[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 61 (Wednesday, May 17, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4037-S4096]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




       MILITARY CONSTRUCTION APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2001--Continued

  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 15 minutes to the Senator from California to 
speak on the Daschle amendment that is before the body this morning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. L. Chafee). The Senator from California is 
recognized.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I want to use my 15 minutes to do 
three things. The first two are to debunk certain myths that the 
National Rifle Association has developed. The first is the myth they 
have developed with respect to the second amendment to the 
Constitution. Second is the myth that the gun laws are not being 
enforced. The third item I would like to discuss is the juvenile 
justice bill that has been awaiting conference now for about a year.
  Let me begin by talking about the NRA claim that the second amendment 
to the Constitution gives every individual the right to own any kind of 
weapon, no matter how powerful or deadly:
  From the Derringer to a Bazooka. From the .22 to .50 caliber weapon. 
From a revolver that holds 5 bullets to weapons of war with drums of 
250 rounds. From the copper jacketed bullets to the black talon that 
rips apart organs as it passes through a body.
  The fact of the matter is that the Supreme Court has never struck 
down a single gun control law on second amendment grounds. Let me just 
quickly read to you the second amendment. It says:

       A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security 
     of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear 
     arms shall not be infringed.

  Contrary to the constant claims of the NRA, the meaning of the second 
amendment has been well-settled for more than 60 years --ever since the 
1939 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Miller. In that 
case, the defendant was charged with transporting an unregistered 
sawed-off shotgun across state lines.
  In rejecting a motion to dismiss the case on second amendment 
grounds, the Court held that the ``obvious purpose'' of the second 
amendment was ``to assure the continuation and render possible the 
effectiveness'' of the State militia. Because a sawed-off shotgun was 
not a weapon that would be used by a state militia--like the National 
Guard--the second amendment was in no way applicable to that case, said 
the Court.
  More than 40 years after the 1939 Miller case, in the 1980 case of 
Lewis v. United States, the Supreme Court again held that ``the Second 
Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not 
have `some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of 
a well regulated militia.' '' Again, the Court pointed to the militia 
as the key to the right to keep and bear arms.
  Since Miller, the Supreme Court has addressed the second amendment 
twice more, upholding New Jersey's strict gun control law in 1969 and 
upholding the Federal law banning felons from possessing guns in 1980.
  Furthermore, twice--in 1965 and 1990--the Supreme Court has held that 
the term ``well-regulated militia'' refers to the National Guard.
  And in the early 1980s, the Supreme Court even refused to take up a 
Second Amendment challenge, leaving established precedent in place. 
After the town of Morton Grove, Illinois, passed an ordinance banning 
handguns--making certain reasonable exceptions for law enforcement, the 
military, and collectors--the town was sued on second amendment 
grounds.
  The Illinois Supreme Court and the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of 
Appeals ruled that not only was the ordinance valid, but went further 
to say--explicitly--that there was no individual right to keep and bear 
arms under the second amendment. In October 1983, the U.S. Supreme 
Court declined to hear an appeal of this ruling, allowing the lower 
court rulings to stand.
  I was mayor of San Francisco when this took place, and I put forward 
legislation in the early 1980s to ban possession of handguns in San 
Francisco since at that time the homicide rate was soaring. The 
legislation passed. It was subsequently preempted by State law in a 
case brought and carried up to the State supreme court on the basis 
that the State of California had preempted the areas of licensing, of 
registration, and of possession, but it was not struck down on second 
amendment rights grounds.
  Perhaps this history is what led former Supreme Court Chief Justice 
Warren Burger in 1991 to refer to the second amendment as ``the subject 
of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word `fraud,' on 
the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in 
my lifetime. . .[the NRA] ha(s) misled the American people and they, I 
regret to say, they have had far too much influence on the Congress of 
the United States than as a citizen I would like to see--and I am a gun 
man.'' This was Warren Burger--a Nixon appointee to the Court.
  Burger also wrote,

       The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any 
     argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an 
     unfettered right to any kind of weapon. . .[S]urely the 
     Second Amendment does not remotely guarantee every person the 
     constitutional right to have a `Saturday Night Special' or a 
     machine gun without any regulation whatever. There is no 
     support in the Constitution for the argument that federal and 
     state governments are powerless to regulate the purchase of 
     such firearms . . .

  Erwin Griswold, former dean of Harvard Law School and Solicitor 
General in the Nixon Administration said in 1990 that ``It is time for 
the NRA and its followers in Congress to stop trying to twist the 
Second Amendment from a reasoned (if antiquated) empowerment for a 
militia into a bulletproof personal right for anyone to wield deadly 
weaponry beyond legislative control.''
  All told, since the Miller decision, lower Federal and State courts 
have addressed the meaning of the second amendment in more than thirty 
cases. In every case, up until March of 1999, the courts decided that 
the second amendment refers to the right to keep and bear arms only in 
connection with a State militia--in other words, the National Guard, 
not an individual.
  And the NRA is clearly aware of this history. Despite all of the 
NRA's rhetoric and posturing on this issue, they

[[Page S4038]]

know that the second amendment does nothing whatsoever to limit 
reasonable gun control measures. In fact, in its legal challenges to 
federal firearms laws like the Brady law and my assault weapons ban, 
the National Rifle Association has made no mention of the second 
amendment.
  When the Ninth Circuit expressly rejected a second amendment 
challenge to California's 1989 assault weapons ban, the NRA elected to 
not even appeal that ruling to the Supreme Court, because they knew 
they would lose.
  In fact, even when part of the Brady law was struck down as 
unconstitutional, that decision was not based on the second amendment, 
but on a narrow States' rights issue.
  Another suit against the 1994 assault weapons ban was based on a 
``bill of attainder'' argument, that Congress illegally targeted gun 
manufacturers--again, the suit is not based on the second amendment.
  Elsewhere around the country, the NRA has argued that various gun 
control laws violate the first amendment, or the privacy rights of gun 
owners, or even the equal protection clause because NRA members are 
treated differently than others. The second amendment is never even 
brought up.
  Nonetheless, many on the other side of the aisle may point to the 
one, single, lone exception to the long history of second amendment 
jurisprudence.
  On March 30, 1999, a United States District Judge in Texas struck 
down a federal law making it a felony to possess a firearm while under 
a domestic restraining order.
  In the Texas case, a man in the midst of a divorce proceeding was 
accused of threatening to kill his wife's lover. Although put under a 
restraining order and therefore barred from possessing a firearm under 
federal law, the man was subsequently caught with a gun and indicted 
for violating the ban. U.S. District Court Judge Sam Cummings dismissed 
the indictment, in part because the federal law, he said, had the 
effect of ``criminalizing'' a ``law-abiding citizen's Second Amendment 
rights.''
  This was the first time such a decision was made by a federal judge, 
but it is important to note that this decision has been appealed. There 
is absolutely no reason to believe that the Supreme Court, if it ever 
got to that level, would uphold this decision.
  The Texas decision clearly flies in the face of 60 years of second 
amendment precedent and, as Handgun Control has said, ``can only be 
viewed as a renegade decision.''
  In fact, in his opinion, Judge Cummings was unable to follow usual 
judicial practice and cite legal precedent supporting his decision, 
because no such precedent exists.
  This ruling is, as I have said, being appealed and since that 
decision, two federal courts, including a higher circuit court, have 
ruled that the second amendment does not guarantee an individual right 
to keep and bear arms.
  That is the first myth.
  Now let me talk about the second myth being perpetrated by the 
National Rifle Association. That is that our current gun laws are not 
being enforced. Members have heard over and over again: We have the gun 
laws; now go out and enforce them.
  Of course we should be enforcing our gun laws. And of course we are. 
And the evidence clearly shows that gun prosecutions are up. In fact, 
since the passage of the Brady Bill just seven years ago, more than 
500,000 felons, fugitives, mentally ill individuals, and stalkers have 
walked into a gun dealer and walked right back out again without a gun 
because of a background check.
  The NRA argues that prosecutions are down, but they fail to correctly 
interpret the statistics to recognize that state and federal 
cooperation have actually led to an increase in combined prosecutions 
during the Clinton administration.
  In fact, since 1992 the total number of federal and state 
prosecutions combined has increased sharply, and about 25 percent more 
criminals are sent to prison for state and federal weapons offenses 
than in 1992--from 20,300 prosecutions to 25,100.
  Federal numbers may be down, but there is a reason for it. The 
federal government is now focusing its prosecutions on higher level 
offenders, and turning the lower level offenders over to the states for 
prosecution. In fact, the number of prosecutions of higher level 
offenders--those sentenced to 5 or more years in jail--has gone up 
nearly 41 percent in 7 years. And the number of inmates in federal 
prison on firearm or arson charges have increased 51 percent from 1993 
to 1998.
  Just last month, Senator Kohl of Wisconsin and I introduced an 
amendment which would expand Project Exile to 50 cities and provide law 
enforcement with ballistics technology that will make it far easier to 
identify and punish the perpetrators of gun violence. And I also 
support the President's request to fund at least 500 additional ATF 
agents and 1000 new prosecutors to focus on guns.
  But here's the rub, and here's the contradiction of the National 
Rifle Association. On the one hand, they say enforce the law, and then 
they go out and they oppose any effort to strengthen those laws. The 
NRA fought the Brady Bill for 10 years. The NRA defeated all attempts 
to allow the consumer product safety commission to regulate the safety 
of firearms. The NRA in 1986 got legislation passed which restricts 
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms from inspections of gun dealers to once a 
year. Even dealers who are the source of hundreds of gun crimes cannot 
routinely be inspected more than once a year without a special court 
warrant.
  For years, the NRA has even blocked the ATF computerization of gun 
sale records from gun dealers that have gone out of business. As a 
result, when a gun is traced as part of a criminal investigation, the 
files have to be retrieved manually from warehouses where old records 
are kept. This can add days or even weeks to an investigation. By the 
time the records are found, the trail may already be cold.
  And most importantly, the National Rifle Association fights against 
funding law enforcement agencies at levels adequate to enforce our 
current laws.
  As former New York City police commissioner William Bratten has said, 
``The National Rifle Association has strenuously opposed increased 
financing for ATF and has successfully lobbied against giving it the 
authority to investigate the origin of gun sales.''
  The result: ATF has been left underfunded, understaffed and unable to 
adequately enforce all the laws on the books.
  And the simple fact is that even if enforced, the current laws aren't 
enough. There so riddled with NRA induced loopholes, that they are easy 
to get around. And that's why you see children killing children today. 
Guns left loaded without safety locks, with no responsibility in the 
law, civil or otherwise, for parents to keep those guns and weapons in 
safe storage.
  Let me speak as a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. President, this body passed a comprehensive bill to address the 
problem of juvenile crime almost exactly one year ago. The House 
followed suit a month later. Both bills passed by wide margins, and 
this Nation was given hope that some solutions to the problems of gun 
violence and juvenile crime were close at hand.
  Yet simple fact is, the conference committee has met only once--in 
early August of last year. No real issues have been discussed. No 
progress has been made. The bills sit in legislative purgatory, 
apparently never to see the light of day again.
  Democrats in both Houses have been ready and willing to debate these 
issues in conference for months now. But time continues to tick by. It 
now seems clear that these bills will die a quiet death at the end of 
this session because the NRA opposes certain targeted gun laws passed 
by this body to keep the guns out of the hands of children, out of the 
hands of juveniles, and out of the hands of criminals.
  There is no one I have ever spoken to who believes a gun should not 
be sold without a trigger lock. There is no one I have ever spoken to 
who believes an assault weapon should be purchased by a juvenile. There 
is no one I have ever spoken to who believes we should not plug the 
loophole in my assault weapons legislation which permits the 
importation of clips, drums, or strips of more than 10 bullets--even 
the NRA agrees to that. And there is no one I know, outside of the 
National Rifle Association, who believes that two teenagers from 
Columbine should be able to go to a gun show and buy two assault

[[Page S4039]]

weapons with no questions asked. That is what this is all about. As a 
result, all of the important issues we debated will go un-addressed: 
Gang violence, juvenile detention, firearm regulation reform, and a 
host of other problems will go unsolved.

  Mr. President, this demonstrates just how deeply these bodies are 
dominated by this one special interest group--these people who 
fervently resist any regulations on weapons, no matter how mild, no 
matter how targeted, and no matter how much the American people want 
it.
  The Columbine incident shocked this nation to its core and this 
Congress to action. But since we passed that bill one year ago, we have 
continued to see tragedy after tragedy, all because we live in a nation 
awash with guns, and we won't stand up to the NRA.
  In Atlanta, we saw a distressed day trader gun down his family and 
colleagues. In California, a hateful bigot killed a postal worker and 
then wounded five others at the North Valley Jewish Community Center in 
Granada Hills. The pictures of those young children being led away from 
the scene of the tragedy were not only heart-wrenching, but also 
clearly depicted the trickle-down of gun crimes in this country. Now 
the victims are young children.
  We even saw one six year old child bringing a handgun to school, 
apparently in retaliation for a slight the day before, and use that gun 
to kill another 6 year old.
  And every day since Columbine, another 12 children have died from 
gunshot wounds, in incidents of gun violence that go relatively 
unreported, and with outcomes not so public.
  These incidents will never stop until we do something to stop them. 
The death rate will never be diminished unless we stand up and take 
action.
  The Senate-passed juvenile justice bill is not an over-reaching 
statement with regards to gun control. Rather, the provisions in the 
juvenile justice bill are small, reasonable measures to make a 
difference in the lives of our children. None of those provisions 
should be controversial. Let me describe just a few of these 
provisions.
  This bill includes four common sense provisions to address gun 
violence:
  A ban on juvenile possession of assault weapons and high capacity 
ammunition magazines;
  Closing the gun show loophole;
  Requiring safety locks with every handgun sold in America;
  And my provision to ban the importation of large capacity ammunition 
magazines.
  Let me talk just a bit about this last amendment--my amendment to ban 
the importation of large capacity ammunition feeding devices.
  The ``Large Capacity Ammunition Magazine Import Ban Act of 1999'' 
passed the Senate as an amendment to S. 254 by voice vote, after a 
motion to table failed 59-39. The same amendment, offered by Judiciary 
Chairman Henry Hyde on the House floor, passed by unanimous consent in 
the House.
  This amendment would stop further importation of large-capacity 
ammunition clips by eliminating the grandfather clause--as to these 
imported clips--that was included in the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban. 
Large-capacity ammunition clips are ammunition feeding devices, such as 
clips, magazines, drums and belts, which hold more than ten rounds of 
ammunition.
  This legislation would not ban the sale or possession of clips 
already in circulation. And the domestic manufacture of these clips is 
already illegal for most purposes. Under current law, U.S. 
manufacturers are already prohibited from manufacturing large capacity 
clips for sale to the general public, but foreign companies continue to 
do so.
  As the author of the 1994 provision, I can assure you that this was 
not our intent. We intended to ban the future manufacture of all high 
capacity clips, leaving only a narrow clause allowing for the 
importation of clips already on their way to this country. Instead, 
BATF has allowed millions of foreign clips into this country, with no 
true method of determining date of manufacture.
  In fact, from July, 1996 to March, 1998, BATF approved over 2.5 
million large-capacity clips for importation into the country. And 
recently, that number has sky-rocketed even further. Between March of 
1998 and March of last year, BATF approved more than 11.4 million 
large-capacity clips for importation into America. Since that time, 
there have been millions more as well.
  The clips come from at least 20 different countries, from Austria to 
Zimbabwe.
  These clips come in sizes ranging from 15 rounds per clip to 30, 75, 
90, or even 250 rounds per clip.
  At least 40,000 clips of 250-rounds came from England;
  Two million 15-round magazines came from Italy;
  10,000 clips of 70-rounds came from the Czech Republic;
  156,000 30-round clips came from Bulgaria;
  And the list goes on, and on.
  Mr. President, 250-round clips have no sporting purpose. They are not 
used for self defense. They have only one use--the purposeful killing 
of other men, women and children.
  It is both illogical and irresponsible to permit foreign companies to 
sell items to the American public--particularly items that are so often 
used for deadly purposes--that U.S. companies are prohibited from 
selling.
  Yet this amendment, along with the rest of the juvenile justice bill, 
remains stalled in conference.
  And the juvenile justice bill being held hostage by the NRA is not 
just a gun bill. That legislation also contains countless provisions to 
stem the tide of youth violence in general:
  A comprehensive package of measures I authored with Senator Hatch to 
fight criminal gangs; and
  The James Guelff Body Armor Act, which contains reforms to take body 
armor out of the hands of criminals and put it into the hands of 
police;
  And the Senate bill also provides for:
  A new $700 million juvenile justice block grant program for states 
and localities, representing a significant increase in federal aid to 
the states for juvenile crime control programs, including:
  Additional law enforcement and juvenile court personnel;
  Juvenile detention facilities; and
  Prevention programs to keep juveniles out of trouble before they turn 
to crime.
  The bill contains provisions regarding the nature and amount of 
contact allowed between juvenile offenders and adult prisoners. These 
are important provisions relating to the safety of youth offenders that 
have been worked out through extensive negotiations for months, yet 
they, too, remain in limbo.
  The bill encourages increased accountability for juveniles, through 
the implementation of graduated sanctions to ensure that subsequent 
offenses are treated with increasing severity
  The bill reforms juvenile record systems, through improved record 
keeping and increased access to juvenile records by police, courts, and 
schools, so that a court or school dealing with a juvenile in 
California can know if he has committed violent offenses in Arizona; 
and
  And the bill extends federal sentences for juveniles who commit 
serious violent felonies.
  There are some key issues that still need to be resolved, including 
the issue of who gets to decide whether a young offender is tried as a 
juvenile or an adult. It is my hope that the conference committee will 
give judges greater discretion in this area. But if the conference 
committee never meets, this issue--like so many others--can never be 
resolved.
  Mr. President, all of the common-sense provisions in this bill are 
now at risk of disappearing without a trace, and I urge the majority to 
proceed with the conference and come to a compromise.
  Let me now turn to more recent events.
  Mr. President, this past weekend, we saw a formidable gathering of 
people united in a common cause--750,000 at the National Mall and tens 
of thousands in other cities throughout America--marching in support of 
common-sense gun laws.
  These mothers, fathers, sons and daughters gathered together for one 
purpose--to tell this Congress that enough is enough. These moms and 
others were saying that we can, should and shall put an end to the 
violence that is taking 80 lives a day--12 of them children--in our 
nation. We must pass sensible legislation to prevent gun violence.

[[Page S4040]]

  There are those who will try to dismiss the Million Mom March as a 
one-shot affair, a day in the sun on the Mall, but I say such cynics do 
not know the power of a woman whose child is in jeopardy. Such cynics 
do not know the power of a million women united on behalf of the safety 
of their families.
  There are those, such as the National Rifle Association, who have 
even sought to deride the Million Mom March, as ``a political agenda 
masquerading as motherhood'' in full-page newspaper ads.
  While at the same time bragging about working out of the White House 
after November, the NRA said it was ``shameful to seize a cherished 
holiday for political advantage.''
  But women throughout America have a message for the NRA--your time is 
up. It's a message so well articulated in a Tapestry on the Million Mom 
March web site. On this Tapestry, thousands of women have had their say 
about the senseless violence taking more than 30,000 lives a year.
  I'll pick out just a couple of these messages to share with you 
today. Here's Kerry Foley, Chevy Chase, Maryland: ``I am the mother of 
three and I am an emergency medicine doctor. I have seen the carnage of 
gun violence first hand--a high school student shot dead while mowing 
the lawns by a mentally ill person. A man who shot his brother to death 
in an argument over the TV remote. We are not safe. Our kids are not 
safe. I'll be at the march to add my voice to all of yours.''
  And Karen Farmer, from Littleton, Colorado, ``The right for my child 
to live, far outweighs anyone's `right' to own anything.''
  Mr. President, I ask approval to submit this Tapesty as part of the 
Record. It demonstrates the spirit, determination and commitment of 
women throughout America, the one force that I believe can finally 
break the gridlock that is keeping even the most common-sense gun laws 
from passage.
  This march was the culmination of a lot of pent up grief and 
frustration at the inability of Congress to act.
  On August 10, 1999, a hate-filled madman opened fire at a Jewish 
Community Center in Granada Hills, California, wounding five people, 
three of them children.
  This was but the latest mass shooting across our great country. Who 
can forget the horrors of Paducah, Kentucky; Jonesboro, Arkansas, and 
Littleton, Colorado to name just a few. But on that day last August, 
the dream of the Million Mom March was born.
  Mothers from New Jersey to California shared that dream and joined 
together this past Sunday, urging Congress to pass the four common-
sense gun measures held in Conference Committee as part of the Juvenile 
Justice Bill since last June. And urging this Congress to approve new 
legislation for firearm licensing and registration.
  Mr. President I have been working on this issue for months, with 
community groups dedicated to preventing gun violence, with law 
enforcement officials, other Senate offices and even individuals 
involved in the Million Mom March.
  As Donna Dees-Thomases, organizer of the March, said ``licensing and 
registration is the foundation of sane gun laws. Without these basic 
measures, even current gun laws cannot be adequately enforced.''
  The product of our work is the ``Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale 
Act of 2000,'' a bill I introduced last week with the support of my 
colleagues, Senators Lautenberg, Boxer and Schumer.
  I began working on this legislation after the shooting at the Jewish 
Community Center in Granada Hills, when I became determined to find a 
better way to ensure that only responsible citizens have access to 
firearms.
  I believe that this legislation will begin to address three key 
problems facing our nation.
  First, too many criminals are finding it easy to obtain firearms. Our 
system of background checks has been a success--the Brady Law has 
stopped more than 500,000 felons, fugitives, stalkers and mentally ill 
applicants from obtaining firearms.
  However, under the Brady Law a background check is required only when 
a gun is purchased through a licensed dealer. Gun shows and private 
sales have long provided a safe haven for those persons who are not 
legally entitled to buy a gun.
  Only with a comprehensive system of licensing and records of sale can 
we hope to limit these illegal sales. By requiring that gun owners be 
licensed, that every transfer be processed through a licensed gun 
dealer, and that gun dealers record the transfer of guns, we will begin 
to limit the number of gun sales that fall between the cracks.
  Second is the problem of gun tracing. Gun tracing is the process 
through which law enforcement can take a gun found at the scene of a 
crime and, as the name suggests, trace it back to its owner. In this 
way, many crimes have been solved and many dangerous perpetrators 
caught.
  But without a national system of licensing and sale records, and 
without universal background checks, law enforcement often finds it 
impossible to track down the perpetrators of these crimes. Guns left 
behind, even those with serial numbers, turn out to be no more than 
dead ends for criminal investigators, because they may have been sold 
many times--even legally--with no background checks, no records kept, 
and no accountability.
  If we begin to record the transfers of these guns, we make it easier 
for law enforcement to trace a crime gun to the perpetrator of the 
crime.
  For this same reason, Senator Kohl and I recently introduced 
legislation to further the efforts of law enforcement to establish so-
called ``gun fingerprints''--ballistics information that will allow law 
enforcement to trace those who use guns in crime even when the firearm 
itself is not found at the crime scene.
  Third, and what I believe is the primary benefit of this legislation, 
we place a greater burden of responsibility on those persons who own 
dangerous firearms.
  As Mike Hennessy, the Sheriff of San Francisco, recently pointed out 
in a letter to me, ``Most importantly,'' this legislation ``places 
responsibility for the tragic consequences of children having access to 
firearms squarely where it belongs, on the adult owner.''
  This legislation provides criminal penalties for those adults who 
knowingly or recklessly allow a child access to a firearm, if the child 
then uses the firearm to seriously injure or kill another person.
  Mr. President, the problem of firearm injury goes beyond just 
criminal violence. Too many lives are lost every year simply because 
gun owners do not know how to use or store their firearms--particularly 
around children.
  In fact, according to a study released early last year, in 1996 alone 
there were more than 1,100 unintentional shooting deaths and more than 
18,000 firearm suicides--many of which could have been prevented if the 
person intent on suicide did not have easy access to a gun owned by 
somebody else.
  And think of this--if a man goes into a barber shop to have his hair 
cut, the barber is licensed. When we women go to a beauty shop to have 
our hair done, the cosmetologist is licensed. If we want to fish, we 
get a license. If we want to hunt, we must get a license. If you're a 
pest control eradicator, you must have a license. If you want to drive 
a car--not a lethal weapon in itself--but certainly a lethal weapon if 
irresponsible people are driving it, you get a license. And as a matter 
of fact, you register the automobile.
  When a 16-year-old boy wants to drive a car, we make him prove that 
he knows the rules of the road, and that he can operate a car safely 
and responsibly. But if that 16-year-old uses his hard-won new license 
to drive to a gun dealer, he faces no written safety test, and no 
demonstration of proficiency whatsoever. It is time to recognize that a 
firearm is at least as dangerous as an automobile.
  These are the issues--keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, 
tracking down criminals once they have used a gun in the commission of 
a crime, and making sure that gun owners know how to safely use and 
store their weapons.
  I know that no single piece of legislation can solve the problems of 
gun violence in America. But in order to begin addressing these issues, 
I have introduced a bill that will require that all future transfers of 
handguns or semi-automatic guns that can take detachable magazines be 
recorded, and their owners be licensed.

  Now let me first discuss why the bill covers the guns that it does.

[[Page S4041]]

  The bill covers handguns because statistically, these guns are used 
in more crime than any other. In fact, approximately 85 percent of all 
firearm homicides involve a handgun.
  And the legislation also covers semi-automatic firearms that can 
accept detachable magazines, because these are the assault weapons that 
have the potential to destroy the largest number of lives in the 
shortest period of time. A gun that can take a detachable magazine 
generally also take a large capacity magazine. Combine that with semi-
automatic, rapid fire, and you have a deadly combination--as we have 
seen time and again in recent years.
  Put simply, this legislation will cover those firearms that represent 
the greatest threat to the safety of innocent men, women and children 
in this nation. Common hunting rifles, shotguns and other firearms that 
cannot accept detachable magazines will remain exempt.
  Now as to those firearms that will be covered by the bill, there are 
two requirements placed on prospective gun owners.
  Regarding the licensing requirement first, this legislation requires 
that every person wishing to own a firearm covered by this bill must 
obtain a license--either from the federal government or from a state 
program that has been certified by the federal government.
  In order to obtain a license, a person will have to provide proof of 
identity, and be legally entitled under federal law to own a gun. This 
will entail providing several things to federal or local law 
enforcement:
  Provide information as to date and place of birth and name and 
address;
  Submit a thumb print;
  Submit a current photograph;
  Sign, under penalty of perjury, that all of the submitted information 
is true and that the applicant is qualified under federal law to 
possess a firearm;
  Pass a written firearms safety test, requiring knowledge of the safe 
storage and handling of firearms, the legal responsibilities of firearm 
ownership, and other factors as determined by the state or federal 
authority;
  Sign a pledge to keep any firearm safely stored and out of the hands 
of juveniles--this pledge will be backed up by criminal penalties for 
anyone failing to do so;
  And undergo state and federal background checks.
  Once an individual has received the license from the Treasury 
Department, that single license entitles the licensee to own or 
purchase any firearm covered by this bill. Only one license is 
required, no matter how many firearms are purchased.
  Licenses will cost $25 maximum and be renewable every five years. 
They can be revoked anytime if the licensee becomes disqualified from 
owning a gun under federal law.
  Right now, the United States is one of only two countries--along with 
the Czech Republic--that does not have a firearm licensing system. 
Perhaps that is one of the reasons why children under 15 in this 
country are 12 times more likely to die from gunfire than the children 
of 25 other industrialized nations combined.
  Only America, so advanced in other ways, remains so backward in how 
we regulate guns and gun owners. I believe that it is time to listen to 
the American people, and to enact common sense, reasonable legislation 
to ensure that all gun owners become responsible gun owners, and that 
guns themselves can be used more effectively to track down perpetrators 
of gun violence.
  The second requirement of this legislation is that all future 
transfers of firearms covered by this bill be recorded by a licensed 
gun dealer.
  This record of sale provision means that guns that are transferred in 
the future will, effectively, be registered. Registration is not a 
complicated issue, and it is one that every American will understand. 
We register many things in this country that are far less dangerous 
than firearms.
  We register cars and license drivers;
  We license barbers and cosmetologists:
  We register pesticides;
  We register animal carriers and researchers;
  We register gambling devices; and
  We register a whole host of other goods and activities--even 
``international expositions,'' believe it or not, must be registered 
with the Bureau of International Expositions!
  The American people already support national gun registration 
overwhelmingly, despite a concerted campaign by some to change their 
minds.
  By requiring that firearm sales and transfers be recorded, we will 
establish some accountability for the use and care of those guns. Law 
enforcement will be able to track crime guns back to their legal 
owners, so owners will therefore need to be more careful about storing 
their guns so they are not stolen and also in reporting gun sales--
nobody wants to be responsible for a crime committed by someone else.
  As San Francisco Sheriff Mike Hennessy wrote to me, ``By requiring 
every transfer of handguns and semi-automatic firearms to be made 
through a licensed dealer, a chain of ownership can be established that 
can assist law enforcement in identifying firearms used in the 
commission of crimes.'' This record requirement is not so we can target 
law abiding citizens, but rather so that law enforcement can quickly 
apprehend criminals who use guns in crime.
  Firearms dealers already keep careful track of gun sales, and submit 
serial numbers to the ATF for later use in gun tracing. The new record 
of sale requirement will essentially mean that this same process will 
be expanded to all covered firearms.
  Penalties will vary depending on the severity of the violation:
  Those who fail to get a license will face fines of between $500 and 
$5,000.
  Failing to report a change of address or the loss of a firearm will 
also result in penalties between $500 and $5,000;
  Dealers who fail to maintain adequate records will face up to 2 years 
in prison--dealers know their responsibilities, and this will give law 
enforcement the tools necessary to root out bad dealers and prevent the 
straw purchases and other violations of law that allow criminals easy 
access to a continuing flow of guns;
  And adults who recklessly or knowingly allow a child access to a 
firearm face up to three years in prison if the child uses the gun to 
kill or seriously injure another person.
  Mr. President, the Million Mom March was just the beginning of a 
powerful movement for sensible gun laws. Like the women activists 
before them, mothers and others who led the fight to abolish child 
labor, to establish juvenile courts, to improve child care and broaden 
health coverage, the participants in this March are now united behind a 
cause that we cannot afford to ignore: Sane, common-sense gun laws; 
child-safety locks on handguns; a ban on minors buying assault weapons; 
closing the gun-show loophole that allows buyers to get around 
background checks; prohibiting the import of high-capacity ammunition 
magazines; and finally licensing gun owners and registering firearms. 
After all, we ask people to get licenses to drive a car and we register 
automobiles; why not gun-owners and firearms?
  I urge the Senate to pass the juvenile justice bill, and to continue 
the fight against gun violence demanded by those million people this 
past weekend.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I commend my colleague from California, 
Senator Feinstein, who has done a remarkable job in presenting this 
issue to the Senate on behalf of not only her constituents but on 
behalf of many of us across the country. I thank the Senator for her 
leadership.
  I yield myself 10 minutes.
  I rise today, as well, in support of the amendment before the Senate. 
I pose a question to the Members of this body, a question asked by 
750,000 mothers, fathers, and children who gathered in our Nation's 
Capital for the Million Mom March this past weekend. It is a question 
being asked by tens of thousands of people who took part in rallies 
across 70 cities in this country this last weekend. It is a question 
being asked after every school shooting and after every other act of 
gun violence.
  I ask my colleagues: What will it take to get this Congress to pass 
commonsense gun legislation? Do we have to wait for more innocent 
people to lose their lives before this Congress will act? Currently, 12 
children die every day from gunfire. Do we have to wait for our homes 
and places of worship to become crime scenes? Lord knows, we have seen 
enough of that. Do we have to wait for our schools, places

[[Page S4042]]

where our children should feel safe and loved, to become war zones?
  We have already had school shootings in many cities: Littleton, 
Deming, Jonesboro, Flint, Conyers, Pearl, Fort Gibson, Springfield, and 
Moses Lake in my home State of Washington. Do we have to wait for a 
million people to rally here in D.C. and across the country to get this 
Congress to act? We just had that this past weekend. Do we have to wait 
for a shooting to take place right here in the Nation's Capitol 
Building to act? We have already had that. Do we have to wait until no 
place is safe for this Congress to pass commonsense legislation? We are 
getting closer to that every day. It is not getting any better. It 
seems the accidents are all the more common. It seems the shock and the 
pain and the loss keep growing, but this Congress has not acted.
  What is it going to take for this Congress to pass commonsense gun 
legislation? I want to give my colleagues a reason to act. I want to 
share with them a personal story about how gun violence is tearing our 
country apart. It is a story from a member of my own staff in 
Washington State. She is a wonderful woman named Mary Glen, who lost 
her son in a tragic robbery. It is something that has had a tremendous 
impact on her and on me. I know I cannot convey, or even imagine, the 
horror she has been through. But I also know that her voice must be 
heard by this Congress, so I want to read to you what she said in her 
own words at the Million Mom March in Seattle, WA, this past weekend.
  I truly commend her for her courage, telling her story so openly and 
allowing me to share it with you today. Mary Glen said:

       On Jan. 1st 1994 I awoke to a knock at the door, two police 
     officers were standing there with the news that my 15-year-
     old son, Shaun was dead. Shot in the back, robbed of his 
     money and his clothes.
       As Shaun left a convenience store after purchasing a pizza 
     early New Year's morning of 1994, two young men took him by 
     gun point, forced him into a car, drove him a couple blocks 
     away, made him strip out of his clothes, took his money and 
     then ordered him out of the car. They then shot him in the 
     back! What a cowardly act. My world was torn apart that day 
     but all I could think of is I can't let this happen to anyone 
     else's child.
       As a mother, I had been a good parent, but that wasn't 
     enough as I found out. It didn't matter how good of a parent 
     I was, because when Shaun was out of my sight I couldn't 
     protect him from what happened.
       Sixteen days later I was speaking to other Moms who had 
     lost loved ones due to guns.
       In February of 1994, just 6 weeks after I buried Shaun, I 
     spoke before the Washington State Legislature, telling my 
     story and asking for stricter gun laws, telling them, if they 
     had tears in their eyes after just hearing my story, which 
     they did, imagine how I must feel having to survive it and go 
     on without my son.
       This kind of violence is preventable. In April of 1994, 
     Senator Feinstein invited me back to Washington, DC for a 
     press conference on the assault weapons ban, part of the 1994 
     Crime Bill. . . .
       There, I met with others who had lost loved ones and 
     together we spoke out about gun violence to anyone who would 
     give us the time. The effects of gun violence are very brutal 
     and personal for me. . . .
       This isn't about being pro or anti gun it's about saving 
     our children who leave our houses and are not coming home. 
     The devastating effects don't magically stop. It's an ongoing 
     struggle. . . .
       If I could have one wish answered for Mother's Day this is 
     what it would be: That every person who screams about their 
     2nd amendment rights and the need to own a gun without 
     wanting to be held accountable for the responsibilities that 
     go with it, feel the pain of losing a child to murder for one 
     day--because then doing the right thing wouldn't even have to 
     be argued.

  Those are the words of Mary Glen. She is a member of my staff in 
Washington State, and I could not agree with Mary more. She is a 
survivor. She is a strong and loving woman. I got to know her through 
her work with Mothers Against Violence in America. So, again, after 
sharing Mary's story with all of you I ask: What will it take for this 
Congress to pass commonsense gun laws?
  Last year, in the juvenile justice bill, the Senate passed 
commonsense gun restrictions. We closed the gun show loophole; we 
mandated trigger locks on all handgun sales; we enacted legislation to 
ensure that violent juveniles cannot buy weapons; and we banned the 
importation of high-capacity ammunition clips. Unfortunately, this 
Congress has failed to make that bill law. The juvenile justice bill 
has languished in the conference committee for nearly a year.
  Some opponents of commonsense laws say we are not doing enough to 
enforce the laws that are already on the books. This administration has 
done more to protect children from gun violence than any in our 
Nation's history. Gun prosecutions overall have increased nearly 30 
percent in the Clinton-Gore administration. Of course, there is more we 
can do, and the President has proposed increasing the number of Federal 
gun prosecutors and helping States with their gun prosecutions and 
enforcement. But at the end of the day, all of the excuses and all the 
doubletalk from opponents will not save one life. Sensible gun laws 
will save lives. But first we have to get this Congress to act.
  Today, with this amendment, we are asking this Congress to act in a 
small and symbolic way. We are asking this Congress to commend those 
who took part in the Million Mom March. It is the least we can do for a 
group of people who have suffered losses many of us cannot even 
imagine. They have asked: What will it take for this Congress to pass 
commonsense gun legislation? Let's answer them by showing we are ready 
to protect Americans from gun violence. I urge my colleagues to support 
this amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I wasn't going to say anything on this 
subject, but after listening to several of the statements, both last 
night and again this morning, I am compelled to speak. Everybody is 
talking about a message that was conveyed to this country last Sunday. 
There was a message there. I walked through that crowd. There weren't 
too many television cameras following me because I am not one of the 
superstars here. I do not take this floor and do a lot of talking. But 
this time I think I must.
  If you listened to them, there was a message. Common sense? Yes, that 
message was there: Do some commonsense things that will really reduce 
our exposure to crimes committed using firearms and enhance safety 
around children. They were not only talking to Congress; they were 
talking to America. They were saying: Americans, if you have children 
and young adults in your home and you also own firearms, then you have 
some responsibility. You, as the adult of that home, have a 
responsibility. You have a responsibility to your community as well as 
to this Nation that that child or young person or young adult knows and 
respects the weapon. The message was: Come to your senses, America.
  We can pass laws in here. We can pass this sense-of-the-Senate 
measure. We can pass the juvenile crime bill. But if we as adults in 
our own homes and with our own neighbors do not take responsibility, it 
will not change a thing --not one thing.
  There is a reason the second amendment was put in the Constitution. 
All we have to do is look around the world. We are a different society. 
We are a free society. Those men who shaped the Constitution and fought 
over it and bled over it, who walked, not the Halls of this building 
but in Philadelphia and New York, probably did not know exactly what 
they wanted in the Constitution, but they knew exactly what they did 
not want --tyranny by government.
  We are no different from the roots from which we sprang. I go back to 
the words of Benjamin Franklin. I will never forget them. I think they 
are very true today, just as they were then:
  Those who think we can pass laws that make us feel good and warm and 
fuzzy, who say look what we have done but do not change the 
circumstance any, they will say we are more secure now, but it is a 
false security. Those who would sacrifice freedom for security deserve 
neither.

