[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 184 (Saturday, November 18, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S17447-S17449]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 BOSNIA

  Mr. GLENN. Mr. President, earlier today Bosnia was discussed on the 
floor here. I wish to make a few remarks in that regard in the time 
allotted in morning business, because I think there is a great deal 
that is misunderstood about the peace process and our involvement in it 
and what our relationship is to the talks going on in Dayton.
  When we talk about the House, they had a lot of discussion in the 
House, and, of course, they had their vote over there, against any 
involvement in this or against going in militarily. But what has to be 
agreed to before we even get involved in any way, what has to be agreed 
to, is a complete peace agreement. It has to be agreed to, and not only 
agreed to but the firing has to have stopped before we move in.
  There are those who, apparently, assume we are going to have to fight 
our way in to establish peace and establish a peace as Tito did during 
the only period in modern history where there has been peace in 
Yugoslavia. That was a militarily imposed peace on the whole country.
  That is not the kind of peace we are talking about. There have to be 
two conditions met. First, there has to be an agreement. It has to be 
airtight. It has to be extremely detailed. It has to define exactly 
what the borders are. It has to define exactly which town is in what 
sector and what they have agreed to and signed up and said will be the 
new formation of those cities, those newly emerging countries in that 
area. So that agreement they are trying to work out in Dayton right now 
has to be in that fine a detail. It cannot be just a peace agreement 
that says we will move in and we hope we can establish peace. ``Yes, 
United States and NATO, you come and we know this will all work out.'' 
It is not that kind of agreement they are working toward. If I thought 
it was that kind of agreement, I would not be supporting this process 
whatsoever.
  What they are talking about is a very, very detailed agreement--
specific borders. Will this orchard be on this side? Whose territory 
will it be in? Will the next farm be in somebody else's territory? Will 
the road junction be in whose territory? That is the kind of detail 
they are trying to work out on huge maps out there in Dayton. I would 
say, it will be uphill at best that there will be any agreement coming 
out of that. I am still of the opinion that it is probably 60-40 
against our ever being involved over there, because I doubt the parties 
will be able to come to that kind of definitive outline on a map as to 
who has what in their territory. It has to be that way or we should not 
get involved.
  Second, the firing has to have stopped. The firing has to have 
ceased. Obviously, the next question is, then, if they have that kind 
of commitment to peace, which they say they have, and that is the 
reason they are in Dayton talking, and they have come to a definitive 
peace agreement and firing has stopped, why does anybody need to go in?
  We were over there recently, just 1 month ago this weekend. Four 
weeks ago this weekend I was part of the Senator Stevens' Codel over 
there. We were briefed by our military leadership and by our people and 
U.N. people in Zagreb and Croatia. We flew into Sarajevo for a period 
of time, along with 21,000 pounds of peas on a C-130, and out again. We 
spent about half a day, which does not make us experts in that area, 
but it was interesting to see it, anyway. Then we came back through 
Brussels and talked to our Ambassadors there.
  But, when we were there, what we were so impressed with was there is 
a desire for peace. That is what has started this whole thing. The 
parties themselves say they are tired of war. The parties themselves 
say they want peace but are unable to get it. If we have the agreement 
and we have the cease-fire, why do we need to go? Here are the facts we 
were told while we were over there.
  It is estimated that about 20 to 50 percent of the people involved in 
the fighting there are what they call the irregulars. They are not 
people who are part of a regular, organized military militia that 
accepts commands from above or from Belgrade or anyplace else. They are 
people who are the irregulars. They are the farmers who are out cutting 
hay one day. They go up to the lines, up to the next village where 
there is a battle going on, they take a rifle from someone, they are in 
the lines for 3 or 4 days while someone else goes back to cut their 
hay. They are the people who, in the 30-some cease-fires that there 
have been over there so far, they are the ones who have violated the 
cease-fire because they basically do not take orders from anyone in 
particular. So the firing starts again, it spreads, and we have had 30-
some cease-fires that have not worked. The fighting starts again.
  What is contemplated, and what our role would be over there--if we go 
in, if there is the airtight agreement, if the firing has stopped--then 
there would be zones set up between the parties along these borders, 
well-defined borders, where there would be 2- to 4-kilometer width 
areas in this that would be patrolled or would be monitored by the NATO 
forces, of which we would be about one-third of the total NATO force. I 
do not see that as being bad in that situation.
