restrictions on entry and consent clauses in leases.
       3. Searches of Common Areas and Vacant Apartments. 
     Experience in Chicago teaches that gangs commonly use vacant 
     apartments as bases of operation. The housing authority can 
     search the common areas of public housing projects and vacant 
     apartments without consent or a warrant, and at any time of 
     the day or night.
       4. Weapons Frisks of Suspicious Persons. If police or 
     security personnel have reason to believe that an individual 
     is involved in criminal activity and that he is armed, they 
     may frisk him for weapons. Where police establish a presence 
     in an area and use their lawful power to stop and frisk 
     persons engaged in suspicious behavior, the use of that power 
     can be effective in disrupting and deterring violent crime.
       5. Warrant Searches on Probable Cause. Whenever law 
     enforcement officials have probable cause to believe that a 
     specific dwelling contains evidence of a crime, a search may 
     be conducted with a judicial warrant. Police should make use 
     of expedited techniques for obtaining warrants, such as by 
     telephone or by having magistrates readily available to issue 
     warrants.
       6. Searches Based on Exigent Circumstances. Housing 
     authority officials may conduct warrantless searches of 
     individual units where there is justification for a search 
     but insufficient time to obtain a judicial warrant.
       7. Arrest Warrants. Housing or local police may enter a 
     dwelling unit to execute an outstanding arrest warrant if the 
     fugitive resides in the unit and the police have reason to 
     believe he is present.
       During staff consultations between the two Departments, we 
     have discussed these alternatives and others in more detail, 
     and we will continue working together in devising and 
     refining law enforcement strategies that can be applied to 
     deal with this crisis.
           Sincerely,
     Janet Reno,
       Attorney General.
     Henry Cisneros,
       Secretary of Housing and Urban Development.

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me also quote from a news story from the 
Washington Post where Mr. Cisneros, the Secretary of Housing and Urban 
Development, says:

       ``We believe'' that the new initiative ``will pass 
     constitutional muster.'' He appeared, however, to place 
     substantial measure of legal confidence in the power of 
     public opinion--well-documented for years--in support of 
     drastic measures.
       ``Everything we have proposed here is in consultation with 
     [public housing] residents,'' Cisneros said. ``The residents 
     have requested that the policy of sweeps continue, and they 
     support them.''
       And, like Clinton, he was quick to assert the rights of the 
     oppressed over the concerns of the ACLU, whose ``abstract 
     analysis of people's rights'' is ``swamped in real life by 
     people's rights being denied.''