  Those are the words of Benjamin Franklin. They are words that ring 
through these Halls today. If there is no responsibility, nothing 
happens, and the message from the Million Mom March is for naught. Pass 
the laws. Those who obey the laws become the prey, and those who are 
willing to break the law have no fear of it and become the predator and 
therefore rule by fear.
  Common sense, America; common sense. That is what they said. No 
matter what the law, the bottom line is responsibility--adult 
responsibility--not

[[Page S4043]]

given to the Government, not given to the schoolteacher, not given to 
the babysitter; it is part of what we call parental responsibility. We 
should not be lulled into a false sense of security because we have 
passed a law that basically changes nothing.
  Those who have lost children in any way, in any fashion, understand 
that down in their gut. How can they tell the story? Because they 
believe it deep down.
  When I drive across this great country of ours--Washington is not the 
center of the universe--when I drive on the other side of the mountains 
and out across the prairies of America into the West and clear to the 
coast, I see people who are willing to take responsibility. They built 
a great nation, and they did not build it on false security.
  Last night I played a tape called ``Touch Tones in Valor.'' It is a 
10-minute tape on the Battle of Iwo Jima in World War II. I started 
wondering: Why did these men and women of great courage think so much 
of freedom that they were willing to pay the supreme cost? Yet we 
cannot seem to teach that in our schools.
  During this debate, there have been numbers quoted, stats quoted, and 
there are politics involved. Why don't we say to the organizations that 
have the ear of people who shoot for sport and to hunt: Instead of this 
adversity, why aren't we working with those folks and their programs of 
education and responsibility and do something to raise awareness to 
make communities safe?
  We can do that, America. We can do that. We can work with parents, 
and we can work with schools, but we have to get involved. We cannot 
pass a law, walk away, and say look what we have done, and all at once 
believe that we are safer. We have to get involved with the young 
people. It is about time we remind ourselves to teach right from wrong 
and that there are consequences for wrong.
  It boils down to the message I got on Sunday, which is to help us; 
help us, but for Heaven's sake, when you go into groups, talk about 
parental responsibility, talk about the way to raise our children, talk 
about the way to teach our young adults. Do not go through this process 
of pretense and then say, ``Look what I have done.'' Do not be afraid 
to teach.
  My good friend from Washington comes out of the education community, 
and I bet she was a good teacher. We all teach every day. Every one of 
us, every adult, teaches every day. That is where it starts. That was 
the message of this past Sunday: Be a leader; be a role model.
  For Heaven's sake, don't do something with a paintbrush and think we 
have a new barn because we still have the same old one. We have to 
change from the inside.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Massachusetts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, of the 10 minutes, I yield myself 8\1/2\ 
minutes.
  I hope the American people are beginning to understand the difficulty 
those of us who want sensible and responsible opportunities are having 
in putting before the Senate proposals which we think can reduce youth 
violence and the availability of weapons to children in this country. 
We were stalled yesterday, and we have been stalled again to the point 
where we are acting only on a sense-of-the-Senate resolution. We are, 
because of what I consider an abuse of the rules of the Senate, denied 
an opportunity for accountability by the Members.
  I hear a great deal about responsibility. I hear the speeches about 
how we ought to be responsible and parents ought to be responsible. I 
say the Senate ought to be responsible. The Senate of the United States 
ought to be responsible, the House of Representatives ought to be 
responsible, and at least have a debate about these issues rather than 
relying on the gymnastics of parliamentary procedures to deny us that 
opportunity.
  When our good friends talk about responsibility, let's start right 
where it should begin, and that is right in the Senate.
  It ought to be self-evident that children in the United States of 
America have the easiest access to guns of any country in the world.
  We know we have more youth deaths than the next 25 industrial nations 
combined. Easy access to weapons has been demonstrated.
  The argument is: Why aren't we doing more in terms of prosecutions? 
Or, Why aren't we doing more in terms of helping children? I daresay, 
that those of us who are in strong support of the Daschle amendment 
take a back seat to no one in trying to find ways to help and assist 
parents, schools, local communities, and church leaders in local 
communities to try to deal with the problems of violence in the 
community.
  What we have also seen from Justice Department statistics is that 
there has been vigorous enforcement of the laws in sending people off 
to jail who are violating gun laws. Where the penalty is above 3 years, 
there is a 30-percent increase in prosecutions. In State law, there is 
a 25-percent increase in prosecutions for those with a penalty below 3 
years. There are 25 percent more criminals going to jail today than 7 
years ago in relation to gun offenses.
  Let's free ourselves from the adage: we have enough laws on the 
books--let's just enforce them. The statistics respond to that 
statement.
  The second question is, if we go ahead and pass these laws, that 
isn't the only problem. We understand it is not the only problem. But 
we are stalemated in trying to deal with the underlying problems, as 
well.
  Let's think of where we are. We have a number of different proposals 
to try to help and assist parents and schools and local communities. 
For example, we have our Safe and Drug Free Schools Program that 
provides help and assistance to every school in this country. We have 
found that any effort to increase the funding for that program has been 
opposed by the Republicans. That is the principal instrument to try to 
help our schools develop their own kinds of programs to deal with the 
problems of violence in the schools.
  The Justice Department's Safe Schools and Healthy Students Program 
attempts to help schools. And it too has been sidetracked by the 
majority.
  The various prevention programs in the Juvenile Justice bill like the 
juvenile drug and alcohol treatment programs, school counseling, and 
other school-based prevention programs like the FAST Program--which is 
the Families and Schools Together Program--and the centers of 
excellence to treat children who have witnessed or suffered serious 
violent crimes, all of those programs are put on the back burner. We 
cannot get funding or support for those programs.
  Let's not stand out here and say that there are other causes of 
violence. We understand that. We also understand that people in other 
countries are seeing our movies, they are viewing our games, and yet 
they do not have this proliferation of violence. Maybe we ought to be 
taking a look at some of those issues, but we are being denied now on 
the most basic and fundamental issue, and that is the issue of the 
proliferation of weapons.
  With all due respect to our friends on the other side of the aisle, 
let's look at what their position has been in terms of the 
proliferation of weapons. I was here when we passed the McClure-Volkmer 
Act. I voted in opposition to that bill, which opened up the whole gun 
show loophole. The McClure-Volkmer bill effectively facilitated the 
sale of guns to criminals and juveniles by turning gun shows into a 
booming business. It severely restricted the ability of the ATF to 
conduct inspections of the business premises of federally licensed 
firearms dealers. It raised the burden of proof for violations of 
federal gun laws. That is what the NRA has supported on the McClure-
Volkmer bill.
  Then we had the Brady bill. They resisted it every step of the way. 
It took 7 years to pass the Brady Bill. And the NRA's ongoing attacks 
on the National Instant Check System show that their claims to support 
background checks are utterly specious.

  Then we had the whole question about the ATF. As I have mentioned 
previously, the NRA and the Republicans oppose sufficient numbers of 
law enforcement officials in the ATF. We have the same number of law 
enforcement officials now as we had 25 years

[[Page S4044]]

ago, with basically flat funding. Everyone around here knows what that 
means. It means a real drop in the funding by about 30 percent. So to 
our good friends on the other side: untie the hands of law enforcement. 
Their hands are tied behind their backs, and you ask: why aren't they 
enforcing the laws? Come on now.
  We are prepared to do something in terms of these other issues, as I 
mentioned. We have passed the SAMSHA program, which deals with issues 
of mental health and tries to provide resources to local communities to 
work with schools, religious organizations, and law enforcement, to 
reduce the proliferation of weapons.
  What are the radical proposals we keep hearing about that are going 
to basically undermine the Constitution of the United States?
  We have a gun show loophole. We want to go back to where we were 
prior to the time of the McClure-Volkmer Act. That is where we 
basically want to go. It has passed the Senate and we cannot even get 
consideration of it.
  I listened to my good friend from Montana talk about holding parents 
responsible. That is the proposal of the Senator from Illinois, what is 
called the CAP proposal. We have it in Massachusetts.
  Is the Senator from Montana, or anyone on the other side, willing to 
sponsor that and bring it up this afternoon? Of course they are not.
  Holding parents responsible is what we want and what they oppose. We 
listened to how we want family responsibility, parental responsibility. 
That is what this child access prevention legislation is all about. But 
we are denied even the opportunity to debate it.
  So don't lecture us about it. Don't lecture us about it.
  Safety locks, to try to make sure the 1,200,000 guns which are loaded 
and unlocked in households across America--where children will go this 
afternoon--have safety locks. Requiring that every new gun have a 
safety lock, and trying to hold parents responsible, is that so 
dramatic? Of course it is not.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used 8\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. KENNEDY. I have a minute and a half, I believe.
  Mr. President, the possession of automatic weapons, to change this 
from the age of 18 to 21, we are opposed on that.
  This morning I looked on the web to see what has been happening in 
the last few days.
  May 15: Georgia boy 12, accused of killing a 10-year-old cousin.
  May 15: Chicago sees five youths injured by gunfire in 36 hours.
  May 15: Michigan boy 17, son of mayor and Congressman--one of our 
colleagues--dies from self-inflicted gunshot.
  May 11: Mississippi, 5-year-old shoots sister, 2, with mom's unlocked 
gun.
  May 11: Arkansas boy uses gun from home to shoot at officer.
  May 10: Florida, 5-year-old takes gun to prekindergarten.
  May 8: Montana, teen dies from accidental self-inflicted gunshot 
wound.
  The list goes on. That is in the last week alone.
  For how many more weeks will we have these lists? How many more weeks 
are we going to be denied by the Republican leadership the opportunity 
to do something about it?
  That is what this debate is about. That is why their position is 
irresponsible. That is why we are going to continue to battle during 
the course of this Congress to protect these children in this country 
who need our protection.
  To recap, since Columbine, the National Rifle Association and the 
Republican leadership in Congress have succeeded in blocking any action 
on new or stronger gun laws with a blunt response: ``We don't need new 
gun laws, just enforce the laws already on the books.''
  We need to expose the National Rifle Association and the Republican 
hypocrisy. The NRA has systematically weakened federal gun laws over 
the past two decades and has made law enforcement's job of apprehending 
criminals more difficult.
  There are three major components of our weak gun laws that have the 
fingerprints of the NRA all over them: The McClure-Volkmer Act, the 
Brady Law, and the funding of ATF agents.
  The NRA-sponsored Firearms Owners' Protection Act of 1986, also known 
as the McClure-Volkmer Act, is perhaps the strongest evidence of NRA 
hypocrisy on gun enforcement. With its passage, the NRA accomplished 
the following:
  It allowed unlicensed individuals to sell their personal firearms as 
a ``hobby.'' The result has been the sale of massive numbers of 
firearms to criminals and juveniles without background checks. This 
provision not only created a vast secondary market --it also opened up 
the ``gun show loophole,'' which many of us in Congress are now 
struggling to close.
  It facilitated the sale of guns to criminals and juveniles by turning 
gun shows into a booming business.
  It allowed criminals to keep or regain their rights to own guns.
  It severely restricted the ability of the ATF to conduct inspections 
of the business premises of federally licensed firearms dealers.
  It raised the burden of proof for violations of federal gun laws.
  The seven-year battle to pass the Brady Bill and the NRA's ongoing 
attacks on the National Instant Check System show that the NRA's claims 
to support background checks is utterly specious.
  Before the Brady Bill was passed, 32 states lacked a background check 
system. A criminal could walk into a gun store, sign a form stating he 
is not a prohibited purchaser, and walk out with a gun. The form would 
simply be filed away, with no follow-through to make sure that the 
purchaser's statements were accurate. The Brady Bill was designed to 
close this loophole by reducing an honest background check and waiting 
period, and the NRA worked tirelessly to defeat it.
  Only when the NRA realized that the Brady Bill was unstoppable did it 
shift its efforts to weaken the law as much as possible. It attempted 
to push through the immediate reliance on an ``instant check'' system--
a system that was not technically feasible at the time.
  Even after embracing an ``instant check'' system, the NRA has 
continually sought to undermine the system's integrity and efficiency, 
by preventing law enforcement from maintaining any records on the 
background checks it conducts.
  Most telling is the NRA's continued opposition to background checks 
on all gun purchasers, including all gun show sales and private sales. 
If the NRA supports background checks, why do they want to keep this 
gaping loophole open in our gun laws?
  Finally, it is no secret that the NRA has tried to undermine federal 
law enforcement, particularly the ATF. NRA rhetoric combined with its 
campaign to financially cripple the ATF demonstrate the gun lobby's 
single-minded thoroughness in carrying out its extremist agenda. The 
NRA makes the gun laws weak and difficult to enforce--and it also 
undermines the agency that has primary responsibility for enforcing 
those laws.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. May I inquire how much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 17 minutes; and the minority 
has 81 minutes.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield 15 minutes to Senator Bunning.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kentucky.
  Mr. BUNNING. Mr. President, I would like to return to the underlying 
bill, the MILCON bill.
  I rise to speak in support of the Byrd-Warner Kosovo amendment that 
was included in this measure by a vote of 23-3 by the members of the 
Appropriations Committee.
  The committee got it right. It is time for Congress to exercise its 
constitutional authority and its constitutional responsibility to 
address the basic policy issues involved in the deployment of U.S. 
ground forces in Kosovo.
  More than 5,900 U.S. troops are currently participating in the NATO 
peacekeeping operation in Kosovo, despite the fact that Congress has 
never authorized--or even formally debated--U.S. involvement in Kosovo 
since the Senate, on March 23, 1999, authorized airstrikes against 
Yugoslavia.
  We need a plan. We need a policy. We need an exit strategy. And, 
right now, we have none of these.
  I remember very distinctly, back in 1995, when I was serving in the 
House of Representatives and we passed, with bipartisan support, a 
resolution calling

[[Page S4045]]

on the President to obtain congressional authorization before deploying 
troops to Bosnia.
  That resolution passed by a vote of 315-103.
  Despite that vote, President Clinton went ahead with a large-scale 
and long-term deployment of tens of thousands of our troops to Bosnia 
without congressional approval or any meaningful debate.
  Our concern then was the fact that there was no well defined 
mission--no exit strategy--no plan.
  We were given assurances that we wouldn't be there long. Our troops 
would be brought home in a year or two. But now, here we are five years 
down the pike and our troops are still there. There is no end in sight. 
No plan. No exit strategy.
  The same thing is happening in Kosovo.
  We did our part in Kosovo. We bore the brunt of the costs and the 
risks involved in the air war over Kosovo. It was U.S. pilots and U.S. 
planes that forced the Yugoslav withdrawal from Kosovo that allowed for 
the deployment of the U.N. peacekeeping forces.
  We have done our part.
  I firmly believe that it is time for the European Community to live 
up to their responsibilities. Kosovo is in their back yard. Our 
European allies should assume more of the responsibility for 
peacekeeping.
  I believe that there is no justification for U.S. ground forces being 
placed in the middle of age old feuds and animosities.
  I believe we should never have sent U.S. ground forces into Kosovo. 
And I believe that we should bring our fighting men and women back 
home.
  I do not believe that we should drift along without a policy--without 
a plan--without an exit strategy--in Kosovo as we have been doing in 
Bosnia.
  The Byrd-Warner amendment does not really go as far as I would like 
to go. It does not say, ``We are going Home.''
  It simply says that if the President of the United States can make a 
case for keeping troops in Kosovo--let him do it.
  The Byrd-Warner amendment is much more cautious and conservative than 
I would like us to be.
  But it would require the President to develop a plan to turn the 
ground combat troop element of the Kosovo peacekeeping operation over 
to the Europeans by July 1, in the year 2001.
  It does not require the immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops. It would 
terminate funding for the continued deployment of U.S. ground combat 
troops in Kosovo after July 1, of next year, unless the President seeks 
and receives congressional authorization to continue that deployment.
  It gives the President a year's notice. It gives the European 
Community a year's notice.
  This amendment basically says to the President--not only our current 
President but whoever replaces him as well--develop a plan to get us 
out, or come before Congress and the American people and explain to us 
why it is the Nation's interest to stay in.
  This amendment simply says it is time to quit drifting along, it is 
time to quit putting the lives of our young people on the line without 
any clear mission, without any clear policy, without any plan.
  It is our responsibility. It is Congress' responsibility to conduct 
oversight of the policies that result in the deployment of U.S. troops 
abroad. It is time we lived up to that responsibility and the Byrd-
Warner amendment does just that.
  It simply says, ``Drift'' is not a valid substitute for a national 
defense policy.
  And it tells the President to give us a policy, explain it, convince 
the American people and the U.S. Congress that it is in our national 
interest to keep ground troops in Kosovo--or bring our troops home.
  I urge my colleagues to support this reasonable and responsible 
amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hutchinson) The Senator from Washington is 
recognized.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Minnesota.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Minnesota is recognized for 
10 minutes.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, first of all, I wish to thank some of 
my colleagues I have heard out here on the floor. I had a chance last 
night to listen. I had to go back home. I have a ruptured disc in my 
back. I was lying in bed listening to Senator Boxer. I thought she was 
brilliant. And when Senator Kennedy speaks on this matter, I think he 
speaks with great moral authority. I say to Senator Boxer that I use 
the word ``brilliant'' carefully. It is not to try to get her to like 
me; we are already good friends. I just think she spoke with a lot of 
eloquence and a lot of feeling.
  I am not going to actually go through all of the provisions we have 
been talking about because people who follow this debate have heard 
that already. I want this juvenile justice bill out of conference 
committee, although there are other parts of the bill to which I really 
object. I think it is unconscionable that it has been blocked. I think 
these sensible gun control measures must be passed by the Congress--the 
House and the Senate.
  Instead, what I want to do is talk about this Million Mom March and 
how it affected me and how it has affected my wife Sheila. We came back 
from, actually, Wisconsin where I went to support Tammy Baldwin and 
came back to D.C. to take part in that march. We did that because we 
wanted to join in with a lot of mothers from Minnesota. Second of all--
actually, I had a discussion with Senator Boxer about this--I thought, 
this is really historic; I should be there.
  I don't really know how many mothers were there. I don't know whether 
it was 750,000 or 650,000, but it was very powerful. I really believe 
there were two messages to that march. One has been much discussed. The 
other has been less discussed. The first message was that you had 
mothers basically saying to the Nation--much less to the Congress--
there is too much violence; there are too many of our children being 
killed; we can do much better as a nation.
  We are all for doing everything possible on prevention. We are all 
for making sure the existing laws are enforced. We are all for making 
sure we figure out how to help children with troubled lives--some of 
the children who committed these crimes or a murder. But we want our 
Congress--if it is our Congress--to pass legislation that will make 
sure some of these children and other citizens who should not have 
these guns don't get these guns in their hands--make sure we deal with 
the loopholes, and make sure people with a history of violence don't 
have these guns. Surely, we can do better. Nobody can ever get it 100-
percent right. Nobody can be sure those citizens who should not have 
access to guns don't get access to guns. Nobody can stand here on the 
floor of the Senate and say if we pass these measures, we won't have a 
repeat of a Columbine or what happened in many other schools. But we 
can certainly do everything that is humanly possible to try to reduce 
the violence and try to reduce the number of children that are 
murdered. It is reasonable.

  I come from a State where Minnesotans love to hunt. They do not want 
their long guns taken away. They do not want their rifle hunt taken 
away. This has nothing to do with that. It has nothing to do with the 
basic constitutional rights. It is not written anywhere in the 
Constitution that anybody who wants to own a gun--even if they have a 
history of violence, are convicted of a violent crime, even if they 
have used guns before--should be allowed to have a gun. There is 
nothing in the Constitution that says that.
  That is what this is all about. That is what these amendments are all 
about.
  I think the first message on the part of mothers--I do not know. We 
will see. The proof will be in the pudding. We will see how history 
writes about this later depending upon the followup of this march. But 
I see that march as the beginning of a very important citizens lobby in 
the country. You had a lot of women who came. I know that in Minnesota 
we have a lot of Democrats; we have a lot of Republicans; and we have a 
lot of women who really do not care about either party, to tell you the 
truth. They do not really care. But they care fiercely about this 
issue. I think they came here with a lot of courage. I think they came 
here with a lot of hope. That is good. That is all

[[Page S4046]]

about representative democracy. They are not afraid to take on powerful 
special interests. They are not afraid to hold all of us accountable. 
They are not afraid to speak out for their children and their 
grandchildren. They are not afraid to work hard, to speak up, to lobby, 
to write letters, to advocate for sensible legislation that would 
reduce some of this violence and save lives. They are not afraid to do 
that.
  I think there was a lot of determination and a lot of indignation. I 
say to colleagues that I personally think indignation can be good. I 
would much rather women, men, and all citizens who believe we ought to 
do something to reduce this violence, and to get some of these guns out 
of the hands of children and other people who shouldn't have these 
guns--I think it is good that there is indignation. I think it is good 
that these women are saying to Senators and Representatives that we are 
not going to march here and have this big rally, and when the smoke 
clears away, you will never hear from us again. That is not going to 
happen. I think that makes our country work better. That is the second 
message.
  I think what happened on Sunday was inspiring. I think the mothers 
provoked the hopes and aspirations of other women and men in the 
country that, yes, we can change legislation; yes, ordinary citizens 
matter; that we have a right as citizens to make demands of the 
Congress and to be as bold and as courageous as we can be as citizens 
in a democracy. I think that was a message of this march. That is a 
wonderful message. That is an empowering message.
  Finally, there was another message, and if was a different one. The 
next day we had a panel discussion. There were a number of women 
crossing all income lines and all racial lines who lost children. I 
made the comment during this discussion when some of the mothers were 
speaking that people kept trying to get the mikes closer. But I think 
one of the reasons their voices were so quiet was because there is so 
much pain.

  I pray for our family. We have children and grandchildren. I pray 
that we never have to ever go through that. I pray no mother, no 
father, no grandparent, no brother, no sister, no wife, no husband 
ever, ever has to go through the living hell that these women have gone 
through having lost a child to this violence. At that discussion I 
think there was a lot of personal pain and a lot of agony. God knows, I 
don't know how these women have done it. I really do not. I do not know 
that I could have done it. They have somehow been able to muster up the 
courage to try to do everything they can to save the lives of other 
children. To honor them is the least we can do.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from New 
Hampshire.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Hampshire is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from 
Idaho for yielding.
  I should have known that as election season approaches we would have 
to be down on the floor with more debate on gun control, and, 
unfortunately, the hostage held here--for our service men and women who 
are waiting--is the military construction appropriations bill. It is 
now being held hostage by this debate. It is unfortunate that some of 
our colleagues would do this to our military who we know are very much 
in need of a lot of the dollars and programs that are in that budget.
  Frankly, there is nothing more politically expedient or coldly 
opportunistic or blatantly unconstitutional, frankly, than gun control. 
It is pretty clear.
  I do not know how our colleagues can say the first amendment is all 
right and the second amendment isn't.
  Of course, it is an unmistakably and an unspeakably horrible tragedy 
when someone is killed. And it is very difficult to sometimes respond 
to the emotionalism of those who have lost a loved one in a tragedy 
such as a shooting or any other tragedy. But our response, my 
colleagues, should not be to disregard our oath of office and to walk 
away from the Constitution of the United States. We took an oath right 
there in the Well to ``defend and support'' the Constitution. The last 
time I looked, the second amendment was part of that Constitution. I 
would have more respect for my colleagues if they came down and offered 
an amendment to remove it. At least that would be more honest.
  Our response should be to encourage gun safety, too, and to crack 
down on the scum, the criminals, who commit these horrible acts against 
us, and to take an introspective look at ourselves and our children.

  We need to restore respect for all human life ourselves. We need to 
stop calling gratuitous and indiscriminate violence in the popular 
media, in TV, movies, and in videos ``art'' and start calling it the 
trash that it is because it is corrupting young people's minds, and it 
ruins their souls. These are the problems about gun violence--not guns.
  My colleague from California, Senator Feinstein, a few minutes ago on 
the floor, made some very interesting remarks. She said, and I am using 
her words:

       Debunk certain myths that the National Rifle Association 
     has developed; the first is the myth they have developed with 
     respect to the second amendment of the Constitution.

  She said:

       ``Well-regulated militia'' refers to the National Guard.

  She said:

       No individual right to keep and bear arms under the second 
     amendment.

  She said the second amendment is a:

       [F]raud on the American public by special interest groups.

  She said:

       The second amendment refers to the right to keep and bear 
     arms only in connection with a state militia. In other words, 
     the National Guard, not an individual.

  She also said:

       The second amendment does not guarantee an individual's 
     right to keep and bear arms.

  Those are startling, shocking statements from a colleague whom I 
respect immensely. She is entitled to her position. But my colleague 
mentioned various court rulings that supposedly decided that the right 
to keep and bear arms is only for the Government. It is exactly the 
opposite. The courts said so; so it must be right.
  But let me tell you about some decisions that the courts made that 
weren't right.
  No. 1, they said in Dred Scott in 1857 that a black man couldn't sue 
in Federal court because he was property. Do you know what. The courts 
were wrong when they said that--dead wrong.
  I also point out that in Plessy v. Ferguson they said ``separate but 
equal'' public facilities for blacks and other facilities for whites. 
The courts said that, too, and they were wrong.
  I don't think my colleagues would have argued on the floor of the 
Senate that the Supreme Court was right in those cases. There are 
plenty more cases where the courts were wrong--morally, legally, and 
constitutionally wrong, wrong, wrong.
  So don't come down to the floor of the Senate and say just because 
some court said it that it is right, right, right, right, because it 
isn't.
  My colleague also mentioned various judges. There are many judges who 
have upheld the individual right to keep and bear arms. There is a long 
list of them. I am not going to go through the list. I would rather 
quote instead of the judges, those fine people who wrote the 
Constitution, and who lived it.
  They know what they meant. They said what they meant: Inalienable 
right to keep and bear arms.
  Let's hear from a few who I think knew what they were talking about.
  Thomas Jefferson: ``no free man shall ever be debarred the use of 
arms.'' That was when he proposed the Virginia Constitution in 1776.
  Any uncertainty about that statement?

       Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only 
     those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit 
     crimes. . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted 
     and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage 
     than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked 
     with greater confidence than an armed man.

  That was Thomas Jefferson's ``Commonplace Book,'' 1774-1776, quoting 
from ``On Crimes and Punishment'' by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 
1764.

[[Page S4047]]

  George Mason, of Virginia:

       [W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in 
     Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an 
     artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the 
     people; that it was the best and most effectual way to 
     enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but 
     weaken them, and let them sink gradually . . . I ask, who are 
     the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a 
     few public officers.--Virginia's U.S. Constitution 
     ratification convention, 1788.

  Further: ``That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a 
well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to 
arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state.''--
Within Mason's declaration of ``the essential and unalienable Rights of 
the People,'' later adopted by the Virginia ratification convention, 
1788.
  Samuel Adams, of Massachusetts:

       The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to 
     authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, 
     or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the 
     United States, who are peaceful citizens, from keeping their 
     own arms.--Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification 
     convention, 1788.

  In other words, freedom of the press, Freedom to bear arms--yes, yes, 
yes.
  William Grayson, of Virginia: ``[A] string of amendments were 
presented to the lower House: these altogether respected personal 
liberty.''--Letter to Patrick Henry, June 12, 1789, referring to the 
introduction of what become the Bill of Rights.
  Richard Henry Lee, of Virginia:

       A militia when properly formed are in fact the people 
     themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms 
     . . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body 
     of people always possess arms . . . The mind that aims at a 
     select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican 
     principle.--Additional Letters From the Federal Farmer, 1788.

  James Madison, of Virginia: The Constitution preserves ``the 
advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of 
almost every other nation . . . (where) the governments are afraid to 
trust the people with arms.''--The Federalist, No. 46.
  Tench Coxe, of Pennsylvania:

       The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the 
     people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. 
     They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and 
     will generally be sufficient to over-awe them.--An American 
     Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787.

  We could go on and on.
  Noah Webster, of Pennsylvania:

       Before a standing army can rule, the people must be 
     disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The 
     supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the 
     sword . . .

  Don't come down to the floor and tell me the founders meant that the 
second amendment didn't mean anything. They put it in because they knew 
the dangers of an unarmed citizenry. Just because we have these 
terrible acts of violence perpetrated upon innocent people in this 
country--by criminals, by scum who prey upon us--is not a reason to 
take away our rights under the second amendment. It is a reason to put 
them away, put them in jail and throw the key away and leave them 
there, and stop having sympathy for these people who do this.
  I have a long list of people, founders who knew what they were 
talking about. They wrote the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is 
about individual rights, not about government rights. It is about 
individual rights. That is why they put all 10 amendments in the 
Constitution.
  Does my colleague mean to say that the right to free speech, the 
right to free expression, the right to the freedom of religion or trial 
by jury or freedom against cruel and unusual punishment belongs to the 
State? That sounds like Communist Russia.
  One member of the Supreme Court, Justice Joseph Story, appointed by 
James Madison, in his ``Commentaries on the Constitution,'' considered 
the right to keep and bear arms the ``palladium of the liberties of the 
republic'' which enables the citizenry to maintain and defend a free 
society.
  And now let's take a look at the Thesaurus.
  A synonym for infringed, as in ``the right to the people to keep and 
bear arms shall not be infringed,'' is encroach.
  Encroach is defined by Webster's New World College Dictionary as ``in 
a gradual or sneaky way''; ``to advance beyond the proper, original, or 
customary limits; make inroads on or upon.''
  That sure sounds like what some of my colleagues are trying to 
do, trying to sneak around or circumvent the second amendment. They are 
using terrible tragedies that we all deplore to do it. I would like to 
punish personally, if I could, every single one of those people who 
committed those atrocities, but we must not trample the Constitution of 
the United States while we do it. Let's remember that oath we took: 
Uphold the rule of law and uphold the Constitution.

  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I stand in support of the Daschle 
amendment. I want to get back to what it says. We heard a lot of 
excited debate, but here is what the Daschle amendment says.
  No. 1, we commend the million moms--by the way, I think there were 
more than a million people across this country--for exercising their 
rights to gather and to send a very strong message to the Congress; in 
this case: Save our children, stop the violence; stop the mayhem; stop 
the school shootings; stop the church shootings; do what we are 
supposed to do.
  It was a very clear message. We commend them today.
  Second, the Daschle amendment says bring back the five sensible gun 
laws that passed the Senate already, get that conference to meet, get 
the juvenile justice to meet, and send those laws to the President for 
his signature. Very, very simple.
  What does the other side say? I ask with great respect the Members on 
the other side who are great debaters. I was here last night until 
quite late, listening and debating.
  The other side says no laws are needed, a change in behavior is 
needed. They said: Laws don't change behavior. I will take that to its 
logical conclusion. If laws don't change behavior, why do we have laws 
against murder? Why do we have laws against rape? Why do we have laws 
that regulate products so when our kids pick up a doll, they don't 
choke on it? We do it to protect our citizens.
  We are a government of laws, not men. That was stated by our 
founders. It is a basic foundation of our Nation. I believe personally 
that guns should not be in the hands of children. Children and guns do 
not mix. I believe, personally, that anyone who is mentally unbalanced 
should not have a weapon because they do not know what they are doing. 
We heard from a woman who said, ``My brother is a manic schizophrenic 
and he has threatened my family. I do not know what to do because he 
could go to a gun show, get a gun, and kill my child.'' So I believe 
mentally unbalanced people should not have guns. I also believe 
criminals should not have access to weapons.

  That is what the people on this side of the aisle are trying to do. 
If you are a responsible adult, yes, you can have that weapon. If you 
have responsibility and you understand what you are doing, that is one 
thing. But if you are not responsible, no way; that is it.
  What is so controversial about that? My friend says, if there is a 
murder with a weapon, put that person away. Of course, put that person 
away. Enforcement is up in this Nation.
  USA Today did an analysis in June 1999. They said gun laws are 
enforced more vigorously today than 5 years ago by any measure. 
Prosecutions are more frequent than ever before. The number of inmates 
in Federal prison on gun offenses is at a record level.
  Of course, you put people away; you throw the book at them. As far as 
I am concerned, you can do anything to them. That is how I feel about 
someone who shoots and kills another person. But that doesn't stop the 
shooting. That doesn't stop the heartbreak. That doesn't stop the 
mayhem. We know that. You need to do both. We keep getting a false 
choice here: Enforcement or no gun law. On our side, we say enforcement 
and sensible gun laws.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 5 minutes of the Senator has expired.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask for 1 additional minute.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 1 additional minute to the Senator from 
California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is recognized.
  Mrs. BOXER. There is a war in our streets. Here is where we stand. We 
lost

[[Page S4048]]

58,168 of our beautiful citizens in an 11-year period in the Vietnam 
war until President Nixon ended that war because the people marched and 
the people said enough is enough.
  We have lost, in an 11-year period, 395,441 of our citizens. We have 
a war at home. It is going to take courage to stand up and say enough 
is enough. Let's commend the million moms.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 7 minutes to the Senator from New York.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York is recognized for 7 
minutes.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for 
yielding the time and the Senator from California for, as always, her 
intelligent and heartfelt remarks. She is able to combine both, 
intelligence and direct from the heart, and it is great to listen to 
her.
  I rise in support of the Daschle amendment. Let me make a couple of 
points here. I do not think we should even have to be debating whether 
to close the gun show loophole or these other modest measures because 
we all know they are the right thing to do. We all know they have the 
overwhelming support of the American people. We all know it is a small 
group of people--heartfelt, truly concerned--who hold this place in 
logjam on the issue of guns.
  Not to close the gun show loophole? Not to have a Brady check every 
time a gun is passed from one hand to another? I go around my State and 
I ask gun owners: Has the Brady law interfered with your right to bear 
arms? Not one person says yes. If it does not interfere when you go to 
a gun shop, why will it interfere when you go to a gun show?
  I had wanted to have a colloquy with my friend from New Hampshire, 
but he is not here now. But he is talking, with great erudition and 
great passion, about the Founding Fathers and what they had put in the 
Bill of Rights, a document we both revere. ``Revere'' is almost the 
right word. It is almost a godly document.
  I would have liked to have asked him if he believes the second 
amendment is absolute. Nobody much does. I believe in the first 
amendment. I believe strongly in the first amendment. Blood is shed for 
it. But when Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes said you can't scream fire in 
a crowded theater, he was putting a limit on the first amendment.
  We put limits on every amendment. What some of my colleagues seem to 
fail to realize is, the one amendment on which they do not want to put 
any limits is the second amendment. I am not one of those who belittles 
the second amendment. I think there is a fair argument that it deals 
with individuals bearing arms as opposed to just militias. But I just 
as strongly believe that reasonable limits can be placed on the second 
amendment the way we place them on the first.
  Freedom of religion is sacrosanct, as it should be. But you can't 
avoid taxes because you say it is your religion. You can't avoid 
service in the Army--you can modify it but not avoid it--because you 
say it is against your religion. Why is it that the only amendment we 
hear from the other side should not have any modification whatsoever--
even a modest modification such as the Brady law applying at a gun 
show--is the second amendment? I argue it is a misreading of the 
Constitution.
  I argue to some of my friends on the left, when we demean the second 
amendment, we are not playing fair because it was put there in the 
Constitution by the Founding Fathers and by the Thirteen Original 
States just as the other nine were in the Bill of Rights. But I would 
argue with my friends from the other side of the aisle that when they 
say it is an absolute right, as they seem to be saying today because 
these changes are so modest, they are just as wrong as the people they 
oppose on the left who demean the second amendment or who want to 
repeal it.