  Now, if there is firing by these irregulars or anyone else, we would 
put it down immediately. We would hope, because of the massive show of 
force we are putting in there, there would be no firing. If there is, 
it would be put down and put down immediately. It would be by NATO 
rules of engagement, not the U.N. rules of engagement. They are more of 
a debating society than anything else. But NATO rules of engagement say 
if you are fired on, you can obliterate that source. I asked General 

[[Page S 17448]]
Joulwan, would we be permitted to take out anybody who fired on any of 
the NATO forces? Absolutely.
  That is key to the whole thing. Will there be any risk? I suppose 
there is. We have already had three people killed over there when we 
had Frasure, Kruzel, and Drew, who were in a vehicle that slid off the 
road and they were killed in the wreck. That is tragic. Our hearts go 
out to their families on this. I knew one of the gentlemen, Mr. Kruzel, 
in particular. It is a terrible thing that anybody is killed in a 
situation like this.
  But will there be any danger of accidents like that, or maybe 
somebody getting killed? There might be. But I would also point out we 
do not withdraw the Peace Corps from overseas, and the Peace Corps in 
its history has had 224 people who have died overseas. I was surprised 
it was that high a number. I would have thought it would have been a 
very, very few, but the Peace Corps lost 224 people so far, to this 
date, since its inception.
  Like the old saying in aviation, ``How do you have complete, 100 
percent aviation safety? You keep all the airplanes in the hangar. You 
do not risk them.'' Yet we know how much good we have done around the 
world by being involved to some extent. We have a Christian-Judeo 
heritage of helping people, alleviating suffering around the world. We 
supply food, we send out AID programs. Of course, we cannot solve all 
the world's problems, either with peaceful organizations or with the 
military. But I think an American leadership in the world has been such 
a force for good, I would hate to see us go back to trying to be an 
isolationist America.
  I repeat once again, we have to have an agreement, airtight. The 
firing has to have stopped. Then we go in with minimal risk, with our 
NATO allies, to try to keep that peace that has been eluding them so 
far, basically because of the irregulars who do not honor these cease-
fires.
  Our leadership is important. We restored democracy in Haiti. In the 
process of doing that, of leading, we have been involved in bringing 
peace to the Middle East, working on it in Northern Ireland, we see 
Russian nuclear weapons are no longer aimed at our people. We secured 
the indefinite extension of a Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which 
was a big step forward. We achieved real progress toward a 
Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. We reached an agreement with 
North Korea to end its nuclear weapons program. These are products of 
American leadership, and that is just a little, partial list. We have 
seen democracies growing in South America because of our involvement 
there.
  I think the risk over there, in that Bosnian area, if it is done 
pursuant to a well-thought-out agreement and a cease-fire, and we go in 
with a preponderance of force that people understand is going to be 
used if they break the peace and if they fire--to me is well worth the 
risk.
  Much has been made out of the fact that we want to provide leadership 
for NATO. I agree with that. I think our membership in NATO is very 
important. But that is not just the reason why we go in. That is 
pointed to, sometimes, as the reason we go in, in effect saying, 
``There go our NATO people. We better rush out and lead them, because 
we are the biggest factor in NATO.''
  I will not agree with that. NATO has to be right. Let us judge this 
on whether it is right to go in, or wrong to go in, and try to get 
peace in that area where peace has not taken root for so long, and 
where some of the actions that have happened there in the past have 
literally been the sparks that set off two world wars. So, if we can 
bring peace to that area, to me it is well worth the risk.
  NATO leadership, I think, is, important, and NATO has been looked at 
by too many Americans, I believe, as just some sort of a remnant of the 
cold war, and let us forget it and move out of NATO. Is it still 
important? I do believe NATO is important. It is important. NATO 
leadership is what is moving us into the organization for security and 
cooperation in Europe working with the European Union. We have a 
Partnership for Peace, which is in its fledgling days but becoming more 
and more important. The North Atlantic Cooperation Council was formed 
in 1991. That is moving ahead, and really is a good force for peace in 
that part of the world. We are the biggest factor in NATO. I think it 
is important that we retain that. But I do not see our leadership of 
NATO as just being the only reason we should move into that particular 
area.
