[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 107 (Friday, August 5, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: August 5, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
  DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, AND EDUCATION, AND 
                  RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS ACT

  The Senate continued with the consideration of the bill.


                      proposed amendment no. 2464

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I really did not rise for that purpose.
  I intend to offer an amendment on behalf of myself and Senator 
Lieberman, and others. This amendment should come at no surprise. This 
amendment provides for the termination of the United States arms 
embargo on the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina no later than 
November 15, 1994.
  Mr. President, this amendment is intended to set a definitive ending 
date for the United States arms embargo on Bosnia and Herzegovina. The 
sponsors of this amendment understand that the United States and the 
so-called contact group have agreed to a phased approach which may lead 
to the multilateral lifting of the arms embargo. However, we have no 
guarantees when this will happen, or, more importantly, if it will 
happen. And we could be here next year, in the next Congress debating 
this issue once again--the only difference being it will be year No. 3 
and tens of thousands of more Bosnians will have died.
  The reality is that only by lifting this illegal and unjust arms 
embargo on the Bosnians can we hope to eventually have a just 
resolution of this conflict and avoid sending United States forces to 
implement a partition of Bosnia.
  Today, we learned that the United Nations finally called for limited 
air strikes against Bosnian Serb military targets--in response to the 
Bosnian Serbs taking back heavy weapons from a U.N. protected facility 
in the Sarajevo exclusion zone--and that these strikes took place. 
While this action is welcome--especially from the perspective of 
slowing the downward slide of United States and NATO credibility--I am 
skeptical that this action alone will pressure the Bosnian Serbs into a 
settlement.
  In my view the U.S. Congress can make a critical difference--in 
letting the Bosnian Serbs know that there is a real deadline--that 
there is something more definite than continuing meetings of the 
contact group.
  I am award that House and Senate conferees on the Defense authorize 
bill are negotiating on language regarding the lifting of the arms 
embargo. The administration sent its representatives up, including the 
United States Envoy Ambassador Charles Redman, to persuade the 
conferees against taking definite action to terminate this illegal and 
unjust embargo on Bosnia, arguing that a diplomatic process was 
underway.
  With all due respect to the efforts of Ambassador Redman and the 
others who have participated in the seemingly endless rounds of 
diplomatic negotiation, I hope that the conferees will put more weight 
on the administration's track record in influencing the allies, and on 
the events in Bosnia right now--rather than, once again, placing their 
hopes in a diplomatic process that is not backed by anything more than 
promises of action some time in the undefined future.
  We need to take real action--to take action beyond issuing statements 
and communiques. By adopting a provision to definitively end the United 
States arms embargo on Bosnia--even if it is several months away; I 
said November 15--we can truly change the dynamic of the process and 
put some real pressure on the Bosnian Serbs. We can also give the 
administration some real leverage in its attempt to get the allies to 
forsake their failed policies.
  Mr. President, I know that my friend from Connecticut, Senator 
Lieberman wanted to speak on this. What I would suggest is that I send 
the amendment to the desk and ask to have it printed. I may not offer 
it on this bill, I say to my friend from Iowa. If there is some chance 
that we may get to the DOD authorization bill on Monday, then I would 
wait and offer the amendment on that. I think it more properly belongs 
on that appropriations bill.
  I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be printed in the Record. 
I am offering the amendment for myself, Senator Liberman, Senator 
McCain, Senator Moynihan, and Senator DeConcini.
  There being no objection, the amendment was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


                           amendment no. 2464

       At the appropriate place, add the following:

     SEC.   . TERMINATION OF ARMS EMBARGO.

       (1) Termination.--The President shall terminate the United 
     States arms embargo on the Government of Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina no later than November 15, 1994 so that 
     Government may exercise its right of self-defense under 
     Article 51 of the United Nations Charter.
       (2) Definition.--As used in this section, the term `United 
     States arms embargo of the Government of Bosnia and 
     Herzegovina' means the application to the Government of 
     Bosnia and Herzegovina of--
       (A) the policy adopted July 10, 1991, and published in the 
     Federal Register of July 19, 1991 (58 F.R. 33322) under the 
     heading `Suspension of Munitions Export Licenses to 
     Yugoslavia'; and
       (B) any similar policy being applied by the United States 
     Government as of the date of receipt of the request described 
     in paragraph (1) pursuant to request described in paragraph 
     (1) pursuant to which approval is denied for transfers of 
     defense articles and defense services to the former 
     Yugoslavia.
       (3) Rule of Construction.--Nothing in this section shall be 
     interpreted as authorization for deployment of United States 
     forces in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina for any 
     purpose, including training, support, or delivery of military 
     equipment.