  I would like to make one other point. The second-degree amendment by, 
I believe it is the Senator from Mississippi, Mr. Lott, talks about 
enforcement. Again, I challenge my colleagues to put their money where 
their mouth is. I believe in enforcement. I try not to let ideological 
barriers get in the way. I have stood shoulder to shoulder with NRA 
members in New York State as we have implemented Operation Exile in 
Buffalo, in Rochester, in Syracuse, in Albany, and it has worked. It is 
an enforcement proceeding, and it works. But in so many other 
enforcement areas we get no help. In this resolution, No. 7 says it is 
a Federal crime for any person to knowingly make a false statement in 
an attempted purchase of a firearm. It is a Federal crime for convicted 
felons to purchase a firearm. Then it goes on to say that 500,000 
people have tried to buy firearms at gun shops and very few have been 
arrested.
  Do you know why very few have been arrested? Because of amendments 
supported by people on the other side that do not let an ATF agent 
stand inside a gun shop; because of amendments supported by the other 
side that the records must be destroyed; because there is actually a 
law on the books that says there can only be one unannounced visit on a 
gun shop a year.
  You want enforcement? I would love to have enforcement. I am a tough-
on-crime guy. I am for throwing the book at these folks who use guns in 
crimes and who have guns illegally. But you cannot enforce the law if 
you are going to put obstacles in the way.
  We found out by a survey done by my staff that only a small number of 
these gun shops sell most of the crime guns. Fewer than 1 percent of 
the gun shops sell 50 percent of the crime guns. So if the ATF were 
given permission by this body to enforce the law, you could shut down 
those few bad gun shops and let the others flourish. I welcome the 
opportunity to work with the Senator from Idaho, the Senator from 
Montana, and the Senator from New Hampshire on an enforcement bill that 
would do the things we have to do. I welcome that opportunity. 
Enforcement is a good idea.
  But as the Senator from California said, we can do both. One is not a 
substitute for the other. Enforcing the law is not a substitute for 
closing the gun show loophole. The two are not contradictory in 
intellectual concept or in implementation. I think it is somewhat 
disingenuous to put the two in contraposition, one to the other.
  I thank the Senator for the time she has yielded.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Nebraska.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nebraska is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. KERREY. I thank the Chair. Mr. President, I thank the group of 
people who organized the Million Mom March on Mother's Day. Three-
quarters of a million people coming to Washington, DC, is rather 
impressive. I suspect even opponents of what they are trying to do are 
impressed with citizens' willingness to come to their Nation's Capital, 
especially in this case, declaring their intent to organize in a 
peaceful, law-abiding fashion to change the law. I wish them all the 
good luck in the world, and I appreciate very much the effort they have 
made and the success they had on Mother's Day.
  I also thank Senator Daschle for bringing the juvenile justice issue 
back before this body. All of us--at least I do in Nebraska--wrestle 
with this question of juvenile justice on almost a daily basis. 
Whenever I am back in the State, it quickly goes to the top of the list 
of things about which people are concerned. We have methamphetamine 
problems and other law enforcement problems, but juvenile justice is at 
the top of the list.
  This legislation would be relatively easy to pass were it not for 
this gun show amendment which I will address. It has tougher 
enforcement provisions, but it also provides resources to States, 
Governors, and community organizations so we can prevent crime from 
happening in the first place. It is almost without controversy that the 
compromise provisions we reached on the law enforcement side and the 
prevention side will work, and the communities are asking for that 
bill. What is holding it up is this gun show provision. I have come to 
the floor to talk about it.
  I listened carefully to the opposition to the original Lautenberg 
amendment, especially those who said there was too much paperwork, too 
much regulation. I played a role in it, I called Tom Nichols in Omaha, 
NE, who operates one of the largest gun dealerships in the Midwest to 
ask him if he would help me fashion something. Frankly, I worked

[[Page S4049]]

with Mr. Nichols before trying to reduce the paperwork gun dealers 
face, which does not increase safety but increases paperwork without 
anything one can measure and say was beneficial.
  He agreed, understanding he would take a little heat for 
participating. I shipped him the Lautenberg amendment. He made 
modifications and changes. Senator Lautenberg offered that amendment 
the second time. Now, what we are talking about is something that, in 
my view, requires a minimal amount of regulations.
  As the Senator from New York said earlier, unlike most businesses, a 
gun dealer has a relatively small amount of regulation to face. It may 
feel like a lot if it is your business. I am licensed to sell alcoholic 
beverages in the State of Nebraska, and there is no restriction that 
someone can only come in once a year to inspect my premises, and if I 
destroy my records, it is only a misdemeanor. They can come in six 
times a day if they want to make certain I am obeying the law. We have 
a fairly light hand already in terms of regulation, given the 
transactions that are in place.
  The Lautenberg-Kerrey--if I can be so bold as to call it that--
amendment decreases in a significant way the paperwork that was 
required in the original amendment.
  If one looks at the statistics, there are a very high number of 
handguns that are purchased from dealers, about 3.5 million, and about 
2 million that are purchased off the books. I am not saying all those 
are bought at gun shows, but there are 2,000 to 5,000 gun shows every 
year, so a pretty big fraction of those are purchased there.
  Like every licensed dealer, this is what the gun show dealer will 
have to do: They will have to register with ATF and pay a small fee. If 
someone objects to the size of the fee, let's debate that. They license 
themselves; they just register with ATF.
  Each vendor has to show proof of identification when they check into 
the gun show. All they verify is that the vendor is who he or she 
claims to be.
  The gun show promoter has to let people know every gun sold has to go 
through the NICS background check. That is a full 3-day background 
check. That is the extent of the regulation. We modified the original 
amendment and now have one that, in my view, will save lives. Will it 
save millions of lives? Probably not. Will it save hundreds of lives? 
Probably not. What value do we place on a human life? How do we value 
the number of lives that have already been saved by the Brady 
background checks themselves?
  The State of Nebraska is a State where hunting is almost a religion; 
it is a way of life. Kids in Nebraska are raised to handle guns in a 
safe fashion at a very early age, to handle long rifles, to handle 
shotguns, and even handguns at a very early age. These people are not 
the problem. I would not be here voting for something that is going to 
impose a regulatory requirement upon them if I did not believe strongly 
that it will save lives in other parts of the country. In my view, it 
will. That is what this is all about.
  Are we going to try to balance the needs of one group of people 
against the needs of another? The Senator from New York talked about 
that. That is exactly what we do. That is what the doctrine of relative 
rights says. I do have freedom of speech, unless my freedom of speech 
bumps up and endangers the life of somebody else. Oftentimes, that is 
the problem with guns.
  I agree with those who say we ought to enforce the laws. I agree that 
law enforcement needs to be given more power. But, I don't agree that 
enforcing the laws alone is the answer. We must also enact reasonable 
measures like this.
  This is a very reasonable change in the laws of the land. It imposes 
what I consider to be a very modest regulatory burden upon people who 
are organizing gun shows. It is hardly about any measurement of 
regulation. Go to any business in America where we regulate for safe 
drinking water or anything else. This is a relatively small burden for 
such an obvious benefit.
  I hope Senators will examine--I see the Senator from New Jersey is 
here--what I have been calling it the Lautenberg-Kerrey amendment. It 
imposes a very small burden upon people who are opening up gun shows 
and operating gun shows. I do not want to shut down the gun shows. 
This, obviously, does not shut them down; this allows them to continue 
to operate.
  In addition, there is another argument that the playing field needs 
to be leveled, that the regulatory playing field needs to be the same 
on every premise where guns are sold. Why should you give me an 
advantage? Why should you say if you want to be a licensed gun dealer, 
build a building, and hire and employ people to work in your local 
community, there is a set of regulations you have to go through. But if 
all you want to do is have a gun show once every 6 months or so, you do 
not have to go through the same kind of regulation.
  I appreciate very much that this has become a contentious debate, but 
frankly, when you look at what we are asking in the regulation, it 
perplexes me.
  This is holding up a very important piece of legislation. The 
Juvenile Justice Act is a piece of legislation, in my view, that will 
reduce crime and reduce violent crime and increase the likelihood that 
it will prevent them as well. It has been worked out. Republicans and 
Democrats came together. It was a very big vote. My guess is, it will 
probably be 100-0 without this one particular contentious provision.
  I hope Senators will examine what this so-called gun show provision 
does. It is not unreasonable regulation. It is reasonable regulation 
that, based upon the success of Brady, we can say will produce a 
benefit that is worth the price.
  That is what all of us, as we try to figure out whether or not we are 
going to support a particular regulation, regardless of who is being 
regulated, ought to examine. Is the cost of the regulation worth the 
benefit we get? In this case, I overwhelmingly, enthusiastically, and 
unfortunately painfully, because it is slowing down the enactment of a 
very good law, come to the conclusion that it will.
  I hope through the course of this debate, this will become clear. A 
majority in the country, 80 percent of the people, favor it when it is 
described specifically to them. It is not something that should be 
slowing down the Juvenile Justice Act. Indeed, we ought to see it as 
not only consistent with, but strengthening the Juvenile Justice Act 
and pass it with all due speed.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Burns). The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President I have sat quietly by through the hours of 
last evening and listened to my colleagues debate a sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution with great passion, and I respect them for their passion. I 
think all of us enter issues wanting to believe in them and trust they 
are the right thing to do. We saw an awful lot of moms on The Mall this 
weekend marching because they thought it was the right thing to do. 
They marched against violence, I trust.
  Some of them have had violence ravaged against them and their 
families, and they were here to speak out about that. Interestingly 
enough, underlying the march was a premise of gun registration and gun 
control. I think most Americans recognize while that is an important 
issue with violence, that does not solve the violence that takes away 
so many of our young people. That is why we are on the floor today.
  It is strange we find ourselves with such passion about something 
that will not count. A sense-of-the-Senate resolution is like walking 
outside and saying: It's pretty nice today, and tomorrow it will 
probably be better. But, of course, the Presiding Officer knows 
tomorrow it may not be better; it may be worse, weatherwise. In other 
words, just saying it does not make it so.

  A sense-of-the-Senate resolution is in itself a political point, a 
political expression. It is not substantive law. It is not intended to 
be. It is intended to make a political point.
  So what is the fuss about? The fuss is that we have already dealt 
with this issue, and the House rejected it. Somehow my colleagues on 
the other side of the aisle cannot accept the idea that the Congress of 
the United States has rejected something about which they feel so 
passionate.
  So they have stopped the process in the Senate. They have chosen a 
tactic that most of us would choose not to use to stop the process in a 
nonsubstantive

[[Page S4050]]

way. I do not dispute their passion, but I do question their motives.
  Here we are dealing with a piece of legislation that has to pass this 
year to make our Government run. I serve on the subcommittee of 
appropriations that deals with military construction. The Senator from 
Washington serves on that committee. She was there at that committee 
making sure her bases in Washington and my base in Idaho got treated 
fairly. But we are stalled out right now. We have lost 8 hours of 
critical time in a very short legislative year, not out of substantive 
debate but a political point.
  I know that may spell some degree of importance, but passing the 
Daschle resolution today does not the world change. Passing the 
Lautenberg amendment last year might have changed the world if the 
House had not said no to the Senate's approach. So here we are today in 
politics and not in legislation.
  Of course, the other side wants to be reflective of what those women 
said on The Mall. So do I. I cannot tell you I feel their pain because 
I have not lost a loved one to violence. But I think I can understand 
just a little bit of it. You see, there were other moms marching there, 
too, but they did not get much attention. They, too, had lost loved 
ones to violence. But they also recognized that they have a right in 
this country; and the right is to self-defense to protect themselves 
and their families when law enforcement cannot make it there in time. 
Moms want to do that. They will put themselves in harm's way to protect 
their children.
  Tragically enough, the other moms are saying: Let the Government do 
it. The Government can fix this problem. And the Government can fix 
this problem if it will only pass a law.
  Oh, my goodness. What a hoax. What a false premise, to tell those 
moms, who came from all over the country, with dedicated concerns, that 
we will just pass a law and the world will be a better place. It has 
not happened.
  This Congress, year after year, struggles with violence in our 
country; and we reshape the structure of our laws to deal with it. Yet 
we have not found an answer to it. We have not found an answer to it 
because our culture has changed dramatically over the years.
  The family unit is different than it used to be. Children are reared 
differently than they used to be. The violence in our juvenile culture 
today is alarming. We all appreciate it. We are all frustrated by it 
and angered by it. Yet you were led to believe that all kids die 
because of a gun. It ``ain't'' so. It just ``ain't'' so.
  In 1997, 1,700 kids died because of motor vehicles. They were killed 
in a car crash, a violent car crash. Sixteen hundred were killed in 
traffic accidents. That is violence, perpetrated on somebody 10 years 
of age or younger.

  Mr. President, 750 died by drowning. We know we cannot outlaw 
drowning. Now, we can teach kids to swim, and we can teach water 
safety, and we can lessen the risk, but, God knows, we cannot legislate 
here to stop drowning because if we could, we would. But we know we 
cannot.
  Mr. President, 575 died of suffocation--rolled over on their pillow, 
rolled over on a plastic mattress, got a sack over their head--some 
very dramatic--and, in the end, a violent act.
  Residential fires, 570; struck by or on something, 89; falls, 87; 
cycling, 78; poisoning, 58.
  Now, this is 1997. But yet on The Mall on Saturday, it was: 5,000 
kids die because of guns. They were not telling the truth. That is the 
problem. Because the bulk of those kids were 15 to 19 years of age, and 
they were caught in the crossfire of a drug war on the streets of 
America.
  That is violence and that is tragic and that is horrible. And we are 
going to try to fight a war on drugs. But in 1997, only 48 kids age 10 
years or younger were killed by the misuse of a firearm. And the number 
is less today.
  Those are the facts. Those are the facts that come from the National 
Center for Injury Prevention and Control. And doggone it, we ought to 
set the record straight, and we ought to be honest with those moms. 
That is what we ought to be. Yet today we are not.
  Today, the rhetoric is not about the violence in America against 
America's young people; it is about a false premise of passing a law 
and the world will be better and the Sun will come up tomorrow. I do 
not think we can do that. I would like to be able to do it. I am not at 
all convinced we can.
  Firearms, misused, killing young people, 10 years of age or younger, 
is 10th or 11th on the list of how young kids die 10 years of age or 
younger. Those are the facts. It is important we talk about them.
  So we are stalled out on a critically important piece of legislation 
that ought to move. I hope it will move.
  We dealt with guns last year, and the Congress rejected what we did. 
I did not support it. I voted against it. I thought it had gone too 
far. Pass a law; fix it; it is all over with; we have made the world a 
safer place.
  And 20,000 gun laws that we currently have, with few of them being 
enforced--and most of them not, in many instances--and we pass another 
law and turn to the American people with a straight face, and say: The 
world will now be safe? I think not. And guess what. The American 
people understand it.
  On Saturday of this past week, a candidate for President stood up and 
said: I am going to buy a lot of safety locks, and I am going to make 
them available to people who want to use them. Somebody said: That is a 
silly idea. I say that is a great idea. Why aren't we doing this with 
Government here? Why don't we voluntarily get involved in making the 
world safer and educating people and training them?
  The Senator from Nebraska said: Kids who are trained in the use of 
firearms do not hurt themselves. And they know better because they know 
a firearm is a dangerous object misused. Kids who are not trained, kids 
who are not educated, are the kids who hurt themselves. Yet this 
Government is not involved in an educational program.
  So when a candidate for President steps up and says, ``Let's make the 
world safer, on a voluntary basis,'' somebody says, ``Make it 
mandatory.'' We are going to set up a cop system to go into every house 
to check to see if every gun has a trigger lock on it? I do not think 
we are going to do that. Yet that is kind of what the other side is 
suggesting: Make it mandatory, and enforce it.
  How do you enforce a law such as that? The practicality is, you 
don't. You don't enter every home in America to prove it; that is, 
unless you have licensed the gun and you know the gun is there. Then do 
you do random checks on private property? I don't think we get there, 
either. I think our Constitution, somewhere else in its text, would 
deny the Government of this country the right to enter that private 
property, for whatever reason, unless there was just cause and a court 
order. Those are some of the real issues.
  I am frustrated--I think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
are, too--that we cannot reach out and solve these critical problems, 
that somehow the passion that we feel about the violence that is 
wrought against the young people in this country cannot be fixed by 
this august and powerful body called the Senate. We know we can't fix 
it, so let's try to politic it. Boy, have we tried.

  The other side couldn't gain traction because the American people 
said: Something is wrong besides just laws. Something is wrong in the 
culture of our country. Something is wrong with all of the violence our 
children see, and it transfers into their minds. Somehow they begin to 
understand that they can act violently, and there is no consequence for 
that action or there is less consequence. Yes, they watch a lot of 
violent activities on television and, yes, they play a lot of violent 
games and, yes, it has an impact. Well, let's fix Hollywood.
  Do you think this side of the aisle would do that? I doubt that. We 
are not going to fix them because that is first amendment rights. 
Nobody over here is saying we have to restrict first amendment rights. 
It is only the second amendment we fix.
  That is why we are here today, stalled out, for the political point 
the opposition is trying to make on this issue. It is raw politics. It 
is not substance, and they know it, because it is a sense of the 
Senate. Last year, when we debated the Lautenberg amendment, that was 
substance. That could have become law if the Congress of the United 
States had agreed. But they didn't.

[[Page S4051]]

  We are here today stalled out for the politics of the issue, not the 
substance of the issue. We want to say to the Million Mom March and the 
hundreds of thousands who were gathered on The Mall, we care, we hear 
you. That is what we keep hearing from some of our Senators. Well, we 
all heard them, and you are darned right, we care.
  The issue is violence in America--all violence, not just guns. That 
is a minority part of the violence. It is sometimes the most visible 
and the most publicized, but this is the beginning of spring and into 
summer. This is the swimming season. Nobody today is standing on the 
floor suggesting hundreds of kids will drown this year from improper 
training and improper supervision of their parents and we ought to pass 
a law to save all those kids. No, we are not doing that. Why? Because 
we can't. That is why.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
New Jersey.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey is recognized for 
10 minutes.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, we have just witnessed one of the most 
significant demonstrations this country has ever seen: 750,000 moms, 
some pops, some grandpops, some grandmas, people who love their 
children, people who want to protect their children, sending a message, 
when they gathered 750,000 strong, just in Washington, DC. There were 
other cities across the country where not too dissimilar demonstrations 
and marches were being held. There were large turnouts in lots of 
cities.
  As a matter of fact, one in New Jersey, one mom march, was headed by 
people who have become my friends. Their name is LoCicero. Jake 
LoCicero and his wife lost their daughter on the Long Island train, 
killed by an assassin who took quite a few lives. They were active gun 
club members, NRA. They said: Enough; we are not doing this anymore. We 
don't want our daughter to have died in vain. She was young, about to 
get married, in her early twenties. They believed she had to make a 
contribution. Her life was so valuable, she had to leave a legacy that 
went beyond her short time on Earth.
  Then we hear the trivialization of laws to try to protect children, 
as we just heard: It is just politics; it is only politics. What do you 
mean, you want to protect your kid when they go to school? That is 
politics.
  When are we going to stop this nonsense here? ``Nonsense,'' I use the 
word advisedly. We just heard our friend from Idaho talk about how many 
children die in automobile accidents and how many die falling off bikes 
and how many die suffocating in their cribs. I ask any of my 
colleagues, don't we have regulations that say put a safety belt on, 
put a child in a child seat? I have seven grandchildren. I watch my 
daughters put their children in the seats because they don't want them 
to get hurt. They know what the rules are. They could violate the rules 
and say, no, I am not going to do it, but good sense says you have to 
do it.
  There are all kinds of warnings about different mattress covers and 
plastic bags and things of that nature. There are warnings about 
wearing helmets when you go out for a bike ride. We try to stop the 
mayhem in those situations. But our friend over here said: No. Don't 
worry about the few kids who are killed by guns. He made a statement--
and I want the Record to be checked to be sure that that statement was 
what I heard, and I listened carefully--guns don't kill.
  How does that lead pellet get through a kid's heart or his head if it 
doesn't come from a gun? It doesn't come from a knife. It is not 
because of a slingshot. It comes from a gun.
  Mr. CRAIG. Will the Senator yield?
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. Yes, I will yield.
  Mr. CRAIG. I did not make that statement.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will check the Record.
  Mr. CRAIG. Please, check the Record. I did not make that statement.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. You said guns don't kill.
  Mr. CRAIG. I didn't say that.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I have the floor, thank you very much.
  Trivializing the ownership of guns, saying that if we have gun 
enforcement laws, guards from the Federal Government will come into 
every room in every house. Don't protect the children.
  He wants to have a statistical debate about how many really died. Not 
that many. Heck, no, not so many. A few maybe, but not a lot--unless it 
is your kid, unless it is your friend, unless it is your niece or your 
nephew or your sister's kid or your brother's kid. A lot of us have not 
experienced it directly, but anyone who doesn't empathize or sympathize 
with someone who has lost a child, who doesn't understand the emotion 
that renders, doesn't get it, just doesn't understand it.

  When 12 young people were shot in Columbine High School, those were 
not the only wounds. There were some who were hit by guns who also were 
wounded. But that wounding took place throughout the school, throughout 
the community, throughout the country. People had a vision of that boy 
hanging down from the window pleading for help: Save me. We couldn't 
hear the words, but we could see the gesture.
  Well, we are detached from that. Why do you have to control guns? 
Just because a few kids got killed? That is what is being said here. I 
can't believe my ears. We will check the Record. We could be mistaken 
about one thing, but check the Record and see what it says.
  Kids get killed from drowning. It is as if to say, if kids get killed 
from bike rides, from car rides, from suffocating in a crib or 
drowning, then that is kind of normal. It isn't normal because we have 
lifeguards and all kinds of protections. But when it comes to guns, no, 
you can't touch that. We hear about the second amendment.
  I am always reminded, when we discuss the second amendment, it was 
said by the Supreme Court that the amendment guarantees the right to be 
armed only in service to a well regulated militia.
  No one has an automatic right to own a firearm. No one has the right 
to own a firearm without a license. No one has the right to buy a gun 
without those of us in the community asking who they are. I authored 
the Lautenberg law, along with Senator Kerrey from Nebraska. Both of us 
served in the military. I wasn't as heroic. He is a Medal of Honor 
winner, having lost a leg in Vietnam. I spent my time in World War II. 
I was not touched. We know something about guns. Should someone be able 
to buy a gun from an unlicensed dealer? That is the subject. From an 
unlicensed dealer, no questions asked, buyers anonymous --oh, protect 
the identity of that potential felon, protect the identity of someone 
who may be so disturbed, that if they get their hands on a gun, they 
will kill somebody. It has happened. We have seen it lots of times. We 
have seen it at Columbine, with two young boys who were too young to 
buy a gun. A girl testified before the Colorado Legislature that she 
went around with them to find a nonlicensed dealer to buy guns. She 
said, ``If I knew then what I know now, I would have never done it.'' 
Twelve children and a teacher are now dead. There have been bombs and 
everything else.
  We didn't have to openly say, OK, because kids get killed in swimming 
pools, cars, or in bike accidents, you can have guns. Why shouldn't you 
have guns? What does one thing have to do with the other? Heaven forbid 
it is a child in your family.
  Talking about the second amendment, Chief Justice Warren Burger--a 
conservative appointed to the Supreme Court by President Nixon, and a 
gun owner himself--called the NRA's distortion of the second amendment 
``a fraud on the American public.'' Cases are never tested on the 
second amendment in court. Now, they can't prove that. But there is 
this mythology about what happens when it comes to guns. If you want to 
own them, you can. If you want to identify yourself, fine. If you don't 
want to, that is OK, too. What I heard proposed was that maybe every 
child or every person who walks this Earth should have a gun, and they 
can act quickly enough so if a law enforcement guy doesn't get there on 
time, they can stop a murder that might be taking place. I ask the 
manager, is there any more time available?

  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield the Senator from New Jersey 3 additional 
minutes.

[[Page S4052]]

  Mr. LAUTENBERG. I will wrap up, Mr. President. This is a passionate 
debate, and it ought to be. It ought not to be called politics. I would 
like to hear any of those who advocate not shutting down the unlicensed 
dealers tell it to the 750,000 women out there, those who were talking 
from experience, who lost a child. We have heard them. The Senator from 
California and the Senator from Illinois are on the floor. We heard 
them talk about the child who had a bullet go through his spine here in 
Washington, DC--19 years old, a promising young man just in the 
beginning of life.
  Mr. President, I have to ask this question. If this sense-of-the-
Senate resolution is so insignificant that it should have just been in 
law, then why not let it pass? Why not have this Senate say: Million 
moms, we salute you; we commend you; we understand you; and we hear 
you--not, oh, no, no; we don't want to do that because that only 
encourages, in some perverse way, violence. And you have to get guns in 
everybody's hands so they can protect themselves.
  I fought as hard as I could to get an amendment into law--a piece of 
legislation that would prevent spousal abusers from getting guns. I 
fought tooth and nail with Senators on the floor. Some might say that 
is a worthless thing; why bother? Well, 150,000 times a year it is 
reported that a woman in this country gets a gun pointed at her head 
and he says, ``I'm going to blow your brains out.'' What happens to the 
children who see that or the neighbors who hear that? What happens to 
the woman when he pulls the trigger? We know what happens. They fought 
me tooth and nail. But the President and I worked together and got it 
on a budget bill that had to pass.
  Mr. President, 33,000 permits for guns have been denied when the 
applicant wasn't of sufficient mind or character to own a gun--33,000 
times we have said no in 3\1/2\ years to those people who wanted to 
have guns. We had a fight over the Brady bill. Over 500,000 gun permits 
have been denied since the beginning of Brady. Does that help prevent 
lives from being lost?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 3 minutes have expired.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield the Senator from New Jersey 2 additional minutes 
to finish his statement.
  Mr. LAUTENBERG. It is time to put the rhetoric aside. Let's see if 
there really is an interest in doing what we want to do, and that is 
express ourselves and pass a sense of the Senate that we Senators agree 
we ought to do something about gun violence and not go into long tales 
about kids dying from drownings and other things. Why can't we 
regulate, in some form, the way guns are handled out there and make 
sure we know who the buyers are, make sure that we have the right kind 
of law enforcement? We do it because it has increased substantially 
since gun laws were on the books. We have reduced the number of people 
who are out on the streets with guns. They are in jail. But to try to 
minimize the value of controlling who buys a gun--how does that hurt 
anybody who wants to buy a gun, a legitimate gun purchaser? It doesn't 
hurt anybody.

  I hope we can finally come together here and say, OK, this sense of 
the Senate doesn't hurt anything anyway. Let's do it and say we are 
serious. Let's say to the moms who marched out there last Sunday: We 
hear you and we understand what you are talking about. A million moms 
were marching from across the country. We hear debate about whether or 
not kids get killed from other sources as well. It hardly seems 
serious. It hardly seems real. It hardly seems possible that we could 
be having this kind of debate.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho is recognized.
  Mr. CRAIG. Before I yield to my colleague from Wyoming, it hardly 
seems important, but it is. I joined with the Senator from New Jersey 
to right the spousal abuse provision, and I voted for it. He didn't say 
that on the floor; he should have. We had some disagreements. We worked 
out those differences so that those who are adjudicated spousal abusers 
can't buy a gun. But those who were only accused but not proven can 
still hold their rights. Those are the facts. The Senator from New 
Jersey knows it; he failed to say it.
  I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Wyoming.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized for 10 
minutes.
  Mr. ENZI. Mr. President, I want to bring to the attention of all 
Senators, and anyone else who might hear our words, that it is a very 
confusing situation here on the floor. One might think the issue up for 
debate is guns. The underlying issue of the entire debate process is 
military construction--military construction. That is where we take 
care of the security of this Nation. That is where we provide for 
military housing. That is where we provide for cleaning up the 
environment on bases that are having a problem. That is where we 
provide for the morale of our military.
  But you heard guns discussed. This is an amendment that I think is 
not germane to the process. It is not about security, not about 
housing, not about the environment, not about the morale of our 
military people. It is not about the military. We are going to use up a 
day and a half debating that. The other side says, well, if it is so 
insignificant, why not pass it? Because we are setting a precedent for 
this body that we have not had before. We are setting a precedent for 
this body that under appropriations we are going to debate a sense of 
the Senate that anybody brings up, whether it applies to anything in 
the bill or not.
  That is a very important precedent. It is very important that we do 
not set that precedent, that we do not get off on debating any whim 
that anybody in the Senate wants to do under any bill. There has to be 
a process--particularly a process for spending almost $2 trillion of 
the people's money. This is supposed to be a deliberative debate about 
spending the money--spending the money on military construction--just 
military construction. Instead we are talking about guns.

  Last night, the Senator from California said we have time for this; 
that, after all, we have 4 months left before the new appropriations 
have to go into place.
  I want everyone to understand that, 4 months. First of all, we will 
not be here for all of the 4 months. This is an election year. People 
will be leaving to participate in their candidacy. We will be gone 
during August.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
  Mr. ENZI. I am sorry. Time is equally divided on this. I will not 
yield.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator declines to yield.
  Mr. ENZI. We have 4 months. One month we will be gone for recess. 
That leaves 12 weeks. We have 13 appropriations bills. We seldom pass 
more than one appropriations bill a week.
  I can tell you that if we start doing sense-of-the-Senate resolutions 
on appropriations bills, we will not be able to get them finished in a 
week. What does that do? That puts the process that the Constitution 
says is ours, the Congress of the United States, in the hands of the 
President.
  I have to admit that were I the President, I might want that to 
happen, and that is why the other side delays and delays and delays 
with things such as sense-of-the-Senate resolutions.
  Last year, we put rule XVI back into effect. We said we are not going 
to legislate on appropriations bills. That was a major move for this 
country. We said there will be no legislation on bills.
  Now what we are talking about as the point of this whole debate is 
whether we are going to have sense-of-the-Senate resolutions back door. 
Why is that important? We said no real legislation.
  Now are we going to allow any kind of a debate we want on any kind of 
a topic with a sense-of-the-Senate resolution? A sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution says it is kind of our opinion, and it would make us feel 
good to pass it, and perhaps with all of the publicity we can persuade 
America that we are right. Well, America sees through that. America 
knows whether we are really doing our work or whether we are trying to 
make people feel good. We don't know that yet. But they know that.
  That is the process that we are going through. This will set a 
precedent. We set a precedent under the budget this year. There were 
dozens of sense-of-the-Senate resolutions that did not make it into the 
budget process. I know. I negotiated two sense-of-the-Senate 
resolutions dealing with OSHA.

[[Page S4053]]

 That is one of the most difficult things to reach agreement on between 
the Democrats and the Republicans. But it was for the safety of 
American workers. We agreed to two of them. We had another one on 
health care.
  Sometimes it is difficult for Republicans and Democrats to agree. We 
agreed.
  Then in the budget process, we said no, unless these have been fully 
debated. And there is a very limited time for debate. In the budget, we 
said we are not going to do that.
  Some very good sense-of-the-Senate resolutions went down. We decided 
at that point in the process that we should not do sense-of-the-Senate 
resolutions; they really do not mean much except for people being able 
to stand up later and say: This sense of the Senate passed 100-0. Well, 
they passed it in a hurry to get it out of the way so we could get on 
with substantial debate that this body is charged with--the bipartisan 
effort that we are charged with of getting an appropriations bill 
finished, and then the other 12 appropriations bills that we are 
supposed to do.
  We cannot concede 8 hours of debate on every issue that wasn't 
brought up through any other process. We can't give up 8 hours on every 
partisan issue that can come to this body.
  Never mind that it was a knee-jerk, one-size-fits-all, do-it-in-
Washington, make-the-people-feel-good motion. It doesn't solve 
problems. It just doesn't solve it. It is just a political issue. It 
isn't a complete reflection of even the march that happened Sunday.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
an article from today's Washington Post by Courtland Milloy in which he 
talks about some of the other issues at the march. It wasn't all about 
guns. It was about the safety of our kids. But you can tell that the 
big publicity thing is guns. I ask the Senate to watch what is 
happening and not set a precedent.
  I thank the Senator for the time.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, May 17, 2000]

                   To Be Safe, Start With the Driver

                         (By Courtland Milloy)

       Lisa Sheikh, a child safety advocate, was a volunteer at 
     the Million Mom March. She was moved by the speeches, 
     including one praising this generation of mothers for doing 
     so much to make children safer, like getting childproof caps 
     on medicine bottles and better car seats for children.
       But Sheikh is also director of the Partnership for Safe 
     Driving. She knows that more children are killed in car 
     crashes than by guns and that many of the people operating 
     those deadly vehicles are mothers.
       ``A lot of others are speeding and running red lights,'' 
     Sheikh said.
       Sheikh, fresh from the march, had come to see me because we 
     disagree about some of the ways being used to get people to 
     drive safely. She favors automated enforcement--i.e., 
     cameras--to curb red-light running; I do not. I think a 
     driver's education program, updated to deal with the new 
     realities of our congested roads, would work.
       She thinks an education campaign by itself would take too 
     long to make a difference. She does agree with me, though, 
     that driver's education and safety have never really been 
     given a fair chance.
       Most of the efforts by the National Highway Traffic Safety 
     Administration, for instance, have been on making car crashes 
     safer, not drivers smarter.
       Indeed, the NHTSA Web page is taken up largely with news 
     about seat belts, air bags and those celebrity ``crash 
     dummies.''
       ``It's all about how well does this or that car perform in 
     a crash,'' Sheikh said. ``No one is talking about the role of 
     the driver.''
       The Partnership for Safe Driving, which was formed three 
     years ago, seeks to change driving behavior through 
     television, radio and print advertising campaigns. The 
     Washington-based organization is seeking funds for a 
     nationwide education effort.
       To be fair, the NHTSA puts out a little ``Driver's Guide to 
     Coping With Congestion.''
       ``You are late for work--again,'' it begins. ``Traffic is 
     bumper to bumper. You can feel the tension mounting. Suddenly 
     you see an opening. You accelerate. You jerk your wheel 
     quickly to the left. Mission accomplished.
       ``Welcome,'' the guide says, ``to commuter purgatory, where 
     heavy traffic has unleashed the `driving demon' in all of 
     us.''
       Tips to get out of this man-made hell include planning 
     ahead, concentrating, relaxing, telecommuting or changing 
     jobs.
       I think we can do better than that.
       When I was in high school, we had a real driver's education 
     program, complete with driving simulators and a fleet of cars 
     for real test drives. This was back in the 1960s. Surely, the 
     technology is now available to provide even more 
     comprehensive understanding of the rules of the road.
       Moreover, my driver's education course was not just about 
     how to maneuver a car. It was also about developing 
     appreciation for the high level of cooperation required to 
     keep our highways safe.
       In recent years, driver's education programs have been cut 
     from most public high schools in the country, even as crashes 
     caused by inexperienced teenage drivers were increasing.
       So, we cut funds for driver's education, then address the 
     resulting problem with moneymaking enforcement techniques, 
     such as red-light cameras. (Come to think of it, we do the 
     same thing with public schools and private prisons. Cut funds 
     in one, then clean up the resulting mess by building more of 
     the other.)
       Sheikh believes we have no choice for now, that red-light 
     running has reached epidemic proportions. Running red lights, 
     she notes, is the third leading cause of traffic deaths, 
     behind speeding and drunken driving.
       ``People simply have more demands on their time--with two 
     working adults struggling to get children to and from school, 
     then going off to work, then getting them to soccer practice 
     and other activities,'' she said. ``They don't have time to 
     do everything. So they are trying to make up time on the 
     road. Of course, that's not an excuse.''
       But it could be part of an safe driver's education 
     campaign: a soccer mom and her smoking gun that, in this 
     case, could be a Volvo.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from 
Rhode Island.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized 
for 10 minutes.
  Mr. REED. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank the Senator from 
Washington for yielding the time.
  I rise in support of Senator Daschle's resolution to commend the 
participants in the Million Mom March, and to also call on Congress to 
pass meaningful gun safety legislation. Senator Daschle, as we all 
know, has been a long-time advocate and leader on the issue of gun 
control. I thank him for taking this issue on. I would prefer, frankly, 
to be speaking about real legislation.
  I find it ironic that Members of the Senate would be bemoaning the 
fact that we don't have real legislation before us when, in fact, 
legislation is bottled up in a conference committee because of a gun 
lobby in the NRA. We all would prefer to be speaking about real 
legislation that would do something.
  This is a resolution that follows another resolution I sponsored just 
a few weeks ago on the budget that would have called for the conferees 
to meet and to discharge and send to us a conference report including 
all the provisions, including the Lautenberg-Kerrey gun show provision 
that we passed almost a year ago. That resolution passed 53-47 on a 
bipartisan basis.
  It is quite clear that these measures should return to us in the form 
of the juvenile justice conference report that will be passed by this 
Senate.
  What that caused is the gun lobby and the NRA to do all they can to 
ensure that conference report stays locked up in the conference.
  We are here today because we want to move forward on an agenda of 
sensible gun control. We want to respond to the thousands and thousands 
of mothers who came to Washington last weekend and who asked us to act 
responsibly to protect the children of this country. A vast majority of 
Americans support us. They support these measures, and they, in fact, 
are insistent that we take action.
  If there is any reason today why we are talking about another 
resolution on a military construction appropriations, it is because the 
gun lobby has dug themselves in to prevent consideration of real 
legislation. We have to overcome that opposition. We have to overcome 
it by word and by deed. Last Sunday, the mothers of America marched. 
Now it is our responsibility to act today at least by passing this 
resolution.
  We also know the real sticking point in this legislative battle is 
the Lautenberg-Kerrey amendment with respect to gun shows. What we want 
to do and what I think the American people want to do is apply the same 
rules of the Brady background checks to all sales at gun shows. The 
Brady bill gives law enforcement authority up to 72 hours--brief as it 
is--to conduct a background check on a prospective purchaser of a 
firearm.
  What happened was in the development of the original Brady law there 
was a loophole created which would

[[Page S4054]]

allow unlicensed dealers at gun shows to avoid these background checks. 
Interestingly enough, three of the weapons used by the Columbine 
killers were acquired at a gun show because even these young men knew 
that they could go to a gun show and avoid a background check, and that 
they could, in cohort with another, purchase arms without a background 
check. We want to close it. I hope we can.
  This is also the case throughout the country where this is not just a 
Democratic-Republican issue.
  The Governor of Colorado, Gov. Bill Owens, a Republican, recently 
signed a petition to place a gun show initiative with a 3-day 
background check on the ballot in his home State of Colorado.
  It is sensible, and it is long overdue. The opponents of this measure 
are suggesting that this is a mandatory waiting period--it is a 3-day 
waiting period--that a waiting period would destroy the gun shows. That 
is not the case. In fact, if you look at what is happening, it is 
because of technology. Because of the national instant check system, 
the FBI can clear 72 percent of gun buyers within 30 seconds. Another 
23 percent are cleared within 2 hours. Ninety-five percent of those 
individuals who wish to purchase a firearm in this country have their 
background checks completed in 2 hours.
  What about the other 5 percent?
  The other 5 percent found out they are 20 times more likely to have 
prohibitive information in their files which will restrict their access 
to a firearm. Here is what is happening: The gun lobby and the NRA 
protect 5 percent of gun purchasers who are much more likely to be 
prohibited from owning firearms, are willing to sabotage the closing of 
this loophole, are willing to jeopardize, if you will, the safety of 
Americans. I don't think that is right.
  What we can and should apply the Brady law across the board to all 
sales of gun shows. I don't think it will interfere materially in any 
way with the rights of a law-abiding citizen to acquire a firearm. In 
fact, I think it will contribute to the public safety and to the sense 
that the mothers in America tried so vividly to create last weekend: 
That this country, with all of its violence, has to do something 
different and has to do something better.
  I hope we can move forward with real legislation, not another 
resolution. I hope we can recognize what hundreds of thousands of 
Americans were saying to their Government last Sunday: Pass sensible 
gun safety legislation.
  I commend the mothers and all the supporters who were on The Mall. I 
commend Senator Daschle for his efforts. I hope we will, before 
Memorial Day, be voting on the juvenile justice bill containing these 
measures which will protect all Americans, and particularly the 
children in America.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington has 27 minutes; 
the Senator from Idaho has 30 minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Washington for 
yielding. For those who have not followed this debate closely, it is 
true that we are not debating the passage of a law; we are debating the 
passage of a resolution which is more or less a message of the Senate 
expressing its opinion.
  Why aren't we debating a law, since this is supposed to be the Senate 
and we pass laws? Because the law is bottled up in a committee. The gun 
safety law we passed in the Senate after the Columbine massacre is 
bottled up in a committee by the National Rifle Association. The 
Republicans control the Senate and the House, and they will not let the 
bill come out of the committee. Those who believe gun safety 
legislation is needed have to resort to these devices to try to at 
least bring the issue up for consideration by the Senate.
  My colleague from the State of Wyoming said the sense-of-the-Senate 
resolution is nothing but delay, delay, delay. Yesterday when we 
presented this sense-of-the-Senate resolution, it was the Republican 
side that delayed it for 5 hours. When we said we wanted to commend the 
Million Mom March and we wanted to bring the gun safety bill out of 
committee, it took the Republicans 5 hours to come up with an 
alternative, a substitute, which, if you read it, is, first, a diatribe 
against the Clinton administration and, second, the reaffirmation of 
the principles of the National Rifle Association.
  That is their right on the Republican side to offer whatever they 
want to offer. We believe the message that came on The Mall last Sunday 
and across America, in Chicago and Los Angeles, of 750,000 mothers who 
gave up their Mother's Day to march, is that this Senate, this 
Congress, should get down to the business of passing laws to make 
America safer.
  It also said this sense-of-the-Senate resolution is similar to 
talking about the weather: It really doesn't do anything. It is funny 
it would take 5 hours for the Republican leadership to respond to it if 
it really doesn't do anything. What it does is put the Senators in this 
Chamber on record: Do you commend the Million Mom March? Do you want 
this legislation to come out of committee immediately? If so, vote 
``yes''; if you share the opposing position, vote ``no.'' At least 
Members are on the record.
  Senator Reed of Rhode Island offered a similar question in a sense-
of-the-Senate resolution a few weeks ago, and 53 Senators--more than a 
majority--said: Let's vote for it. Bring the bill out, and let's get on 
with it. It still sits in committee because the Republican leadership 
is blocking the effort to pass gun safety legislation.
  The Senator from Idaho stands on the floor and reminds mothers across 
America that there are many things injuring children: Automobile 
crashes, trauma, poisoning--the list goes on and on. The Senator from 
Idaho is certainly right. I don't know that the mothers of America 
needed to be reminded of that. They understood that when they came to 
The Mall. They asked us to do something about guns and the fact that 
every day in America --today, tomorrow, and the day after--12 children 
will die because of guns. Kids are dying because of gangbangers, 
accidents with guns, suicides--12 kids every single day in America. We 
have become so used to this, it doesn't make the headlines anymore. 
There is not another nation on Earth with these grizzly statistics when 
it comes to guns. It is right here. It is America, the country of which 
we are so proud.