  I know my time is up. Do not forget for 1 minute that we have to have 
an airtight agreement. We have to have a cease-fire, and on that basis 
we move in to try to give peace a chance in that very, very tough area 
of the world.
  I yield the floor.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Ashcroft). The Senator from North Dakota.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President, it is my understanding that we are in 
morning business under a 10-minute rule.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. DORGAN. Mr. President I wanted to respond to the Senator from 
Rhode Island and some others today. I found his remarks to be 
particularly interesting and helpful, and, as is often the case, I find 
myself agreeing with a fair amount of what he says. He is sensible, and 
moderate, which is probably difficult for many these days. I saw a 
cartoon recently in which someone was pointing at someone else and 
saying ``There is no room for moderates here.'' The fact is that there 
is a lot of room for moderates. There are moderates in both political 
parties who generally do not view things from the extremes and who want 
to solve problems. I hope we will find a way, using some common sense, 
to engage in an attempt to find solutions to some of the vexing 
problems we have in this country.
  The Senator from Georgia was on the floor talking about trash 
television a few moments ago. My sense is that people in this country 
are concerned about two principal areas, and he hit on one of those. 
One is economic security. The fact is that many Americans are having 
more trouble finding a job, and many others are finding that their 
wages are declining. Sixty percent of American families are working 
harder for less money and are losing income. This means less economic 
security. I think people are very concerned about that.
  They are also concerned about the diminution of values--the lowering 
of standards in this country. And part of that relates to trash 
television and violence on television. We can do something about some 
of these things, but not all of them. We must address some of the 
issues in the home and in the community. But some of these problems 
represent public policy areas as well.
  In the area of economic security, one of the things that is often 
discussed--and one that I agree with--is that we have to put our fiscal 
house in order at some point. We cannot continue to run enormous debts 
year after year. We cannot spend money we do not have forever.
  I would not have a problem if next year we spent $400 billion we did 
not have--and therefore incur a deficit next year of $400 billion--if 
with that $400 billion we cured cancer just like that. I would say that 
was a pretty good investment. You amortize that over the next 40, 50, 
70 years, and it would be worth paying off the $400 billion deficit 
incurred to cure cancer.
  But that is not what these deficits are about. These are systemic 
deficits in the operating budgets of this country. You cannot continue 
that. You must address it.
  That is why I said last evening that I commend the majority party for 
a reconciliation bill that contains some things that are good. It 
contains some awful things as well, and I think some bad priorities. I 
am glad the President is going to veto it. I do not support it. But it 
has a good number of things that make a lot of sense. There are a good 
number of things in that reconciliation bill that both sides would 
agree to. But there are some major elements of the reconciliation bill 
that must be changed because, as we address the deficit in this 
country--and ultimately we must do it together--we must find a 
compromise. We should not ask the portion of the American people who 
have the least to bear the biggest burden of all the spending cuts, and 
then turn to the small portion of those who 

[[Page S 17449]]
have the most and give them the largest share of the tax cuts. We have 
to try to fix some of those things.
  With respect to where we are today, the shutdown ought to end. The 
reconciliation bill is passed. The President is going to veto it. 
Negotiations, in my judgment, ought to begin immediately to try to find 
a solution to the impasse and a solution to the reconciliation bill. 
The question ought not be whether we have a reconciliation bill. The 
question is not whether we address the budget deficit and lead to a 
balanced budget. The question is, how do we do that? Not whether, but 
how?
  There is no good reason, in my judgment, to have a continued 
government shutdown. There is no juice left in that lemon for anybody--
not for any political party, and not for any political leader. This 
shutdown does not make any sense.
  I probably contribute to some of the concerns about the language that 
has been used during the shutdown. I read on the floor statements by 
the Speaker of the House, who in April said, ``We are going to create a 
titanic standoff and shut down the Government.'' Those are the facts. 
However, I am not saying that only one party is at fault here. The fact 
is that there is lots of room for blame. There has been lots of 
language uttered in these past few days that has caused a lot of chaos 
in the political system. But we find ourselves in a circumstance where 
we have people who say it is either our way or it is no way. If you do 
not do it our way, we will shut the Government down. The fact is 
Government works by consent. This is a democracy. For 200 years we have 
had impasses over wars, over depressions, over dozens and dozens of 
vexing, troublesome issues. The way those impasses have been solved is 
that people with good will, with common sense, have come together and 
said, ``Let us reason. Let us find a way to meet the goal, to work out 
this problem together.''