  Those are not my quotes; those are not any Republican quotes. That is 
the Democratic Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Mr. 
Cisneros.
  Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Will my colleagues give me 2 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I want to say to my good friend, the 
minority leader, in his resolution he talks about including noncoercive 
consent clauses. That is all this is. That is exactly what I have done.
  If you are in favor of that, then you certainly would not be opposed 
to this.
  Second of all, I simply say I am quite sure the Attorney General and 
the Secretary of HUD make no bones about it, and would not at all 
object to a specific reference to making clear this is noncoercive. 
That is all this amendment does, for gosh sakes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I yield, first of all, to the senior 
Senator from Illinois, and then I will yield to the junior Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois, [Mr. Simon], is 
recognized for up to 14 minutes 51 seconds.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I shall not use 14 minutes 51 seconds.
  I regret the minority leader has left the floor because I visited the 
Robert Taylor homes, the area in controversy, on Monday morning. I took 
no reporters with me, no television cameras, so I could just talk to 
the people who are in that area.
  Overwhelmingly, they want the police to do the job. They want people 
to come in and inspect and take the guns and the drugs, and so forth. I 
visited one room where they must have had 200 or 300 weapons. I am not 
talking about just small weapons. These were AK-47's, and all kinds of 
things, including rifles with sights so you could see 300 yards at what 
you are aiming.
  I am for the Wellstone amendment. If the Wellstone amendment is 
defeated, I am going to vote for the Dole amendment. But Senator 
Wellstone is absolutely correct that his amendment is not contrary to 
the administration position.
  I met late Monday afternoon with Vince Lane, the chairman of the 
Chicago Housing Authority, and talked to the people at HUD. They said 
they want this to be a voluntary thing, and they are going to make 
clear that people have to voluntarily sign up.
  I think you will see in the Robert Taylor homes, the area in 
question, that 75 to 95 percent of the people will voluntarily sign up. 
There is some fear of abuse by police. No question about it. But there 
is much greater fear of the gangs and the weapons and everything else.
  I would be personally surprised if at least 95 percent of the people 
did not sign up voluntarily. I think we are making a big issue out of 
something that is not a big issue.
  Second, what the Wellstone amendment does is to make this 
constitutional. You can criticize the ACLU and Judge Anderson, who, 
incidentally, is a Republican appointee as a Federal judge, but we 
cannot do something that violates the Constitution.
  In terms of strict constitutionality, I think the Federal judge 
rendered the proper decision. What we have to do is to fashion 
something that can go after the weapons, can go after the drugs, and 
provide security for the people there. I think the Wellstone amendment 
moves in that direction.
  I do not know if my friend, Senator Dole, is hearing my words right 
now or not, because he went into the Republican cloakroom. I hope he 
will recognize that his amendment and the Wellstone amendment are not 
in conflict.
  The letter that was sent by Secretary Cisneros and Attorney General 
Reno is not completely clear in the waiver, but what they have made 
clear and what Vince Lane, the Chairman of the Chicago Housing 
Authority, made clear to me is that it has to be voluntary; otherwise, 
it is not constitutional. They recognize that.
  So I think we have created a huge controversy over nothing. My hope 
is that the Wellstone amendment would be adopted by voice vote, and 
then the Dole amendment would be adopted.
  Frankly, I am going to vote for the Dole amendment even if the 
Wellstone amendment is defeated. But I think by implication certainly 
the administration policy includes precisely what the Wellstone 
amendment has.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN addressed the Chair.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. How much time do I have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator controls 10 minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield 5 minutes.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. That will be fine.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Graham). The Senator from Illinois is 
recognized.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I have done more than visit Robert 
Taylor homes. I know people who live there. I know people who used to 
live there, and I am intimately familiar as a product of the inner city 
with conditions facing public housing today and particularly public 
housing in the City of Chicago. We have seen this epidemic of violence.
  Mr. President, public housing is one of the cornerstones of our urban 
dilemma. Residents have become inhabitants of cordoned-off islands with 
very little relief, opportunity or tools with which to do a job or have 
some hope and an opportunity. To solve the problem of crime and 
joblessness and hopelessness, I believe we have to address the issue of 
providing a decent living environment. We have to focus on what are the 
issues pertaining to security, not just the sweeps.
  Now, there is an old expression in legal circles that ``hard cases 
make bad law.'' It seems to me that the crisis of violence that we are 
seeing in public housing now makes precisely the kind of hard case that 
can, if we are not careful, give us not only bad law but bad policy as 
well.
  A fever pitch of debate over the mass searches known as sweeps and as 
represented in this amendment has commanded the attention of the 
country, as has the horror of the frightened residents and gunshot 
wound victims.
  I hope, however, that the energy we direct toward the debate about 