  Mothers march to remind Congress we can do more and we can do better 
to make this world safer for their children. They are right. For the 
Senator from Idaho to say to the mothers across America, you know, a 
lot of kids get hurt in automobile accidents, it is a truism; there is 
no doubt about it.
  I remind the Senator from Idaho, there is ample legislation, Federal 
and State, establishing the safety of cars we drive, establishing 
requirements to wear seatbelts and airbags in the cars, use of a child 
safety seat and restraints, legislation all over the country to make 
car travel more accommodating and safer for children, but there are no 
laws on the books, none whatever, in Washington, DC, concerning the 
safety of guns.
  Make a toy gun to sell at Christmas and we have an agency that looks 
over your shoulder to say that may not be safe for kids. But make a 
real gun, the kind used in sport, hunting, or self-defense, and there 
are no--underline ``no''--Federal safety standards.
  When it comes to kids and cars, we write all kinds of laws about 
safety. When it comes to guns, the gun lobby says: Hands off; it is our 
constitutional right to produce any type of weapon we want.
  He talked about kids who suffocate on mattress covers and plastic 
bags. There are warnings printed. There is a Consumer Product Safety 
Commission watching these products in commerce, trying to keep them 
safe for families, but no such standards when it comes to guns in 
America.
  I think the amendment of the Senator from Idaho falls apart. If he 
wants safety for children from all the hazards, I agree with him 
completely. And we have passed laws to establish those standards of 
safety in every single area but one--the firearm industry. They can 
make any kind of gun they want, and they are not subject to any kind of 
control or supervision by the Federal Government to sell it. They can 
sell it without a child safety device such as a trigger lock. They can 
put it on the market. Look at what happens. Twelve kids in America 
every single day. Twelve mothers receive a phone call, a knock on the 
door, and are told their child has just been shot, maybe killed, by a 
gun.

[[Page S4055]]

  That is why the mothers marched in Chicago. That is why they marched 
in Washington and in Los Angeles and across the Nation. That is why we 
are on the floor of the Senate today. We don't believe that march was 
in vain. We believe that is the best illustration of democracy in 
America, when people from ordinary lives come forward and say: We are 
giving up a special day each year for mothers to let you know how 
important it is that we have safety in our schools and safety in our 
neighborhoods. We expect the Congress, the Senate, to listen. To 
listen--that is what a democracy is all about. The voters, the people, 
speak and we listen.

  Frankly, for almost a year now, this Congress has not listened. After 
the Columbine High School situation in Littleton, CO--12 kids were 
killed and a score or more were injured--America was horrified that 
this could happen in a ``good neighborhood,'' a ``good school.'' It 
happens all over America.
  I live in Springfield, IL. We are not safe from this. There is not a 
town, there is not a neighborhood, there is not a community in America 
that is safe from gun violence. We are a nation of 200 million guns. If 
you have a careless gun owner who asserts his constitutional right to 
own a gun but refuses to accept his moral responsibility to store it 
safely, you know what is going to happen. Kids are going to find it. 
Kids are going to play with it. They may hurt themselves or an 
unsuspecting playmate. They may take that gun to school, as they did in 
Jonesboro, AR--an 11-year-old and a 15-year-old with an arsenal of 
weapons from the grandfather and all the ammunition, sitting in the 
woods, pulling the fire alarm and watching the kids come out into the 
playground and firing away at the kids and their teachers.
  Should we do something about that? Should we require safety locks? 
That is part of the legislation that is bottled up in committee. That 
is part of the legislation Republicans will not bring to the floor.
  In Littleton, CO, the guns that were used to kill the students were 
purchased at gun shows without background checks. Don't we want to know 
if the purchaser is a criminal, has a history of violent mental 
illness, or is a child? I would think we would want to know that. We 
want to keep guns out of the hands of those who would misuse them, but 
the National Rifle Association says: No, it is too much of an 
inconvenience to have a background check at a gun show. These folks 
need their weapons; they need them in a hurry; and they have to get out 
in the street.
  Excuse me but walk through the airports, go through the metal 
detectors, subject yourself to the inconvenience, if you will, because 
we want safety on airplanes. If you go to a gun show, you should accept 
the burden and the inconvenience of a background check because we know 
if we do not make that background check, guns will get in the wrong 
hands. In the wrong hands it leads to crime and killing, pain, and 
suffering for mothers and fathers across America.
  It is hard to understand the position of the National Rifle 
Association. This organization of some 3 million people has made a 
mockery of democracy. When the overwhelming majority of Americans want 
sensible gun safety laws, when sportsmen and hunters will accept the 
inconvenience of a background check and say that is part of it, we 
understand it--and this organization stands in the way of sensible gun 
safety legislation time and time and time again--it is disgraceful. 
That is why we are on the floor of the Senate. We want Democrats and 
Republicans to go on the record to commend the Million Mom March and to 
stand up for gun safety legislation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Who 
yields time? The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, somehow today, if you do not believe what I 
believe, you are not caring nor are you compassionate. Let me suggest 
to anyone listening, and certainly to all Senators, no one on this side 
of the aisle--and I know no one on that side of the aisle--is saying 
that. We listen, too. Many even participated in the Million Mom March 
in this Nation's Capital last Saturday. I cannot tell you we felt their 
pain, but we heard it spoken because unless you have experienced the 
kind of loss that some of those mothers experienced, I doubt that you 
can feel it. But you can empathize with it, and all of us do.
  Is that why we are bound up on the floor with this issue today? No, 
it is not. We have been on this floor before, for the last year, on the 
issue of guns, long before the Million Mom March. The reason we have 
been on the floor is because what some have wanted to do, the rest of 
the Congress has not wanted to do--largely because the American people 
are tremendously frustrated at this moment about violence and about 
laws and laws not enforced and laws that are enforced and the lack of 
safety or the sense of security and the obvious real violence that goes 
on in America today.
  No, those moms, at least many of them, were sincere. Others, I am 
quite confident, had a political agenda. There were second amendment 
moms who were there. They had a political agenda. They are also sincere 
because they really do believe that passing gun laws does not a safer 
world make. It does not take the criminal who perpetrates the vast 
majority of the crimes off the street--who, by the way, very seldom 
walks into a gun shop and buys a gun but of course acquires his or her 
gun off the street in an illegal fashion.
  ``We want commonsense gun laws,'' is what we have heard. Yet the 
underlying mantra of the Million Mom March is not commonsense gun laws; 
it is registration and licensing. Even some of the most liberal, who 
believe in gun control, openly admit you cannot get there. You cannot 
pass licensing and registration because the Congress will not pass it 
and the public would not accept it, largely because it just would not 
work.
  Cars are licensed? Yes, cars are licensed, but you don't have to have 
a license to own a car. You don't have to have a license to drive a car 
if you drive it on your private property. A car is not a right in this 
country, guaranteed by the Constitution. You have to have a license to 
drive a car if you drive on public roads. Licenses for cars did not 
start for safety arguments; they started as a way to tax an owner of a 
vehicle to gain revenue for vehicular purposes in States.
  So there is that quick jump to logic: You have to have a license to 
own a car. Wrong. You do not need a license to own a car. It is not a 
right; it is a privilege. There is a very real difference.
  It is important that a few of us cut through the fog of the emotion 
and the rhetoric here. I do believe there are constitutional rights in 
this country. I think we ought to be terribly careful about how we 
infringe upon them. That is part of the debate we are involved in 
today, and that is the most important part as far as I am concerned.
  One of the other issues I think is most important is the question of 
ownership--250 million guns in this country and somehow we ought to 
take them all down or take a lot of them down, or register or license 
to deal with them.

  I do not find this humorous, but I find it practical. Holland is a 
nation in Europe--we all know about it: dikes and tulips, a beautiful 
country, wonderful people. Guns are outlawed in Holland. It is against 
the law to own a gun, except under unique circumstances. Guns are 
outlawed in Holland. Now the Dutch authorities are trying to come to 
grips with a rash of stabbings in Amsterdam. Last year they began a 
``turn in your knife'' campaign, to try to stop the violence in 
Amsterdam, ravaged upon fellow citizens of Holland by knives. In other 
words, violence is the issue, not guns, not knives. Now they are 
thinking in Holland about a ``buy up the knife'' campaign, something 
like we have done in this country, or even suggesting they prohibit 
knives in Holland. Politicians ought to pass a law, some are 
suggesting.
  Is it a reflection of the weapon or is it a reflection of a human 
problem that is called violence? I think it is the violence issue we 
are here about today. I know the Senator from California wants to deal 
with that issue. So do I. But I do not think we all understand how to 
deal with violence. I believe most of the moms who marched on

[[Page S4056]]

Sunday were expressing their frustration about the violence that their 
children experience.
  I yield to the Senator from Idaho such time as he may consume.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAPO. Mr. President, I appreciate the opportunity to have a few 
moments to discuss with the American people this critical issue. The 
question of violence in our society is, as the Senator from Idaho, my 
colleague, has just stated, one we all want to address. The differences 
we have in this Chamber as we debate are not over whether we want to 
address the difficult problems of violence in our society; they are 
over how we believe it must best be done. The reason I wanted to stand 
and talk today is because I am convinced if we continue to focus our 
efforts on increased gun control and more strict gun control, not only 
will we impose burdens on law-abiding Americans that are unjustified, 
but we will fail to give the attention that is necessary to the true 
causes of the violence that we have to be addressing. I want to address 
my remarks in two contexts--one, what should we be focusing on and, 
two, why is it I believe gun control is not the answer.
  I will talk about that second question first: Why is it that 
increased gun control is not the answer? Right here in Washington, DC, 
we have the best example of why we should not be looking to this as the 
best solution. In the past few months, there have been a lot of 
statements about a terrible incident of violence that took place at the 
National Zoo. I share my colleagues' concern about these high-profile 
acts of violence, but this example shows why it is that our focus on 
gun control is misdirected. The answer is not to enact more gun control 
laws but to address the root causes of violence.
  The April 24 shooting at the National Zoo should shock any law-
abiding American. At the same time, it dramatically demonstrates that 
even the more restrictive gun control laws in the Nation have little 
impact on the actions of violent criminals. In Washington, DC, it is 
illegal to possess the kind of handgun that was used in the violence at 
the National Zoo. It is not just illegal to carry them but one cannot 
even have one in one's home. Washington, DC, has the most restrictive 
gun control laws in the Nation, far more restrictive than the gun 
control laws being debated today.
  Yet it is in Washington, DC, that this shooting took place--
Washington, DC, which some have called the murder capital of the world, 
where gun violence runs rampant, from where many of the examples of gun 
violence come.
  Yet it is Washington, DC, that has tried to solve these problems 
through restrictive gun control measures that we seem to debate 
endlessly on this floor.
  Why is that the case? Some will argue the reason we do not have the 
solution in Washington, DC, is that we do not have restrictive gun laws 
everywhere and that the person who used this gun in Washington, DC, at 
the zoo could have gotten that gun elsewhere in the country and then 
brought it into Washington, DC.
  The fact is, that is not what happened. This was a stolen gun that 
was used in Washington, DC, for this crime, and the reason is, one 
cannot just bring a gun into Washington, DC, under the law. For the 
last 32 years, under Federal law that applies to all States, one cannot 
buy a gun if one is a Washington, DC, resident and bring it into the 
District. Interstate sales of handguns have been prohibited for 32 
years.
  What would happen if a D.C. resident were to go to Maryland or 
Virginia seeking to buy a gun to bring into the District? What would 
happen is the gun dealer would say: I can't sell you this gun; I have 
to send this gun to a dealer in your State or in the District and have 
them deliver it to you there, and since it is illegal to do that in 
Washington, DC, I can't sell you this gun.
  A person in Washington, DC, who wants to get a gun to use in an act 
of violence is, therefore, going to have to break the law, which is the 
point. Criminals do not obey the laws. Those who are going to use the 
gun in a crime do not obey these laws. They steal firearms, or they get 
them on the black market, or they do so illegally. That is exactly why 
in Washington, DC, those who carry guns do so illegally and know that 
the law-abiding citizens do not carry guns.
  The shocking truth is that those who are involved in gun violence are 
going to get their guns illegally, whether they have gun control 
measures in place or not, and Washington, DC--right where we are 
conducting this debate--gives us the best example of why it is that 
further efforts to restrict citizens' access to guns are not going to 
stop the violence.

  What is going to stop the violence? I had an experience, it has been 
6 or 8 months ago, watching one of the talk shows on TV that helped me 
to understand and increased my understanding of what we need to do. We 
often talk about needing to address the root causes of violence rather 
than continuing to restrict the right to bear arms. What do we mean 
when we say that?
  Obviously, we talk about trying to reduce the violence our children 
are exposed to in the media, whether it be TV, video games, and so 
forth, and that is valid. We also talk about needing to have programs 
of education so that our young people who do have access to guns to 
hunt or for target shooting learn to do so in a safe way.
  We also talk a lot on the floor about needing to enforce the laws 
strictly so that those who voluntarily choose to use guns in acts of 
violence are punished. If you do the crime, you should do the time. 
That is another aspect of what we need to do to address violence in our 
society.
  When I was watching this talk show, one of the experts who was 
talking on the issue raised another approach which I think is something 
on which we need to focus. This particular gentleman who is an expert 
in this area said: I personally support gun control--his position--I 
support more gun control, and I support reducing violence in movies, in 
TV games, in video games, and in the music our children listen to.
  He said those things are not going to solve the problem; that we 
actually have the ability today to identify the large majority of our 
young people who are troubled and who are the most high-risk young 
people to engage in a crime of violence. We ought to focus our efforts 
as a society on identifying these young people who are in troubled 
circumstances and intervening in their lives at an earlier stage so we 
can have a positive influence in their lives and steer them back on to 
a better course for their lives and for the lives of others whom they 
will touch.
  That struck me. Instead of spending the time and the resources trying 
to figure out a way to stop people, even law-abiding people, from 
owning a firearm, what we ought to be doing is spending our time 
focusing on intervening in the lives of those who are troubled and who 
face these difficult circumstances and making a positive change in 
their lives. It is these kinds of efforts that will make a true 
difference.
  Again, we will have large differences among ourselves as we continue 
this debate, but let's let no one in America misunderstand that we all 
seek the same objectives. We simply have a very different opinion on 
how to get there. I believe if we as a nation satisfy ourselves with 
passing some more restrictive gun control measures, pat ourselves on 
the back and say we have done our job for violence in America, we will 
be forgetting the real solutions. We will be diverting attention away 
from those things we have to do as a society to address the root 
problems of crime and the true root problems of violence.
  I thank the Chair. I yield back the remainder of my time.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time is left on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington has 17 minutes, 
and the Senator from Idaho has 15 minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I thank the Chair.
  I yield 10 minutes to the Senator from Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized for 10 
minutes.

  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Senator from Washington for her leadership in 
this effort.
  Last weekend, hundreds of thousands of mothers and others were in 
Washington, DC, for the Million Mom March, marching for sensible gun 
laws and safe kids. From my State of Michigan, thousands of moms came 
with

[[Page S4057]]

their children, with their husbands, and with their parents to 
demonstrate for sensible gun safety legislation.
  Those moms are distraught. They have lost children in school 
shootings and in drive-by shootings. They have lost their kids in 
accidental shootings and in murders in their homes and in the streets. 
They are afraid to send their kids to school or to play at another 
child's house. There are teachers who are afraid to go to work. They 
all marched last weekend to put an end to that fear. My wife Barbara 
and I marched along with them.
  Every day, 12 of our children, on average, are killed from gunfire in 
America. Mothers are disheartened both by the children lost and by the 
unwillingness of Congress to do anything about gun safety legislation.
  Of the hundreds of mothers I met this weekend, not one of them said 
let's do away with guns in this country, and yet that is how NRA 
leaders label the actions of the million moms. In reality, Michigan 
mothers and mothers around the country are simply calling for sensible 
gun safety.
  The moms I met do not want to endure what a Michigan mother, Veronica 
McQueen, endured. Her 6-year-old daughter, Kayla Rolland, was shot by 
another 6-year-old at an elementary school not too far from Flint. On 
Sunday, she told her audience:

       Part of my heart went with her. It is so hard for me to 
     think that I will never see her smile, laugh, or play again; 
     I can never hold her or kiss her again, or see her grow up, 
     get married, and have a happy life.

  The mothers who marched on Sunday know that in order to reduce the 
level of gun violence in this country, we must do many things.
  One of the things we must do is to pass stricter laws to keep guns 
out of the hands of those who should not have guns--children who should 
not have guns, criminals who should not have guns. The way to do this, 
in the first instance, is to pass the juvenile justice bill with the 
Senate gun amendments.
  About a year ago this week, the Senate passed an amendment which 
closed the gun show loophole by applying the Brady background checks to 
guns sold at gun shows. The gun show loophole allows criminals and 
other prohibited persons to buy guns at a gun show from a private 
person that they could not buy from a licensed dealer.
  It is a loophole which has been exploited frequently by those who 
deliberately do not want to undergo background checks, including the 
Columbine gunmen, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold.
  On April 20, 1999, Harris and Klebold opened fire on their classmates 
with four semiautomatic assault guns. Of those weapons, three were 
purchased by their friend, Robyn Anderson, at a gun show. Mr. 
President, 18-year-old Robyn Anderson bought her younger friends three 
weapons. Because she bought them at a gun show, she did not need to go 
through a background check.
  Later she testified about this. I would think, of the various 
testimonies that come out of Columbine, this is some of the most 
memorable. This is what she said. This is the 18-year-old who bought 
the guns for the two killers. She said:

       Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold had gone to the Tanner gun 
     show on Saturday and they took me back with them on Sunday . 
     . . While we were walking around, Eric and Dylan kept asking 
     sellers if they were private or licensed. They wanted to buy 
     their guns from someone who was private--and not licensed--
     because there would be no paperwork or background check.

  Robyn continues:

       I was not asked any questions at all. There was no 
     background check. . . . Dylan got a shotgun. Eric got a 
     shotgun and a black rifle that he bought clips for. He was 
     able to buy clips and ammunition without me having to show 
     any I.D. The sellers didn't write down any information.

  And here is her bottom line:

       I would not have bought a gun for Eric and Dylan if I had 
     had to give any personal information or submit any kind of 
     check at all. I think it was clear to the sellers that the 
     guns were for Eric and Dylan. They were the ones asking all 
     the questions and handling all the guns.

  She concluded:

       I wish a law requiring background checks had been in effect 
     at the time. I don't know if Eric and Dylan would have been 
     able to get guns from another source, but I would not have 
     helped them. It was too easy. I wish it had been more 
     difficult. I wouldn't have helped them buy the guns if I had 
     faced a background check.

  So the Columbine gunmen knew about the gun show loophole. They took 
full advantage of it. The result: 15 dead. Congress has a chance to 
close the loophole with the gun show amendment. But that amendment is 
part of a juvenile justice bill which is tied up because the Republican 
leadership in the House and the Senate will not allow a conference to 
meet. It is at that conference where Members are supposed to reconcile 
differences between the two bills.
  The Brady law is not intrusive to law-abiding Americans. Mr. 
President, 72 percent of the checks are completed in 3 minutes, and 95 
percent are cleared within 2 hours. The 5 percent of people whose 
background checks take more than 24 hours to complete are 20 times more 
likely to have a criminal record or otherwise be prohibited from buying 
firearms. It is just simply not unreasonable to extend the Brady 
background check to guns that are bought at gun shows.
  Congress must act. The moms, the dads, the grandparents, the families 
want us to act. We must vote yes on the pending sense-of-the-Senate 
legislation that Senator Daschle and others have offered in order to 
clearly state to the American public that there are some of us here, 
yes, in the majority in the Senate--since the majority passed these 
amendments--the majority of us want to act. With their help--the 
million moms, and millions more like them--we will hopefully be able to 
move this legislation this year, reduce the number of killings, and 
save more families from the tragedies which have been too often 
witnessed in this country.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I support the amendment offered by Senator 
Daschle to S. 2521. I have come to the floor of the Senate several 
times to speak about failure of the Juvenile Justice conference to come 
to an agreement. Our nation is yearning for leadership. I vote for this 
amendment to once again urge the conferees to move ahead on the 
Juvenile Justice bill. Craft a common sense bill that will help to 
break this cycle of youth violence. Show the nation that the Congress 
can see what is happening outside of the Capitol Building, and that we 
are capable of working in partnership with all Americans to bring some 
calm to our classrooms.
  This legislation does not create dramatic infringements on the right 
of an informed and responsible citizenry to keep and bear arms. It 
simply would put in place some common sense provisions to balance 
public safety and private gun owners' rights. Requiring trigger locks 
would not jeopardize anyone's Second Amendment rights to own a gun, but 
trigger locks might prevent children from turning guns on other 
children. And improving background checks is not a monumental change, 
either. These additional checks would only serve to prevent those 
people who should not have access to weapons from getting them. I 
believe that responsible parents and gun owners would be able to 
support these common sense provisions.
  I also support the amendment offered by Senator Lott to S. 2521. I 
agree that the government can and should do more to enforce the 
existing laws concerning firearms. I do not believe that we must choose 
between enacting common sense measures to protect public safety and 
protecting the rights of gun owners--we can do both. Nor do I believe 
that we must choose between enacting additional protections for public 
safety and enforcement of current gun laws. I hope that the conferees 
working on the Juvenile Justice bill will come to an agreement on 
legislation that will enhance enforcement of the laws we currently have 
on the books to keep guns out of the wrong hands. Further delay only 
increases the chance that another child may die from gun violence 
before the Congress acts.
  Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, last Sunday, I joined hundreds of 
thousands of Americans in marching in support of common-sense gun 
safety laws. Today we're trying to show that these marchers made a 
difference. We can either listen to the mothers and fathers who marched 
with their feet--or we can listen to the gun lobby--who march with 
their dollars.
  The Daschle amendment says that we're listening to the Million Mom

[[Page S4058]]

marchers. It merely calls on the Congress to do it's job--to convene 
the Juvenile Justice Conference and pass common-sense gun safety laws.
  Since I've been in Congress I have fought for gun control and gun 
safety. We passed the Brady bill--which requires a 5-day waiting period 
so there can be background checks of gun purchasers. This law has 
stopped 242,000 felons from buying guns. We fought to ban certain types 
of semi-automatic assault weapons and cop killer bullets.
  For ten months, our gun safety proposals have been in legislative 
limbo. The Senate passed the Juvenile Justice Bill in July 1999. Since 
then, the Republican leadership has refused to let us move the bill 
forward.
  During this time, we've seen 3,600 children die from gun violence. 
We've seen twelve children die every day from gunfire. In Maryland, 
we've mourned the death of over 100 children a year. In Maryland we saw 
a crazed man steal five guns--and murder four people--before holding a 
family and a community hostage.
  The Juvenile Justice bill includes common-sense gun safety 
provisions. It would close the gun show loophole--by requiring 
background checks for all guns bought at gun shows. It would require 
gun safety locks to be sold with new guns. It would close the loophole 
in the law that permits the importation and possession of high-capacity 
ammunition clips. It would keep guns out of the hands of serious 
juvenile offenders by banning gun sales to juveniles with violent crime 
records. Finally, it would ban juvenile possession of semi-automatic 
assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips.
  The State of Maryland is the national leader in gun safety. I commend 
Governor Glendenning and the Maryland General Assembly for passing 
path-breaking gun safety legislation. The new Maryland law will require 
built-in child safety locks on new hand guns; ballistics testing for 
new guns--to help law enforcement and safety training for new gun 
purchasers. This legislation is the first of its kind in the Nation. It 
will save lives. The United States Congress should follow Maryland's 
lead--and enact common-sense gun safety legislation.
  Mr. President: I was so proud to join thousands of Marylanders in the 
Million Mom March. Let's show that the march mattered. Let's make 
democracy work--and pass the Daschle amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Idaho.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, when the Senator from Michigan speaks I 
always listen because we work very closely together on issues that deal 
with kids. Most of the time, we agree. All of the time that we work 
together, we are very sincere.
  I do not question the sincerity of the Senator from Michigan in the 
statement he made. I am not surprised he was on the Mall last Sunday. 
He is somebody who feels very deeply about the issues in which he 
becomes involved.
  We have worked very closely on issues dealing with young people, such 
as in making sure that we could streamline adoptions so young people 
without loving families could find those families and become a member 
of those families. So I listen very closely when that Senator speaks.
  I also listened to those at the Million Mom March over the weekend. I 
went to their web site. I looked at their issues. I studied their 
premise. I do not question their sincerity, but some of their issues do 
not fit common sense and will not work in America.
  Here is their No. 1 issue shown on this chart, No. 1 on their web 
page: ``License Handgun Owners and Register All Handguns.'' It also 
happens to be the No. 1 gun issue in a certain Presidential candidate's 
portfolio this year. Coincidence? Maybe not.
  But the reality of licensing gun owners and registering firearms is 
something that almost all Americans have viewed as an anathema for a 
long while. Why? Because they really do believe that a gun, once 
acquired as private property, is no business of the Government that 
they should know about.
  I supported background checks. In fact, I am probably one of the few 
Senators who insisted that the ATF come to the Hill years ago and work 
on the aggressive implementation of instant background checks. I wanted 
that to happen. It is now happening today. I brought appropriations 
bills to the floor to fund ATF to make it happen. There was great 
resistance downtown. They just did not want to make it work. I am not 
sure why.
  We can instant anything today in our computers. We can instant our 
credit. We can instant any idea we want, in rapid response, through the 
tremendous telecommunications ability of our country. But somehow we 
just could not get this online. And the reason we could not, there was 
a bias. The bias was waiting periods, resistance to the acquisition of 
firearms.
  Today we have an instant check. By the way, as we know, last weekend 
it malfunctioned; it went down. Gun shops, that are law-abiding gun 
shops, that are federally licensed gun shops, had to quit dealing for a 
time, quit selling, because they could not do instant background 
checks.
  We are not opposed to background checks. We are not opposed to 
background checks at gun shows. Sorry to dispel the myth. What we are 
opposed to is unnecessary regulation, recordkeeping, the kind of thing 
that would create an ability of the Government to follow back and check 
on what most of our private citizens and 65 million law-abiding gun 
owners feel is a constitutional right and none of their Government's 
business.
  The folks in Australia, Bermuda, Cuba, Germany, Great Britain, 
Greece, Ireland, Jamaica, and Soviet Georgia were worried about gun 
licensing and registration, because they were fearful it would result 
in gun confiscation. They were right. It did. Citizens in those 
countries today don't own firearms. They were confiscated by their 
government once their government could find where they were. Is it 
wrong for American citizens to be concerned? I think not.

  There are, certainly, issues that those moms were marching on about 
which all of us are concerned: safety locks on handguns, yes, that 
manufacturers are producing. Should the Federal Government require 
them? I don't believe it should, but I would certainly have them on my 
handguns if I owned handguns.
  If I were a single person living in a dangerous neighborhood and I 
bought that handgun for self-protection, I might not want a safety lock 
on that gun in the dark of night when my door is being crashed in by an 
intruder. I wouldn't want to fumble in the darkness to take the safety 
lock off. I would want the instant protection that the gun I acquired 
offered me in my right of self-protection. But because I didn't have 
the lock on, by what some are arguing on the other side, I would be in 
violation of a Federal law. Instinctively, none of us want that. None 
of us want to voluntarily feel we force ourselves to be in violation of 
a law in defense of our person and in defense of our property.
  Those are some of the kinds of practical nuances that argue not 
against common sense but against some of what is being tried here 
today.
  So if it doesn't work, politicize it. If you can't get your way 
around here, politicize it. Some got their way in the Senate a year 
ago. They passed the Lautenberg provisions in the juvenile justice 
bill. I didn't support them. I thought they had gone too far. I think 
the gun community of America thought they had gone too far, the law-
abiding gun community of America. Criminals didn't care. They 
recognized what some of my colleagues in the Senate don't recognize, 
that by definition, they don't play by the rules so they don't care 
what we do. They break laws. That is why they are called criminals. But 
somehow we write these laws and everybody will march in step with what 
their Government demands. Law-abiding citizens will do so.
  Anyway, we passed the Lautenberg law. The House rejected it. Somehow 
our colleagues on the other side can't accept that fact and won't 
accept it. So here we are today, holding up a very important piece of 
appropriations legislation, all for the sake of making a nonbinding 
political point. Well, it is a political body. They certainly have that 
right. But it is nongermane, and it doesn't fit. We ought to do 
something that does fit.
  Most importantly, we ought not perpetrate a hoax on the millions of 
mothers who expressed their frustration

[[Page S4059]]

over violent acts in this society last Sunday. I think most were 
sincere. I think some were very high-level organizers of certain 
political interests. I think their web page demonstrates that.
  That is really not the issue. The issue is, can we pass laws that 
work and can we pass laws that are enforceable and that the American 
public will accept? That is the crux of this debate. That is the point 
of the politics.
  I retain the remainder of my time.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I rise today to indicate my reasons for 
not supporting the Daschle amendment, amendment number 3148 to S. 2521, 
the military construction appropriations bill.
  The Daschle amendment is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. After 
starting a number of findings, the amendment states that it is the 
sense of the Senate that ``Congress should immediately pass a 
conference report to accompany'' the juvenile justice bill that 
includes the Senate passed gun-related provisions.
  During the Senate's debate of the juvenile justice bill in May of 
1999, I supported the Lautenburg amendment, and other amendments to 
close the gun show loophole in the Brady act. I also supported an 
amendment to require licensed firearms dealers to provide a secure gun 
storage or safety device when a handgun is sold, delivered or 
transferred. Unfortunately, the juvenile justice bill has been locked 
in a House and Senate conference committee.
  Let me be clear, I remain firm in my stance on these issues. I 
certainly hope that House and Senate conferees can reach an agreement 
in conference on the juvenile justice bill. And, I will continue to 
support the common-sense gun provisions that passed the Senate during 
the juvenile justice debate. I believe the Senate passed gun-related 
amendments to the juvenile justice bill will help keep guns out of the 
hands of convicted felons and increase public safety without infringing 
on the rights of law-abiding citizens.
  Despite the fact that I agree with the statement in the Daschle 
amendment that Congress should immediately pass a conference report on 
the juvenile justice bill that includes the Senate passed gun-related 
amendments, I do not support the Daschle amendment. The Daschle 
amendment is not a legislative amendment and is simply a procedural 
maneuver. The Daschle amendment has no force in law and no relationship 
to the underlying purposes of the military construction appropriation 
bill.
  As chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I have a 
responsibility to secure passage of the important military construction 
appropriations bill. This bill provides critically needed funding for 
military construction projects, improves the quality of life for the 
men and women who are serving our country in the armed forces, and 
sustains the readiness of our armed forces. These areas are 
traditionally underfunded, and this bill provides the necessary funds 
to help make up for this shortfall.
  The Daschle amendment is an unrelated sense-of-the-Senate amendment 
to the military construction appropriation bill. Sense-of-the-Senate 
resolutions have no force in federal law. Voting for this amendment 
places vitally needed funding for our Armed Forces in peril by 
jeopardizing passage of the overall bill.
  Again, I continue to support the commonsense gun related provisions 
that passed the Senate as part of the juvenile justice bill. When these 
matters come before the United States Senate in a substantive, rather 
than a procedural capacity, and on a related piece of legislation, I 
look forward to voting for them once again.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, earlier today, Senator Craig spoke on 
the floor about licensing and registration. I just wanted to correct 
one statement he made.
  Senator Craig said that ``The reality of licensing gun owners and 
registering firearms is something that almost all Americans have viewed 
as an anathema for a long while. Why? Because they really do believe 
that a gun once acquired is private property and it is no business of 
the government that they should know about it.''
  Of course guns are private property, but the facts do not support the 
contention that the American people view licensing and registration as 
an ``anathema.''
  According to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll last year, 90 
percent of Democrats and 70 percent of Republicans support mandatory 
registration of any type of gun or firearm.
  A May report by the National Opinion Research Center at the 
University of Chicago shows similar findings, with 70 percent favoring 
gun-owner licensing and training in use of their guns.
  A USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll taken at the end of April shows seventy-
six percent of those surveyed favored registrations of all handguns. 
And 69 percent favored the federal government requiring all handgun 
owners to obtain a special license.
  In fact, a recent Princeton Survey Research Association Poll 
indicated that even 66 percent of gun owners support the registration 
of all handguns.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
  Mrs. MURRAY. How much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington has 9 minutes, and 
the Senator from Idaho has 8 minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
California.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. I thank Senator Murray, and I thank the Chair.
  It has been more than a year since the Columbine tragedy, but still 
this Republican Congress refuses to act on sensible gun legislation.
  Let me repeat that. It has been more than a year since the Columbine 
tragedy and this Republican Congress refuses to do anything as it 
relates to sensible gun legislation. That is why Leader Daschle offered 
his amendment.
  Since Columbine, thousands of Americans have been killed by gunfire. 
Until we act, Democrats in the Senate will read some of the names of 
those who died in the past year, and we will continue to do so every 
day that the Senate is in session. We will read those who died of 
gunshots. In the name of those who died, we will continue this fight.
  The following are the names of some of the people who were killed by 
gunfire 1 year ago today. These names come from the Conference of 
Mayors: James Allen, 27, Houston, TX; Ladrid Austin, 21, Chicago, IL; 
Jeremiah Buchanan, 22, Houston, TX; Karamoh Daramy, 23, Detroit, MI; 
Rufus Dinuwelle, 50, Charlotte, NC; Maurice Harris, 27, St. Louis, MO; 
Raul Martinez, 27, Chicago, IL; Marty Owens, 31, Chicago, IL; Andre 
Parker, 19, Chicago, IL; George Robinson, 39, Houston, TX; Robert 
Simms, 30, Washington, DC; Jon Vermillion, 32, Houston, TX.
  Those are some of the names. We will be here every single day until 
there is action. The other side is going to say: Shame on you for 
interfering with the Senate's business.
  I say to them: There can be no more important business than 
protecting our children, than protecting our citizens. We are losing 
them at alarming rates, more than any other civilized country. Indeed, 
all the other civilized countries combined don't have the deaths from 
gunshots that we have in this country--30,000 of our good people every 
year.

  The other side says it is not about laws; it is about community and 
caring and family. Of course, they are right. But I say to them that 
those young kids who were cut down before their prime in Columbine came 
from good families. They prayed to God. They got down on their knees 
and prayed, and they were shot.
  To be scolded on the floor of the Senate for defending our children 
is something that will not stand. I am glad the good Senator put up the 
chart from the Million Mom March because when I look at that, I think 
to myself, there is hope.
  The Senator implies that we have before us an agenda on licensing of 
guns. We do not have that. That is not in Senator Daschle's amendment. 
He is calling for the release of the five gun amendments we already 
voted on, simple, straightforward: trigger locks, no high-capacity 
clips, a study of the gun manufacturers' techniques as they sell to 
children, raising the age where a person can buy an assault weapon from 
18 to 21. Those are simple and straightforward.