  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, we are trying to make progress on this 
bill. As I previously indicated to the distinguished Republican leader, 
if we can get a list that will give us a finite time for finishing, we 
will do so.
  But I want to make clear to colleagues who are considering their 
schedules, if we cannot get such a list, then we will have to remain in 
session today and there will then be further votes today, including 
procedural votes, to move this measure forward.
  We want to try to make progress on the bill. We are working on trying 
to get a list now, I understand.
  I want to make clear, before any Senators leave, that we will proceed 
and have votes unless we can make some determination as to when the 
bill will be completed and what amendments will be remaining on it.
  This is to answer several questions which Senators have asked me on 
the subject.
  Mr. DOLE. Will the majority leader yield?
  Mr. MITCHELL. Yes.
  Mr. DOLE. As I understand it, we have just now cleared the list we 
have been talking about back and forth with the Senator from Iowa and 
the Senator from Pennsylvania. We think we now have a list that we can 
provide to both managers. I think it is in accordance with what we 
discussed this morning.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I thank my colleague.
  Why do we not review that and then, as soon as possible, I will make 
an announcement with respect to the rest of the schedule.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I would like to comment briefly on what 
the majority leader has said--if I might have the attention of the 
majority leader--on the health issue.
  Mr. MITCHELL. I have to review the list that was given us so I can 
make an announcement with respect to our schedule. I ask the Senator if 
he would not mind withholding for a minute until I get that done.
  Mr. SPECTER. I will gladly withhold until I can get the attention of 
the majority leader on the issue of health reform legislation.
  Mr. DeCONCINI addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. DeCONCINI. Mr. President, I join the distinguished Republican 
leader and the Senator from Connecticut in the amendment that they have 
sent to the desk. Where it appears really does not make much difference 
to this Senator.
  It is encouraging, I think, the early report that there have been 
limited air strikes by NATO against some Bosnia Serbian positions 
today. I think that is significant.
  All of the details are not available yet of what provoked that, 
except reports that the Bosnian Serbian militia or military took some 
foreign military equipment--I believe a tank--and as retaliation, NATO 
responded.
  I am pleased to see NATO and the allies demonstrate some courage, 
some determination, some leadership, some desire or some demonstration 
to stand behind what they have said they have been going to do for 
about 10 months now.
  I think it is necessary for us to move unilaterally, if there is no 
other way, to let the Bosnian people protect themselves and arm and 
participate in a genocidal civil war that is going on and has been 
going on for almost 3 years now.
  We have seen time and time again the failure of the Serbs and the 
Bosnian Serbs to respond to any kind of threat or potential threat from 
the allies.
  I understand our President's problem; that he wants to deal in the 
international area with a multilateral effort toward the Serbs, both 
the Bosnian Serbs and the Serbs, perhaps, and he wants to maintain the 
multinational effort. But the reality here is that the multinational 
effort is a failure. It has not brought about peace. It has not stopped 
the genocide, the murder, and the rape. It has not curtailed the 
violence.
  What it has done is it has captured and put into a box the Moslems, 
the Bosnian Moslem people. They cannot even defend themselves with the 
least bit of dignity of an attempt to demonstrate that they are 
fighting for their sovereign country.
  This peace accord that has been offered is no great shape. After all, 
the Serbian efforts will end up with 50 percent of the country. And the 
reason they have not gone along with it is because they now have 71 
percent of the country.
  So this is no great victory for the Bosnians. It is a huge defeat for 
the Bosnians and a huge defeat for the world.
  But it is the last effort that has been presented to the parties 
involved there. And now for the Serbian Bosnians to refuse to 
participate, it is time that we lift that embargo and do it 
unilaterally, if necessary.
  I am glad to join the distinguished Republican leader.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, this is the fourth or fifth time that a 
bipartisan group of Members of the Chamber have joined together.
  Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I yield at this time for a brief 
statement from the Senator from Iowa, retaining my right to the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, the Senator from Iowa is 
recognized, with the Senator from Connecticut retaining his right to 
the floor.


grassley-harkin amendment regarding personal protection for cabinet and 
                          subcabinet officials