sweeps gives rise to an equally energetic debate about what we do to 
cure the dangerous place to live.
  I hope that our only response to poverty and the hopelessness of 
these communities is not to build fences, cordon off the developments 
and take away people's fourth amendment rights. I hope that we have the 
capacity to address this issue in a more serious manner.
  Last year, Mr. President, there were 50 homicides in the CHA 
complexes in Chicago. At the same time, those communities were living 
with the following statistics: An 89 percent poverty rate; a median 
family income of $5,400; only 32 percent of the adults had more than a 
high school education; unemployment averages of 60 percent; only 8.5 
percent of the residents were employed in private sector employment, so 
the private sector has abandoned these areas altogether; and 45 percent 
of the residents being children under the age of 14.
  Now, when you aggravate that mix with drugs and guns--and they have 
confiscated almost 1,200 in the last year--and overcrowding--Robert 
Taylor has about 13,000 people, which is more than the population of 
most Illinois towns. So when you aggravate the situation, what you wind 
up with is the crisis of violence that we have.
  Now, the sweeps have been used before in response to the peaks of 
violence, but there is no question, Mr. President, that Band-Aids will 
not provide the domestic security that the law-abiding residents of 
public housing deserve. The hard case of what to do to provide a safe 
and secure living environment for poor people who live in public 
housing does demand a commitment, a commitment by this body, by this 
Congress and by this administration to change the conditions that make 
that environment presently uninhabitable.
  Now, I am not going to argue that the residents of CHA who support 
the sweeps are entirely wrong. Those are people who are confronted by 
the realities of life there and who are frightened by the gangs, by the 
intimidation, and who really want, at this point are prepared to forgo 
what might be considered to be esoteric constitutional protection in 
favor of the physical protection against the raging violence.
  I think our community as a whole has a right to say this level of 
violence is unacceptable and we will resort, if necessary, to something 
approaching martial law. But I daresay, Mr. President, that the court 
was right in saying that we cannot, that a landlord cannot unilaterally 
take away the fourth amendment proscription against unreasonable search 
and seizure from somebody just because that person happens to be poor, 
and that is the issue with the Wellstone amendment.
  What Senator Wellstone is trying to do is say that we are not going 
to set up a new category. Everybody but poor people who live in public 
housing enjoys the right under the fourth amendment to be secure 
against unreasonable searches and seizures. So if we start at CHA 
today, then where do we go tomorrow? Do the big apartment complexes 
that do not have poor people living in them become subject to mass 
warrantless searches, be subject to, as this amendment says, a search 
of the packages and clothing of anyone seeking to enter public housing 
and refuse entry to anyone who does not submit to an inspection, just 
because the neighborhood is violent?
  Now, in another higher-rent district, do we forgo the fourth 
amendment there also? I daresay I for one believe that we have an 
obligation to look beyond sweeps. But if the issue specifically is 
sweeps, if the issues specifically are the plans to try to secure the 
buildings, then what is wrong with doing what Senator Wellstone wants 
us to do? All he wants us to do is to say for a tenant to give up his 
fourth amendment right, for a tenant to say I am going to be less than 
a citizen because I am too poor to live anyplace other than public 
housing, then that person ought to at least have the right to consent, 
that person ought to at least have the right to say I am going to sign 
away my right voluntarily because I do not mind giving up my 
citizenship in order to live in this subsidized housing.
  Mr. President, I think this is a dangerous road to go down, and I 
daresay--I may be running out of time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. One more minute.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. One more minute. It is a dangerous precedent to 
set, it seems to me. It is bad policy. It is bad law. But what is even 
more frightening, Mr. President, is that this amendment is floating 
around without a whole lot of public discussion in terms of legislative 
initiative. I understand the minority leader says he just wants to help 
us.
  Well, my attitude is do not love us quite so much, or at least if you 
are going to love us, let us talk about it first. The fact is that this 
amendment without the protections of the Wellstone amendment is 
constitutionally infirm, sets a dangerous precedent and, frankly, tries 
to put a Band-Aid on a bad situation, on a cancer that is not going to 
be cured by taking away the dignity of people who are poor and live in 
public housing.
  Mr. WELLSTONE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I will just take 2 minutes right now.
  Let me take the really strong words of Senator Moseley-Braun from 
Illinois and translate them into human terms, personal terms. I cannot 
even understand any opposition to this amendment. I wish to say that to 
my colleagues. I think the Senator from Illinois, Senator Simon, is 
right. It is consistent with the resolution. All I am saying to the 
Senator from Illinois [Ms. Moseley-Braun] is you have a mother and 
several children, and she is applying to public housing, and the only 
alternative to that public housing given those long, long waiting lines 
is to be homeless. At the very minimum, she should know that there is 
(A) a clause she is being asked to sign, and (B) she should know that 
if she does not want to sign that clause, which means that police could 
come into her apartment at any time, she has the right to do so and not 