[[Page S4060]]

  Closing the gun show loophole is another. The woman who got the guns 
for the deranged children who murdered those kids said if she had to go 
through a background check, she never, never would have, in fact, 
bought those guns.
  So please don't chastise us. It was the other side that stalled for 5 
solid hours yesterday and didn't let us have our debate. We would have 
been done with this debate.
  I have to say, when we look at these numbers, 12 kids a day, 30,000 
people a year, it is almost too much to comprehend the pain and 
suffering that goes along with it. Eight times as many as those people 
are wounded, sitting in wheelchairs for the rest of their lives, some 
of them vegetables for the rest of their lives. We don't even begin to 
touch it when we talk about only the deaths. It is the physical pain 
and agony of those who survive with wounds, and we have seen in 
Columbine children committing suicide because they can't handle the 
trauma. What is the answer of the other side? We don't need laws. Why 
don't they think about licensing?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's 5 minutes have expired.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield the Senator 30 additional seconds.
  Mrs. BOXER. You need a license to give a haircut to somebody.
  Does anyone say that the Government is going to come and take the 
scissors? Come on. Don't be afraid of this lobby. Stand up and be 
counted. Join the million moms. They are Democrats; they are 
Republicans; they are from families; they are grandmas and grandpas. 
That is who showed up. I had the joy of marching with them. Let's vote 
for the Daschle amendment.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Allard). Who yields time?
  If neither side yields time, the time will be charged equally to both 
sides.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, how much time remains on both sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington has 2 minutes; the 
Senator from Idaho has 7.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask whether the Senator from Idaho 
would be willing to allow us to use some of his time. We don't want to 
vote until 1:30. If I may, I will yield Senator Harkin 5 minutes.
  Mr. CRAIG. I will retain 5 minutes of my time. I will yield a couple 
of those minutes, but we will need the rest for closing purposes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. How much time would that give me for the remaining time 
on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three and one-half minutes.
  Mrs. MURRAY. I yield our remaining time to the Senator from Iowa.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa is recognized for 3\1/2\ 
minutes.
  Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, first of all, I take a back seat to no one 
in being a legitimate hunter. I hunt every year. I have hunted since I 
have been a kid. I will take on anyone over there in trap shooting. 
That is not what this is about. It is not about law-abiding people who 
like to hunt and own guns to hunt with, or somebody who needs one for 
self-protection in their home. That is not what this is about.
  That's why I have to take issue with those who are always 
misinterpreting the Constitution of the United States--misinterpreting 
it. When you look at the Lott amendment before us, the first thing he 
says is the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects the 
right of each law-abiding U.S. citizen to own a firearm for any 
legitimate purpose, including self-defense or recreation.
  Please tell me where in the second amendment and the Constitution it 
says that. You can go out to the NRA building, and on the side it says, 
```The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be 
infringed,' the second amendment to the Constitution.'' Anybody can 
take anything out of context, Mr. President. You can prove there is no 
God by reading the Bible. All I ask you is to open the Bible to Psalms 
14:1. Guess what it says; ``. . .there is no God.'' I ask my friend 
from Idaho if he has ever read Psalms 14:1. It says there is no God, in 
the Bible. But what does it say right before that? ``The fool said in 
his heart there is no God.''
  What relation does that have to the second amendment to the 
Constitution? Everybody has this book in their desk. It is not that big 
a deal to read this. It says:

       A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security 
     of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear 
     Arms, shall not be infringed.

  So what do they do? They take it out of context. I suppose somebody 
could take the Bible out of context, too. You have to put it into 
contextual framework. The framers of the Constitution knew they didn't 
want a standing army. They wanted a militia, like the National Guard, 
for people in their homes to keep arms for protection. Read your 
history books. These people out here who want to reinterpret the 
Constitution for their own ends are doing our people a great 
disservice.
  Now, take another look at the Lott amendment. The Lott amendment has 
a finding in the end. Here is the sense of the Senate that--get this:

       The right of each law-abiding United States citizen to own 
     a firearm for any legitimate purpose, including self-defense 
     or recreation, should not be infringed.

  The right of each law-abiding United States citizen. It doesn't have 
an age limit. Does that mean a kid 13 years old can have an Uzi for 
recreational purposes? It doesn't say that there. There is no age limit 
on it. It could be a 5-year-old kid or a 10-year-old kid. I will say 
one other thing. ``For any legitimate purpose,'' it says. Does that 
mean--
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. HARKIN. I ask for 30 seconds.
  Mrs. MURRAY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional 
minutes for the Senator from Iowa to finish his statement.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I will not object if that is given to our 
side as well.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HATCH. Is my request also granted?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That would be part of the request. Is there 
objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator. Read the language of the Lott 
amendment. ``The right of each law-abiding United States citizen.'' No 
age limit; 10-year-old kids or 14-year-old kids can own any amount of 
guns they want.

  ``For any legitimate purpose, including recreation.'' Does that mean 
if I want to own 50 Uzis, the Government can't have anything to say 
about it? Maybe that is my recreation and I want to blow down a lot of 
things in my backyard. This doesn't make any sense. The sense-of-the-
Senate resolution makes no sense. It misinterprets the Constitution.
  Secondly, it opens the door wider than we have ever seen it before. 
Keep in mind, when you vote on the Lott substitute, what you are saying 
is that anyone in the United States who is a citizen--no age limit--can 
own any amount of guns that person wants. There are no restrictions. Is 
that what we want in this country? If so, have the guts to stand up and 
say so. Stand up and say that you want 10-year-old kids owning Uzis and 
machine guns. Go ahead and say it if that is what you want because that 
is what the language of the Lott amendment says.
  All you have to do is read the language of what is in front of us. 
Look at this chart. This says what we ought to do is ``start them 
young; there is no time like the present'' for a little kid like that 
on this chart. This is an ad. Under the Lott amendment, that kid could 
be carrying 10 Uzis. Keep that in mind when you vote for it.
  Mr. President, I do support Senator Daschle's resolution. We had one 
million mothers, their families and friends on Mother's Day demanding 
their elected lawmakers take final action on the Juvenile Justice bill 
and the gun measures that bill included. For ten months since we first 
passed the bill--despite numerous gun tragedies at schools, workplaces 
and even places of worship all across America--the Republican 
leadership has refused to move forward on these common sense 
provisions.
  What is almost as senseless as these tragedies is the fact that 
Congress refuses to act on this legislation that would prevent many of 
these shootings.
  What are the so-called controversial measures we're talking about? 
Measures--ironically--that would not affect law-abiding citizens who 
want to own a gun. Let me take a moment to list

[[Page S4061]]

them: Requiring gun manufacturers to provide child safety locks with 
their guns, giving the owners the option to install them. Closing the 
gun show loophole that allows sales at gun shows without background 
checks. Right now, 40 percent of all gun show sales go without a 
background check. Under this provision, all potential buyers at gun 
shows will use the Instant Check computer system--which normally takes 
a few minutes. For the small percentage of potential buyers--less than 
5 percent--they may have to wait up to three days so records can be 
checked manually on the closest business day. And the bill would ban 
juvenile possession of semi-automatic weapons and high-capacity 
ammunition clips. These are reasonable measures.
  But, I also believe we need to do a better job at enforcing current 
laws. I support the Administration's budget request for new funding to 
hire more ATF agents and prosecutors. I also support their request for 
research funding to develop ``smart-gun'' technology which could limit 
a gun's use to its owner and authorized users to help prevent 
accidental shootings.
  Opponents of common sense gun safety laws set up a false choice 
between prevention and enforcement. Any successful policy will have to 
have both of these elements.
  Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I rise to lend my support to the Daschle 
sense of the Senate, which commends the organizers and marchers of the 
Million Mom March and urges the juvenile justice conference include the 
Senate-passed gun control measures in its report and to issue its 
report by the Memorial Day recess. I support the gun control measures 
that are contained in the juvenile justice bill that was debated and 
passed by the Senate last July and I sincerely hope that the conference 
will meet to finish their work on this critically important bill.
  I am deeply troubled by the numbers of people--and particularly the 
number of children--that are wounded or killed by gunfire each year. 
And, Mr. President, I know that all of America understands that the 
impact of gun violence on children is staggering. Listen to some of 
these statistics, Mr. President: The National Center for Health 
Statistics found that in 1997 almost 12 children died every day from 
gunfire. The gun homicide rate for children under 15 is sixteen times 
higher in the U.S. than in 25 other industrialized nations combined. 
Between 1979 and 1997, gunfire killed nearly 80,000 children and teens 
in America--25,000 more than the total number of American soldiers 
killed in battle in Vietnam. Firearms wounded an additional 320,000 
children during this same period. In a single year 4,205 children and 
teens were killed by gunfire. Those 4,205 deaths are equal to the 
number of passengers on eight jumbo jets, 90 school buses full of 
children, and more than an entire high school graduating class of a 
school the size of Columbine every school month. Nearly three times as 
many children under ten died from gunfire as the number of law 
enforcement officers killed in the line of duty. Children are twice as 
likely as adults to be victims of violent crime, and more likely to be 
killed by adults than by other children. Homicide is the third leading 
cause of death among children aged five to fourteen.
  Mr. President, these statistics reveal why it is of such considerable 
consequence that we complete work on the juvenile justice bill. We 
cannot ignore the violent reality that so many of our children face. 
The Senate has debated and passed the a very good piece of legislation 
that seeks to reduce gun violence among our young people. All we are 
asking, Mr. President--all that we have been debating here today--is 
that the juvenile justice conference meet, that they finish their 
business and issue their report, and that the Congress vote on the 
conference report.
  The juvenile justice bill is being made controversial, Mr. President, 
but it does not need to be. The Senate-passed juvenile justice bill 
would enhance efforts to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and 
children, by closing the gun show loophole which currently permits 
sales at gun shows without a background check; by prohibiting the sale 
or transfer by a licensed dealer of a handgun without a secure gun 
storage or safety device; by closing the loophole in the law that 
permits the importation of large-capacity ammunition clips; by keeping 
guns out of the hands of serious juvenile offenders by banning gun 
sales to juveniles with violent crime records; by expanding the Youth 
Crime Gun Interdiction Initiative to 250 cities by 2003 to enhance 
efforts to trace guns used in crimes and identify and arrest adults who 
sell guns to children; by requiring the FTC and the Attorney General to 
study the extent to which the gun industry markets and distributes its 
products to juveniles; by increasing penalties on ``straw purchases'' 
to curb the transfer of firearms to individuals who cannot purchase 
them legally--juveniles, felons, fugitives, and stalkers; and by 
banning juvenile possession of semi-automatic assault weapons and high-
capacity ammunition clips.
  Mr. President, I don't think it is necessary to get bogged down in a 
protracted, partisan debate over this legislation. The Senate must come 
together to address the horrible number casualties caused by gun 
violence in this country. The juvenile justice bill that we have 
debated and passed will make our communities, our schools, and our 
cities safer for this nation's young people. And, Mr. President, I 
think it is a critical first step to addressing the problem of gun 
violence that this legislation be moved through conference and voted 
on.

  But Mr. President, I understand that common-sense gun control 
measures are not a silver bullet capable--by themselves--of solving 
this tragic problem. We must do much more, Mr. President, than just 
close the gun show loophole, we must also increase enforcement of 
existing gun laws at the federal, state, and local levels. We must 
increase our investment in and commitment to early learning programs. 
We must also improve and reform our public schools. We must ensure that 
our students have meaningful after-school programs to keep young people 
off the streets at the times in which juvenile crime rates are highest. 
We must enable communities to hire full-time, school based police 
officers under the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program 
to prevent and respond to disorder and violence in our schools. We must 
allocate funding for school counselors to assist in identifying 
troubled students and providing them with the necessary resources and 
attention to address their problems. We must support partnerships 
between schools, families, and law enforcement to build relationships, 
establish anti-truancy programs and mentoring and conflict resolution 
programs in schools and communities. But if we are truly committed to 
ending the terrible trend of gun violence in this country, than we must 
also implement gun control measures. It is going to take much, much 
more to deal with this horrendous problem than passing the juvenile 
justice bill, but this legislation is critical to reducing gun 
violence.
  Mr. President, I agree with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
that another very important component of reducing gun violence is 
improving the enforcement of existing gun laws. I believe we should 
provide additional funding for ATF agents to crack down on gun dealers 
who violate federal laws and expand the highly-successful Project Exile 
program nationwide. I do not view gun control measures and enforcement 
provisions as mutually exclusive. I do not believe that we must choose 
between more gun control legislation or tougher enforcement. This is a 
false choice. The American people want a comprehensive approach that 
includes common-sense gun legislation; tougher enforcement; and closing 
the loopholes that exist in current law.
  Increased enforcement--at the federal, state, and local levels--is a 
critical component of a comprehensive approach to ending gun violence. 
We have improved our enforcement efforts over the last few years and I 
think we should step-up our efforts to improve enforcement. Department 
of Justice statistics show a 41 percent increase in the number of 
federal gun felons sentenced to more than five years in prison since 
1993, and a 16 percent increase in the number of gun cases filed. The 
number of higher-level offenders--those sentenced to five or more 
years--has gone up nearly 30 percent in five years. Mr. President I'd 
like to call your attention to an article that appeared in USA Today on 
June 10, 1999. This article reported that ``Gun laws are enforced more 
vigorously today

[[Page S4062]]

than five years ago by nearly any measure. Prosecutions are more 
frequent than ever before; sentences are longer; and the number of 
inmates in federal prison is at a record level. The number of inmates 
in federal prison on firearm or arson charges (the two are lumped 
together) increased 51% from 1993 to 1998 . . . A U.S. Sentencing 
Commission analysis done for USA Today shows that lying on the 
background check form is prosecuted in federal court far more often 
than acknowledged.'' We are on the right track and I sincerely hope 
that the federal government continues to improve its enforcement 
record. As of April 1999, there were more than 100,000 federally 
licensed firearm dealers in America--more licensed gun dealers than 
there are McDonald's franchises. Yet there were only 1,783 ATF agents 
to police them; many of those agents are detailed by law to only 
investigate crimes involving explosives. Clearly there is room for the 
federal government to do more than it is currently doing. I 
wholeheartedly support increased enforcement efforts and commit to 
working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to see that 
federal, state, and local enforcement efforts are increased.
  The bottom line, Mr. President, is that the American people want more 
from us and they deserve better from us. They want an end to random and 
senseless violence. We have got to get past the partisan divide that 
exists in the Senate. It is preventing us from effectively addressing 
the problem of gun violence and that cannot be tolerated, Mr. 
President. We must come together to achieve the goal that I know each 
and every Senator shares: to make our society safer for our young 
people. This issue is too important, Mr. President, to get caught up in 
politics. We must find a way to work together on this issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I oppose Senator Daschle's gun control 
resolution on the military construction appropriations bill. Rather 
than move forward on this important appropriations bill, some of my 
colleagues are trying to breathe life into their gun control agenda.
  I think it needs to be made very clear that nothing this President 
has proposed and nothing that the million moms have proposed would have 
prevented Columbine; West Paducah, KY; Jonesboro; State of Washington, 
or Hawaii--none of those incidents. This is being done for political 
purposes, not because there is any real logic behind it.
  I was disturbed to learn that the Federal Bureau of Investigation's 
national instant criminal background check system malfunctioned last 
week, thereby preventing background checks of gun buyers. As a result 
of the Government's error, gun sales throughout the Nation were halted 
from last Thursday through Sunday. Meanwhile, existing Federal gun laws 
are not being enforced, and the Clinton administration appears to be 
allowing the national instant check system to fall into disrepair. As a 
matter of fact, they have never fully implemented it, even though we 
gave them that charge a number of years ago.
  During the debate on the Brady bill, the Clinton administration 
promised the American people an instant background check system, and we 
all agreed with having that system to get the real criminals in our 
society and to keep guns away from them. Indeed, I have worked hard to 
make such a system a reality. Unfortunately, as we have seen all too 
often, the NICS system is not instant for many Americans who wish to 
purchase firearms. As a result, many firearms-owning Americans are 
suspicious of the Federal Government's attempt to regulate firearms. 
Last week's collapse of the NICS system, which occurred during the 
Million Mom March, only increases this distrust.
  As the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I am announcing 
hearings today on the problems associated with the NICS system and how 
Congress can compel this administration to administer the system 
adequately.
  We will hold hearings on this. One thing is clear about last week's 
collapse: had the Lautenberg Amendment been enacted into law, all 
sales--even private sales--would have been barred at gun shows.
  The Clinton Administration, and many of my Democratic colleagues, 
call for more gun control, but they do not administer or enforce 
existing laws and programs. There are literally thousands of federal, 
state, and local firearm laws presently in existence. President Clinton 
spends a great deal of time at press conferences on gun control. 
Meanwhile, his Administration cannot even operate the NICS system 
adequately.
  Not only does the Clinton Administration fail to administer the NICS 
system adequately, it fails to prosecute existing gun crimes. For 
example, compare the following federal gun laws to the Clinton 
Administration's prosecution record:
  It is a federal crime to possess a firearm on school grounds. The 
Clinton Justice Department prosecuted only eight cases under this law 
in 1998, even though more than 6,000 students brought guns to school. 
The Clinton Administration prosecuted only five such cases in 1997.
  It is a federal crime to transfer a firearm to a juvenile. The 
Clinton Justice Department prosecuted only six cases under this law in 
1998 and only five in 1997.
  It is a federal crime to transfer or possess a semiautomatic assault 
weapon. The Clinton Justice Department prosecuted only four cases under 
this law in 1998 and only four in 1997.
  It is a federal crime for a person who has been adjudicated mentally 
ill to possess a firearm. The Clinton Justice Department prosecuted 
only five cases under this law in 1998 and only four in 1997.
  It is a federal crime for a person who has been dishonorably 
discharged to possess a firearm. The Clinton Justice Department 
prosecuted only two cases under this law in 1998 and no cases in 1997.
  Worse yet, the Clinton Administration has failed to prosecute even 
the most serious gun crimes. Between 1992 and 1998, prosecutions of 
defendants who use a firearm in the commission of a felony dropped 
nearly 50 percent, from 7,045 to approximately 3,800.
  Mr. President, I look forward to the upcoming hearing on the NICS 
system. My colleagues in the Senate should work with me to encourage 
this Administration to administer and enforce the existing laws before 
we even consider additional laws.
  Additionally, we are talking about an enumerated right in the 
Constitution. And we should be very careful before we start playing 
around with the enumerated right. Unfortunately, some people think they 
can make political hay for this matter, and they are going to do 
everything they can to make that political hay. I have heard arguments 
here on the floor that are not justified under any terms.
  It is time for us to enforce the laws that are on the books. There 
are some 20,000 laws, rules, and regulations against misuse of 
firearms, against the criminal use of firearms, against all other 
things I have been talking about, and this administration has not been 
serious about enforcing those laws. When they get serious about that, 
maybe they can come in less hypocritical and talk about some changes 
that both sides can get together on and do something about rather than 
having these phony approaches toward politics rather than the 
consideration of the rights of American citizens to keep and bear arms.
  Mr. President, I yield whatever time I have remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be able to 
use 5 minutes of my leader time to explain what I am planning to do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, let me say to my colleagues that I have just 
put in a phone call to Senator Daschle and advised him of how I wish to 
proceed.
  What is at stake here is, can we go forward and make progress with 
the work we do in the Senate on our appropriations bills? Can we 
complete the military construction appropriations bill and have debate 
that we want to have on the Kosovo issue and include it as a provision? 
And it is not partisan. Can we go on to the foreign relations 
appropriations bill that has the emergency money for Colombia in it? 
Can

[[Page S4063]]

we go to the agriculture appropriations bill which has the emergency 
and disaster money in it or are we going to be faced every time we 
bring up appropriations bills with nongermane amendments? Under rule 
XVI, they can be ruled out of order only by the Chair. But if it is a 
sense of the Senate, the Chair has not ruled and has basically 
submitted it to the Senate for determination.
  I am going to make a point of order that the Lott amendment--my 
amendment--violates rule XVI, that it is sense-of-the-Senate language 
on an appropriations bill, and that the Chair should rule on the 
germaneness question. If the Chair does not rule on that, then we will 
submit it to the Senate and we will have a vote on that question. 
Assuming a majority votes for that, then nongermane sense-of-the-Senate 
resolutions will be ruled out of order just as any other nongermane 
amendment.
  I want to emphasize, germane amendments and germane sense-of-the-
Senate resolutions would clearly be in order. But if we are going to 
deal with these emergencies, if we are going to get our work done and 
assist the appropriators in moving these very important, very difficult 
bills, we are going to have to get some clarity on this issue.
  That is what I plan to do. We expect the Chair to rule, and then we 
will move to a vote on that.
  Mr. President, I make a point of order that the pending Lott 
amendment violates rule XVI; that it is sense-of-the-Senate language on 
an appropriations bill, and that the Chair should rule on the 
germaneness question.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The point of order is not well taken.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I appeal the ruling of the Chair, in that 
the Chair has ruled it will not rule on amendments containing sense-of-
the-Senate language on the question of germaneness, and ask for the 
yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Roberts). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe we have worked out a good 
agreement on how to proceed on the issues before us and the time that 
would be used this afternoon, tonight, and into tomorrow. Let me read 
that, and if there are any questions, I will respond.
  I ask unanimous consent that the vote now occur on the appeal of the 
ruling of the Chair and, immediately following that vote, the point of 
order be withdrawn, the Senate proceed to a vote on the Lott amendment 
No. 3150, to be followed by a vote on the Daschle amendment No. 3148, 
all without intervening action or debate.
  I further ask that following those votes, Senator Levin be recognized 
to offer a strike amendment relative to Kosovo and there be 10 hours of 
debate equally divided in the usual form, with 75 minutes of the 
opponent's time under the control of Senator Byrd, and no amendments in 
order prior to the vote.
  I also ask consent that the vote occur in relation to the Levin 
amendment at 2:30 p.m., Thursday, and, following that vote, Senator 
Burns be recognized to offer a series of cleared amendments on behalf 
of the managers, and, following those, the bill be advanced to third 
reading and the Senate proceed to the House companion bill, H.R. 4425, 
and all after the enacting clause be stricken, the text of S. 2521, as 
amended, be inserted, the bill be immediately advanced to third 
reading, and a vote occur on passage, all without any intervening 
action or debate.
  I further ask consent that the Senate insist on its amendments and 
request a conference with the House and the Chair be authorized to 
appoint conferees, which will be the subcommittee and the chairman and 
ranking member, if necessary, and, following the passage vote, the 
Senate bill be indefinitely postponed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  Mr. BYRD. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, Senator 
Warner and I hope we can offer an amendment to amend our amendment 
dealing with the commitments that are laid out in that amendment which 
the allies will be expected to meet. We would like to reduce those 
commitments. I wonder if we might be able to include such an amendment 
in the request.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I would not have an objection to that. I 
don't believe there would be objection on our side.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Reserving the right to object, Senator Levin is not 
presently on the floor. I know Senator McCain has worked with Senator 
Levin on this. Maybe I can defer to him. In speaking with Senator 
Levin, I know he also wanted the opportunity to offer an amendment to 
the Byrd language. I am sure he would want to be included in any kind 
of unanimous consent that would allow for amendments. Perhaps we would 
want to include that as well. Perhaps we could revisit this question 
after we get the general agreement to accommodate the Senators.
  Mr. LOTT. I would certainly be inclined to work with Senator Byrd on 
that. I hope we can clear this agreement. We will check with all 
interested parties. I think it is a fair request. It is Senator Byrd's 
amendment along with Senator Warner. A lot of Senators are interested 
in it, and we want to be sure they have an opportunity to be aware of 
it.

  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, may I take 1 minute to state the Byrd-
Warner amendment. We would simply change the date from July 1, 2001, to 
October 1, 2001, the date on which funds would be prohibited for 
continued deployment of ground combat troops. Second is one of the 
benchmarks the President has to certify. It would be reduced from 33 
percent to 25 percent, thereby making it possible, in the judgment of 
this Senator, that the President would be able to make the 
certification as required by the amendment.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I think 
Senator Levin is on the floor now. I ask the majority leader this. It 
is my understanding that this is the first time in 16 years such a 
point of order has been raised on sense-of-the-Senate resolutions to 
amendments to appropriations bills. I ask the majority leader why this 
is the case.
  Mr. LOTT. Well, we have a number of very important appropriations 
bills we want to move through the Senate, including appropriations 
bills with emergency provisions. In the case of the military 
construction bill, we have emergency funds, needed funds, for the 
Defense Department to reimburse accounts, such as operation 
maintenance, that have already been used to pay for the additional cost 
of fuel. In the case of foreign operations, we have language regarding 
the Colombian narcodrug war situation. In agriculture, of course, we 
have disaster funds included in that legislation.
  The rule is very clear on germaneness when it is a substantive 
amendment, and the germaneness point also lies against budget 
resolutions and, under rule XXII, cloture votes and on reconciliation 
bills.
  All this would say is, that germaneness point of order would be ruled 
on by the Chair, as it is in these other instances, in the future. 
Germane amendments would clearly still be in order. I assume they would 
be offered on many of these bills. It is a clarification of the rule 
XVI provision.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, pursuing 
this a bit further, we always have appropriations bills. We did last 
year. I know some of my Republican colleagues had sense-of-the-Senate 
amendments. We always have the business of the Senate before us. I 
don't think the majority leader answered my question. Why, for the 
first time in 16 years, has the point of order been raised?
  Mr. LOTT. If it was raised 16 years ago, I guess that would be 
justification enough under the precedent of the Senate. Sense-of-the-
Senate resolutions have been growing by leaps and bounds. You will 
recall that at the conclusion

[[Page S4064]]

of the budget resolution debate, Senator Byrd rose and objected to the 
proliferation of these sense-of-the-Senate resolutions, and something 
like 35 or 40 sense-of-the-Senate resolutions fell because of the 
concerns he raised.
  We have a lot of important work to do. We have the people's business 
to deal with. We need to get appropriations for agriculture. I know the 
Senator feels strongly about that. We need to get transportation work 
done. There will be plenty of germane amendments, substantive 
amendments, to be offered. If we don't make it clear that rule XVI 
applies to the appropriations bills, both on substance and on sense of 
the Senates, a great deal of our time will be spent on both sides of 
the aisle--and this is not something just on one side or the other; 
unfortunately, we abuse it, too.
  So that is the reason, to try to clarify that and facilitate doing 
the people's work. We should have completed this military construction 
bill last Thursday.
  Here we are with a lot of issues really we should not be dealing 
with. You could argue about even some of the language that was included 
in the committee. But the fact is, we have got to get it done, and I am 
trying to find a way to help get that work done and still allow for 
appropriate germane amendments.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, this is my last question. Last year, 
the Senator from North Carolina, Mr. Helms, who had every right to do 
so, had a sense-of-the-Senate bill expressing the sense of the Senate 
that the U.S. Census Bureau has willingly decided not to include 
marital status on census questionnaires, and so on and so forth. That 
passed by a 94-0 vote. I think this was on the Transportation 
appropriations bill. This is the first time in 16 years that this has 
happened.
  I think the majority leader wants to run the Senate as the House of 
Representatives. I think it is a big mistake for this institution to be 
run that way. I think it is very difficult for us to be out here 
raising questions that are important to people's lives that we 
represent in our different States given the continuing challenges of 
raising these points of order by the majority leader. This is happening 
over and over again. I think the Senate is losing its capacity to have 
the discussions, to have debate, and to have its vitality.
  I don't think I am going to object, but I would like to go on Record 
in strong opposition to what the majority leader has done. I think it 
is a terrible precedent for the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further objection to the unanimous 
consent request of the distinguished majority leader?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. Mr. President, I am not going to object. I think the 
reason I will not is I want to have a vote on these two amendments 
because we have been trying to do it. But I hate this precedent. I am 
going to try to figure out, along with other colleagues, I hope, a 
challenge.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The distinguished Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I am sorry I was not on the floor when the 
Senator from West Virginia offered what I understand to be a proposed 
amendment to this unanimous consent proposal. Is that correct?
  Pending is the proposed amendment of the Senator from West Virginia 
to this unanimous consent request.
  Is the Senator from Michigan correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The amendment by the distinguished Senator 
from West Virginia has not been proposed.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, may I explain 
to my friend from Michigan?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. BYRD. Since the amendment, which was offered by Senator Warner 
and myself, was acted upon in the committee and has reached the floor, 
several Senators have indicated concern with respect to the 
certification process set forth in that amendment. Out of respect for 
those who are concerned about that certification process, and in an 
effort to improve the legislative product, Senator Warner and I have 
discussed this matter, and we are willing to reduce the numbers set 
forth in the certification language. We think that would improve the 
product and would also meet the concerns of Senators who have raised 
them. I was just seeking to include in the unanimous consent request a 
request that we might be able to include such an amendment.

  Mr. LEVIN. I would object at this time to any such additions to the 
unanimous consent request. And that is what I was seeking. I would not 
object to the unanimous consent as it is printed here. But at this 
time, at least, I object to the amendment which has been proposed by 
the Senator from West Virginia.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there further objection?
  The majority leader is recognized.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, let me say that I certainly have shown my 
sympathy for what Senator Byrd has tried to do. I understand Senator 
Levin wanted to make sure he has thought through what is involved here. 
But I hope that we could go ahead and get this unanimous consent 
agreement and begin to make progress. Let's work with these two 
Senators to see if we can't find a way to accommodate each other's 
desires. I know that this is substantive. But I also know that the 
sponsors of the amendment to the language would have an opportunity to 
adjust it. I hope we can go ahead and get this agreement and proceed, 
and let's continue to work on that possibility.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I reserve the right to object. I will not 
further delay, except to say I hope we can work something out. The 
Senator from Michigan is not going to be able to let us proceed with 
that part of the request. We will try to work something out. In the 
meantime, let me say that if we are unable to work out something that 
will allow us to amend this bill, I want to give those Senators who are 
concerned in this regard my assurance that in conference I will do 
everything I possibly can to reduce those certification requirements. I 
give them my word that we will get that done in conference.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Nevada.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I am grateful that we are going to be able 
have two votes. I think it is extremely important. I say to the 
majority leader I have had requests by three Members that following the 
votes on the two amendments they be allowed 15 minutes, and, of course, 
if they want, reciprocal time on the other side of the aisle. We would 
be able to agree to that. We would have 15 minutes to talk following 
the two votes. It will delay things perhaps up to half an hour, if the 
other side decides to take their 15 minutes.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if we could get the request agreed to at 
this point, with that one addition, I think that is reasonable.
  Mr. REID. That is all we have. I think if we could get that agreement 
we could go forward with the unanimous consent request.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we agree to an 
amendment of 15 minutes on each side--before we begin the Kosovo 
debate. We have 10 hours of time for the Kosovo debate. This is a very 
important foreign policy and defense issue. We need to get engaged in 
this discussion.
  I make that modification, and I urge my colleagues to agree to this 
request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. BIDEN. Is the Byrd request to amend his language part of this 
unanimous consent?
  Mr. LOTT. It is not.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is not.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, so there is no misunderstanding, the 30 
minutes would immediately follow the two votes, and I would control the 
15 minutes on this side.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is correct. Is there objection?

[[Page S4065]]

  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I have 
to ask a question of Senator Byrd and Senator Warner. If they are not 
able to perfect their amendment, am I barred from offering the 
amendment that would lengthen the time?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I can answer that. Senator Byrd and I 
discussed not having the amendment accepted. We have the assurance of 
Senator Byrd. I talked to Senator Stevens. I concur that in the 
conference the substance of the amendments will be worked out should 
the provision remain in the bill. It is the best we can do.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request of the 
distinguished majority leader?
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. I object.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LOTT. 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. LOTT. I thank my colleagues on both sides for working to 
understand what we are doing. I renew my unanimous consent request as 
stated, with the addition that was offered by Senator Reid.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object, Mr. President, I join the 
comments made by the Senator from Minnesota. This is a historic moment 
in this Chamber. It is not just another procedural vote. It is a 
decision by the majority, the Republican majority in this Senate, to 
reduce the opportunities that Members in the Senate have to discuss the 
issues of importance to this Nation. It is being offered in the name of 
efficiency. It is being offered in the name of saving time.
  It was not that long ago, only a few years ago, when the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act was debated for several weeks at a time, 
under both Democratic and Republican leadership, with the offering of a 
myriad of amendments on both sides. That was considered the 
deliberative process. That was what the Senate was all about. It was a 
battle of ideas and the best side would win. We would move forward with 
legislation in a bipartisan fashion.
  What the majority leader is doing today with this point of order is 
to basically close down debate on the floor of the Senate. I think it 
is worthy of note that the issue that has precipitated this is gun 
control. This is the bone in the throat of some of the Members who 
cannot stand the idea of voting on this issue.
  We believe this is an answer to that. Bring the bill to the floor and 
let's vote for it up or down, bring it out of conference. The idea we 
are somehow paying homage to efficiency in the name of this 
institution, in the name of taking away our birthright as Senators to 
speak to issues on behalf of the American people, I believe, is, 
frankly, going to penalize this institution.
  Mrs. HUTCHISON. Regular order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order is for Senators to object or 
not to object. Is there an objection?
  Mr. SCHUMER. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The regular order has been called. A Senator 
may object or not object.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I reserve the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has no right to--the Senator has 
the right----
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I object. I object.
  Mr. SCHUMER. I object.
  Mr. LOTT addressed the Chair.
  Mr. WELLSTONE. I object.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, everybody is trying to be patient and 
understanding. I ask the Senator be allowed to speak under his right to 
object, but remind him that the rules are that it is not an opportunity 
to give a speech on the substance. It is a reservation to make a point 
or a question. I hope the Senator would accommodate that and not go 
into a long statement.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator for his courtesy. I 
would have objected, but I spoke to our minority leader and I follow 
his leadership. I cannot state how strongly I feel about the inability 
to have open debate in the Senate. I simply say, with all due respect 
to the majority leader, a man I respect and admire, the feelings on 
this side, and our inability to debate issues we think are important--
whether they be gun control or education--are reaching the boiling 
point. I fear if we are throttled any further, the whole order and 
comity of this body will break down.
  I plead with the majority leader that we think of a better way to do 
things than close down debate on issues some Members think are vitally 
important to debate. I say that with great respect and love for this 
institution.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. LOTT. I thank my colleagues. In the 15 minutes after the votes, I 
will respond to some of the comments that have been made in the way 
they richly deserve. For now, I believe we are ready to proceed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. (Mr. Crapo). The question is, shall the 
decision of the Chair stand as the judgment of the Senate?
  The yeas and nays have been ordered. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) is 
necessaily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 45, nays 54, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 102 Leg.]

                                YEAS--45

     Akaka
     Baucus
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Torricelli
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--54

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Dodd
       
  The ruling of the Chair was overruled as the judgment of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senate will next consider amendment No. 
3150.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The yeas and nays have been requested.
  Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The question is on agreeing to amendment No. 3150. The clerk will 
call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 69, nays 30, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 103 Leg.]

                                YEAS--69

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bingaman
     Bond
     Breaux
     Brownback
     Bryan
     Bunning
     Burns
     Byrd
     Campbell
     Cleland
     Cochran
     Collins
     Conrad
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeWine
     Domenici
     Dorgan
     Edwards
     Enzi
     Feingold
     Fitzgerald
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kerry
     Kyl
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lott
     Lugar
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Murray
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Roth

[[Page S4066]]


     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thurmond
     Warner
     Wyden

                                NAYS--30

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Boxer
     Chafee, L.
     Daschle
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kohl
     Lautenberg
     Levin
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Thompson
     Torricelli
     Voinovich
     Wellstone

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Dodd
       
  The amendment (No. 3150) was agreed to.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we have witnessed an extraordinary 
political spectacle in the last 24 hours. Yesterday we spent 
approximately 3 hours in a quorum call because the Republican caucus 
could not decide how to respond to a simple Sense of the Senate 
amendment commending the Million Mom March and demanding that this 
Congress act now to pass sensible gun safety legislation.
  Today, the Republicans attempted for the second time to rule our 
amendment out of order.
  What, I ask, is so disconcerting about the Democratic amendment?
  Are there really members of this Senate who do not believe that the 
stalling has gone on too long? Are there really members of this Senate 
who believe that it is not a national emergency that children are dying 
in this country every day from gun violence? Are there really members 
of this Senate who believe that this emergency is too insignificant to 
command time on the Senate floor?
  Yesterday, after 3 hours of silence and paralysis, our Republican 
colleagues decided that they could not simply join us in commending the 
Million Moms. Instead, they decided to offer their own amendment.
  Let us not be distracted. We will vote on the Republican amendment, 
but the vote that matters, the vote that may just prevent more kids 
from dying, is on the amendment I have offered.
  Constitutional scholars may disagree about the meaning of the Second 
Amendment, but I for one believe there is nothing inconsistent about 
protecting the Second Amendment and closing the gun-show loophole, 
requiring trigger locks on handguns, or banning juvenile possession of 
military style assault weapons.
  Moreover, I agree we should enforce our gun laws. But that is only 
part of the solution. It is just a basic fact that you can't enforce a 
loophole. We need a policy of zero loopholes, and zero tolerance.
  The gun lobby keeps trying to confuse us. They say the debate is 
either new gun laws or education. They say it is either new gun laws or 
enforcement of existing laws. But this is not an either/or debate. We 
need a multifaceted solution to end gun violence.
  Let's look at what the Republican amendment says:
  They call for better enforcement of existing gun laws. But they can't 
resist attacking the Clinton Administration's efforts. They twist 
statistics to make the case they want.
  The reality is that the number of firearms offenders sentenced to 5 
years or more in federal prison has increased more than 41 percent 
since 1992. The reality is that federal authorities have worked 
diligently with state and local authorities, during this 
Administration, to reduce violent crime in a cooperative and 
coordinated fashion. The reality is the total number of prosecutions 
for weapons offenses has increased more than 22 percent since the 
beginning of this Administration and violent crime has dropped by 35 
percent.
  I think we should commend America's hard-working law enforcement 
officials for these successes, not vilify them. Sadly, my Republican 
colleagues do not agree.
  Next, the Republican Sense of the Senate acknowledges the existence 
of the Juvenile Justice Conference Committee. And they point to 
provisions passed by this Senate as part of the Juvenile Justice bill 
that they support, such as strengthening penalties for gun crimes and 
illegal gun purchases and prohibiting juveniles who commit felonies 
from ever possessing a gun.
  Democrats support these provisions, too. But these measures, by 
themselves, are not enough. This Senate did better. This Senate passed 
the Lautenberg amendment to close the gun show loophole. And just a 
month and a half ago, 53 Senators reaffirmed that the conference report 
should include this provision. Sadly, my Republican colleagues chose 
not to include the Lautenberg amendment on their list of priorities.
  The Republican amendment, however, while it acknowledges the 
existence of the Juvenile Justice Conference, does not explain why that 
conference report has yet to come before this Senate.
  The biggest problem may not be difference over which provisions are 
most important. The biggest problem may be the fact that special 
interest politics have prevented this conference from meeting at all.
  Finally, the Republican amendment concludes that each U.S. Attorney's 
office should designate a prosecutor to pursue firearms violations, 
that we should update the national instant criminal background system, 
and that we should encourage states to impose mandatory minimum 
sentences for firearm offenses. Again, most Democrats support these 
measures. But are they enough? We know they are not.
  Their amendment also concludes that law-abiding citizens have the 
right to own a firearm for self-defense and recreation. I agree with 
this statement. I myself am a hunter. But I am also a father and I feel 
for all the other fathers--and mothers--who have lost a child to gun 
violence. That is why I introduced this amendment.
  On the whole, I have decided to vote against this amendment because I 
disagree too strongly with many of the findings in the Republican Sense 
of the Senate amendment, and their one-sided nature. However, I must 
make clear that I support the second amendment, like other 
constitutional provisions, and believe that the second amendment does 
not preclude reasonable regulation of the use of firearms. But this 
Republican amendment does not go far enough and will not stop the 
violence in our communities.
  Democrats have offered an amendment that acknowledges the dreadful 
cost that gun violence is having on our country. We cannot forget that 
12 young people are killed every day in America by gunfire. We cannot 
forget that American children under the age of 15 are 12 times more 
likely to die from gunfire than children in 25 other industrial 
countries combined. And we cannot forget that every day we spend in 
political gridlock is a day we waste solving this terrible problem--a 
day we do less than we should to stop the killing.
  That is why the Democratic amendment, in addition to commending the 
mothers and fathers that gathered across the country this Mother's Day 
to call for meaningful, common-sense gun policy, insists that Congress 
act now to improve our gun safety laws.
  This Senate needs to demonstrate to America's mothers and fathers 
that we heard their call. This Senate needs to resolve today, as the 
Democratic amendment demands, that the Juvenile Justice Conference must 
meet and must pass a conference report that includes the Lautenberg 
amendment and other critical provisions to limit access to firearms by 
juveniles, convicted felons, and other prohibited persons.
  It is the least we should do, and it is long overdue.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that vote No. 64 be printed in 
the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                  Rollcall Vote No. 64, April 6, 2000

 (On agreeing to the Reed amendment (No. 2964) to express the sense of 
    the Senate regarding the need to reduce gun violence in America)

                                YEAS--53

     Abraham
     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCain
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Smith, (OR)
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

[[Page S4067]]



                                NAYS--47

     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Jeffords
     Kyl
     Lott
     Mack
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich


                           Amendment No. 3148

  Mr. CRAPO. The question is on agreeing to the Daschle amendment, No. 
3148.
  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There is a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk called the roll.
  Mr. REID. I announce that the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Dodd) is 
necessarily absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
who desire to vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 50, nays 49, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 104 Leg.]

                                YEAS--50

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Breaux
     Bryan
     Byrd
     Chafee, L.
     Cleland
     Conrad
     Daschle
     DeWine
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Edwards
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Fitzgerald
     Graham
     Harkin
     Hollings
     Inouye
     Jeffords
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerrey
     Kerry
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     Mikulski
     Moynihan
     Murray
     Reed
     Reid
     Robb
     Rockefeller
     Roth
     Sarbanes
     Schumer
     Torricelli
     Warner
     Wellstone
     Wyden

                                NAYS--49

     Abraham
     Allard
     Ashcroft
     Baucus
     Bennett
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burns
     Campbell
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coverdell
     Craig
     Crapo
     Domenici
     Enzi
     Frist
     Gorton
     Gramm
     Grams
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hatch
     Helms
     Hutchinson
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Kyl
     Lott
     Mack
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Nickles
     Roberts
     Santorum
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith (NH)
     Smith (OR)
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stevens
     Thomas
     Thompson
     Thurmond
     Voinovich

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
       Dodd
       
  The amendment (No. 3148) was agreed to.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mrs. BOXER. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Sessions). The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, after an extended period of time for votes 
on these issues, we are ready to go to what I hope will finally be a 
substantive debate with regard to the Kosovo issue. Under the agreement 
that was worked out, I believe we have 15 minutes now to talk about 
this series of votes which just occurred. Therefore, I claim a part of 
that time for myself.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There are 15 minutes per side.
  Mr. LOTT. I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. President, there were a number of things said earlier today on 
which I just bit my lip and took it because I thought, for the greater 
good of the Chamber, we should get an agreement and move forward. There 
has been a lot of what I consider to be misinformation put out about 
this issue and why we were proceeding the way we were. Plus, I also 
feel personally maligned, and I do not appreciate it, I say to my 
colleagues.
  I made the choice to leave the House and come to the Senate. I was on 
the Rules Committee. I could have stayed there. I could have been on 
the Rules Committee, but I chose to leave. I do not think we have any--
I do not remember the term that was used earlier--God-given rights in 
this institution.
  We all have certain rights, and I am going to work to protect those 
rights. When I believed Senator Schumer was not being treated properly, 
I spoke up. Last year, in a very critical moment when Senator Byrd was 
not being treated properly, I said: No, that is not right.
  I am getting really tired of people questioning my commitment to the 
Senate and to the opportunity for debates and that I am trying to be a 
rules committee of one.
  I tell you, what I am trying to do is find a way for the Senate to do 
its work. These charges that are leveled against me are nonsense.
  One of the things I have done since I have been in the Senate and 
have been majority leader is I have studied the history of this 
institution. That is why I started the Leader's Lecture Series, because 
I wanted to know what previous majority leaders did. I read them on 
both sides. I can tell you what Senator Mansfield did. I can tell you 
what Senator Lyndon Johnson did. I can tell you what Senator Byrd, 
Senator Mitchell, Senator Dole, and Senator Baker did as majority 
leaders.
  People talk about that civility has broken down, and there is 
acrimony. That is ridiculous. I think we have a very good relationship 
here. You may not get it the way you want it every time, but you do not 
have a guarantee that you get the results you want every time.
  What it is really all about is getting the work of the Senate done, 
dealing with real bills and real issues, not playing games and saying: 
OK, we voted last year; we have not voted this year. OK, we voted last 
month; we have not voted this month.
  Somebody has to be charged with the responsibility of trying to get 
the process to move forward. It falls to the responsibility of the 
majority and, therefore, the majority leader.
  Am I the only guy here who thinks we ought to get the military 
construction appropriations bill done with the emergencies in it that 
the President asked for?
  Am I the only guy here who thinks we ought to pass the foreign 
operations appropriations bill with the Colombian drug money in it, 
which we need to do, because there is a crisis developing down there? 
You talk about the situation in Kosovo. I think the situation in 
Colombia is a lot more dangerous for the long term. They are poisoning 
the minds of our children. Every day they are killing kids.
  Am I the only one who thinks we ought to do the agriculture 
appropriations bill with the disaster money that is in it? Everybody 
says: We want it. We want it. When? When do you propose to do it?
  The military construction appropriations bill should have been done 
last Thursday. It could have been done last Thursday. We could have had 
a debate on the Kosovo issue. I did not put that into this process. It 
was done at the subcommittee level. I might not have done it that way, 
but it is there. We have to deal with it. No, no, no, no, the word was 
we had to have talk about guns, driven by the Million Mom March.
  You wanted debate. Yesterday at 4 o'clock, I said: OK, let's have 
debate. The rest of the night we will debate, tomorrow for 3 hours, and 
we will have a vote. No. We were told we have to have 12 hours for 
debate on this issue. And then, 4, 5 hours later, we wound up basically 
getting an agreement so people could talk for about the same time. 
Maybe you all were not aware I was trying to say, OK, let's have 
debate.
  I want to go back to one other thing I said earlier. No, it is not a 
``rules committee of one.'' It is a rules committee of the majority. 
There has to be fairness; there has to be understanding. You have to be 
able to make your speeches on both sides. We want that. But to have 
these sense-of-the-Senate resolutions that make these great, profound 
statements but don't result in any substantive action, I think that is 
a very serious problem.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader has used his 5 minutes.
  Mr. LOTT. We had in our budget resolution provisions that stopped 
sense-of-the-Senate resolutions from being voted on repeatedly, over--
well, 45 of them right at the end of the session.
  Now, somebody said we are trying to shut down Senate debate. We had 
debate. We had 6 or more hours on this issue. We debated it 4. We had 
debate on it last week on the so-called gun issue. We had debate and 
votes on it last year.
  As a matter of fact, we have bills in conference on a number of these 
issues on which we are going to act. I am working on them one by one. 
We have

[[Page S4068]]

the FAA authorization conference report. We have the African trade 
conference report. We are working, in a bipartisan way, to see if we 
can get the bankruptcy conference report. We are working on e-commerce.
  Nobody is trying to shut the Senate down. We are trying to get the 
Senate to move forward and do its work.
  As far as order and comity, I support that. I am going to do 
everything I can to continue to support that. But I think for us to 
have basically 1, 2, 3, 4 days tied up having debate on gun amendments 
instead of having debate on Kosovo and the military construction 
appropriations bill is not the way we should be operating.
  We have this language in conference. We voted on it last year in the 
juvenile justice bill. Maybe you forgot. But last year I said, with 
advanced notice: OK, we are going to have the juvenile justice bill. It 
is going to be open for amendment. We were going to finish it; start on 
Monday and get through on Thursday. It took another whole week. My 
trying to be helpful and cooperative wound up causing all kinds of 
problems for us.
  I think it is important that we put this in perspective. We had the 
two votes. What has been proven here? One of them--a resolution--we 
agreed to by a vote of 69-30, saying: Hey, we have laws on the books. 
Why don't we enforce the gun laws? Why don't we arrest people who are 
using guns in the commission of crimes? Why don't we stop people from 
taking guns into schools? Why don't we take actions instead of just 
talking about it?
  More laws on the books. Oh, that's the solution: More laws. Let's 
take away people's rights instead of enforcing the laws that are on the 
books.
  But we got an overwhelming vote on that. Then again, we got a vote of 
50-49 telling the conference to act before Memorial Day. Well, great. 
The Senate is going to tell the conference to act before Memorial Day? 
Do you know how much weight that really carries? Zero.
  They are going to get a juvenile justice bill. Will it be to the 
perfect liking of me or anybody else in this Chamber? I doubt it. But 
they are going to get a result.
  So this is a lot of sound and fury that is not going to produce 
results in terms of the Justice Department enforcing the laws on the 
books or in terms of getting the conference to provide a final action.
  I have been pushing to act on that conference report. In fact, I am 
pushing every conference report. But I have to go on the record saying 
I do believe I have been maligned unfairly. I have bent over backward 
to try to give notice when we were going to call up a bill and to have 
cooperation with the Democratic leadership to make sure Senators had a 
chance to make their case.

  But to come in here and think we have to have a right to offer 
nongermane amendments to every appropriations bill that comes through, 
and then criticize us for not getting our work done--oh, boy, that is 
really smart--really smart: Yes, we demand our rights to offer our 
issues. By the way, why aren't you guys getting these bills done?
  I do not believe the American people are being fooled by all of this.
  So I will end with this. I will not impugn other people's actions or 
integrity. I am going to try very hard to make sure we are civil in the 
way we act and that we have a relationship. But also I hope you will 
understand that I am trying to get bills done.
  Some people say: You worry too much about running the railroad. 
Somebody has to do that. I guess it is my responsibility. Somebody has 
to try to see if we can get these appropriations bills done before the 
end of the year so we don't get to the end of the session and schools 
don't know what they are going to get, parks don't know what they are 
going to get, while we are wrangling around here to see who is going to 
get primacy over the other.
  I am saying let's do these appropriations bills. I am going to give 
priority to the appropriations bills over everything else. I would like 
to do the defense authorization bill and the defense appropriations 
bill next week, but we have people who want to offer nongermane, 
nonrelevant amendments that are going to tie that up probably for all 
week. So instead, we will go to the agriculture appropriations bill.
  But before we leave next week, we are going to have to do the 
military construction appropriations bill, the foreign operations 
appropriations bill, and the agriculture appropriations bill. In the 
process, if we could have a little cooperation, I think we could get a 
lot of nominations done. Hopefully, we can come to an agreement on how 
to complete action on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
  I am going to offer a unanimous consent request next week or tomorrow 
to have more amendments on education, but let's see if we can find a 
way to get to a conclusion on education. I presume the Democrats are 
going to object because they want to offer issues that do not relate to 
elementary and secondary education.
  Let me say I suspect there might be objections on this side, too, 
because people want to offer amendments that are going to do nothing 
but cause problems and probably defeat the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act. I do not think that is good. I think we need to address 
this issue of education.
  So I wanted to take advantage of some of this 15 minutes. I do not 
know how much time is left. But I had it on my chest, and I had to hold 
it earlier, so now I feel better. I hope maybe we all got some of this 
out of our system and we can move on to get our work done.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic leader is recognized.
  Mr. DASCHLE. I will use my leader time and not the time allocated to 
others for consideration of their remarks.
  Let me just say the majority leader was able to get some things off 
his chest. I have not heard all of what he has unloaded this 
afternoon. But I look forward to reading the Record. I don't know if 
there is any possible way, in a period of a couple minutes, for us to 
get everything off of our chests.

  I will tell you this. The way the Senate is being run is wrong. No 
majority leader in history has attempted to constrain Senate debate as 
aggressively as Senator Lott has chosen to do. Now, that is his right. 
People ask, on many occasions, what my feelings are personally about 
that. That is his right. He has chosen the way he runs the Senate. I 
think he is doing that for what many believe is a laudatory reason. He 
is trying to protect his members so they don't have to vote on tough 
issues.
  Let's get it out on the table. If I am going to get everything off my 
chest, I think he is trying to protect his members. He sees that as his 
role. I understand that. But no majority leader has ever gone to the 
extent that he has--no one in history. I defy anybody to come to the 
floor and challenge that statement. No majority leader has come to the 
floor to say, before we take up any bill, we will have to limit the 
entire Senate to relevant amendments. No one has done that. So let's 
get that straight. I ask any of the 99 colleagues to challenge that 
statement. No one can. So we start from that.
  Why do we want to have debate on amendments? Because that is the only 
ability for the minority to express itself. The majority leader has 
phrased it very interestingly. He said: I don't want all these 
amendments to cause trouble. The more they cause trouble, the more in 
jeopardy the bills will be.
  He made reference to that regarding the education bill. He didn't 
want amendments to cause trouble. Cause trouble for whom? What kind of 
trouble? What are we talking about here? We are talking about the 
ability of Senators to express themselves, to offer amendments, to have 
debate. There is an old-fashioned way of dealing with it. It is called 
a tabling motion. Or you can get elaborate and offer a second-degree 
amendment. You can do all kinds of things. But to say, ``We are going 
to come to the floor and do it my way or no way,'' is unacceptable.
  Over and over and over and over again, we are told that is the way it 
is going to be. One of our colleagues the other day said it is like the 
frog sitting in a pot of water who doesn't notice that the water keeps 
getting hotter and ultimately the frog boils to death. Well, the water 
continues to heat, and we are slowly boiling to death, procedurally.
  We just lost another right this afternoon, and it is outrageous--
outrageous. How many more times do we have to limit ourselves to debate 
on the Senate floor, and how many other ways are we

[[Page S4069]]

going to limit debate and expression and gag Senators? That is wrong. 
That is absolutely the wrong way to run the Senate. We hear a lot about 
cooperation, but I am telling you, there will not be cooperation unless 
we understand that the minority has to have its rights, too. Those 
rights have to be respected.
  I hope, when we are in the majority, we understand the rights of the 
minority. I will admonish my colleagues to do that. But this is getting 
to be more and more a second House of Representatives. This is getting 
to be more and more a gagged body. This has nothing to do with the 
traditions of the Senate that I admired when I became a Senator. We 
have gagged Senators on the budget. We have gagged Senators on 
appropriations. We have gagged Senators on sense-of-the-Senate 
resolutions. We have gagged Senators on the right to participate in 
conferences. Do you know that we have not had a conference report this 
year come back with a kind of conference that we have always 
historically and traditionally organized as a result of passing 
legislation? We just don't have real conference committees anymore.
  I just heard a report in our ranking member's lunch today, where 
staff reported on virtually every bill that has passed the Senate, 
where we are meeting at the staff level trying to work things out for 
the conference report, and Republican staff told Democratic staff: If 
you don't like it, don't come because that is the way it is going to 
be. That is cooperation?

  So I will say to my colleagues on the other side that we are not 
going to tolerate it anymore. We are not going to accept that anymore. 
I am going to demand that every single appropriations bill that comes 
to the Senate before it can be completed be passed in the House first 
because that is regular order. Let's stay through a recess for a 
change. I am ready. We are going to require the regular order when it 
comes to appropriations bills. We are not going to do unanimous consent 
requests routinely as we have done so easily and quickly in the past.
  It is over. If there is going to be cooperation, I want to see it on 
both sides. I want to see some respect for the rights of the minority 
when we deal with these issues, and I will not allow our members to be 
gagged. We will have a lot more to say about this, but I am telling 
you, we have drawn the line. We are not going to be conducting business 
as we have in the last several months. That is over. That is behind us. 
We can do it the Senate way, or we are not going to do it at all.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I believe we have 4 minutes left on our 
side. I believe I have some leader time left.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader is correct.
  Mr. LOTT. I yield myself time under my leader time and leave the 
remaining 4 minutes for others who might want to speak on the gun 
issue.
  If that is the way it is going to be, then that is the way it is 
going to be. One of the things that shocked me in the last day in 
talking about things that you don't appreciate is, yesterday, I had no 
notice at all that this issue was going to come up. I found out when I 
came on the floor. I had not seen the amendment to be offered. I had no 
notice whatsoever.
  Earlier this year, when there was an incident where I took an action 
and the Democrats had not been notified, it was called to my 
attention--because I thought they had been--so I apologized and said we 
would correct that, and we did. But if it is over, it is over. This can 
go all ways. We can just draw the line and not get any work done. We 
can just not have cooperation if that is the way they want it to be. 
But it extends across the board. I don't think that is the way to 
proceed.
  I am not going to be threatened and intimidated by the minority in 
trying to get our work done. If you want to go through this approach, 
if you want to shut down everything, then everybody loses in that 
process. We can cooperate and we can get these bills done.
  As far as issues coming up where we don't like it--in fact, one of 
the Senators I have been concerned about--and one of the issues on this 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act is that we have a Senator who 
wants to offer something dealing with NCAA gaming, and there is an 
objection on the Democratic side. I have gone to the colleague on this 
side and said this is not relevant to this issue, doesn't relate to 
elementary and secondary education, and we ought not to do that. After 
a lot of back and forth, he came back and said: OK, if we can get it up 
some other way, I will agree to back off of that for now.

  But on both sides we have Senators who want to offer things that will 
cause mischief and delay or kill a bill. That happens. If you have an 
elementary and secondary education issue that comes up and somebody 
offers a killer amendment, we stall out right there. It might not be on 
this side.
  So it takes a lot of cooperation around here on both sides. I think 
we have had that pretty much for 4 years. Both leaders have to look 
after their members. You have members who want to be heard. You have to 
try to get them in there. In fact, every one of these issues that I 
hear complaints about, we voted on all those issues. We voted on all of 
them over the last year. Maybe not this year or last month, but they 
have been voted on. So I hope it doesn't come to this.
  I have tried to avoid having an acrimonious relationship. Maybe it is 
unavoidable in this election year, but I think that would be a shame 
for the American people because, after all, that is about whom we 
should be thinking.
  Regarding these conference reports, I have never seen a more 
bipartisan effort than what we had on the Africa and CBI trade bill. I 
don't know whether it was some sort of legally constituted conference 
or not. Sometimes the House doesn't appoint conferees, but we have an 
obligation to keep trying to work. Senator Moynihan was there, Senator 
Roth was involved, as were Chairman Archer and Congressman Rangel. It 
was totally bipartisan.
  It was one way, one side, or one party or the other trying to get the 
upper hand on the other.
  The reason we are doing what we are doing on bankruptcy is that we 
are trying to find a way to move bankruptcy so we can then extract the 
minimum wage issue. We have people on one side or the other objecting 
to it. What do you propose we do? What I propose we do is to get our 
work done right across the board. I am willing to try to do that.
  But if we are going to hold our breath, turn red in the face and 
threaten, then that is the way it will be. But everybody needs to 
understand that in that kind of relationship nobody wins; everybody 
loses. More importantly, this body and the American people lose because 
we have a lot of work we need to do together.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I am sure I have a little time remaining.
  Let me just say no one wants to stomp their feet and get red in the 
face--certainly not me. That is not my style. If it has happened, it is 
only because the frustration level continues to mount.
  It is ironic that the majority leader uses the word ``cooperation'' 
so frequently because that irony has struck me to be the essence of the 
problem. There is so little opportunity for cooperation when the 
majority acts in the manner it has throughout this Congress. That is 
the problem--no cooperation. We are prepared to work through 
appropriations bills and to work through the authorization bills.
  He mentioned the need for cooperation. He also mentioned, I might 
add, the urgency of the emergency funding in these appropriations 
bills. The House begged the majority leader for cooperation on the 
emergency supplemental. The administration begged the majority leader 
for cooperation on the emergency supplemental. Many of us on the 
Democratic side urged the majority leader to cooperate on the emergency 
supplemental. But do you know what the majority leader said? I have 
decided there will not be any cooperation on the emergency 
supplemental. I have decided it will go piece by piece in 
appropriations bills, and you take it or leave it.
  I am not trying to get excited here. But let me just say as softly 
and as sincerely as I can: That is not cooperation. That is a Senate 
version of dictatorship that I think is unacceptable. We work by 
committee. We work by consensus. We work by genuine cooperation. We 
work by trying to deal

[[Page S4070]]

with these issues one by one. I could cite many other examples. We want 
cooperation. We are willing to work with the majority quietly and 
productively. But we want cooperation.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I hope I have some time left because I do 
need to put some things in the Record.
  With regard to cloture votes, I have studied the masters.
  First of all, we now have to file cloture on the motion to proceed 
because we are told it is going to be filibustered. Even the motion to 
go to a bill is being filibustered, and there has been a tremendous 
increase in that.
  We are not filibustering even the substance of the bill but the 
motion to proceed to the bill.
  Let me give you some statistics.
  When Senator Byrd was majority leader, he filed 87 cloture motions. 
There was one cloture vote on a conference report.
  The average cloture votes per Congress: 289.
  Senator Mitchell filed 166 cloture motions--26 cloture motions on 
conference reports, and then 35 motions that were withdrawn or 
vitiated. That is another thing. Quite often we have to file cloture; 
we get an agreement, and we vitiate it.
  Senator Dole--so everybody understands this is not partisan--filed 91 
cloture motions: 5 cloture motions on conference reports, and 21 of 
them were withdrawn.
  These are some interesting statistics about how we proceed around 
here. When we are having a filibuster, either we have amendments or we 
debate. That is the only option the majority leader has.
  I wanted to get that in the Record.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The minority leader.
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me say for the Record at this moment, 
in response to the distinguished majority leader, that Senator Byrd and 
Senator Mitchell never filed cloture to prevent Members from offering 
amendments--never.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Nevada is recognized for 15 minutes.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to Senator Kennedy, 4 
minutes to Senator Boxer, 3 minutes to Senator Durbin, 2 minutes to 
Senator Reed of Rhode Island, and 1 minute to Senator Schumer.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I hope our majority leader understands 
the friendship and the personal affection that many of us feel for him 
personally. This really isn't a personal issue. It is about how we are 
defining the role of the Senate.
  As I remember history, our Founding Fathers wanted this to be a place 
where there would be free and open discussion and the clash of ideas--
not a place for a narrow, partisan agenda; not where there was going to 
be, as the Democratic leader pointed out, effectively, the gagging of 
Members from being able to represent different ideas and different 
positions.
  We come from all different parts of the country. We represent a 
variety of interests. This institution is supposed to be, as I thought 
it was going to be, about representing various positions and having the 
clash of ideas.
  There isn't anyone who has questioned the majority leader's 
leadership in asking for a delay in terms of the consideration of 
various pieces of legislation. That is not what this is about.
  But there are many of us who believe it is a matter of importance 
that we deal with the availability of guns to children in this country. 
We don't think that this is just some simple Democratic proposal. We 
believe it is something that goes to the core of many families in this 
nation. We think we ought to be able to debate and then call the roll.
  We don't think it is just a matter of some narrow interest about 
whether we debate and finally resolve the issue of prescription drugs. 
We think that this is something of major importance and consequence.
  We had to go through the hoops in order to try to deal with the No. 1 
issue of people in this country; that is, whether doctors are going to 
make the decisions in treating people or whether it is going to be 
insurance agents. We are being denied the opportunity to bring those 
up. We were denied that opportunity and we've had to go through 
gymnastics.
  We are denied the simple opportunity to have a vote in the Senate on 
the issue that affects 12 million of the neediest people in this 
country, the minimum wage.
  So the leader shouldn't take this as a personal matter. This is what 
we think this institution is all about. They have their agenda. They 
have the votes. But let us at least try to represent what we believe 
families in this country are all about. That is what I think our leader 
is attempting to make sure we do.
  With all respect to our leader and all the history he has 
represented, I have been here for a good period of time and we have 
never had this kind of termination and basic denial of individuals 
being able to raise these issues.
  We were here when Jim Abourezk, Howard Metzenbaum, and one other 
Senator closed down the Senate day in and day out because of their 
concerns on the deregulation of natural gas. People respected this. And 
at the end of 3 days and nights, Members of the Senate were going out 
and embracing and shaking hands because they respected the fact that 
people had strong views and that this institution responded to them.
  That is all we are asking. Let's let the Senate be the Senate of the 
United States. That is what we are going to fight for, and that is what 
we are going to insist on.
  I agree with my good friend, the Senator from South Dakota. This 
isn't about feeling threatened. No one is threatening. If you want to 
shut this thing down, go to it. If you are not going to let the work 
get done, so be it. If you want to threaten with being red in the face, 
so be it. No one is talking about that. We are talking about trying to 
advance the agenda that is of central concern to people in this 
country.
  That is what this institution is about. I thought Senator Daschle 
spoke for the institution. I think it is an agenda that should be 
pursued.
  Mrs. BOXER. I will take a deep breath to see where we are in this 
great body.
  Senator Daschle, on behalf of many Members on this side and on behalf 
of 750,000 moms and their families, offered a very simple amendment to 
the bill. By the way, that happens all the time or should happen all 
the time around here. He offered a simple amendment to a bill 
commending the Million Mom March and simply asking that the conference 
committee that is taking up the juvenile justice bill release that 
bill, bring it back with the five sensible gun laws, and send it to the 
President for his signature. These five sensible gun laws are to stop 
the killing, the violence that is happening in our streets, in our 
cities, in our suburbs and our rural areas, in our schools, even in our 
churches, even in our Jewish community centers, a simple, 
straightforward amendment.
  The majority leader said today he didn't see it coming. What was 
coming? An amendment, a simple, straightforward amendment. The majority 
leader acted as if he was hurt to the core that this amendment would be 
offered.
  Let me say with great affection to the majority leader, he shut the 
Senate down for 5 hours yesterday because he didn't want to vote on 
that simple, straightforward amendment commending the Million Mom March 
and asking that conference committee to come back with the legislation. 
He shut the Senate down for 5 hours. It took 24 hours until we were 
able to vote. Might I just say when we thought we were ready to vote, 
he made a point of order that hasn't occurred in 16 years to try to do 
away with that vote. He wonders why those on this side felt we were 
being gagged.
  On the bright side, we won that vote today. The Senate has gone on 
record for the second time--the first time with the Reed amendment, and 
the second time with the Daschle amendment--to bring five sensible gun 
laws to this body for action. The Senate has spoken. The majority 
leader made light of it and said, ``No one really cares about it. It is 
a sense-of-the-Senate amendment.'' That isn't being respectful of the 
Members here, a few of

[[Page S4071]]

whom crossed over from that side of the aisle. I thank those three or 
four who did so. I think the majority leader is wrong to think the 
conference committee would not listen. I hope it will.
  One of the things the majority leader said is we want to get to the 
``real'' bills. I close with this: Is the majority leader implying that 
it is not a ``real'' tragedy when 12 children are shot down and killed 
every day? Does the majority not think it is a real issue, it is a real 
concern, when 30,000 Americans are killed every year--300,000-plus over 
the last 11 years, and 8 times as many injured, many in wheelchairs, 
suffering posttraumatic stress.
  This has been an emotional couple of days for this Senator. This is 
the Senate. We should not be gagged. We should be heard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois is recognized for 3 
minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have worked in and around legislatures 
in the Congress for most of my life, over 30 years. I understand what 
being in the minority means. That means we usually lose. That is part 
of the business.
  I also believed when I was elected to the Senate that I had an 
obligation beyond my obligation to the people of the State of Illinois, 
an obligation to this institution. This institution represents 
something special in the history of this Nation. Only about 1,840 men 
and women have had the honor to serve in the Senate. I think we all 
feel an obligation to our Nation, to our Constitution but, equally, we 
feel an obligation to the Senate.
  I have stood by for the last 4 years and watched consistently while 
the Republican majority has reduced the opportunity for Members of the 
Senate to express their point of view, reduced the opportunity to 
deliberate the great issues, reduced the opportunity for people to 
stand up and speak from the heart on the floor of the Senate. I don't 
believe that is consistent with the history or tradition of the Senate.
  What we saw happen today I hope will be noted by the press and 
historians. Bringing up the controversial gun issue, the Republican 
leadership in the Senate decided to close down for the first time in 16 
years the opportunity of any Senator, Democrat or Republican, to offer 
a sense-of-the-Senate resolution to an appropriations bill. They have 
limited, once again, the opportunity for Senators of both parties to 
debate. I don't believe that is in the best interest of the Senate nor 
is it in the best interest of the country.
  It is clear evidence that this issue of gun safety, an issue which 
touches the hearts of so many families across America, is one that must 
be debated and resolved on the floor of the Senate. Instead, every 
obstacle possible is thrown in our path.
  What we are asking for is simply this: Bring the conference report 
out; let Members vote on it. If we pass it, send it to the President; 
if we don't, take it to the people in an election. That is what this 
business is about.
  Senator Kennedy, who has served for over 30 years in this body, has 
one of the most important pieces of legislation in his control on the 
Democratic side, our education bill. He is asking for a chance to 
debate some important amendments, some controversial amendments, bring 
it forward and pass it, as every Congress has done, decade after 
decade. And he is stopped, week after week, by the Republican majority 
which refuses to consider amendments they find unpopular.
  I understand as a Member of the Senate I will have to vote for and 
against unpopular issues. That is the nature of this job. I understand, 
as well, that we are sent here to deliberate these issues.
  I close, saying I am sorry that the majority leader felt some of the 
comments made earlier were personal in nature. They were not. Though I 
disagree with him on so many issues, I do respect him. I hope he will 
pause and reflect on the future of this institution and believe that 
beyond the issue of gun control, we all have an obligation on both 
sides of the aisle to preserve the history and tradition of the Senate.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, today for the second time in a month, the 
Senate of the United States has gone on record supporting sensible gun 
safety legislation. It has gone on record to say that we should close 
the gun show loophole; that we should ban the importation of large 
capacity ammunition clips; that we should require the use of child 
safety locks; that we should prohibit the possession of assault weapons 
by juveniles.
  This body could not be clearer on where it stands when it comes down 
to the issues. What is confusing is the fact that we are unable to 
reach these issues in a substantive, decisive way because the 
legislation is not on this floor but bottled up in a conference 
committee.
  We are responding to many things. Most recently, we were responding 
to hundreds of thousands of American men and women who came to this 
capital to ask their Senators to act. How do we act? We do it by debate 
and by voting. That is what we did this afternoon. It is difficult, 
sometimes, to achieve a vote because of the procedures of the Senate, 
but in consequence of that, there has always been the presumption that 
debate should be free ranging, should be open, and should be easy to 
obtain.
  Today, we should celebrate not only the victory--again, within a 
month--of what I think is reason over unreason, of sensible safety when 
it comes to guns, over a fascination with the proliferation of weapons 
in society, but we all should celebrate the fact that finally and 
ultimately we have gotten a chance to speak about this issue, speak for 
the hundreds of thousands of mothers who came last weekend to 
Washington to ask us to live up to our oaths and our duty and to 
protect their children and all Americans by enacting sensible gun 
safety legislation.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New York.
  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, I have 1 minute. I hope I am not too 
succinct.
  The bottom line is simple: Why, for the first time in 16 years, are 
sense-of-the-Senate resolutions being refused? Because the other side 
does not want to vote on guns.
  Why, for the first time, is ESEA not being debated fully? Because the 
other side doesn't want to vote on guns.
  Guns is the issue--not the efficiency of the Senate.
  I think it is a shame. Eighty percent of the American people want 
commonsense gun legislation. The Republican majority is afraid to vote 
on it and instead twists the rules, the procedures, and the beauty of 
this body in a knot because they do not want to vote on guns.
  The issue is not about moving the Senate efficiently; the issue is 
the fear of voting on guns, plain and simple. I regret the inability of 
the other side to have the courage of their convictions to vote the way 
they feel and let our side vote the way we feel.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, did we have 3 minutes in that wrapup?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Four minutes. Approximately 4 minutes remain.
  Mr. BURNS. Mr. President, I want to take a moment and tell my good 
friends, especially the Senator from New York who has left the floor, 
make no mistake, I am proud of my vote. Make no mistake about that 
because I love this Constitution. We should not be out here arguing 
about something. We should all be working together, trying to get 
America working together so we can do something about this violence. 
This is what I said a while ago: It boils down to communities' and 
individuals' responsibilities. We can pass laws all day, make us all 
feel good and warm, but they are not going to work. They are not going 
to work. I feel bad about that.
  I am proud of my vote today. Don't worry about me, that I did not 
have nerve enough to stand up here and vote my conscience. I voted my 
conscience.
  By the way, Senator Warner of Virginia will be handling our side of 
this debate, and Senator Roberts is here now.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan is recognized for 
the purpose of offering an amendment.


                           Amendment No. 3154

         (Purpose: To strike section 2410, relating to Kosovo)

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf 
of myself, Senators McCain, Biden, Lugar, Hagel, Lieberman, Smith of 
Oregon, Robb, Voinovich, Reed of

[[Page S4072]]

Rhode Island, Mack, Lautenberg, Kerry of Massachusetts, and Daschle, 
and ask for its immediate consideration.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       The Senator from Michigan [Mr. Levin], for himself, Mr. 
     McCain, Mr. Lugar, Mr. Biden, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Lieberman, Mr. 
     Smith of Oregon, Mr. Robb, Mr. Voinovich, Mr. Reed, Mr. Mack, 
     Mr. Lautenberg, Mr. Kerry, and Mr. Daschle, proposes an 
     amendment No. 3154.

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

       Strike section 2410.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I yield myself 3 minutes, and then I am 
going to yield to the Senator from Delaware for 45 minutes.
  Our amendment strikes language in the bill which requires ground 
troops be withdrawn from Kosovo by a fixed date next year unless 
Congress later changes its mind. Our amendment would strike language 
requiring withdrawal this year, unless the President certifies that 
certain specific contribution targets have been met by the Europeans.
  We are attempting to strike this language for the pullout of our 
ground forces next year for many reasons. First and foremost, in my 
judgment, is that such a requirement will create a year or a year and a 
half of dangerous uncertainty and dangerous instability in the Balkans. 
Creating that year of uncertainty and instability is dangerous because 
it is inconsistent with what we have struggled so hard to achieve in 
the Balkans, which is stability in a relatively peaceful environment. 
Creating that uncertainty for a year or a year and a half would make us 
an unreliable partner in NATO.
  I hope when we come to vote on this matter, we will take into account 
the words of General Wesley Clark, who was our commander there until a 
few weeks ago. He wrote a letter. I want to quote very briefly from 
that letter because it seems to me this captures what our problems are 
with this language that is in the bill. General Clark wrote:

       These measures, if adopted, would be seen as a de facto 
     pull-out decision by the United States. They are unlikely to 
     encourage European allies to do more. In fact, these measures 
     would invalidate the policies, commitment and trust of our 
     Allies in NATO, undercut U.S. leadership worldwide, and 
     encourage renewed ethnic tension, fighting and instability in 
     the Balkans.
       At the time that US military and diplomatic personnel are 
     pressing other nations to fulfill and expand their 
     committment of forces, capabilities and resources, an 
     apparent congressionally mandated pull-out would undercut 
     their leadership and all parallel diplomatic efforts.

  He also wrote that these provisions will place U.S. forces on the 
ground at increased risk.
  I ask unanimous consent the full letter from General Clark dated 11 
May 2000 be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the letter was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                                     May 11, 2000.
       Dear Senator Levin: Thank you for your letter of 10 May and 
     the opportunity to provide my personal views on the amendment 
     adopted by the Senate Appropriations Committee governing the 
     future of U.S. troops in Kosovo.
       While I support efforts of the Congress and the 
     Administration to encourage our allies to fulfill their 
     commitments to the United Nations mission in Kosovo, I am 
     opposed to the specific measures called for in the amendment. 
     These measures, if adopted, would be seen as a de facto pull-
     out decision by the United States. They are unlikely to 
     encourage European allies to do more. In fact, these measures 