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I just wanted to say a few brief words 
regarding an amendment that my good friend Senator Harkin and I have 
drafted regarding personal protection for cabinet and subcabinet 
officials. It is my understanding that the amendment will be part of 
the committee's amendments.
  The amendment does two things: First, it asks the General Accounting 
Office to review the need for personal protection for cabinet and 
subcabinet officials.
  There are certainly cabinet officials who need personal protection. 
However, I am concerned that for some it may just be an expensive perk. 
These personal security details cost the American taxpayer up to 
$500,000 per year for each individual who receives protection. GAO will 
help Congress determine whether this is money well spent.
  The second part of the amendment ensures that the Office of the 
Inspector General at HHS does not have to foot the bill for the 
personal protection of the Secretary at HHS. I am concerned that the 
limited resources of the Inspector General should not be further 
reduced due to the additional responsibility of providing security 
protection for the Secretary.
  I am pleased that Senator Harkin has joined me in offering this 
amendment, and thank him for his support.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, retaining my right to the floor, I 
yield to the Senator from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Akaka). The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, in the past, I voted against the Dole-
Lieberman-DeConcini amendment. I voted against it because I believed we 
ought to be acting with other nations on this and should not be 
unilaterally pulling back on this arms embargo.
  But, frankly, the last time I had a very difficult time making a 
decision. Warren Christopher called me and assured me that since the 
Russians were involved, we were very close to working out a peace 
agreement. I agreed I would, one more time, vote with the 
administration on this.
  But, frankly, now with the rejection by the Bosnian Serbs of that 
peace agreement and the shooting down of the U.N. helicopter, I think 
our choice is clear. I think we have to send a strong message to the 
Bosnian Serbs that they had better get their house in order and sit 
down and agree to the peace agreement.
  I will be voting for the Dole-Lieberman amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from 
Illinois for that strong statement of principle. I am sure it will echo 
not only throughout our Government here in Washington, but I hope 
throughout the councils of governments in the Balkans.
  This is the fourth or fifth time that a group of us, working on a 
bipartisan basis, has brought an amendment onto the floor in one form 
or another to direct our Government to unilaterally lift the arms 
embargo against the Bosnian Government--a duly constituted Government, 
a member of the United Nations--imposed in 1991 actually against the 
former Yugoslavia, as an attempt to keep the United States from being 
part of, and the world from being part of the pouring of weapons into 
that region with the hope we could diminish the conflict there.
  Obviously, those hopes were never realized. Perhaps they were naive. 
I know they were well intended. In any case, they were not successful.
  Nonetheless, we have continued to impose an embargo, which is to say 
a prohibition against supplying arms to the Bosnian Moslems, while it 
is very clear that the Bosnian Serbs, through supplies from Serbia and 
with their own capacity--a historic capacity to build arms--have had 
the weapons they have needed.
  We have now had several votes on this issue. One was 50 to 49 against 
lifting the arms embargo unilaterally. The last one was a 50-50 tie--it 
failed on a tied vote--while another amendment, which was a sense-of-
the-Senate resolution, passed 52 to 48.
  So now we come again at a particularly pressing and important moment 
because, as has been said by the Senator from Illinois, the Senate 
Republican leader, and my colleague and friend from Arizona, Mr. 
DeConcini, the peace plan agreed to by the contact group which we are 
part of and to which we were deferring was accepted by the Bosnian 
Moslems even though it yields a substantial part of their territory 
taken by force by the Bosnian Serbs. But they have accepted it.
  The Bosnian Serbs have rejected it, essentially thumbing their noses 
once again at the world community, finding excuses--the latest being a 
referendum they would hold at the end of the month of August. But the 
message is clear, and particularly clear when combined with their 
reviving--poor choice of word, really, to use, revive--but beginning 
again the siege of Sarajevo, attacks, ethnic cleansing in villages, the 
whole series of acts of aggression by the Bosnian Serbs; showing again, 
as has been clear throughout, that the only way the Bosnian Serbs will 
respond and play by the rules of civilized international relations is 
at the point of a gun in response to the actual use of force or the 
threat of force.
  That is why we are back with this amendment. That is why I so greatly 
appreciate the support of the Senator from Illinois. It gives me 
confidence this may pass on this occasion.
  Mr. WARNER. Will the Senator yield for a question?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I will, of course.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Simon). The Senator yields for a question.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, it appears to me the Senator, in fairness 
to our colleagues, should indicate that he and I, Senator Gramm, 
Senator Nunn, Senator Levin, and Senator Kempthorne, are representing 
the Senate conferees in a House-Senate conference on the DOD 
authorization bill. We made considerable progress here in the last 
several days in our efforts to reach a compromise between the two 
Chambers, and to have an expression, hopefully, to be accepted by the 
Congress as a whole and pass to a policy.
  The distinguished Republican leader, in his remarks, indicated that 
Ambassador Redman had been down several times. Indeed, he has, together 
with representatives of the Department of Defense. And we are making 
progress.
  It seems to me, in fairness, the Senator from Connecticut should make 
reference to that; and that the President is going to be forthcoming, I 
am hopeful today, in a letter to the leadership of the Congress, 
expressing his commitment to take certain steps with respect to 
approaching the United Nations on a multinational lifting of the 
embargo, if such steps as the diplomats are now taking with the contact 
group prove not to be fruitful.
  So I think in fairness to the Senate, we should be informed that 
there is a good deal going on, on a parallel track to the amendment 
being offered now by the distinguished Republican leader and others.
  I must say the sentiment in the Chamber is moving towards that 
espoused by the distinguished Republican leader. But the bottom line is 
we must be very careful in such legislative action as we may take not 
to indicate that the United States is moving in and taking over 
responsibility for this conflict.
  Time and time again, I say to my good friend from Connecticut, we 
have received communications from Great Britain and France and other 
nations regarding their desire to continue to pursue the diplomatic 
process, and certainly to allow sufficient time to reach a plan, if 
necessary, for the extraction of the UNPROFOR forces, which are 
imperiled in terms of their own personal individual safety, along with 
organizations from many other nations there trying to help in this 
tragic situation.
  So this is a very important step that the Congress must contemplate 
with regard to the Republican leader's amendment, as well as the 
recommendations I anticipate will be forthcoming from the group on 
which the Senator and I are working on the Armed Forces conference.
  So I ask the Senator, is it not fair that we should mention that 
here?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. The Senator from Virginia is quite correct. That was 
the next point I was going to make in my remarks, to explain what is 
not only happening, but why the Senate Republican leader and others are 
offering this amendment.
  On the defense authorization bill, the House of Representatives 
passed an amendment directing that the arms embargo against Bosnia be 
lifted. It passed by 66 votes. In this Chamber a similar amendment 
failed, and on a 52-48 vote, a sense-of-the-Senate amendment, 
cosponsored by the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and 
the Senator from Virginia was adopted urging steps be taken 
multilaterally and, if not, perhaps consulting as to unilateral steps.
  Mr. President, it appears clear to me, and I believe others who are 
involved in the House-Senate conference on the Department of Defense 
authorization bill that progress is being made. And yet, it is highly 
unlikely that the conferees will agree on a section of this amendment 