have her family out on the streets.
  An older woman. She is 80 years old, and she does not know what this 
is about. Do we not have the obligation to inform her, to let her know 
(A) there is this clause that you are supposed to sign, and this 
clauses essentially says that police can come in, if they think there 
is a gun or weapon in your home--
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Even if they do not.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. And even if they do not--and (B) we want you to know 
that you do not have to sign that. That does not mean you will be put 
out in the cold.
  That is all this says. If we are going to say it is not going to be 
coercive and we are going to say it is going to be voluntary, which is 
what the administration is saying, then I think this makes all the 
sense in the world--not makes all the sense in the world. This is 
exactly what we should go on record supporting. To not do so makes me 
very worried about why any Senator would be opposed to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who yields time?
  Mr. SIMON. If my colleague will yield.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Yes.
  Mr. SIMON. I would point out simply that is the policy of this 
administration as spelled out in the Wellstone amendment.
  That is why I am hoping that maybe we can still work out some kind of 
a compromise with the Senator from Kansas because I do not think we are 
really that far apart.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Arizona on another matter.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona is recognized.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I am very interested in this debate. I 
have to say it seems to me something that ought to be able to be worked 
out. But I do not have a dog in this fight, I guess, and I will stay 
out of it.
  I really feel that we all have a lot in the fight that is going on 
this afternoon regarding the resolution offered by the Senator from 
Connecticut and amended by the Senator from Kansas, the distinguished 
minority leader.
  Mr. President, it saddens me to listen to the debate today, really 
saddens my heart and brings tears to my eyes, that in my travel to 
Bosnia and Herzegovina on four different occasions in that part of the 
world, to see the tragedy that is going on. And to see the ``excuses,'' 
as I have termed them, in all due respect that have been offered here 
today, not to vote to lift the embargo and to legislatively lift the 
embargo.
  I realize the President is on the spot. I realize he has labored and 
has been in turmoil regarding this. But the time is long overdue. We 
cannot afford to not take this action.
  It is a moral obligation. Believe me, it is a moral obligation. I 
have interviewed people who have been in the concentration camps run by 
the Serbs who saw their brother beaten to death over a 7-hour period, 
who left their mother on the mountain to die so they would not be taken 
prisoner and beaten up by the Serb military.
  I have listened to them and looked in their eyes and saw the pain and 
suffering. Now we see it on our TV screens. We see it in the most 
tragic way, the most descriptive way of what is occurring there, and it 
is genocide. It is murder.
  As I said last night on a program I was being interviewed on, yes, 
there have been atrocities by the Moslems towards the Croats and toward 
the Serbian Bosnians. Yes, there have been aggressive offensives by the 
Croats and by the Moslems toward the Croats, the Croats towards the 
Moslems, and all parties have been guilty of some very heinous crimes 
or offenses. But today, that has stopped between the Croats and the 
Moslems; it has stopped between the Moslems towards the Serbs.
  Here we have now the worst egregious offenses that we have seen since 
the ethnic cleansing of some months ago, and it is time that we stand 
up and vote what is morally correct; and, that is to lift this embargo.
  So I frankly think we are doing the President a great favor by 
passing the Dole amendment and the amendment of the Senator from 
Connecticut, [Mr. Lieberman], tonight. We should do it. It is the right 
thing to do.
  Mr. President, lives of tens of thousands of innocent civilians are 
threatened as the Serbs advance against the U.N.-designated safe haven 
of Gorazde in eastern Bosnia and Herzegovina. If they continued and get 
away with it, it is only a matter of days before they will start to 
proceed towards the other ``safe havens''--and there are six of them. 
We have only seen two of them attempted to be wiped out by the Serbs, 
and one they backed away. That was Sarajevo. They did not back away 
because we--when I say ``we,'' I mean collectively the Western World--
could not proceed with the courage to deliver the air strikes that 
would have forced them to back away.
  The tragedy that is unfolding in this beleaguered enclave 
demonstrates yet a failure of diplomatic efforts to check Serbian 
aggression and genocide which has claimed hundreds of thousands of 
victims over the past 2 years.
  I applaud President Clinton's latest initiative on Bosnia. There is a 
broad recognition that air strikes alone will not work. We are not 
talking about winning a war with air strikes. We are talking about 
punishing the worst aggression toward humanity since the Second World 
War.
  We cannot continue to sit here and debate this and not take some 
offensive action. Those who say, ``Oh, we are just being led down the 
path to another Vietnam, or another Somalia,'' that is nonsense.
  The Dole amendment and the Lieberman amendment make very clear that 
there is no involvement of American troops here in lifting the embargo. 
That is why I have for more than a year supported the strike-and-lift 
approach, and we should do it. We know it can be done successfully. It 
was done successfully before--just the threat of it.
  General McPeak, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, testified last 
April and 3 weeks ago that the air strikes would bring little or no 
risk to United States pilots or Western pilots. That does not mean 