     would invalidate the policies, commitments and trust of our 
     Allies in NATO, undercut US leadership worldwide, and 
     encourage renewed ethnic tension, fighting and instability in 
     the Balkans. Furthermore, they would, if enacted, invalidate 
     the dedication and commitment of our Soldiers, Sailors, 
     Airmen, and Marines, disregarding the sacrifices they and 
     their families have made to help bring peace to the Balkans.
       Regional stability and peace in the Balkans are very 
     important interests of the United States. Our allies are 
     already providing over 85 percent of the military forces and 
     the funding for reconstruction efforts. US leadership in 
     Kosovo, exercised through the Supreme Allied Commander, 
     Europe, as well as our diplomatic offices, is a bargain. It 
     is an effective 6:1 ratio of diplomatic throw-weight to our 
     investment. We cannot do significantly less. Our allies would 
     see this as a unilateral, adverse move that splits fifty 
     years of shared burdens, shared risks, and shared benefits in 
     NATO.
       This action will also undermine specific plans and 
     commitments made within the Alliance. At the time that US 
     military and diplomatic personnel are pressing other nations 
     to fulfill and expand their commitment of forces, 
     capabilities and resources, an apparent congressionally 
     mandated pullout would undercut their leadership and all 
     parallel diplomatic efforts.
       All over Europe, nations are looking to the United States. 
     We are their inspiration, their model, and their hope for the 
     future. Small nations, weary of oppression, ravaged by a 
     century of war, looking to the future, look to us. The 
     promise of NATO enlargement, led by the United States, is the 
     promise of the expansion of the sphere of peace and stability 
     from Western Europe eastward. This powerful, stabilizing 
     force would be undercut by this legislation, which would be 
     perceived to significantly curtail US commitment and 
     influence in Europe.
       Setting a specific deadline for US pull-out would signal to 
     the Albanians the limits of the international security 
     guarantees providing for their protection. This, in turn, 
     would give them cause to rearm and prepare to protect 
     themselves from what they would view as an inevitable Serbian 
     reentry. The more radical elements of the Albanian population 
     in Kosovo would be encouraged to increase the level of 
     violence directed against the Serb minority, thereby 
     increasing instability as well as placing US forces on the 
     ground at increased risk. Mr. Milosevic, in anticipation of 
     the pullout and ultimate breakup of KFOR, would likely 
     encourage civil disturbances and authorize the increased 
     infiltration of para-military forces to raise the level of 
     violence. He would also take other actions aimed at preparing 
     the way for Serbian military and police reoccupation of the 
     province.
       Our servicemen and women, and their families, have made 
     great sacrifices in bringing peace and stability to the 
     Balkans. This amendment introduces uncertainty in the 
     planning and funding of the Kosovo mission. This uncertainly 
     will undermine our service members' confidence in our resolve 
     and may call into question the sacrifices we have asked of 
     them and their families. A US withdrawal could give Mr. 
     Milosevic the victory he could not achieve on the 
     battlefield.
       In all of our activities in NATO, the appropriate 
     distribution of burdens and risk remains a longstanding and 
     legitimate issue among the nations. Increased European burden 
     sharing is an imperative in Europe as well as the United 
     States. European nations are endeavoring to meet this 
     challenge in Kosovo, and in the whole KFOR and UNMIK 
     constitute a burdensharing success story, even as we 
     encourage Europeans to do even more. The United States must 
     continue to act in our own best interests. This legislation, 
     if enacted, would see its worthy intent generating 
     consequences adverse to some of our most fundamental security 
     interests.
       Thank you again for your support of our servicemen and 
     women.
           Very respectfully,
                                                  Wesley K. Clark,
                                               General, U.S. Army.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the issue is not whether Congress has the 
power to force withdrawal of ground forces. We have that power. We 
should have that power. We should defend that power. And we have 
exercised that power, recently in Haiti and Somalia before that. We 
have exercised that power to pull out ground forces when the power has 
contributed to U.S. security. So the issue is not whether we have the 
power to act in the way the Appropriations Committee proposes. The 
question is whether or not it is a wise exercise of congressional power 
to set a deadline for a pullout in Kosovo, thereby creating a year or 
two of dangerous uncertainty which would result in increased risks to 
our troops and to our interests.
  It is not the power of Congress that is at issue; it is the wisdom of 
exercising that power in the way proposed under these circumstances 
which we will be debating today and tomorrow.
  I ask that Senator Cochran of Mississippi be added as a cosponsor of 
our amendment, and I will now yield to my friend from Delaware for 45 
minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent, immediately 
following Senator Biden, I be recognized for 20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I reserve 
this right because I have to go to a function tonight and I would like 
to get 15 minutes in before I go. I am supposed to be there at 6 
o'clock.
  Mr. ROBERTS. If I might respond to the distinguished Senator, whose 
amendment I am supporting----

[[Page S4073]]

  Mr. BYRD. Yes.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I also have a commitment at 6:30.
  Mr. BYRD. I knew that already.
  Mr. ROBERTS. It seems we have a lot of commitments here. Obviously, I 
will yield to the sponsor of the amendment and the author of the 
amendment. I commend him for the amendment. But that will mean if the 
Senator from Delaware were looking at probably a quarter to 6, and then 
the Senator from West Virginia would take how much time?
  Mr. BYRD. Ten minutes, 15.
  Mr. ROBERTS. I will rephrase my unanimous consent request to be 
recognized following the distinguished Senator from West Virginia for 
20 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, may I follow these two Senators for a 
period of 20 minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, and I surely won't, but 
since we are lining up speakers, I will then ask to be recognized after 
Senator Hollings for 30 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, might I be acquainted--I am sorry, I just 
had to step off the floor for a minute. Will the Chair kindly repeat 
the unanimous consent request at the moment? I believe I am going to 
try to manage this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Senator Biden will be recognized for 45 
minutes, followed by the Senator from West Virginia for 15 minutes, 
followed by Senator Roberts for 20 minutes, Senator Hollings for 20 
minutes, and Senator Levin for 30 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, might I add, I then follow my 
distinguished colleague and ranking member for 30 minutes?
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, so there is 
no problem, I think it appropriate that each of these parties who are 
asking to have time yielded to them indicate where their time is coming 
from. Senator Levin controls 5 hours, Senator Warner controls 5 hours. 
Just so there is no problem tomorrow, we should determine whose time is 
being yielded.
  It is my understanding the time Senator Levin has used has been his 
own time, Senator Biden's is his own time, Senator Byrd is off that of 
Senator Warner, as is Senator Roberts and as is Senator Hollings.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the time of Senator Biden is off our 5 
hours.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is the understanding of the Chair. Is 
there an objection to the unanimous consent request?
  Mr. WARNER. None, Mr. President, but I want to inform the Senate as a 
part of this colloquy that it is the distinguished majority leader's 
will we do at least 4-plus hours tonight. I will remain, of course, for 
that purpose. I do hope other Senators will indicate their availability 
so we can use that time properly. I believe this is one of the most 
important and interesting debates on a foreign policy issue we have had 
in the Senate this year.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The 
request is agreed to.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator allow me to speak for 
1\1/2\ minutes?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I commend Congressman John Kasich. The 
House voted 264-153 to adopt the provision which I drafted and then 
gave to Congressman Kasich, which is approximately one-half of the 
matter we are now debating.
  In other words, the House has already acted on one-half of the 
provision we are debating, and it voted in favor of it 264-153.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to print the House amendment 
in today's Record for the availability of Members.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

   Amendment to H.R. 4205, as Reported, Offered by Mr. Kasich of Ohio

       At the end of title XII (page 338, after line 13), insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 1205. ACTIVITIES IN KOSOVO.

       (a) Contingent Required Withdrawal of Forces From Kosovo.--
     If the President does not submit to Congress a certification 
     under subsection (c) and a report under subsection (d) before 
     April 1, 2001, then, effective on April 1, 2001, funds 
     appropriated or otherwise made available to the Department of 
     Defense may not be obligated or expended for the continued 
     deployment of United States ground combat forces in Kosovo. 
     Such funds shall be available with respect to Kosovo only for 
     the purpose of conducting a safe, orderly, and phased 
     withdrawal of United States ground combat forces from Kosovo, 
     and no other amounts appropriated for the Department of 
     Defense in this Act or any other Act may be obligated to 
     continue the deployment of United States ground combat forces 
     in Kosovo. In that case, the President shall submit to 
     Congress, not later than April 30, 2001, a report on the plan 
     for the withdrawal.
       (b) Waiver Authority.--(1) The President may waive the 
     provisions of subsection (a) for a period or periods of up to 
     90 days each in the event that--
       (A) United States Armed Forces are involved in hostilities 
     in Kosovo or imminent involvement by United States Armed 
     forces in hostilities in Kosovo is clearly indicated by the 
     circumstances; or
       (B) the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, acting through 
     the Supreme Allied Commander, Europe, requests emergency 
     introduction of United States ground forces into Kosovo to 
     assist other NATO or non-NATO military forces involved in 
     hostilities or facing imminent involvement in hostilities.
       (2) The authority in paragraph (1) may not be exercised 
     more than twice unless Congress by law specifically 
     authorizes the additional exercise of that authority.
       (c) Certification.--Whenever the President determines that 
     the Kosovo burdensharing goals set forth in paragraph (2) 
     have been achieved, the President shall certify in writing to 
     Congress that those goals have been achieved.
       (2) The Kosovo burdensharing goals referred to in paragraph 
     (1) are that the European Commission, the member nations of 
     the European Union, and the European member nations of the 
     North Atlantic Treaty Organization have, in the aggregate--
       (A) obligated or contracted for at least 50 percent of the 
     amount of the assistance that those organizations and nations 
     committed to provide for 1999 and 2000 for reconstruction in 
     Kosovo;
       (B) obligated or contracted for at least 85 percent of the 
     amount of the assistance that those organizations and nations 
     committed for 1999 and 2000 for humanitarian assistance in 
     Kosovo;
       (C) provided at least 85 percent of the amount of the 
     assistance that those organizations and nations committed for 
     1999 and 2000 for the Kosovo Consolidated Budget; and
       (D) deployed at least 90 percent of the number of police, 
     including special police, that those organizations and 
     nations pledged for the United Nations international police 
     force for Kosovo.
       (d) Report on Commitments and Pledges by Other Nations and 
     Organizations.--The President shall submit to Congress a 
     report containing detailed information on--
       (1) the commitments and pledges made by the European 
     Commission, each of the member nations of the European Union, 
     and each of the European member nations of the North Atlantic 
     Treaty Organization for reconstruction assistance in Kosovo, 
     humanitarian assistance in Kosovo, the Kosovo Consolidated 
     Budget, and police (including special police) for the United 
     Nations international police force for Kosovo;
       (2) the amount of assistance that has been provided in each 
     category, and the number of police that have been deployed to 
     Kosovo, by each such organization or nation; and
       (3) the full range of commitments and responsibilities that 
     have been undertaken for Kosovo by the United Nations, the 
     European Union, and the Organization for Security and 
     Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the progress made by those 
     organizations in fulfilling those commitments and 
     responsibilities, an assessment of the tasks that remain to 
     be accomplished, and an anticipated schedule for completing 
     those tasks.
       (e) Construction of Section.--Nothing in this section shall 
     be deemed to restrict the authority of the President under 
     the Constitution to protect the lives of United States 
     citizens.

  Mr. WARNER. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I say to my friend from Virginia, we would 
be 50 percent better off if we adopted the House position than the 
Senate position. The House position is only half as bad as the Senate 
position. The House position adopted today says there must be an 
accounting, as I understand it. The House requires that we pay our fair 
share, and that unless NATO meets their aid commitments, then troops 
would be withdrawn.
  This amendment goes a lot further than that. The real damage of the 
Byrd-Warner amendment, in my view, is that it does something that I 
cannot imagine any military man wanting to do. It says that what we are 
going to do is announce today, tomorrow, the next day--whenever we 
finally vote on it--if it prevails, we are going to announce

[[Page S4074]]

that in the summer of 2001 we are out of there, unless we affirmatively 
vote to stay.
  I find this absolutely intriguing. We had a very spirited debate 
about whether to get involved in Kosovo at all. I do not remember a 
single, solitary person during that debate who really wanted to be 
involved. I suspect--as my friend from South Carolina always reminded 
me--there was no one more vocal about our need to make that effort than 
me. He would come to the floor --and I consider him one of my closest 
friends, not only my closest Senate friend--he would say: How is the 
Biden war going today?
  I felt strongly it was the right thing for the United States to do. I 
do not remember any time during that debate--and I believe I 
participated in every piece of that debate--when anybody said there was 
any reasonable prospect there would be no American forces in Kosovo 1 
year or 2 years or even 3 years from now. We had just gone through 
this, in my view, very wrongheaded debate about setting a time certain 
for troops to be withdrawn from Bosnia. We did that once already, and 
we finally figured out it made no sense to set a time certain to 
withdraw troops in Bosnia, and here we are again.
  Let's peel back the first layer of this onion. We have a very 
legitimate, fundamental, serious disagreement among many of us on this 
floor, crossing party lines. I do not know anybody stronger against 
this amendment than the Presiding Officer. He is a Republican. And I do 
not know anybody stronger for the amendment than Senator Byrd, a 
Democrat. This division crosses party lines.
  It boils down to something very basic, it seems to me, and that is, 
when every Senator asks himself or herself the following question, they 
will know how they should vote.
  The question is, Does the United States have a significant interest 
in peace and stability in the Balkans? If it does not, then my 
colleagues should vote for Byrd-Warner. I respect that view. I respect 
the view of those who say it is not a critical U.S. interest, a vital 
U.S. interest, a significant U.S. interest, or it is Europe's problem. 
I respect that. I think they are dead wrong, but I respect their view.
  What I find fascinating, though, is I do not know how anyone can 
intellectually reach the following conclusion; that it is in our vital 
interest to see to it there is peace and stability in that part of 
Europe, but we should announce now that we are out unless we 
affirmatively vote we are in. I do not get that.
  My mom had an expression--it is not original to her. She said: Joey, 
the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
  We are paving a road to hell with this amendment. What we are doing 
with this amendment is saying to Slobodan Milosevic, unintentionally, 
but the effect is: Hang on, baby, we do not have the will to stay.
  Let me ask another question rhetorically: We have 5,600 troops there. 
Thank God, none are being shot at. Thank God, no one has been killed. 
Thank God, there is peace. Thank God, they are doing their job. Thank 
God, there is no immediate jeopardy from an outside invading army, et 
cetera. Does anybody believe that if we withdraw our forces from Kosovo 
the Europeans will get it right? Does anybody here believe that the 
Europeans will say: OK, the United States is gone; no worry, we're 
going to take care of this matter; not a problem.
  We can all sit here and say: The GDP of Europe is bigger than ours. 
Europe should be mature enough to be able to handle this. They don't 
need us. It is their backyard.
  That is all well and good to say, but does anybody believe it? In a 
different context, Thomas Jefferson said: If a nation wishes to be both 
ignorant and free, it wishes for something that never was and never can 
be. If anybody believes there can be stability in Europe without 
stability in the Balkans, they are wishing for something that never was 
and never can be. Never in our history has it been that way.
  So let's cut right to the quick. You have to be able to say the 
following, it seems to me, to be for Warner-Byrd, Byrd-Warner: 
stability in the Balkans is not important for stability in the rest of 
Europe; or it is important, but I believe the Europeans can handle it 
by themselves.
  If you can conclude either of those two to be true, then have at it. 
But if you conclude, as Barry Goldwater used to say--and I did serve 
with him--in your heart you know that not to be true, then you better 
not vote for this amendment or you better vote to strike this 
amendment.
  What are the likely consequences of adoption of this amendment? I 
will get back to some of the details about the amendment and the 
requirements imposed upon the administration to be able to certify that 
the Europeans are doing their part. I will state right now the 
Europeans are doing their part. We have battered them up and about the 
head--no one more than this Senator--to do their part.
  The President will have to certify, though, on a very different 
standard. By the way, the reason my friends want to amend this is so it 
can be even remotely possible that the President would be able to 
certify that the Europeans are doing their part.
  But regarding individual countries, the European Commission is in the 
process of collecting data from the 15 member states in the European 
Council, each of which has unique budgeting procedures in fiscal years. 
We are utilizing the United Nations. As we already see in the 
aggregate, our European partners are providing a vast majority of the 
assistance to Kosovo.
  If we look at the troop strength, our NATO allies have 40,000 troops 
on the ground in Kosovo; we have 5,600. That is, the United States is 
providing about 13 percent of the KFOR troop strength.
  If we look at UNMIK--I hate these acronyms--but UNMIK's consolidated 
budget--that is the U.N. piece here--the Europeans, and others, are 
right now funding 87 percent of that entire budget. Our part, again, 
compromises only 13 percent of the total.
  So the benchmark laid out in the legislation has already been met.
  How about international police? There are civilian police officers 
sent from the U.N. member states all over the world, who are to relieve 
KFOR troops of the nonmilitary law and order function in Kosovo. That 
is the plan. We all support it. Fully 88 percent of the pledges for 
civilian police for Kosovo have come from outside the United States of 
America. And 87 percent of all the police officers pledged have already 
been deployed.
  Let's look at the so-called reconstruction funding concerning 
Europe's financial contributions to the reconstruction of Kosovo. 
Section 2410 of the Byrd-Warner amendment focuses on the speed with 
which it delivers that assistance.

  When the United States commits funding for large-scale reconstruction 
initiatives, sometimes the United States itself does not hit the 
benchmark set here--33 percent obligated or contracted for a year or 
two.
  Let's look at the humanitarian relief. In the spring of this year, 
the United Nations High Commission for Refugees announced that the 
humanitarian disaster in Kosovo had been averted. The much feared 
winter had come and gone. It was time for the international community 
to switch from a relief role to a reconstruction role.
  Nonetheless, Senator Warner's legislation, in section 2410, insists 
that Europeans continue to funnel money into humanitarian relief when 
the need no longer is pressing. This is what I might call 
counterproductive micromanagement from thousands of miles away.
  The United States is not paying a disproportionate price in the 
international effort to secure peace in Kosovo--not in terms of the 
number of peacekeeping troops, not in terms of the number of civilian 
police, not in terms of the reconstruction and humanitarian aid.
  Section 2410 is also inconsistent. It really is saying to the 
Europeans: Heads I win; tails you lose, Europeans. We set these 
benchmarks. We tell them they have to meet the benchmarks. They are 
meeting the benchmarks. Then we tell them: By the way, while you're 
meeting those benchmarks--and you do that first--we are not committing 
to stay anyway. As a matter of fact, we're out of there. We're out of 
there. We tell you now, ahead of time, hey, Europe, we're out in July 
2001, unless we affirmatively change our mind and stay in.
  That really is persuasive, isn't it? What do you think it would be 
the other way around if Europe said: I tell

[[Page S4075]]

you what, United States, you put up 87 percent of this endeavor we're 
going to get involved in. Once you put it up, we are going to tell you 
that we're not in anyway, unless we change our mind a year and a half 
from now.
  Let me ask you a rhetorical question: If you are sitting in Europe--
and in the mood that exists in the United States today, in a country 
that has turned down the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, where the 
debate is about whether or not we should be involved in Africa, whether 
we should be involved in anything that comes up internationally--and 
you hear that the Senate--and hopefully not the Congress as well--
passes a law that says we are affirmatively out in 1 year and 3 months, 
unless we change our minds and affirmatively vote to stay; what do you 
think that communicates to Europe? What do you think they are going to 
think in Berlin, in Paris, in London, in Lisbon, et cetera?
  Do you think they are going to say: Oh, I tell you what: that is just 
the way their Constitution operates. That is just how they do that?
  I chaired the Judiciary Committee for years. I have made it my 
business to try to understand and--most dangerously--actually teach 
constitutional law and the separation of powers issues, and 
particularly the war clause. I take a back seat to no one, including my 
distinguished friend, Senator Byrd, in paying attention to the 
congressional prerogatives that exist when it comes to the notion of 
what constitutionally is permissible for a President to do and what our 
constitutional responsibility is.
  The truth of the matter is, Congress has the power to authorize 
deployment to Kosovo or to set limits on deployment. Congress could, as 
the Byrd-Warner amendment clearly contemplates, cut off funds or 
circumscribe the missions of the troops. But merely because the 
Congress has the power to do that does not mean it is wise to exercise 
that power or that it has the obligation to do that under the 
Constitution.
  I would have no objection to a resolution authorizing the deployment 
of U.S. forces or a resolution today saying: Withdraw now. Withdraw 
now. At least that would end the uncertainty. It would end the fact 
that you would have our troops and 40,000 other troops in Kosovo 
somewhere other than in limbo wondering whether we are going to stay or 
not stay, wondering what our predisposition is likely to be.
  I do not believe we should put our troops or our allies under the 
sword of Damocles with the threat of a funding cutoff that implies the 
United States is abandoning its friends and allies in Europe now. The 
fact is, no one is being shot at now, our troops are not being shot at. 
We are not in a state of war now.
  There is no outside army. There are a bunch of thugs wandering the 
countryside who have the possibility of doing harm to our forces and 
others. This is as close as you are going to get to a legal definition 
of a police action as you are ever going to have. This is not a 
circumstance requiring the United States--beyond what was already done 
in voting for the airstrikes and the use of force--to have 
Congressional consent beyond what it already has. As one of our 
colleagues said in the caucus, I didn't hear anybody in 1973 when I was 
here, or in 1977, or in 1985, or in 1997, or in 2000, call for 
continued authority, an affirmative vote to continue to maintain 
100,000 troops in Europe.
  With regard to the argument that we are stretched too thin and can't 
afford to have 5,600 forces in Kosovo for an extended period of time, 
well, if we can't afford that, how are we able to afford to have 
100,000 troops in Europe? I want to know that one. I don't quite get 
that. I don't quite get how we can afford to have 100,000 troops in 
Europe, stationed in Germany and elsewhere, where they are not keeping 
anything except our political flag raised high--and I think that is 
important--but we can't afford 5,600 troops in Kosovo. If my memory 
serves me--and I have been here longer than one of the other three 
Members on the Senate floor. The only person I have been here longer 
than is Senator Warner, but he has more experience. The other two 
Members I haven't been here longer than. I don't ever recall, since I 
have been here, having less than a minimum of 100,000 in Europe, and as 
many as 350,000. I don't remember that. But now we have this dire, 
urgent need to withdraw 5,600 forces from Kosovo.
  Now, my friend from Virginia and my friend from North Carolina, as 
well as the Senator from West Virginia--but he is on Appropriations--
these other two fellows spend a lot of time on the military side of the 
equation, and Armed Services in particular. If I am not mistaken, we 
spent some time in Europe fretting over what the Europeans mean by 
ESDI, European Security and Defense Initiative. That is something the 
French have been pushing a long time. They don't like the fact we are a 
European power. They don't like that idea. So they got this idea they 
were going to have this independent force--an independent force, 
separate from NATO. We got them to cool their jets a little bit and say 
what this really means is they get all that independent force with no 
Americans. That independent force would only be engaged in missions 
NATO first refused to be engaged in. But everybody knows that it is a 
harbinger for diminishing the power and the political efficacy of NATO.
  I want to ask a rhetorical question. You know, in those movies when 
Clint Eastwood said, ``Go ahead, make my day''--we are about to make 
their day for the French. We are about to make France's day. Can you 
hear the discussion now if we vote this amendment: I told you the 
United States is not reliable. I told you we need our own European 
defense system. I told you about NATO. Can't you hear it? Maybe I have 
been to too many conferences with my French friends. Can anybody stand 
up and say that if we pass this amendment, we are not making it 
exponentially more difficult for us to deal with ESDI? Come on. Come 
on. Does anybody think that?
  By the way, some of our friends--and they are obviously extremely 
bright, competent Senators who truly--and I am not speaking of anybody 
on the floor--believe NATO's day is past and it no longer has any 
utility, and that we should disengage. In fact, the fellow I ran 
against a while ago for the Senate came to call me the ``Senator from 
Europe'' because I supported NATO. I thought it was very important that 
we stay involved in NATO. I respect the view. I disagree with it, but I 
respect the view.

  But those of you who say you think NATO is important, I respectfully 
suggest to you that if Byrd-Warner becomes the law, we will have done 
more in two small paragraphs to damage the coherence of NATO than 
anything we have done since 1950. I truly believe that. I absolutely 
truly believe that. Obviously, I may be wrong, but I honest to goodness 
believe that.
  Right now there are reports coming out of Serbia. By the way, before 
I say that, I came here at a time when the Vietnam war was in its final 
painful throes, in 1973. I used to resent it when people would say, 
when I opposed the war, that we were giving comfort to Ho Chi Minh. I 
am not suggesting anybody is intentionally or unintentionally giving 
anybody comfort. I want to state what I think to be the fact. Milosevic 
is tightening his grip now in Serbia, cutting off the alternative press 
available to the Serbs, cracking down on it--for example, last night, 
his goons occupied a station, Studio B2-92, and padlocked the doors of 
the other independent outlets and media offices and shut them down. An 
opposition leader declared the Milosevic government had imposed an 
informal state of emergency.
  Now, why do you think he is doing that? I think he is doing that 
because he is desperate, because the hourglass is filling up from the 
bottom. He knows he doesn't have much time left. One of the reasons why 
he has reacted the way we wanted him to every time--that is, by backing 
off--is he has been convinced of our resolve. I suggest that the reason 
he finally capitulated at the end of that war is we started to move 
forces in place for deployment in Macedonia. He wasn't sure if we were 
going to invade and use land troops. I think most who studied that 
would acknowledge that is an overwhelming possibility. Now what does he 
do? Here he is in his last gasp, and we have gone on record saying we 
will pull out of Kosovo by midsummer next year. We affirmatively state 
that--not that we will have to have a vote next summer, or that we 
should consider it, but that we are out--unless we vote to stay in.

[[Page S4076]]

  Now, say you are an opposition leader in Serbia; or you are sitting 
in Montenegro, which Milosevic has been leering at for the past 9 
months; does that embolden you? My European colleagues will not like 
what I am about to say. But I have traveled the Balkan region on seven 
occasions. I met with every President of every frontline state, as many 
of us have. Does anybody know any leader in that region who is willing 
to place his fate in the hands of the Europeans? Can you name me one--a 
single solitary person who is in opposition to Milosevic, any democrat 
from Romania to Albania, from Bulgaria to Montenegro, who is willing?
  Would I tell them: The United States is out, but don't worry, you 
have the French and the Germans to rely on; don't worry, they will be 
there? Can anybody stand up on this floor and say that you know a 
single leader who would say that?
  I know there are certain things you shouldn't say. That is one, 
apparently. I will be reminded of this by my French friends and my 
British friends and others. But I think we have to be realistic. 
Everybody knows that if we are out, the game is up. That may not be 
fair. We shouldn't have to carry that much of a load, maybe. But they 
are the facts of life, and they are the facts of history.
  Does anybody here believe Europe has achieved political maturation 
where they are going to solve their problems without the catalyst of 
the United States? What have we said all along? We have said: Look, as 
long as we are not carrying a disproportionate share, we are involved.
  I remember going in to see the President when he made his speech 
about us being involved. He said we should not be responsible for any 
more than 15 percent of whatever reconstruction, peace, stability, et 
cetera, in that region requires. We are about 13 percent to 17 percent.
  That was kind of the deal we thought we were brokering here. Sure. We 
provided 85 percent of the air power and 90 percent of leadership.
  With this amendment, we would still require a NATO commander heading 
up the entire operation in Kosovo to be an American while we had no 
American troops there. I want to be there for that discussion.
  I want to be there when we withdraw all American forces from Kosovo 
and then we tell our European allies abruptly: By the way, we are still 
in charge. We are the guys. Our general is an American general. He is 
in charge. He is in charge of NATO in Europe. That is where NATO is. He 
is in charge. That is a good one. I like that one. That will really 
help cohesion in NATO.
  Heck, we are trying to convince the French that they had better buy 
an aircraft carrier before they take over the fleet in the 
Mediterranean. That is a big fight we are now having. The French say: 
We want a French admiral.
  I got in trouble with the French when I said: OK, it is fine by me, 
if you buy some more ships. They didn't like that.
  Can you imagine the argument now with a NATO operation in Kosovo led 
by an American general with no American troops?
  Colleagues, this is not a well conceived plan unless, I respectfully 
suggest, unless you conclude that NATO is not vital to our interests 
any longer; unless you conclude that having a beefed up European 
defense initiative a la the French plan for the last 15 years is a good 
idea for the United States of America; unless you believe the Europeans 
can maintain stability in the Balkans, or that stability in the Balkans 
is not important for stability in Europe.
  If you draw those conclusions, this makes sense. But if you say you 
think NATO is vital for American interests, if you say stability in 
Europe depends at least in some part upon stability in the Balkans and 
southern Europe, if you say you want an American in command of NATO 
forces when we have 100,000 left in Europe, then I don't know how you 
can reach this conclusion.
  That is why I say here what I said at the White House when all of my 
friends who are sitting here, with one exception, were at that meeting 
3 months ago, along with the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of 
State, the National Security Advisor, and the National Security 
Advisor's team. I will say it again. This is about what you believe is 
important.
  I ask again a rhetorical question. Can anyone paint a picture for me 
that looks like this: That 5 years from now there is not a reignition 
of a great ethnic cleansing in the Balkans, that there is increasing 
stability in economic growth in the region, and that there is becoming 
an integration of that part of Europe into the rest of Europe--without 
the United States of America having some portion of the total force 
structure of NATO being present? Can anybody paint that picture for me?
  I will be overwhelmingly delighted if my colleagues prevail and I am 
wrong, because my fervent hope is, if Senator Levin and I and others do 
not succeed in striking this language, everything I said is 
misinformed. That would be my fervent hope and prayer, because I think 
this has certain-disaster written all over it. I think this is one of 
the most serious mistakes we can make.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a question? I 
yield on my time.
  Mr. BIDEN. I am delighted to yield to the Senator.
  Mr. WARNER. I have listened very carefully. By the way, it was the 
Biden-Warner amendment back in the intense part of that air operation 
which prevailed.
  Mr. BIDEN. That is correct. I acknowledge that.
  Mr. WARNER. How interesting it is that two good friends and two 
colleagues can be on opposite side of an issue at this point in time. 
Circumstances have changed.
  I draw the Senator's attention to page 565 of the bill where it says:

       Except as provided in paragraph (B), absent specific 
     statutory authorization . . . the President may waive the 
     limitation in paragraph (1)(B) for a period . . . of up to 90 
     days each in the event that--
       . . . the Armed Forces are involved in hostilities in 
     Kosovo or that imminent involvement by the Armed Forces in 
     hostilities in Kosovo is clearly indicated;
       (ii) NATO, acting through the Supreme Allied Commander --

  The very person the Senator from Delaware pointed to remaining in 
charge--

     in Europe, requests the emergency introduction of United 
     States ground forces into Kosovo to assist other NATO or non-
     NATO military forces involved in hostilities or facing 
     imminent involvement in hostilities.

  There it is. The President, seeing the actions that the Senator just 
pointed out, can dispatch the American troops. They can come out of 
that cadre of over 100,000, or thereabouts, in NATO and go right into 
this action.
  The Senator says the 85 percent that are there now from some 32 
nations are of little consequence if a portion of the U.S. forces--
namely, the ground combat troops--are withdrawn and we leave the other 
support troops and the other types of troops there.
  This is not an American cut and run. This is not an American pullout. 
Here is the authority for the President to step in in the types of 
contingencies the Senator pointed out.
  If I might pose a rhetorical question, does the Senator think the 
case is so weak for the Balkans that the next President of the United 
States cannot come to the Congress and make the case for the Congress 
to have the troops stay after July 1?
  Mr. BIDEN. No.
  Mr. WARNER. I, frankly, would vote for it, if the next President were 
to come and ask for that and made a strong case.
  I really think the sky is not falling in, I say to my distinguished 
friend. We have carefully provided in this piece of legislation 
contingencies for any such action that would jeopardize our remaining 
troops and/or the other nations that will come and pick up the modest 
numbers of combat troops.
  I thank the Senator.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I will respond.
  What the Senator has written in the legislation I would characterize 
as having tried to do something after the horse is out of the barn.
  Here is the deal. I am not suggesting there will be any hostilities 
before the U.S. forces leave. I am not suggesting there will be 
hostilities as the U.S. forces leave. If I were Milosevic, the KLA, or 
anybody else, I would have garlands and roses strewn along the road as 
they were on their way out. I would be throwing them bouquets. I would 
be giving them chocolates and

[[Page S4077]]

cigarettes as they left. I would not do a thing. I would wait until 
they were gone. That is No. 1.
  No. 2, when they go, I predict to you that you will see in the 
councils of Europe an overwhelming discussion about whether or not the 
Europeans will stay, and in what numbers.
  At that point, if there is hostility, if Mr. Milosevic moves on 
Mitrovica to annex the top of the state, or if there is a movement in 
Montenegro to topple the Government, is the Senator saying to me that 
automatically authorizes the President of the United States to send 
whatever forces he wishes back in?
  Mr. WARNER. That is what the amendment requires. In other words, if 
there is a need, the President has the waiver authority.
  Mr. BIDEN. Then the Senator is saying there is no damage or war, 
there is no American being killed now, but we are going to pull the 
Americans out; but if there is war and carnage, again we will put them 
back in?
  Mr. WARNER. That power is given to the President of the United 
States.
  Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I see my distinguished colleague, Senator 
Byrd, on the floor. I ask Senator Byrd a question, if he is willing.
  Is it his understanding that if we withdraw these forces and war 
erupts again in Kosovo, the President needs no Congressional 
authorization and he is preauthorized to use whatever force is 
necessary to bring peace and stability back to Kosovo? Is that the 
Senator's understanding?
  Mr. WARNER. I can answer in the affirmative to the Senator's 
question.
  Mr. BIDEN. I understand the Senator from Virginia thinks that. I 
wonder whether the Senator from West Virginia thinks that.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I am hoping to be able to leave the Senate 
after making a 15-minute speech of my own.
  Mr. BIDEN. I withdraw the question.
  Mr. BYRD. I think I stated that earlier.
  May I say to the distinguished Senator, I will try to answer his 
question. First, I say to the Senator, if he will yield, he has framed 
it this way: We are out unless we vote to stay in; come next--we hope 
to make that October 1 in conference; in the bill, it is announced July 
1, 2001. We will not let the Senate frame it that way: ``We are out 
unless we vote to stay in.'' This bill does not say that. This 
amendment does not say that.
  The Senator from Delaware, I say most respectfully, is leaving out 
one very important factor, that being the President of the United 
States, whoever he may be next October. The opponents of my amendment 
depend heavily upon the ``Commander in Chief.'' Well, there will be a 
Commander in Chief at that time, and that Commander in Chief, unless he 
makes a case, unless he asks to be authorized to continue to deploy 
American ground troops after that date, and unless Congress then votes 
to authorize, then they would leave.
  But the Senator says, ``We are out unless we vote to stay in.'' That 
is not the case. There is going to be a President there asking. I 
assume, if he believes we ought to continue to deploy troops after that 
date, he will be up here asking. He will be requesting them. And then 
Congress will vote to authorize or not to authorize. It is not that 
simple, ``We are out unless we vote to stay in.''
  Mr. BIDEN. If I may respond, unless I misunderstand still, that is a 
distinction with little difference. If I understand the way the 
legislation reads, the President will submit a report to Congress 
saying, I want to stay.
  Mr. BYRD. Yes, that is what the Senator is leaving out.
  Mr. BIDEN. Once the President does that, then in order for the troops 
to stay, both the House and the Senate have to affirmatively vote to 
have them stay; correct?
  Mr. BYRD. That is correct, but that is the other half I am trying to 
get into the Record.
  I thank the Senator.
  Mr. BIDEN. May I ask, if the Senate and House refuse to act one way 
or another, what happens?
  Mr. BYRD. Of course, if they do--the Senator is assuming something I 
will not assume.
  Mr. BIDEN. I am asking for clarification.
  Mr. BYRD. I am answering the Senator. The Senator is assuming 
something I don't assume.
  Mr. BIDEN. With all due respect, I am not assuming a thing. 
Assumption is the mother of all screwups.
  Mr. BYRD. The Senator says, if thus and such.
  Mr. BIDEN. That is not an assumption. An assumption is if I said 
``when the Senate fails to act.'' I did not say that. I said ``if'' the 
Senate fails to act. It is a question, not an assumption.
  Now, if the Senate fails to act--does not vote one way or another--
are the troops allowed to stay, or must they come home?
  Mr. BYRD. That is half the picture.
  Mr. BIDEN. I got that, Mr. President.
  Let me rephrase it. The President of the United States, President 
Gore or President Bush, and whatever operative date it ends up being, 
October or July, sends a report to the Congress and says: I wish the 
5,600 troops to remain in Kosovo.
  That is the first part. He has done that. He says: I want them to 
stay.

  What happens if the Senate says: We are not even going to vote on it? 
Can the troops stay?
  Mr. BYRD. I assume the Senate would certainly debate that.
  Mr. BIDEN. That is not my question, with all due respect.
  Mr. BYRD. With all due respect, if we are going to limit half the 
question, we are not really dealing with the situation. Let me answer 
the Senator. If the Congress refuses to authorize, of course they are 
going to come out.
  But let us not assume that and let us not forget that the Commander 
in Chief will be making an effort to justify the continued deployment 
of those troops.
  Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Senator.
  Let me rephrase my assertion. The Congress, as of whatever the 
operative date--and right now the operative date is in July 2001--the 
Congress does not vote to stay in Kosovo; then the troops must be 
withdrawn. Now, that is a distinction with a technical, legal 
difference.
  What I respectfully suggest is, it will fall on deaf ears in every 
European capital. I respectfully suggest, if my friends think it is so 
dangerous or imprudent for us to be there now, if there is a 
constitutional requirement for us to have to vote on it, then why are 
we shirking the responsibility of not voting right now? Because if 
there is a constitutional responsibility, it is not delayed for a year. 
It either exists or it does not exist. If it exists, the obligation 
exists today to vote. And my friends want the next Congress to vote in 
the year 2001.
  It is illogical to suggest, with all due respect, that there is a 
constitutional requirement for Congress to vote for these troops to 
stay but we don't have to do it for a year. The implication is, he 
doesn't have the authority now. So that takes care of the 
constitutional argument. There is obviously no serious constitutional 
argument, for if there were, we have to vote now, I assume, unless 
someone responds to the contrary that I am correct.
  Look, folks, thank God that not a single American was killed in the 
entire war. Thank God, an American hasn't been killed yet, although it 
is possible. Thank God, there are not 800,000 people displaced and they 
are back in their homes. Thank God, the ethnic cleansing has stopped.
  I ask the rhetorical question, if the Lord Almighty came down and sat 
in the well and said, ``I promise you all that, if you keep 5,600 
troops in Kosovo for the next 10 years, there will be no carnage, there 
will be no death and destruction of American forces,'' would anybody 
here say that is too high a price to pay? Would anybody say that? Would 
anybody vote and say, Lord, no, we are stretched too thin?
  I can pick an awful lot of places where I would like to take 5,600 
troops out if we are stretched too thin other than Kosovo. Talk about a 
place where we are doing some good in what we are not allowing to 
happen! I think this is one heck of a gamble. The logic escapes me. I 
may be slow. I have not been here as long as some, but I have been here 
28 years. I pay a lot of attention to this. I try my best. And the 
logic escapes me. If there is a constitutional requirement, it exists 
today. It exists tonight. It existed yesterday. It doesn't 
automatically click into effect in July of 2001. If we are stretched 
too thin, if that is the problem, let's pick 5,600 troops from a place 
where they are

[[Page S4078]]

serving a function, but none nearly as important as the one they are 
serving now. And if we expect to be and intend to be a major force in 
Europe and NATO, let's understand that it will not happen without our 
participation to the degree of 13 percent of the forces in Europe.

  We asked the Europeans to do the lion's share after Milosevic 
yielded. They are doing the lion's share, on average over 80 percent 
and as high as 87 percent in the four categories. So if anybody thinks 
that does not make sense, let us vote now. Can anybody seriously say 
that the anxiety level, at a minimum, in European capitals, the anxiety 
level in the frontline states, the anxiety level for our troops, the 
anxiety level for the total military, is not somewhat heightened by the 
fact that it will require, no matter how we get to it, an affirmative 
vote of the Congress in July of next year to have those troops stay?
  I will end where I began and reserve the remainder of my time, if I 
have any. I will end where I began. It seems to me this is a basic, 
legitimate debate on what is in the naked self-interest of the United 
States of America. It is a fundamental foreign policy debate. Do you 
think stability in the Balkans can be maintained without U.S. forces 
there? If you do not, do you think that stability in the Balkans is 