that would deal with the ultimate unilateral lifting of the arms 
embargo.
  In fact, as the Senator from Virginia has said, and I am encouraged 
to join him in reporting, there are some forward steps that are part of 
this amendment, authored substantially by the Senator from Georgia, the 
chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, which would urge the 
administration to go to the United Nations to seek multilateral support 
which would offer some other interim steps, short of lifting the arms 
embargo, but which would move us toward providing some assistance to 
the Bosnian Moslems who have been the victims of this aggression and, 
as a result of the embargo, have had one arm tied behind their backs.
  The last step which we had hoped for from the Armed Services 
conference appears to be out of reach of consensus, and that is, if all 
other steps fail, then in the final analysis, there ought to be a 
unilateral lifting of the arms embargo by the United States.
  Why? In the first instance, the embargo is not just a policy or 
something that is written on a piece of paper. It has real effect. 
There are at this moment military personnel of the United States in the 
waters off the former Yugoslavia that are enforcing the arms embargo. 
Our arms, our hands, our fingerprints are on the enforcement of that 
embargo. In that sense, we are not, unfortunately, neutral in this 
conflict. Though the embargo was originally adopted as an act of 
presumed neutrality, it is affecting only one side in this war, and 
that is the Bosnian Moslem side.
  The second point is this, Mr. President. It appears from what we hear 
from the former Yugoslavia, beginning with a statement by Secretary 
General Boutros-Ghali, that the U.N. forces in Bosnia, the UNPROFOR 
forces may, indeed, be seriously considering leaving the ground. In 
fact, the Secretary General has raised the question about whether the 
U.N. forces can handle the next stage and should there not be a joint 
military force put together by the member nations of the contact group.
  What troubles a lot of us here, and in part it has motivated the 
interim steps that are going to be part of, I hope, the Armed Services 
conference committee, is that we run the risk of the U.N. forces 
withdrawing and the arms embargo against Bosnian Moslems will still be 
in effect inviting the Bosnian Serbs to move aggressively and quickly 
against their opponents, who will still not have adequate arms to 
defend themselves. Essentially, the Bosnian Moslems will be left 
without arms in a very vulnerable situation.
  Those are the two reasons, combined with the fact that the history of 
this conflict shows that the only time the Bosnian Serbs have acted 
with a hint of responsibility has been when they feared they would 
suffer genuine consequences at the point of a gun.
  So this amendment is actually meant to complement and be the final 
step in the process that I believe and hope will be set in motion by 
the Armed Services Committee conference report.
  Incidentally, responding to the concern of the Senator from Virginia 
about our allies and assuring that they have time to leave, this 
amendment intentionally states that the embargo should not be lifted 
until November 15, 1994, which leaves a good 90 days, which was the 
outer limit, as I have heard in testimony from representatives of our 
allies in Britain and France, of what they needed for them to leave and 
for others to leave.
  For all these reasons, I am pleased to join with the Senate 
Republican leader and my other colleagues--I see my friend from 
Delaware who has been a leader, a tremendous leader, in this effort--to 
finally seize the moment, send a message. And in the war that I fear is 
coming to the Balkans, that we not inadvertently put ourselves on the 
side of the aggressors by continuing to tie the hands of the victims, 
the Bosnian Moslems, behind their backs because they do not have the 
arms with which to satisfy the fundamental, moral right they have to 
defend themselves, their country, and their families.
  I thank the Chair, and I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware is recognized.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, the Senator from Connecticut is right. This 
has been going on a long time. It will be 2 years ago next month that 
this Chamber passed an amendment, it became law--urging then President 
Bush to lift the ill-advised embargo that his administration had signed 
us on to, and to point out and give him the authority to transfer up to 
$50 million in arms to the Bosnian Government.
  Since that day, I have heard repeatedly on this floor at various 
intervals everything from ``air strikes do not work, they are all bad, 
it is a civil war, they are all doing it, the United States should not 
offend its allies, the allies are about to move, air strikes are about 
to take place''--and it went on, and on, ad nauseam.
  Now 200,000 Bosnian civilian dead later, we are told, ``let it go on 
and on and on'' by the diplomats who have shown no courage whatsoever 
in terms of committing to principle that they will somehow find a way 
in the next weeks or months.
  Mr. President, I hope nobody any longer argues who the aggressor is 
here. I hope we have stopped that malarkey. I hope the clear showing, 
undisputed showing, which I pointed out over 2 years ago on this floor, 
that the Serbs in Bosnia were running concentration camps, 
extermination camps, rape camps, and death camps, is no longer 
disputed. I challenge anyone in the U.S. Senate or the U.S. Congress to 
debate me on that subject. Give me one shred of evidence that genocide 
is not a policy, that it is merely a dream of the Bosnian Serbs. In 
fact, it is a reality.
  I refer to yesterday--a presumptuous thing to do--to a speech I made 
in the Record outlining in great detail the proof of the existence of 
these extermination camps that are no different, other than in volume, 
than camps that existed in Central Europe in the early forties.
  I hope nobody any longer is going to wonder whether or not the 
Bosnian Serbs want peace. The contact group, having entered into what I 
consider to be a 1994 version of Munich, carved up the Nation of Bosnia 
and Herzegovina and said, ``Here, Serbia, Serbians, take 49 percent.'' 
In principle, that is outrageous, just to have done that, like we did 
to Czechoslovakia in the thirties.
  But even with that, the Serbs in Bosnia said, ``No dice,'' and voted 
unanimously. Now enters Milosevic, that great leader, patriotic leader, 
the butcher of Belgrade who now says he is angry with the Bosnian Serbs 
and he is going to, as evidence of his desire for peace, tell them 
since they did not accept the agreement, he is out.
  Well, let me remind my colleagues. He said that a year ago. He agreed 
a year ago that he would allow U.N. observers to be at the head of the 
bridges crossing the Drina River from Serbia into Bosnia. So we all 
said, ``Oh, no''--not all of us, Lieberman, DeConcini, Biden, the 
Republican leader, and others said we did not believe it. But everybody 
else said, ``Oh, no. Reason is on the horizon.''
  As soon as everything settled down, he said, ``No. Did I really say I 
would let observers be here? I didn't really mean that.'' And the whole 
world stood by and went, ``Oh, well, I guess it is not a big deal. He 
doesn't have to do it.''
  And now we are told, I am told by administration officials and 
others, ``Lay off. We're almost there. Look at what Milosevic has 
done.'' I have never on the floor of the Senate said anything like this 
about anyone at all. Milosevic is a liar. Milosevic's record is replete 
with lies. He has done nothing but lie. I will be delighted, and I pray 
for the body and soul of innocent people in Bosnia, that I can come 
back on the floor a month from now and say, ``I apologize this time to 
Milosevic. He did not lie.'' It will be the happiest recantation I have 
ever engaged in, and like most mortals I have had to recant.
  But he is a liar. There is nothing, nothing in his public actions of 
the last 2 years that would lead any reasonable man or woman anywhere 
in the world to conclude that he knows how to tell the truth. But we 
are now told, ``Milosevic says this time he means it.''
  We just spent a year passing a bill that many on this floor helped me 
work on, the Violence Against Women Act. We heard repeated testimony 
from women who were beaten, but they would say, ``This time it won't 
happen again.'' That is what Milosevic reminds me of this time. I have 
a friend who happens to be my administrative assistant, Ted Kaufman, a 
man of great wisdom, in my view. He says, ``The ability of human beings 
to rationalize defies reason.'' We are defying reason because we are 
continuing to rationalize now that Milosevic has seen the Lord.
  The second point that I would make--and I see others ready to speak 
so I will stop within the next 3 minutes--the second point I would make 
is to compliment my friends on the resolution, and to hope that 
subparagraph 3 means what I think it means. It reads:

       Rule of construction. Nothing in this section shall be 
     interpreted as authorization for deployment of United States 
     forces in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina for any 
     purpose including training, support, or delivery of military 
     equipment.

  I am told by the authors--to be more precise, the staff of the 
authors--that that does not preclude the participation of United States 
aircraft in NATO air strikes, because my friend from Connecticut is 
correct. We are going to go through an interim period here where the 
Bosnian Serbs are going to go for broke with the blessing of Serbia, 
and if it is done at a time before the arms embargo is lifted, but 
without United States-aided NATO air cover, we will see carnage beyond 
what we now have.
  The last point, and I will cease and desist, this is not Vietnam. I 
came here at the end of the Vietnam war as a 30-year-old United States 
Senator. I had heard for 6 years as a young man in college and law 
school about the Vietnamization program. That was the program whereby 
my generation was told if we just stick in with 500,000 troops long 
enough the Vietnamese will begin to fight their own battles.
  They never were able to do that. Make no mistake about it. I have 
been to Bosnia twice. I have met with all of the leaders that I am 
aware of, including the Bosnian Government's military forces as well. 
These folks are willing and able to fight. They outnumber the Serbs 
about 3 or 5 to 1 in terms of the army, depending on what number you 
pick. But they are the equivalent of fighting a smaller force with 
heavy artillery against a larger force with Remington rifles. They have 
no equipment. Give them the equipment and they will take care of 
themselves without a single solitary U.S. soldier needed. Let them 
retrieve their country. Let them defend themselves. Let us get on with 
it.
  I compliment Senator Dole and Senator Lieberman and others. This, if 
anything, is an incredible compromise which I am prepared to support 
beyond what any of us want here. We are giving these folks until 
November 15. I love Secretary Christopher. There is no bigger ally of 
the President of the United States on this floor than me, save possibly 
the majority leader. But they have been wrong on this issue. It is time 
they move on this issue. We give them every possibility.
  When I asked Mr. Izetbegovic, the President of Bosnia, and Mr. 
Silajdzic, the Prime Minister, a year ago and again asked them a couple 
months ago when Senator Dole and I were in Sarajevo, ``What do you 
want? If the embargo is lifted and that causes UNPROFOR to leave, what 
do you want?'' They said, ``Send UNPROFOR home.'' I have another way of 
saying it. If UNPROFOR cannot be part of the solution, they are part of 
the problem. Now they are part of the problem. They should go home. Our 
European friends would no longer be able to continue to hide behind 
them as a rationale for lifting the embargo. Lift the embargo. Engage 
in air strikes. Let the Bosnian Moslems fight for their survival.
  Mr. EXON addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank the Chair.
  I have a question I would like to pose for clarification purposes to 
some of the introducers of the resolution. Senator Lieberman was on the 
floor a moment ago. And he is here now.
  Will the Senator answer this question for me, a question or two. As 
the Senator from Connecticut knows, the Senator from Nebraska did not 
support, for reasons that I stated clearly on this floor, the previous 
motions that have been advanced principally by the Senator from 
Connecticut and the Senator from Kansas. As I understand the amendment 
that Senators are going to offer at this juncture, it is significantly 
different from the preceding amendments that were offered by Senator 
Lieberman and Senator Dole because I believe, and do I believe 
correctly, that previously the amendments or motions or sense of the 
Senate alluded to or directed or suggested an immediate unilateral 
lifting of the embargo?
  As I read the motion, it is significantly different since it is not 
immediate; it says no later than November 15. Is that not a significant 
difference from what you offered previously?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, responding to my friend from Nebraska, 
the Senator from Nebraska is absolutely right. The previous amendments 
on this subject either called for or directed the immediate or almost 
immediate lifting of the embargo, say, 30 days forward.
  This version, this amendment today, puts it off until November 15. It 
does so for two reasons. One is that the allies involved in the U.N. 
forces, who appear to be heading toward exiting from Bosnia, pursuant 
to statements that have been made by the Secretary General of the 
United Nations, have said that they and all others there as part of the 
UNPROFOR forces could be out within 90 days. So the sponsors of the 
amendment wanted not to impede that process. This is a result of 
conversations with European allies and also with the representatives of 
the administration who have stressed this point.
  Second, the Senator from Nebraska is a leading member of the Senate 
Armed Services Committee and knows that the conference is going on with 
the DOD authorization bill. The conferees are working on a section on 
Bosnia. That section, in my opinion, will not end with the unilateral 
lifting of the embargo. It will have a series of steps toward assisting 
the Bosnian Moslems, but these steps will not end with the unilateral 
lifting of the embargo.
  So the intent of this amendment is to be the final step if all other 
attempts to arrive at a multilateral agreement are unsuccessful. It is 
a way to say both to our allies and to those who are the aggressors 
there that the United States means business and this cannot go on in a 
twilight zone with a lot of uncertainty; that we want to, in the words 
of the Bible, sound a certain trumpet that on November 15, all else 
failing--and by that I mean the failure of the Bosnian Serbs to accept 
the peace plan as the Bosnian Moslems have, or the failure of the 
United Nations to multilaterally lift the embargo--then the United 
States would go ahead and do it.
  Mr. EXON. I appreciate the explanation of what I thought was the 
basic thrust or change in position. Basically, this amendment is a 
recognition, I believe directly or indirectly, by intent or by 
happenstance, this amendment takes into consideration the concerns that 
this Senator and members of the Armed Services Committee--including 
this one who is working right now on the wording--have on the Bosnian 
problem that appeared in both the House authorization bill and the 
Senate authorization bill.
  The concern that I and others have expressed on many occasions is 
that the Senator from Connecticut is saying--with the hope, I take it, 
that we will not lift this unilaterally, which has been the position of 
France and Great Britain. Many of our allies who are there with troops 
on the ground under the auspices of the United Nations have been 
steadfastly against unilateral action immediately because they felt 
that would put the troops that they have there in harm's way. And it 
was demonstrated that they are in harm's way with two more warlike 
actions by the Serbs that we all recognize cannot be tolerated.
  Is it fair for me to assume that the concept of this new amendment is 
that the Senator from Connecticut and Senator Dole and others 
sponsoring this hope and believe that the amendment offered in the new 
fashion will give us, the United Nations, our NATO allies, and others a 
chance to get the troops out, to get the forces out? Then we would have 
eliminated that problem that was reiterated to the members of the Armed 
Services Committee within the week by the Defense Minister from France: 
``Please don't take unilateral action.''
  What the Senator from Connecticut is really saying, if I understand 
this correctly, is that, all right, you are giving a significant amount 
of time for all of that to take place, but you are in essence saying, 
but if it does not take place--and we have been legitimately upset, as 
outlined by the Senator from Delaware, about all of the delays--that 
unless all of this works out notwithstanding anything else, we are 
giving sufficient notice and, on November 15, if all else fails, we 
take the unilateral action of lifting the embargo. Is that a fair 
summation of what this says?
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, the Senator from Nebraska has stated it 
exactly as is the intention of the sponsors, that we want to see the 
embargo, the prohibition against selling arms, transferring arms to the 
Bosnian Moslems, lifted multilaterally if at all possible, but 
unilaterally if necessary. And the timing here is meant to respond to 
the concerns of our allies, who seem ever more inclined to withdraw 
from Bosnia, to have the time to do so.
  I say to my friend from Nebraska that this amendment is also in 
response to concerns of the Armed Services Committee leadership that it 
would be impossible to include the unilateral lifting of the embargo in 
the conference report on the Department of Defense authorization bill 
and, in fact, that it could jeopardize the bill in some way. So, let us 
take the steps we are taking and go separately on the question of 
ultimately lifting the arms embargo.
  I say, finally, that there was a very telling and significant 
statement today on the wires from the Foreign Secretary of the United 
Kingdom, who said, though he has opposed lifting the arms embargo, that 
he now feels it may be unavoidable to lift it.
  So I think that, in response to the intransigence of the Bosnian 
Serbs, their refusal to accept the peace plan, the aggression by the 
Bosnian Serbs, our allies in Europe, our closest allies, are coming to 
the conclusion that lifting the arms embargo may, in fact, be 
unavoidable.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, the Senator from Minnesota has asked if he 
could have 30 seconds to ask a question. Could I yield to him for that 
purpose without losing my right to the floor?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Akaka). The Senator from Nebraska has that 
right.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I say to my colleague from Washington, I am not about 
to give a speech. I have to leave town. I just wanted to have one 
clarification.
  I assumed that this course, if by some chance the Serbs were to 
accept the contact group proposal, then this resolution would no longer 
apply. Is that correct? It is probably an obvious question. I want to 
be clear about it.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. The Senator from Minnesota is correct. That is the 
intention of the sponsors. It builds on what we expect to be the report 
of the conference committee on the Department of Defense authorization 
bill.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I thank the Senator from Nebraska. I say to my good 
friend from Connecticut, as he well knows, this has been a very central 
issue to me. I have agonized over this for all sorts of different 
reasons.
  I would very much like to be included as a cosponsor of this 
resolution.
  I thank the Senator.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. I thank the Senator from Minnesota. He has approached 
this issue with thoughtfulness and real sincerity. I very much 
appreciate his support, and will be proud to add him as a cosponsor.
  Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I simply would like to say to my colleague 
from the great State of Connecticut that, given the explanation that he 
has provided me with in this instance--and I think that has overcome 
reasons that I have previously stated on the floor in opposing the 
amendments by Senator Lieberman and Senator Dole and others--I think he 
has a good amendment that addresses my concerns and the reasons that I 
opposed it in the past.
  Therefore, I ask at this time without objection that I be added as a 
cosponsor of the amendment. Is there objection?
  Mr. DOLE. We are happy to have the Senator from Nebraska as a 
cosponsor.
  Mr. EXON. Let me try and clarify one other thing here that I have 
questioned regarding No. 3:

       Rule of construction. Nothing in this section shall be 
     interpreted as authorization for deployment of United States 
     forces in the territory of Bosnia and Herzegovina for any 
     purpose, including training, support, or delivery of military 
     equipment.

  Does that mean that if everything works between now and November 15, 
or if no later than November 15, on November 16, that the United States 
is sending a signal here, loud and clear, to the forces that are being 
devastated by Serbians, their aggression, their refusal to enter into a 
peace agreement that I thought was fair and reasonable under the 
circumstances--and the deadline was last Saturday and they failed--does 
that section (3) indicate that the United States of America is sending 
a signal to the forces that we are trying to be helpful to, namely, the 
Bosnian Moslems, that we are not going to assist them, that they will 
have to get arms and equipment from other sources if the embargo is 
lifted? What is the reason for that part (3), and does it not send a 
signal, intentionally or otherwise, to the Bosnian Moslems that we are 
not going to help?
  Mr. PELL. Mr. President, for the third time in 4 months, we are being 
asked to vote to lift the arms embargo against Bosnia unilaterally. On 
two previous occasions--in May and in July--the Senate voted on 
messages which would have required the President to lift the embargo 
unilaterally. I ask my colleagues: how much time should we spend once 
again debating and voting on this same issue?
  As my colleagues are aware, the last time we considered this issue, 
we defeated an amendment to the Defense Department authorization bill 
that would have instructed the President to go it alone in lifting the 
embargo. That bill is currently in conference, and it is my 
understanding that compromise language is being worked out to reconcile 
the different House and Senate language related to the arms embargo. 
Those who feel strongly about the arms embargo and who wish to press 
another vote on this issue have the opportunity, in considering the 
Department of Defense conference report, to cast their vote based on 
the arms embargo language.
  Accordingly, I do not see why we should move ahead with this vote 
today, particularly on a day when the international community has 
demonstrated its resolve to enforce the U.N. ultimatum against the 
Bosnian Serbs. Earlier today, we learned that NATO planes struck 
Bosnian Serb targets near Sarajevo. Press reports indicate that the 
airstrikes occurred in response to blatant Bosnian Serb defiance of the 
U.N.-imposed exclusion zone around Sarajevo. On a day of demonstrated 
cohesion among our NATO allies, why on earth would we want to pass 
legislation instructing our President to go it alone in Bosnia?
  Today's action follows last weekend's meeting of the foreign 
ministers of the contact group countries in which the ministers agreed 
on a series of steps to take in response to the continued Bosnian Serb 
rejection of their July 6 settlement plan. While I must say that I 
remain quite skeptical of his sincerity, I do nonetheless, welcome 
Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic's apparent attempts to distance 
himself from the Bosnian Serbs. If Milosevic does follow through on his 
promises to break off relations with his cohorts in Bosnia, it is in no 
small measure due to the unified efforts of the contact group. 
Milosevic's pressure on the Bosnian Serbs, if genuine, could in turn, 
help pressure the Bosnian Serbs to accept the contact group plan.
  The points for and against lifting the arms embargo unilaterally have 
been made on previous occasions. I would simply say at this juncture, 
urging unilateral action would be a reckless step that would undermine 
the very actions that NATO took today and that the contact group 
continues to take. I would urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will oppose the amendment offered by the 
Senator from Pennsylvania.
  At the outset, let me state that I completely agree with the general 
principle asserted by my friend from Pennsylvania--that in the absence 
of an affirmative congressional vote, the President does not now 
possess the power to authorize the use of force in Haiti.
  On this point, the U.S. Constitution is as clear as it is plain. 
Article one, section eight, grants to Congress the power to ``Declare 
war [and] grant letters of marque and reprisal.'' Article two, section 
two provides that the President shall be the ``Commander-in-Chief of 
the Army and Navy of the United States.''
  To be sure, the Commander in Chief power ensures that the President 
has the sole power to direct American military forces in combat. But 
that power has effect only after the proper authorization has been 
provided by Congress. Until that authority is granted, the President 
has no inherent power to send forces to war--except in certain 
situations, such as to repel sudden attacks or to protect the safety 
and security of Americans abroad.
  On this point, the words of Alexander Hamilton, a strong defender of 
presidential power, are instructive. Writing in Federalist No. 69, 
Hamilton emphasized that the President's power as Commander in Chief 
would be ``much inferior'' to that of the British King, amounting to 
``nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military 
and naval forces.''
  Moreover, the U.N. Security Council resolution authorizing the use of 
all necessary means to facilitate the return of the legitimate 
government in Haiti does not provide the President any legal authority 
under the Constitution--as the Senate stated in a unanimous vote on 
Wednesday.
  The amendment proposed by the Senator from Pennsylvania is 
axiomatic--it states that the President does not have the authority to 
use force in Haiti unless it is authorized by Congress in advance. That 
goes without saying--because it is precisely what the war power clause 
of the Constitution states.
  But there is a danger in stating that proposition by means of this 
amendment. The danger is this: By using a statute to prevent the 
President from using force in Haiti, the Senate would be implying that 
the President does have the authority to use force elsewhere in the 
world. Taken to its logical conclusion, the Specter amendment issues a 