there will not be some--but ``little or no risk'' are the words he 
used. And in addition to that, he said ``Give us the time and we can 
take out all the artillery targets that the Serbians have.''
  That is not a ground war that involves us for a long period of time. 
It is a demonstrative military action that will punish genocide and the 
perpetrators of it.
  I hope this body will look itself individually in the face in the 
mirror when they come to vote on that, whether it is tonight, or 
Tuesday, or whenever it is.
  The time has come, Mr. President, for the United States to be the 
leader, as we are, but as we have failed to be in this instance. It is 
not too late, though some have said after today that it may be too 
late. It may be too late for a number of dozens or hundreds of people 
who die. But it is not too late for our country to regain that moral 
ground and demonstrate that we can lead, and we are not afraid. We have 
a great opportunity here. Yes. It is too bad that it has to be dealt 
with on a bankruptcy bill before us that is important. But that is the 
time. This body is constructed to just do that any time that we feel it 
is necessary. I feel it is necessary.
  I truly hope that this amendment will pass.
  I thank the distinguished minority leader, the Republican leader, for 
yielding me time on this subject matter.
  Mr. DOMENICI. Mr. President, when the Senate began consideration of 
the Dole-Lieberman amendment this morning, I was participating in a 
hearing before the Appropriations Committee. The witness was Secretary 
of State Christopher. The major subject was U.N. peacekeeping, and many 
of the questions pertained to the situation in Bosnia.
  As the ranking Republican on the Commerce-Justice-State subcommittee, 
I had to do some preparation and consultation. I listened carefully to 
the comments of Secretary Christopher and the questions of Chairman 
Hollings. I reached the following conclusions.
  If there is a crisis in Bosnia that involves American national 
interests, and I believe that such a case could be made, it requires 
additional explanation by the President and rapid deliberation by the 
Congress. This is too serious an issue to be handled through private 
consultations. The American people need to know what we are doing, and 
our justifications for our actions or inactions.
  If a Bosnia peace settlement is negotiated, it will be contingent on 
the subsequent deployment of tens of thousands of U.S. ground combat 
forces. Long before then, the President needs to know whether Congress 
concurs in his offer of ground combat forces to the United Nations.
  Congress needs to determine now the human and fiscal costs of an 
extended deployment of 25,000 American troops in Bosnia. At this 
morning's hearing, I suggested that it would have a major impact on 
force structure and cost many billions of dollars. That can not be 
accommodated within the President's proposed force structure and its 
accompanying budget.
  This morning, Secretary Christopher could provide no useful 
information about the impact on our own national defense posture of a 
large, extended commitment of U.S. forces to U.N. peacekeepers in 
Bosnia. He couldn't cite any specific DOD studies of the impact.
  A few hours ago, Senator Cohen suggested that no one in this body 
publicly favors the introduction of American ground troops in Bosnia. 
That may be so, but the President and the Secretary of State are 
telling us that a peace settlement in Bosnia will, inevitably, lead to 
the introduction of American ground combat troops under U.N. auspices. 
I repeat, our ground forces will go into Bosnia if the President's plan 
for peace in Bosnia succeeds.
  I have concentrated on the risks ahead if the President's efforts in 
Bosnia succeed, as we all hope they will, whatever our doubts. The 
risks of failure on our Nation's self-confidence and credibility have 
been discussed by others. Whatever the outcome, there is a human and 
policy consequence of our decisions to engage in Bosnia.
  If the proposed policy of expanded air support and air protection of 
the declared U.N. safe zones in Bosnia is implemented, it is likely 
there will be casualties in the U.S. Air Force, Navy, or Marines. We 
must be prepared for those casualties.
  Let us begin defining United States national interests in Bosnia. The 
President and the Secretary of State offered us some suggestions to 
consider. Then, we need to consider a resolution authorizing use of 
U.S. Armed Forces in the region. Those are the issues, not just 
American participation in an arms embargo.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, we have had a discussion with the Senator 
from Minnesota, Senator Wellstone, and with both Senators from 
Illinois, and I think we have worked out an arrangement where the 
Senator from Minnesota would withdraw his second-degree amendment, I 
would modify my amendment, and I think it would then be acceptable.
  In my view, it would be not the President's policy. But if that is 
what the Senator from Minnesota understands and interprets in maybe 
discussion with the administration officials, I am just trying to 
support the President's view. If it should turn out that it is not the 
President's view, I guess they can deal with that on the House side. 
That would be my guess.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I thank the minority leader. I think 
the operative language, if I can just clarify this, would simply be 
that ``residency, or continued residency, in public housing is not 
contingent upon the inclusion of such a consent clause as a provision 
of a lease agreement.''
  I will say to the minority leader that I actually think that is quite 
the administrations policy. I think we really want to avoid people 
being put into a situation which is coercive. I think this takes care 
of that.
  So with full knowledge that the Senator is going to modify his 
amendment, I will withdraw my amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator withdraws his 
amendment.
  So the amendment (no. 1656) was withdrawn.