  I want to mention a couple of things that were in the reconciliation 
bill which causes a lot of problems.
  Medicare--do we need to reduce the rate of growth in Medicare and 
Medicaid? Yes, we do. Not just in Medicare and Medicaid but in the 
price of health care generally for families, for businesses, for 
governments. The price of health care, the escalation of health care 
costs year after year somehow has to be addressed. But no one can any 
longer believe that what is in this reconciliation bill will address 
the price escalation in Medicare by saying to senior citizens you will 
have the same quality health care and you will not pay more for it. 
Everyone understands this approach means senior citizens will get less 
and pay more.
  The tax cut--many of us feel very strongly that the facts show every 
dollar of this tax cut will be borrowed. I would love to have somebody 
come and explain why that is not true. Regrettably, it is true. Every 
dollar of the proposed $245 billion tax cut will be borrowed and will 
add to the national debt, which adds to the burden of those children we 
have been talking about.
  On the car radio on the way in this morning, I heard a woman who had 
called the radio to talk about the shutdown. She said both of her 
parents, regrettably, have to go to a nursing home, one because of 
Alzheimer's and one who had a stroke. They have been there 5 years and 
started out with an asset base of $400,000 to $600,000. Now much of 
that is gone. She called and said, ``My worry is for when their assets 
are gone--and I believe that their assets should be used to pay for 
their care--my parents will not have an entitlement to Medicaid.'' When 
their assets are gone, under this new proposal, they will not have 
guaranteed coverage under Medicaid. That will be up to the States. 
Maybe the States will decide that nursing home care is an entitlement 
for her parents. Maybe not. She was worried about that.
  That is a significant change. That was in this budget reconciliation 
bill. I mentioned last evening the differences in spending priorities 
that have been talked about and for which the CR was fought over this 
weekend--cuts of 40 percent out of a little program called Star 
Schools; only $25 million is spent on Star Schools and that will be cut 
by 40 percent. The bill the Senate passed the other day, which I voted 
against, doubles the amount of money spent on star wars despite the 
fact that is was not requested by the Pentagon.
  I think these priorities are wrong. I do not say that in a pejorative 
way. I say that in my judgment we can do a lot better for this country 
than those priorities.
  I mentioned yesterday that in this thick reconciliation plan, there 
are two little things buried--among dozens and dozens--that I bet 
nobody in the Chamber knew about. One is a provision to repeal the 
alternative minimum tax provisions we put in place in 1986. That little 
thing that nobody knows about means that 2,000 corporations will 
receive $7 million each in tax cuts.
  Let me say that again: 2,000 corporations will receive a tax cut of 
$7 million each.
  Another little provision is labeled 956(A). I bet no one in the 
Chamber knows what it is. Well, it deals with the repeal of the 
circumstance of deferral with respect to income that is deferred for 
tax purposes by foreign subsidiaries of American corporations. They 
have the money over there. Now, we have certain passive rules that say 
you have to repatriate the money you pay taxes on. This little nugget 
in here says we are going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to 
tell those companies that have moved jobs overseas, moved jobs out of 
this country: By the way, we are going to reward you even more for it.
  Those things do not make any sense. We ought not vote for a bill that 
includes things like that.
  I bet there is no one in the Senate who knew that provision was in 
that plan. I am talking about a couple little provisions--there are 
dozen and dozens and dozens of those little nuggets-- that say to big 
interests, special interests: Guess what? It is time to smile. We are 
offering up to you an enormous reward at a time when we say to kids, we 
do not have room for you in the Head Start Program; at a time when we 
say to kids benefiting from the Star Schools Program that we are sorry, 
you are going to have to cut back.
  My point is that this debate is about priorities and choices. All of 
us, it seems to me, in the coming days can do better. And I stand here 
as one who says let us balance the budget. Let us do it the right way. 
Let us all engage in debate about choices and agree. Seven years is 
just fine with me. In fact, we could do it within 5 if the Federal 
Reserve Board will take the boot off the neck of Americans and allow us 
a little economic growth. But let us discuss it together--the Senator 
from Rhode Island is absolutely right--use some common sense and do the 
right thing for this country.
  Mr. President, I thank you for your indulgence. I yield the floor.

                          ____________________