blanket invitation to the President to use force anywhere, at anytime--
unless Congress makes a statement to the contrary.
  I believe the Constitution already makes such a statement. The 
President has no inherent authority to use force, except in certain 
limited circumstances, unless Congress provides it.
  Mr. President, based on a similar vote that this body conducted on 
June 29, I expect that the Specter amendment will not be accepted. If 
that does occur, I urge the President and his advisers not to 
misinterpret the vote. It does not mean that Congress has given him a 
blank check to use force in Haiti. I believe strongly that the 
President has no such authority--and that he must come to Congress to 
seek it.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I see the manager of the bill standing, 
and I will speak briefly. Responding to the Senator from Nebraska, the 
intention of the section (3) of this amendment is to make clear that 
what is being directed here is a lifting of the embargo. It would 
depend on later action as to whether the United States itself would 
transfer arms, but the intention of section (3) is to make clear that 
in no event are personnel of the United States military to become 
involved on the ground in Bosnia. This is not a war that the United 
States intends to, or should, fight.
  The fact is that the Bosnian Moslems themselves, in appealing to us 
to lift the embargo and send them arms, have said we do not want your 
soldiers. They want the arms with which to defend themselves. Section 
(3) is meant to make this clear.
  If, pursuant to other legislation or by act of the President as 
Commander in Chief, we decided to transfer arms to the Bosnians and 
train them, that would be done away from the battlefields--perhaps in 
Croatia, which is now aligned with Bosnia. We are talking about 
weapons, and we are specifically saying we are not talking about 
American soldiers fighting in the Balkans. It is not our fight in that 
sense. This section would prohibit the disposition and movement of 
American personnel to that battleground.
  Mr. EXON. I Thank the Senator for that explanation. I will address 
that a little further, if I might.
  It seems to me that we should be very careful. What I like about that 
part (3) is that it emphasizes, once again, what this Senator has 
always maintained--that under no circumstances should we be involved on 
the ground with troops in Bosnia, save some kind of a universal 
breakout of peace that we could be there for humanitarian assistance 
under United Nation's auspices. But I have always been against any kind 
of ground activity or involvement by the United States. So that is why 
I have been somewhat protective of the British, French, and others, who 
do have people in harm's way there.
  I have often said to people who want to rush in there: Supposing we 
had troops under the auspices of the United Nations in Bosnia today and 
the Brits and French had none there, and the Brits and French were 
saying, ``Lift the embargo'' and we would be saying, ``What are you 
talking about? Lifting the embargo would further expand the dangers to 
our people in harm's way.'' I guess, therefore, I have come to the 
realization that this is a reasonable proposal. That is why I am going 
on it.
  In closing, let me say one other thing. I think this is a pretty 
historic time in history. The Senator from Delaware--and I do not know 
whether he was old enough to remember it or not--referenced Neville 
Chamberlain coming back after his historic meeting with Adolf Hitler, 
and he said that he had arranged peace in our time by the sellout of 
Czechoslovakia. I was a very young lad at that time, but I remember 
that very vividly. History has taught us that, if anything else, that 
was the forerunner to the certainty of World War II, which was a 
tragedy for mankind under any measurement.
  I simply say that I think this is a time when the United Nations, the 
United States of America, our allies, including our new understandings 
with the former Soviet Union, and other peoples, had better recognize 
that unless some punishment is dealt, and dealt rather decisively, not 
with ground troops but with sustained bombings of Bosnian Serb 
positions, not just on the battlefield, but if we are going to pull out 
of there with lifting the embargo, then I suspect that we should be 
prepared to maybe try to teach the Bosnian Serbs a lesson with air 
power and air bombardment, not just on the front line, but on their 
military installations, their rail centers, their communication 
centers, their military depots, to try to do what we can, at some risk 
to our airmen, to destroy the war machine that I am very fearful will 
cut a bloody path--more bloody than in the past--against the Bosnian 
Moslems, unless we are prepared to take action.
  If that happens and if, because of our action, or lack thereof, the 
world will see the United Nations, the NATO alliance, and everyone 
standing by while an evil nation like the Bosnian Serbs grab off and 
kill and destroy further, I think it might send a very unfortunate 
signal to the people of the world in other spots in the world today--
for pointed reasons I will not mention--but I think are known to all, 
that the United Nations, the NATO allies, and the United States is not 
a paper tiger, and we can do anything we want and we can get by with 
it, as evidenced by their failure in Bosnia. I think we are doing 
historic things here, and I hope that everyone realizes and recognizes 
that just by unilaterally lifting the embargo, we have not washed our 
hands of the situation, and say look we won and go home.
  With that, I am pleased to be a cosponsor of the amendment, and I 
thank the Senator from Connecticut and the Senator from Kansas, and 
others, for crafting this which I think, given the circumstances that 
we face now, is a good amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The manager of the bill is recognized.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I have a colloquy I am going to enter into 
with the very patient Senator from Idaho, who has been waiting a long 
time, after which I will propound a unanimous-consent request dealing 
with the amendments as remain on the Labor-HHS bill.
  So, Mr. President, I will now at least enter the colloquy with my 
colleague from Idaho.