                    Amendment No. 1655, As Modified

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

       The Senator from Kansas [Mr. Dole] proposes an amendment 
     numbered 1655, as modified.

  Mr. DOLE. 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 2 of amendment 1655, strike clause No. 5 and 
     insert:
       ``(5) include noncoercive consent clauses in lease 
     agreements permitting routine warrantless apartment-by-
     apartment police searches for illegal weapons and illegal 
     drugs, so long as residency or continued residency in public 
     housing is not contingent upon the inclusion of such consent 
     clause as a provision of a lease agreement.''

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, this amendment has been described by the 
Senator from Minnesota. In fact, it is the language taken from the 
first paragraph of his amendment.
  Ms. MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. President, I want to thank the minority leader 
for working through this issue with Senator Wellstone. I think it is 
acceptable and in the right direction. I appreciate the willingness to 
work toward consensus on this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further debate on the amendment, as 
modified?
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I am prepared to yield back any time I have.
  I thank the Senator from Illinois for her contribution, and also my 
colleagues, Senator Simon and Senator Wellstone.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I yield back the remainder of the time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The proponents of the second-degree amendment 
yield back the remainder of their time.
  All time has been yielded. The question is on agreeing to the 
amendment, No. 1655, as modified.
  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I want to suggest the absence of a quorum 
until we determine if it is all right to do it by a voice vote. I think 
it is.
  I understand that some people have been told there would be a 
rollcall at 8:30. My view is that we can vote on the Bosnia amendment 
at 8:30. We will check that out.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                      Unanimous-Consent Agreement

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, as is often the case, we are attempting 
to accommodate the largest number of Senators possible with respect to 
the schedule of this evening. We unfortunately have some Senators 
moving away from the Capitol and some moving toward the Capitol, and we 
are trying to find the proper balance to accommodate them.
  I believe, after consulting with the distinguished Republican leader 
and the other participants in this debate, that the course of action 
that produces the least amount of inconvenience would be to have this 
vote at 8:45.
  Therefore, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
vote on the Dole Amendment No. 1655, as modified, at 8:45 p.m. this 
evening, and I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that no 
other second-degree amendments be in order to this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, 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. THURMOND. 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. THURMOND. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Dole amendment 
to lift the embargo on the Bosnian Moslems. But I do so with 
reservations about taking this step unilaterally, against the wishes of 
our NATO allies, who presently have troops deployed on peacekeeping 
duty in Bosnia. I must point out that any step we take in the Balkan 
quagmire carries risks. There simply are no good solutions.
  Because the situation is so complex and seemingly defies a solution, 
the crisis has left us befuddled and floundering, and has virtually 
paralyzed our will. While I cannot say with any assurance that this 
step or any other will bring about a peace settlement or even lower the 
level of violence, one thing I can assert with absolute confidence. 
Without firm, consistent leadership from the United States and the 
Commander in Chief, the crisis will only grow worse. We will continue 
to stumble from one humiliating episode to another unless the President 
and the national security apparatus of the world's one remaining 
superpower break the paralysis and confusion, and begin to act 
resolutely and clearly.
  I would much prefer to see the arms embargo lifted in concert with 
our allies. Acting unilaterally and contrary to the views of our NATO 
allies could undermine that important relationship.
  However, I feel the situation has deteriorated to the point where 
some decisive action is needed to change the equation. The embargo has 
left the Bosnian Moslems defenseless against the rapacious cruelty and 
aggression of the Serbs, armed with tanks and heavy artillery. With 
good reason the West has refused to enter the war on the side of the 
Moslems, or on any side. We have tried honestly, if ineffectually, to 
broker a just and lasting peace. But it is no longer morally defensible 
or strategically sound to deprive the Bosnian Moslems of the means to 
defend themselves.
  Many Senators have already spoken eloquently in support of the Dole-
Lieberman amendment. I will not consume the Senate's time to repeat the 
case that has been made in favor of letting the Moslems at least have 
the means to defend themselves, so that the Serbs cannot continue to 
shell hospitals and kill women and children with impunity. Taking this 
step, preferably with our allies, but unilaterally if we must, could 
prove to be a decisive act of U.S. leadership. If the Serbs see their 
advantage in heavy weaponry slipping away, if they see a Moslem 
community armed and capable of retaliating for the indiscriminate 
slaughter, perhaps they will seek a settlement at the peace table and 
not on the battlefield.
  But, Mr. President, even if lifting the embargo does not achieve that 
result, I for one can no longer support a policy that guarantees the 
slaughter of the innocent, and keeps the conflict going. Muddled half-
measures, abdicating our leadership to the U.N., and deluded wishful 
thinking have not worked. The current policy has proven to be neither 
practical nor moral. The time has come to try something else. I believe 
the action called for by the Dole amendment is necessary, and in fact 
long overdue.
  Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise to speak to the amendment we are 
about to vote on.
  Parliamentary inquiry: Is there a time certain ordered for a vote?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the unanimous consent agreement, at 
8:45, we will vote on amendment numbered 1655, proposed by Senator 
Dole, relating to standards in the Chicago Housing Authority.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will then make my remarks necessarily 
short.
  I rise to speak to the issue of the constitutionality of the proposal 
proposed by the President of the United States and endorsed here by 
Senator Dole and others in this amendment that relate to whether or not 
there is able to be a genuine consent given in a lease or a contract by 
a public housing resident in essentially giving up their fourth 
amendment rights.
  I will speak to this in much more detail, but let me say I think it 
is a close call, whether it can be done. There is no question that 
there is a need for greater law enforcement, greater police presence, 
greater security for public housing residents. There is no doubt about 
that.


              the arguments in favor of constitutionality

  The supporters of this consent measure--and I recognize that the 
supporters include the Attorney General, whose views are entitled to 
the greatest respect--argue that this measure is constitutional because 
it builds on established Supreme Court precedent relating to consent 
searches.
  This precedent holds that citizens may waive their constitutional 
right to be free from police searches, and that consent searches are 
constitutionally valid, so long as the consent is freely given.
  A tenant who signs a lease agreement incorporating a ``consent-to-
search'' clause--so the argument goes--does so voluntarily and of his 
own free will. That being the case, the consent to search is freely 
given and is valid and enforceable.
  Supporters of this provision point out that leases commonly include a 
clause that permits the landlord to enter without advance permission in 
the event of emergencies or for repairs. Supporters argue that the 
``consent-to-search'' clause is really no different. Like the standard 
``right of access'' clause, it is a voluntary reduction in a tenant's 
privacy in the tenant's greater good.

       Just as a tenant willingly permits access, for example, to 
     permit a fire from spreading or to prevent water damage from 
     a burst pipe, so a tenant might permit access to police to 
     prevent guns and crime from endangering his well-being in 
     other ways.

  Supporters of this provision also point out that courts have upheld 
similar ``consent-to-search'' clauses in the context of probationers 
and parolees. These individuals must commonly agree, when they are 
released from prison, to submit to warrantless searches by law 
enforcement officials at any time, as part of their rehabilitation.
  On the basis of these arguments, the supporters say, the Government 
should be permitted to require limited ``consent-to-search'' clauses 
from tenants who voluntarily move into public housing. The President's 
proposal is carefully drawn to limit the intrusive nature of the 
proposed searches, with constitutional objections in mind.
  As the Attorney General wrote in her letter to the President 
outlining these proposals:

       As in the case of maintenance inspections, such firearms 
     inspections should be conducted on a routine basis, during 
     daylight hours, and should be no more intrusive than 
     absolutely necessary to determine whether weapons are present 
     in the tenant's unit.