                      labor department regulations

  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, during committee consideration of this 
legislation an issue came to my attention regarding a Department of 
Labor safety regulation--Hazardous Occupation Order No. 12. It was 
adopted in 1954 and prohibits 16- and 17-year-olds from loading or 
operating balers--the machines used to compress and bundle waste paper 
or cardboard destined for recycling.
  It has been suggested that the safety of certain balers has increased 
greatly because safety design standards have been developed since HO 12 
was adopted 40 years ago. It has been suggested that HO 12 should be 
modified to allow teenagers to load balers that meet American National 
Standards Institute Safety standards. It has also been suggested that 
these new balers cannot be operated during the loading process. But 
there has never been a review of baler safety along with an analysis of 
accident data to see if the regulation can be updated to reflect the 
design improvements.
  The safety of young workers is very important to all of us and their 
welfare should not be compromised. But ongoing enforcement of HO 12 has 
led to very heavy levels of fines in the grocery industry, to the point 
of where they say they are reluctant to hire teenagers. This concerns 
me. We all know how job opportunities for young Americans are badly 
needed. I want to get to the bottom of this issue to see whether modern 
balers still pose risks.
  The Department does have underway an advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking covering all the hazardous occupation orders. The report 
accompanying our bill contains the committee's request that the 
Department let us know within 90 days whether or not it intends to move 
ahead with a formal review of HO 12. We look forward to that report. 
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I wish to commend Chairman Harkin for the 
inclusion of the committee report language on Hazardous Occupation 
Order No. 12. This is an important issue for me because I have been 
hearing about this issue from grocery store owners from my State of 
Idaho for several years.
  A thorough review and revision of this regulation is long overdue. 
However, I am concerned that we are likely to see more fines being 
assessed against employers who earnestly are doing everything possible 
to provide a safe working environment. This is going on right now in 
Georgia, Tennessee, and elsewhere, and I am concerned about the 
unfairness of questionable enforcement continuing during the entire 
regulatory review process.
  If we are serious about trying to encourage job opportunities for 
young people in the supermarket and other industries, I suggest that 
DOL should not impose fines, with respect to minor employees who are 
loading paper and cardboard into balers or compactors which meet 
current safety standards.
  Under the most current industry safety standards issued by the 
American National Standards Institute, modern balers and compactors 
work just like the microwave ovens or trash compactor in the kitchen of 
the typical American home. If the door is open, and items are being 
loaded or removed, a lockout-interlock system prevents the machine from 
operating. You can not turn it on unless the door is closed.
  Obviously, workplace safety is of the utmost importance. But safety 
is not promoted by imposing fines in circumstances where there is no 
risk of injury.
  It is true that DOL has solicited public input about possible changes 
to the entire, broad range of child labor regulations. This, however, 
is no guarantee that DOL will focus specifically on HO 12.
  Back in 1992, I contacted both DOL and the White House and had 
received assurances from the previous administration that HO 12 would 
be reviewed and revised. Nothing happened. I do not want history to 
repeat itself.
  I was prepared to come to the floor today and offer an amendment 
barring DOL from using appropriated funds to impose fines under the 
limited circumstances we have been discussing, until DOL has completed 
rulemaking to revise HO 12.
  However, the language in the committee's report is a step in the 
right direction. Both the House and Senate committee reports on this 
bill include time-certain expectations for action by DOL in addressing 
this issue and appear to promise aggressive followup. This seems 
reasonable and fair, and I look forward to working with the chairman as 
this matter progresses.

                          ____________________