  The Attorney General also suggests that in some cases advance notice 
of the search might be given, thus reducing any constitutional 
objections. These careful limitations lend support to the supporters' 
claims that the provision is constitutional.
  In summary, the supporters of the measure argue that given the narrow 
scope of the proposed consent clause, and by analogy to existing 
``right of access'' clauses in leases and to ``consent to search'' 
provisions required of probationers and parolees, it is constitutional.
  These arguments have great force, both constitutionally and 
logically. They have even greater force when you consider the 
atmosphere of real crisis that now pervades our public housing 
projects. When tenants and tenants organizations together clamor to 
take drastic measures--even forced reductions in their basic right to 
be free from random police searches--we must pay careful attention.


                the arguments against constitutionality

  As strong as the arguments are in favor of the constitutionality of 
the ``consent to search'' provision, the arguments against 
constitutionality are also strong.
  The constitutional arguments against the measure go as follows:
  Leases for public housing are not contracts freely entered into by 
equal parties. They are contracts, say the critics, imposed by the 
State on persons who have no real alternative.
  We all have to agree that people don't live in public housing because 
they want to--they live there because they have to. The opponents of 
constitutionality argue that to require our poorest and most 
defenseless citizens to give up their right to be secure in the privacy 
of their own homes, and to agree in advance to warrantless police 
intrusions without probable cause of any wrongdoing, flies in the face 
of the fourth amendment.
  How, the critics ask, can we require these citizens to give up one of 
their most fundamental rights just because they are too poor to live 
anywhere but public housing?
  For these reasons, the critics argue that any consent on the part of 
tenants must be viewed as involuntary and as coerced, in the 
constitutional sense.
  Furthermore, the critics say, this is not a contract between private 
parties. The Government--unlike a private landlord--may not impose 
unconstitutional conditions on the use of public housing. Requiring 
tenants to give up their constitutional right to be free from 
warrantless searches is no different, the critics say, than requiring 
them to give up their right to vote in exchange for the right to live 
in public housing.
  Next, the critics argue, it is completely improper to compare these 
``consent-to-search'' clauses to ``right-of-access'' clauses in 
standard leases. Giving a landlord the right to enter in an emergency 
for the limited purpose of fixing a maintenance problem is a far cry 
from permitting the police to enter at will, and to search throughout 
the apartment for something as small as a gun.
  Nor, the critics argue, is it proper to analogize these lease clauses 
to ``consent-to-search'' conditions imposed on probationers and 
parolees. Probationers and parolees are convicted felons; they are 
granted conditional liberty as an alternative to full incarceration. A 
tenant in a public housing project has not been convicted by a court 
beyond a reasonable doubt. There is no justification, say the critics, 
for imposing a fundamental restriction on his or her liberty, such as 
exists with a probationer or parolee.
  For all of these powerful and well-grounded reasons, the opponents of 
constitutionality argue, the President's proposal to require tenants to 
sign consent clauses cannot be supported under the Constitution.
  Mr. President, let me just briefly remind everyone what the essence 
of the constitutional argument is here.
  It is reasonable, and the courts have concluded, that one can, in 
fact, if they knowingly do it with their informed consent, give up an 
otherwise available constitutional protection.
  So if I say, ``Look, you can come in and search my house. You do not 
need a search warrant,'' and I knowingly am freely consenting to that, 
then, no problem.
  So the real, central issue here is: What constitutes consent?
  Although I think it is constitutional, I want to raise at least a red 
flag. It is not beyond possibility that the Supreme Court or the 
Federal courts of this Nation will, in fact, conclude that a lease for 
public housing is not a contract freely entered into by equal partners. 
They are contracts, say the critics, imposed by the State on a person 
who has no real alternative. The Court, if it concludes that, will 
conclude that this is an unconstitutional provision.
  We all have to agree that people do not live in public housing 
because they want to. They live in public housing because they have to.
  Opponents of the constitutionality argue that to require our poorest 
and most defenseless citizens to give up the right to be secure in the 
privacy of their own home and to agree in advance to warrantless police 
intrusion without probable cause of any wrongdoing flies in the face of 
the fourth amendment.
  Now, how, the critics ask, can we require these citizens to give up 
one of the most fundamental rights just because they are too poor to 
live anywhere else?
  Now, there are countervailing arguments. The countervailing arguments 
are strong. I think they are stronger. But they are close.
  I want my colleagues to know there are court cases that have been 
decided at the circuit court level that suggest that the Government 
should be permitted to require limited consent to search clauses from 
tenants who voluntarily move into public housing, and the President's 
proposal, they argue, is carefully drawn to limit the intrusive nature 
of the proposed searches.
  The Attorney General has made a very cogent case for this.
  The Presiding Officer is about to tell me the time has arrived.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of 8:45 having arrived, under the 
previous unanimous consent, the time for debate has expired.
  Mr. BIDEN. 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. MITCHELL. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Boxer). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The majority leader.

                          ____________________