necessary for stability in the rest of Europe? If you do not, do you 
think the United States is negatively impacted by either outcome?
  While I strongly support trying to move the supplemental funding 
needed by our military and the important military construction projects 
included in this bill, Section 2410 would do damage to Kosovo and to 
the United States of America, despite the best intentions of its 
authors.
  Section 2410 is premised on an inaccurate understanding of the facts, 
and then gets worse, as it abdicates U.S. leadership of NATO and gives 
comfort to Slobodan Milosevic.
  There are two aspects to Section 2410. The first would require a 
joint Congressional resolution authorizing continued deployment of 
American troops in KFOR after July 1, 2001.
  The second aspect would require that the Europeans are meeting 
certain requirements for burdensharing in Kosovo. If the President 
could not make that certification by July 15, 2000, then thereafter 
funds would only be allowed to be used for withdrawal of U.S. forces 
from Kosovo, unless Congress authorized their continued deployment by 
joint resolution.
  If Congress failed to enact such a joint resolution, no funding could 
be obligated to continue the deployment of United States military 
personnel in Kosovo. In that case, the President would be required to 
submit to Congress, not later than August 15, 2000, a report on a plan 
for the withdrawal of United States military personnel from Kosovo.
  Mr. President, the question of whether Congress must, as a 
constitutional matter, authorize the deployment of U.S. forces in the 
Kosovo peacekeeping mission is a close one.
  I yield to no Senator in my defense of the constitutional powers of 
Congress on matters of war and peace. In my view, Congress has not only 
the power to declare war, but also to authorize all uses of force. I 
have consistently resisted arguments by Presidents--Democrats and 
Republicans alike--that the Commander-in-Chief power provides 
unfettered authority to use force against foreign countries.
  In this circumstance, however, I would argue that Congressional 
authorization for the deployment of U.S. peacekeeping forces in Kosovo 
is unnecessary.
  The deployment of peacekeepers, in a situation such as we now have, 
is not war, or even a use of force. It falls far short of both. Unlike 
the deployment of U.S. forces to Lebanon in the early 1980's, there is 
no significant threat of hostilities from a foreign army or from 
guerilla forces. Rather, the only threat to U.S. forces comes from a 
handful of lightly-armed thugs in both the Serbian and ethnic Albanian 
communities in Kosovo. In that sense, the deployment is truly a 
peacekeeping or police action.
  Undoubtedly, Congress has the power to authorize the deployment to 
Kosovo--or to set limits on that deployment. Congress could, as the 
Byrd-Warner amendment clearly contemplates, cut off the funds, or 
circumscribe the mission of the troops. But merely because Congress has 
the power to do so, does not mean that it is wise to exercise that 
power in this circumstance, in this manner.
  Mr. President, I would have no objection to a resolution authorizing 
the deployment of U.S. forces. Let us have that debate. But I do not 
believe we should do so under the Sword of Damocles, with the threat of 
a funding cut-off that implies the United States is abandoning its 
friends and allies in Europe.
  Mr. President, as I mentioned earlier, the second aspect of Section 
2410 would codify burdensharing with our allies.
  The bill would decrease by twenty-five percent the aid contributions 
by the United States to Kosovo unless the President certified to the 
Congress that the European Commission, the member states of the 
European Union, and European members of NATO were meeting certain 
targets for assistance expenditures and provision of civilian police in 
Kosovo.
  Specifically, the President would have to certify before July 15, 
2000 that the Europeans have:
  First, obligated or contracted at least thirty-three percent of the 
amount of the assistance that the aforementioned organizations and 
countries committed to provide for 1999 and 2000 for reconstruction in 
Kosovo;
  Second, obligated or contracted for at least seventy-five percent of 
the amount of humanitarian assistance to which they committed for 1999 
and 2000;
  Third, provided at least seventy-five percent of the amount of 
assistance to which they committed for the Kosovo Consolidated Budget 
for 1999 and 2000; and
  Fourth, deployed at least seventy-five percent of the number of 
police, including special police, which they pledged to the United 
Nations international police force for Kosovo.
  Mr. President, because the United States carried the vast majority of 
the military burden in last year's air campaign against Yugoslavia, it 
is now the Europeans' turn to provide most of the peacekeepers and the 
reconstruction money to win the peace in Kosovo.
  Our allies agree with this formulation. Furthermore, Mr. President, 
this is precisely what has already happened, and continues to happen.
  Finally--after decades of criticizing and cajoling--we finally have 
before us an example of successful burden sharing in NATO and the 
United Nations.
  What is the share of the burden that our NATO allies and other 
countries are currently bearing?
  The European Commission has already responded to this proposed 
legislation by providing a considerable amount of data on assistance 
programs that it administers. These data show that the European Union 
meets or surpasses the criteria of the legislation.
  Regarding individual countries, the European Commission is in the 
process of collecting data from the fifteen members states of the 
European Union, each of which has unique budgeting procedures and 
fiscal years.
  Utilizing data from the United Nations, however, we can already see 
that, in the aggregate, our European partners are providing the 
majority of assistance to Kosovo.
  If we look at troop strength, our NATO allies have 40,000 troops on 
the ground in Kosovo. We have 5,600. That is, the United States is 
providing only thirteen percent of KFOR's troop strength.
  If we look at the UNMIK Consolidated Budget, the Europeans and others 
are right now funding about eighty-seven percent of that. Our part, 
again, comprises only thirteen percent of the total. So the benchmark 
laid out in Section 2410 has already been exceeded.
  How about the International Police? They are civilian police 
officers, sent from U.N. member states all over the world, to relieve 
KFOR troops of non-military, law-and-order functions in Kosovo. That is 
the plan. We all support it.
  Fully eighty-eight percent of the pledges for civilian police for 
Kosovo have come from outside the U.S., and eighty-seven percent of all 
police officers pledged have already been deployed.
  Now let's look at Reconstruction Funding. Concerning Europe's 
financial contributions to the reconstruction of

[[Page S4079]]

Kosovo, Section 2410 focuses on the speed with which it delivers its 
assistance. When the United States commits funding for large-scale 
reconstruction initiatives, sometimes the U.S. itself does not hit the 
benchmark set here--thirty-three percent obligated or contracted--for a 
year or two.
  Last, let's look at Humanitarian Relief. In the spring of this year, 
the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees announced that 
humanitarian disaster in Kosovo had been averted. The much-feared 
winter had come and gone. It was time for the international community 
to switch from a relief role to a reconstruction role.
  Nevertheless, Section 2410 insists that the Europeans continue to 
funnel money into humanitarian relief, when the need is no longer 
pressing. This is counterproductive micro-managing from thousands of 
miles away.
  Mr. President, the United States is not paying a disproportionate 
price in the international effort to secure the peace in Kosovo--not in 
terms of the number of peacekeeping troops, not in terms of the number 
of civilian police, not in terms of reconstruction and humanitarian 
aid.
  Mr. President, Section 2410 also is inconsistent. It is really a 
``heads I win, tails you lose!'' for the Europeans.
  The benchmarks in the first part of Section 2410 demand that the 
Europeans pay more and/or faster and supply the bulk of the troops and 
police in Kosovo. In the second part, though, the Congress mandates--
irrespective of the Europeans' performance on the benchmarks--the 
enactment of a joint resolution to authorize the continued deployment 
of U.S. ground combat troops. The message to Europe boils down to this: 
pay first, and then we'll see.
  Aside from these internal contradictions in the legislation, Section 
2410 would do serious harm to our geopolitical interests, not only in 
the Balkans, but in all of Europe. If the mandated burdensharing could 
not be certified in every detail, the legislation would have one 
hundred percent of ground troops in Kosovo supplied by NATO allies and 
other non-American powers, leaving our contribution at zero with one 
exception: KFOR would remain under the ultimate control of the Supreme 
Allied Commander Europe, U.S. General Joseph Ralston. That would be 
quite a deal for us, but one which I doubt that our allies would 
support for long.
  We all know that there are elements in NATO who argue for the need 
for Europe to have its own ``army,'' independent of NATO. To date, the 
outline of the European Security and Defense Policy, or ESDP as it is 
called, has conformed to our wishes. It would only go into action if 
the alliance as a whole chose not to be involved.
  If the U.S. Congress were to compel the President of the United 
States to unilaterally withdraw all U.S. combat troops from the NATO 
force in Kosovo, you can rest assured that the Europeans would get the 
message that the ESDP is the wave of the future, not NATO. I can hear 
the grumbling all over Western Europe: ``The French are right. We'd 
better have our own army, because we can't count on the U.S. in NATO 
any more.''
  Do we really want this happen? I don't think so.
  Irrespective of these considerations, I would ask the authors of this 
section whether they really want to allow American military decisions 
to be made by other countries, in this case the Europeans? That would 
be an abdication of responsibility that should horrify any Member of 
this chamber.
  Finally, Mr. President, let us consider the dynamic that Section 2410 
would set in motion. First of all, let's consider what it would mean in 
Serbia and Kosovo, on the ground. Make no mistake about it: the result 
of this bill, unless Section 2410 is eliminated, will be a U.S. 
withdrawal from Kosovo. What Milosevic could not win on the 
battlefield, he would be handed by Congressional trepidation.
  If the indicted war criminal Milosevic knew that the U.S. Congress 
was serious about abandoning Kosovo, his temptation to make mischief 
there would be dramatically increased.
  If percentage point differences in contributions made at conference 
tables would be enough to force the U.S. military out of Kosovo, then 
imagine what would be the effect of a few U.S. soldiers wounded or 
killed by Serbian commandos!
  Moreover, consideration of this amendment comes at a time of 
increasing weakness of Milosevic.
  Last night his goons occupied television station Studio B and 
independent radio station B2-92, and padlocked the doors of other 
independent media offices.
  An opposition leader declared that Milosevic's government had 
``imposed an informal state of emergency.''
  Is this the time that we want to give Milosevic even the slightest 
bit of comfort?
  Does the U.S. military support Section 2410? No. Secretary of Defense 
Cohen has said so, directly to its authors. Those who might support the 
amendment in the alleged interest of staving off the ``hollowing out'' 
of our military readiness should ask of the Department of Defense: is 
Section 2410 a good idea for the U.S. military overall?
  The answer is an unambiguous ``no!'' It would harm--not help--the 
readiness of our armed forces for the rest of this fiscal year. If the 
President were unable to certify the meeting of the benchmarks, most of 
the supplemental funding for the Department of Defense would be 
unavailable. That would, therefore, mean that the Military Services' 
accounts for maintenance and operation would not be replenished, since 
they are currently being used to cover essential costs in Kosovo.
  More broadly, the simple fact is that establishing security in the 
Balkans is squarely in the national interest of the United States. This 
country has a web of economic, political, security, cultural, and human 
ties to Europe that is unmatched with any other part of the world. 
Thanks to the patient, sustained, bipartisan policy of stationing 
millions of American troops in Western Europe for more than a half-
century and through our nuclear guarantee, the western half of the 
continent was able to democratize, heal old wounds, and eventually 
prosper.
  But, Mr. President, the stability of Western Europe would be severely 
threatened if war were to re-erupt in the Balkans--as it surely would 
if Western forces would withdraw. A study by the General Accounting 
Office released yesterday made that clear.
  Last year we got a taste of the massive refugee flows that war would 
unleash. And some of those refugees would wind up in Western Europe--in 
fact, many already have.
  Mr. President, the United States is the unquestioned leader of NATO, 
and I believe it must remain the unquestioned leader. I do not think 
that a leader can lead from the sidelines. To restrict our future 
participation in KFOR, or SFOR, to providing logistical and 
intelligence support would indicate to our allies that we were 
beginning a more general withdrawal from the continent. The symbolism 
would be unmistakable.
  Incidentally, who would try to fill the vacuum left by the departure 
of American troops from Kosovo?
  I urge my colleagues to recall that the Russians desperately wanted 
their own sector of Kosovo last summer. My guess is that they would 
have their hand up in an instant to volunteer to replace us.
  I do not want this legislation to be the first step in reversing the 
most successful element in American foreign policy in the last fifty-
five years.
  Mr. President, Section 2410 is an idea whose time not only has not 
yet come--it is an idea whose time, I fervently hope, will never come.
  We won the war last year, and now our allies are carrying the lion's 
share of the burden of winning the peace. We are on the right track. To 
rashly withdraw would invite further aggression by the Serbian dictator 
and gravely undermine the North Atlantic Alliance, the lynchpin of our 
trans-Atlantic ties.
  Instead of pursuing this self-destructive course, I urge my 
colleagues to consider the approach taken by my friend from Ohio, 
Senator Voinovich. His resolution, S.Res. 272, which advocates a 
coherent strategy for furthering American interests in the Balkans, was 
passed overwhelmingly by the Foreign Relations Committee last month. It 
was passed by the full Senate just two weeks ago, on May second.
  The Voinovich resolution advocates continued involvement in Kosovo 
and elsewhere in the Balkans, not the precipitous disengagement called 
for in

[[Page S4080]]

Section 2410. It expresses the sense of the Senate that the United 
States should remain actively engaged in southeastern Europe, continue 
to oppose Slobodan Milosevic, support the democratic opposition in 
Serbia, and fully implement the Stability Pact.
  This is the course the United States is currently taking, and this is 
the course we should pursue with renewed vigor in the future.
  It will not be an easy struggle; nothing worth accomplishing ever is.
  We will not achieve lasting stability in the Balkans overnight--
certainly we cannot expect to have achieved it less than a year after 
the end of the air war.
  But rashly to conclude that we should no longer be part of the 
solution would be totally out of character for the United States of 
America.
  We are the leader of NATO. We are the indispensable factor in the 
European security architecture.
  We dare not sacrifice this position out of momentary frustration and 
impatience.
  So, let's get this straight.
  If you believe that stability in the Balkans is not important to the 
U.S. and our own naked national interest, then vote with my good 
friends Senators Byrd and Warner.
  But, if you think, as I do, that it is virtually impossible to have 
chaos in the Balkans, affecting, if not engulfing, the likes of Bosnia-
Herzegovina, Montenegro, Macedonia, Albania, Romania, Bulgaria, even 
Greece and Turkey, while simultaneously maintaining stability in the 
rest of Europe, and at the same time developing a mature relationship 
with the countries of the former Soviet Union--then, to paraphrase 
Thomas Jefferson, who said ``If you expect to be both ignorant and 
free, you are expecting what never was and never will be,'' I say that 
if you are expecting chaos in the Balkans and stability in the rest of 
Europe, you are expecting what never was and never will be.
  I thank the Chair and yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has expired. Under the 
previous order, the Senator from West Virginia is recognized.
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, may I say to my friend from Delaware, I have 
a great deal of respect for him. He has had long experience on the 
Foreign Relations Committee. And he is my friend. I just have to differ 
with him on this occasion.
  Mr. BIDEN. I respect that.
  Mr. BYRD. He asked a question, Why don't we vote now? I have the 
answer to that. It would be irresponsible to vote now to take the 
troops out. My colleague, Senator Warner, and I are not saying take the 
troops out. We are not saying we should withdraw the troops. Certainly, 
we would not say vote now to take the troops out. That would be very 
irresponsible.
  What we are trying to do is establish an orderly procedure, over a 
period of more than a year from now, at which time the President, the 
new President, be it Mr. Gore or be it Mr. Bush, can come to the 
Congress and ask for authorization to continue the deployment of 
American troops, if he can make the case, if there is justification for 
it.
  There are those of us in the Senate today who are supporting this 
amendment who, if that case is made, if a good case is made, a 
persuasive case is made--I do not assume I would vote against it. I 
might vote for it. But we are trying to lay down an orderly process 
whereby there will be plenty of time.
  What we are trying to do is take back the authorities of the Congress 
which have been usurped by the administration. We have slept on our 
rights. I do not blame the administration; I blame the Congress. We 
have slept on our rights. So we are not saying take the troops out. But 
we do think it would be the wrong thing to attempt to vote to take the 
troops out now. We don't say that. We do not even say take the troops 
out, period. We are saying let the next President justify the case for 
leaving them in after a certain date, if that be the circumstance.
  Mr. President, it has become startlingly clear over the past several 
days that the Clinton administration fiercely opposes the Byrd-Warner 
Amendment. Why does the administration fiercely oppose this amendment? 
The amendment does not mandate the withdrawal of U.S. ground combat 
troops from Kosovo. The amendment does not micromanage the Pentagon or 
the State Department. What is the administration afraid of? The intent 
of the Byrd-Warner Amendment is to restore congressional oversight to 
the Kosovo peacekeeping operation. Congress should have taken this step 
long ago, but by not doing so, Congress has allowed, by its own 
inaction, the administration to usurp the Constitutional authority of 
Congress in this matter.
  The administration would much prefer that Congress not interfere at 
this late date with the continued usurpation of Congress' 
Constitutional prerogative and authority. No, the administration would 
much prefer Congress to keep quiet, roll over, play dead, or pretend to 
play dead, while the administration continues to do whatever it wants 
to do in Kosovo, run up the costs of the operation, prepare for a long-
term stay there, and then send the bills to Congress for payment.
  The position of the administration has been articulated most 
fervently by General Wesley Clark, the former Supreme Allied Commander 
of NATO troops in Europe. In a letter to Senator Levin, and in several 
meetings with Senators this week, General Clark repeatedly made the 
argument that the Byrd-Warner amendment would undermine the confidence 
that our European allies place in the U.S. commitment to NATO. Ha-ha, 
listen to that. How ridiculous that the Byrd-Warner amendment would 
undermine the confidence that our European allies place in the U.S. 
commitment to NATO. In less than two weeks, we will celebrate Memorial 
Day. We will remember, and honor, the 4,743,826 men who served in World 
War I. We will mark the loss of the 53,513 men who lost their lives in 
battle during that war, and the 63,195 uniformed men who also died, 
though not in battle. We will honor the 204,002 men who were wounded in 
that conflict, whose blood was spilled in those muddy trenches and 
across those snowy hills.
  We will also pay tribute to the 16,353,659 men who put on a uniform 
and served during World War II, a conflict that also started in Europe. 
Some 292,131 of those 16 million men died--died in battle during that 
bloody war, and another 115,185 died while serving in that war. Another 
671,876 were wounded in all theaters. American blood has soaked 
European ground--the ground cries out--and saved European lives. Then 
to say that the passage of this amendment would cause the Europeans to 
lose trust in the Americans--how silly, how perfectly ridiculous that 
that would be said.
  That is the U.S. commitment to NATO, and to our European allies. Our 
commitment lies under European sod, under poppy-covered fields marked 
with endless rows of white crosses. Our blood is our bond. What more 
cane they ask? It is preposterous for General Clark or the 
administration to suggest that the Byrd-Warner amendment could 
undermine that bond. How silly, how utterly ridiculous.
  Asking our European allies to meet their commitments in Kosovo, while 
we continue to shoulder the burden of intelligence collection, 
transportation, and other critical support roles for which we are 
uniquely equipped, is not walking away from NATO. It is not walking 
away from Europe. The Byrd-Warner amendment assumes that the 
administration can come up with a supportable case for continued U.S. 
involvement in Kosovo if necessary. It might be Mr. Gore. It might be 
Mr. Bush. But we assume that they can come up with a justifiable case 
if they think they have a case.

  The Byrd-Warner amendment does not assume that the United States will 
withdraw from Kosovo. We do not assume that at all. That is simply the 
logical conclusion of but one path this debate might take. The other 
path is that the administration will present, and defend, a plan--
whatever administration it is--by next year for continued U.S. 
involvement in Kosovo that the Congress and the American people can 
support. We assume they can. But let them do it. Then our troops, our 
military establishment, our allies, and others in the region, will 
understand the depth of support for this mission in the United States.
  One of the primary aims of the Byrd-Warner provision is to get the 
administration and the next administration, be

[[Page S4081]]

it Democratic or Republican, to focus on a policy.
  I have asked this administration for an exit strategy. I cannot get 
an answer. I have asked for a rough estimate, within 2 years, of how 
long we expect ground troops to remain in Kosovo. I cannot get an 
answer. I have asked this administration for an estimate of the 
ultimate cost of this operation to the American taxpayer. I cannot get 
an answer.
  As far as I can tell, we are on mission ``Ad Hoc'' in Kosovo, with 
nobody in the entire executive branch in Washington or elsewhere, able 
to give this Senator and the American people answers to the most basic 
questions regarding the scope, costs or foreseeable end of the mission.
  I cannot even get anyone to tell me how we will know when it is time 
to leave? How will we know when it is time to leave?
  Talk about open ended commitments! This endeavor does not even have 
walls, much less ceilings or floors.
  Now we are being told by the Office of Management and Budget that the 
administration cannot provide assurances that the certification of 
allied effort required by the Byrd-Warner amendment will be met by the 
due date of July 15. The problem? I quote from the statement of 
administration policy. Here is the problem: ``mechanical formulas and 
recordkeeping technicalities.'' I realize that this administration has 
had its share of recordkeeping problems, but I find it difficult to 
believe they cannot do the simple arithmetic--the old math or the new 
math--this provision requires.
  The administration itself acknowledges that the allies are already 
exceeding their commitments for humanitarian assistance and for the 
Kosovo consolidated budget. Further, according to the administration's 
reckoning, the allies have already deployed 63 percent of the civilian 
police that they have promised. No, they have not yet met the 75 
percent benchmark, but Spain is expected to deploy 115 additional 
police in June, and great Britain recently announced that it will 
deploy an additional 57 police by the end of May, which would boost the 
total to over 75 percent.
  Given the allies' poor track record in the area, I think we should 
hold their feet to the fire on the 75 percent standard. It is 
achievable. If the allies balk at coming up with 158 additional 
policemen, Congress and the American people should know and should know 
the reason why. And we should know the reason before we pay out the 
final installment of the $2 billion in military costs funded in this 
bill that the U.S. has incurred in Kosovo this year.
  The administration also contends that the allies will not be able to 
come up with 33 percent of their promised reconstruction assistance. 
The changes that we intend to make to this provision--Senator Stevens 
and I confer if we are not allowed to make them on the floor--will take 
care of that problem. We will drop that requirement to 25 percent. 
According to the National Security Council, which apparently can do the 
arithmetic, the allies are currently at 23.1 percent. I have every 
confidence that they can come up with the remaining 1.9 percent by July 
15. Mr. President, the purpose of including the certification 
benchmarks in this provision was to give the United States leverage to 
demand that our allies live up to their commitments. Our intention is 
for these requirements to be used as a prod, not a battering ram. We 
want the allies to meet these requirements. But if for some reason they 
cannot, we have included a safety valve--a vote under expedited 
procedures to release the money being held in reserve to continue the 
deployment of U.S. forces in Kosovo. It is not now, nor was it ever, 
the intention of Senator Warner or me to force a withdrawal of U.S. 
troops from Kosovo in July.
  Our intention is very simple: To do right by the Constitution, to do 
right by the American people, and to do right by the men and women in 
uniform that we send into harm's way in operations like the one in 
Kosovo.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, will the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia engage in a colloquy with me because I am very interested in 
his remarks. I have the highest respect for his efforts in this body, 
and I listened closely to what he had to say.
  I believe there has been a lot of misunderstanding or 
misinterpretation or misinformation about what is in this legislation. 
Perhaps this was not the best place to put this language, but certainly 
the timing is propitious. This issue is upon us.
  Senator Byrd and Senator Stevens, two of the most respected Senators 
in this body and senior members on the Appropriations Committee--
Senator Stevens is obviously very much interested in the condition of 
our military troops, what they are doing, and where they are, and the 
same is true with Senator Byrd. Maybe it is an oversimplification, but 
as I understand it, the Byrd-Warner language will really do two things: 
One, say the President should certify to the Congress by this summer--
the exact day is July 15?
  Mr. BYRD. We can adjust that date.
  Mr. LOTT. By a reasonable date this summer that our allies are 
fulfilling their commitments, one. And two, that by July 1 or October 1 
of next year, the Congress would have to authorize the continuation of 
ground combat troops in Kosovo; is that basically it?
  Mr. BYRD. That is correct. We would continue our air support, our 
logistical support, and our intelligence support. We would merely 
withdraw the ground troops, but we would only withdraw them in the 
event the President did not ask for authorization to continue the 
deployment, and in the event he asked and Congress voted no. Otherwise, 
they will be there.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if the Senator will allow me to ask another 
question----
  Mr. BYRD. May I say further, what is wrong with that?
  Mr. LOTT. I do not think there is anything wrong with that.
  Mr. BYRD. What is wrong with that?
  Mr. LOTT. I am going to support it.
  Mr. BYRD. I am not directing the question to the majority leader. 
What is wrong with that? We would expect the President, Republican or 
Democrat, to come up here to make his case if he wants to continue, if 
he believes there is justification to continue the deployment. He 
should come here. That is what we want. We want the administration to 
come here and request authorization and to justify that authorization. 
If he does that, Congress then will vote up or down. What is wrong with 
that?
  Mr. REID. Will the leader yield just so we keep things in order? It 
is my understanding he is taking time allotted to Senator Roberts.
  Mr. LOTT. I believe Senator Byrd's time has expired. I ask to use the 
time designated for Senator Roberts.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time is being so charged.
  Mr. LOTT. I know Senator Hollings is wishing to speak on this. I do 
not intend to use the full time, but we have an expert on this subject.
  Mr. REID. Pardon the interruption, I wanted to make sure people 
understood.
  Mr. LOTT. For the people watching, you have made the point, and I 
have made the point, that what this requires is for Congress to do its 
job to fulfill our responsibility, that while the President clearly has 
a role--this is not aimed as a criticism of this President or as a 
halter on the next President--it is for the Congress, for the Senate to 
step up to its responsibilities.
  I believe the responsibilities you have cited are constitutional. I 
also believe we have the War Powers Act on the books.
  Would the Senator take a moment to talk about those constitutional 
and other legal requirements that suggest we should act in this area?
  Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I know that the distinguished Senator from 
South Carolina badly needs to make another appointment.
  May I say to the distinguished majority leader that I intend, in my 
speech tomorrow, to lay out in full the constitutional requirements. I 
intend to respond to his question at that time.
  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I will just take a few minutes to say that I 
thought a good bit about this issue--both Kosovo and the Byrd-Warner 
language. I have not been quick to make a final judgment or to make 
comments, but I have concluded that this is the right thing to do. I 
want to emphasize, again, I say that knowing full well that the 
President has problems with it. I

[[Page S4082]]

think they are overreacting to what is in this language.
  Mr. BYRD. They are hysterical.
  Mr. LOTT. Now our candidate for the nomination, our presumptive 
nominee, has said he is concerned about Presidential prerogatives. I 
understand. All Presidential candidates and Presidents worry about 
that.
  But we have a responsibility here, too. What about the prerogatives, 
what about the responsibility of the Congress? I think the American 
people want to know what is going on. They are unaware, really, of what 
is going on and not asking about it. They are not really aware of the 
commitment we have there. They don't really know that perhaps our 
allies are not fulfilling their commitments. They have not done it in 
terms of personnel or money. And why is because they do not have to. 
They know Uncle Sam will take care of this problem.
  I had occasion to meet with the President of one of our ally 
countries. I said: Why aren't you fulfilling your commitment? Why don't 
you do more? Why don't you do what you said you were going to do? Only 
after a brief silence, he said: You are the world leader. You are the 
only surviving power. It is your responsibility.
  That is kind of the attitude, frankly, of some of our allies--yes, 
you are the big guy. You have to take care of it. Yes, it is in our 
backyard. This is supposed to be a peacekeeping initiative. But you 
will handle it. We don't have to do that.

  In their defense, to be honest, I think because of Senator Warner's 
efforts, and others, because of complaints I made to some of our 
allies, they are beginning to do a better job.
  I believe the President will be able to meet this certification. But 
I think it is important that our allies in NATO do what they say they 
were going to do. I am hesitant for us to even reduce the requirements 
of what they should have to do.
  But I tell you what is really bothering me. We wonder, how long are 
we going to stay there? We have been in some parts of the world for 50 
years. We have been sending troops now to every little place imaginable 
around the world. There is no end in sight in Bosnia; no end in sight 
in Kosovo; no plan, no end game. We do not know what is going to be the 
final outcome. We are just there. Then each year this administration, 
and the next administration--Democrat or Republican--will show up and 
say: Sorry, we had this problem. We had to spend the money. We spent $1 
billion. We spent $1.5 billion in Kosovo, not to mention what we are 
spending in Bosnia. We had to take it out of other defense accounts, 
O&M, operation and maintenance--very important things--and now you have 
to give us the money, because if you don't give us the money, then we 
are not going to be supporting our troops.
  Then we are in a bind, without any real accountability, without 
having input, without voting to authorize it, without knowing what the 
end game is--without anything. Then we just ante up the money. You are 
not talking chicken feed. You are talking a lot of money. We have to 
stop that.
  I noted what Senator Byrd said. And I would say, for myself, when the 
vote comes to authorize it, I think we would be hard pressed not to 
authorize keeping troops there. Certainly we would be for the support 
of troops.
  But if the case was made, if we knew what we were getting into, we 
knew how much it was going to cost, how long it was going to last, I 
think that a persuasive case would be made. And I have not made up my 
mind how I would vote. I want to see what it is.
  But that is not where we are now. People are saying: You are taking 
action now. You are going to have these difficult problems on your 
hands next year. That is one of the reasons why I want to deal with it 
now. I want us to make sure everybody understands we have to have an 
accounting; we have to have a plan.
  We cannot put our men, our women, our ships, our planes in every 
corner of this world indefinitely with no plan. We are still dealing 
with Iraq. We probably had sorties today. We probably bombed somebody, 
while we are counting on them to produce 700 million barrels of oil for 
us, I guess it is. The hypocrisy of it bothers me, too.
  I know it is expected that the majority leader of the Senate would 
automatically just say: No, we can't have this out of the 
Appropriations Committee. We don't want to tie the hands of the next 
President. It could be a President from your party.
  That really offends me. This is bigger than that. I believe some of 
the comments that have been made questions the integrity, the 
patriotism of the sponsors of this legislation. I think that is totally 
inappropriate. They would not do that.
  So as for myself, unless there is something dramatic that changes, I 
plan to support this language. I urge my colleagues to take a look at 
what is really in it. Do not be misguided by incorrect information that 
is being put out there. Ask yourself: Are you satisfied with the 
situation in Kosovo? I think the answer is no.
  So I thank the two sponsors of this legislation. I hope the language 
stays in the bill.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask the distinguished leader, who came 
to this body following an earlier distinguished career in the House, is 
he aware of the overwhelming vote in the House today for basically the 
principles that are incorporated in the Byrd-Warner amendment? The vote 
was 264 to 140-some, something along in there.
  I think that is a clear indication that the people in the United 
States of America want, first, participation by the coequal branch, 
i.e., the Congress; and, secondly, for us to address this matter in a 
responsible way before we shovel out $2 billion more for this type of 
operation.
  Mr. LOTT. I certainly agree. I have found, as I have gone to my own 
State and other States, that when people find out what we are doing 
there--the commitment we have there in terms of the facilities and the 
troops involved, and how much it is costing; and the fact that we have 
never voted to authorize; we do not know where we are headed, how long 
it is going to take, how much it is going to cost, what the plan is--
they are horrified. They basically look at me--and I can see it in 
their eyes-- and they are thinking: What are you going to do about it?
  It is our responsibility.
  Mr. WARNER. That is right.
  Mr. President, their voices, the people's voices, were heard through 
this House vote today.
  Mr. LOTT. Right. I agree.
  Mr. WARNER. I thank our distinguished leader for his support. I thank 
our dear colleague from West Virginia who, year after year after year, 
comes to this floor and reminds the Senate of its responsibilities in 
foreign affairs. This is precisely what is before us in this vote.
  Mr. BYRD. Right.
  Mr. LOTT. I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
South Carolina is recognized for up to 20 minutes.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, I commend our distinguished chairman of 
the Armed Services Committee, Senator Warner, and my distinguished 
leader, Senator Byrd of West Virginia, on this initiative.
  You learn through experience. We had bitter experiences, as 
politicians, on the floor of the Senate during the war in Vietnam.
  Someone tells me that the Senator from Arizona, Mr. McCain, has taken 
exception to this particular amendment. I could only say to my 
distinguished colleague from Arizona that I feel very keenly, if I knew 
in 1966 what I know now about Vietnam, I could have saved or 
participated, let's say, in the saving of at least 40,000 of the 58,000 
lives we lost.
  It took McNamara, the Secretary of Defense, almost 25 years to admit 
it was a mistake. And the question arises in my mind as to how long it 
is going to take us to acknowledge that this, too, is a mistake. Mind 
you me, I am not for withdrawal. I think this is a deliberate 
initiative, well considered, and deserves strong support. Otherwise, I 
am 100 percent for the troops wherever they are.
  The record will show that the last $500 million that had to be 
appropriated at the request of a general for Vietnam was made on the 
motion from the Senator from South Carolina. But I visited with those 
troops. I have seen, in a very short period, certain disturbing things 
in Kosovo. And to watch my friend, the Senator from Delaware,

[[Page S4083]]

dignify this mistake, and all the spurious arguments made, is almost 
amusing, in the sense that one of the things he says is ``to wish for a 
nation to be both ignorant and free, wishing for a nation that never 
was and never can be''--quoting Thomas Jefferson. He says if you look 
for Europe to be both Balkan and stable, it is wishing for something 
that never was and never can be.
  I happen to agree, Mr. President. That is what disturbs the Senator 
from South Carolina with the positioning of troops who are there for 
battle and not as a police force. We are really ruining the morale of 
our troops in this kind of commitment, not following through. They were 
supposed to have been out in a year's period, gone from any kind of 
military deployment, and we were supposed to have had the substitution, 
of course, of the police force and the allies. It is a very weak 
alliance that has not put up the money. The chaos grows by day and the 
danger is in the morning paper.
  We have five sectors in Kosovo. You learn very quickly that the 
Russians are not supportive, and that is why we don't have the police 
force. You learn from the briefings that the Greeks are not for this 
particular deployment. The French, comme ci, comme ca. It is intimated 
even by the Senator from Delaware that they are not in support. I asked 
the Brits in London later about their withdrawal of a certain area and 
they said they were too stretched. But more ominously, you will find on 
page A-18 of the Washington Post this morning an article entitled 
``Russia Strengthens Yugoslav Ties.'' It says:

       At the end of the two-day visit in Moscow today, Yugoslav 
     Foreign Minister Zivadin Jovanovic praised ``cooperation" 
     between the two countries. Russia granted Belgrade a $102 
     million loan and announced the sale of $32 million worth of 
     oil to Yugoslavia. The loan comes at a time when the 
     International Monetary Fund, whose activities are 
     underwritten by U.S. taxpayers, is considering resumption of 
     loans to Russia.
       . . . Putin's policy is consistent with Russian sentiment 
     toward Yugoslavia. Moscow opposed the war, considered the 
     NATO bombing campaign illegal because it was initiated 
     without the specific approval of the Security Council, where 
     Russia holds a veto. Moscow views the war crimes accusations 
     against Belgrade as politically motivated.

  That is what the distinguished Senator from Delaware was trying to 
dignify. They called it the fifth column in the war with Spain. We have 
fifth columns, as I can see it, militarily deployed in three sectors. 
Russian troops take a man from Moscow, and while we can't get our own 
weak alliance to respond and come up with a police force to keep law 
and order, we find Russians can get hundreds of millions of dollars 
here to support Milosevic. This is a good deployment? I see a mistake. 
I will never forget there was a mistake in diplomacy. There isn't any 
question about it. I will never forget. I will quote what our friend, 
Henry Kissinger, said:

       Rambouillet was not a negotiation--as is often claimed--but 
     an ultimatum. This marked an astounding departure for an 
     administration that had entered office proclaiming its 
     devotion to the U.N. Charter and multilateral procedures.

  I could read further, but there is no question that what we have is 
not statecraft, but a mistake in a military plan. There isn't any 
question that they don't want to admit it publicly, but the Secretary 
of State thought Milosevic would cry uncle in 3 days. We didn't have 
any military plan to take over. In order to try to backstop some kind 
of support and say this is serious, and it is not a mistake--``ethnic 
cleansing, ethnic cleansing, ethnic cleansing''--they tried to equate 
this with the holocaust. Come, come. We got briefed at the time. There 
were 100,000 Albanians living peacefully in Belgrade, where Milosevic 
was also living. This wasn't ethnic cleansing in the sense of a 
holocaust--to find a person of a particular race or religion and 
eliminate them. They weren't getting along.
  Thank heavens we didn't send Madeleine Albright to Northern Ireland; 
we sent Senator Mitchell. He knows that in order to get persons and 
populations with differences together, it takes long, hard work, and no 
ultimatum. If we had sent the Secretary of State, she would have said 
you either agree to do this by 12 o'clock tomorrow, or we are going to 
start bombing you. So we got caught without a military plan. There 
weren't any grand troops ready--even to come from Germany at the 
particular time.
  Let's say Milosevic didn't like the majority group down in Kosovo. We 
had all kinds of briefings to the effect that the differences were 
exacerbating, as they say, and what happened was they would kill a Serb 
police on the corner and then Milosevic would come and burn out the 
entire block, and that kind of thing. But when we started the bombing, 
we declared this a war zone. Brother, when you have a war zone, you 
have a right, title, and interest to clear the enemy.
  So immediately Milosevic went to work, and that is what led to the 
million refugees spilling over the borders into Albania, Macedonia, 
into Montenegro, and anywhere they could. That was another mistake. 
There was a mistake, of course, when they called this a 
``peacekeeping'' because there wasn't any peace agreement.
  The brass in Kosovo, including the four-star general, General Shelton 
told me what happened. The Joint Chiefs resent me saying this, but what 
happened is that both sides ran out of targets. Milosevic had already 
cleared the area on the one hand, and we had run out of targets down in 
Kosovo. So we have peacekeeping troops there when there is no peace 
agreement. What happens? All we have to refer to is what others have 
said, not just what I saw. What I saw was highly disturbing--our 
American military deployed and a hunkered down containment.
  They took us to a little town with a population of about 67,000 
people. We were in the city. But we were guarding a block with Serbs, 
including a few families there. We had a GI at one end, a GI at the 
other end, and one GI in the middle to take them to the shopping 
market. They had that many more Serbs. So they took convoys of them up 
to Belgrade to shop. Is this peacekeeping?
  The columnist said:

       The war has done nothing to bring the two sides together. 
     On the contrary, it has intensified ancient animosities.

  What do they say in the Washington Post? Michael Kelly says:

       How safe is Kosovo, how secure? Safer and more secure than 
     it was a year ago, but still, in any real terms, not safe, 
     not secure and becoming less so all the time.
       Human rights abuses and serious crimes continue to be 
     committed at an alarming rate, particularly against members 
     of minority communities, with virtual immunity.

  I was briefed to the effect that it was 95 percent Albanian.
  Let me quote further:

       Meanwhile, as predicted, members of the theoretically 
     disbanded Kosovo Liberation Army have emerged as leaders of a 
     criminal mobocracy that is the real power on the streets.

  That is who is keeping the peace--the KLA, and mobocracy rules the 
streets.
  What did the GAO say? This past weekend, they gave the report to the 
Armed Services Committee.

       . . . little progress had been made toward creating 
     peaceful, democratic governments committed to political and 
     ethic reconciliation.
       . . . the former warring parties largely retain their 
     wartime goals.

  We haven't achieved peace.
  Quoting further:

       . . . it also criticized the United Nations for failing to 
     provide needed resources, particularly in Kosovo where an 
     international police force has been slow to get off the 
     ground.
       ``. . . an escalation of violent incidents or armed 
     conflict'' over the next five years, not just in Bosnia and 
     Kosovo, but also in Macedonia and in the two remaining 
     republics of the former Yugoslavia, Montenegro as well as 
     Serbia.

  We deployed American GIs in the middle of that mess, and they don't 
want to even discuss it. They don't want to bring it to a head. Senator 
Warner and Senator Byrd want to bring it to a head.
  Let's develop some sort of policy because we have a nonpolicy 
situation.
  We have no real support from the allies, as I pointed out. The main 
thing is that the Russians are all deployed all around and are giving 
support to Milosevic. Of course, Milosevic is strengthened in Europe.
  We heard from General Clark about how the Europeans felt so safe--not 
at all.
  They had a very interesting story in Time magazine a month ago 
whereby Vaclav Havel had befriended his former Czech native, Secretary 
Albright, our Secretary of State. He wished for her to succeed him as 
the President of the Czech Republic. The only problem is

[[Page S4084]]

that 75 percent of the people in the Czech Republic are opposed to 
``Madeleine's War.''
  This has been a mistake--in diplomacy, in military deployment, in 
peacekeeping, in getting up the support, and everything else. It hurts 
the Fed's policy. It hurts foreign policy.
  We have a group going to Moscow at the end of this month that will 
probably call on President Putin. I don't have the unmitigated gall to 
mention to President Putin about Chechnya. ``Here, here,'' he would 
say, ``Senator, your country invaded the sovereign country of 
Yugoslavia and Kosovo without a United Nations resolution, and on your 
own you just took over and started bombing because they wouldn't agree, 
and you are asking us about Chechnya?'' What kind of foreign policy do 
we have?

  What kind of Kosovo policy do we have? What kind of military policy 
do we have? When are we going to admit that this is a mistake.
  Secretary Albright says we are going to rebuild the infrastructure, 
and after we get the churches, the roads, the airports, the schools, 
and the hospitals reconstructed, and the industries, people will go to 
work, and they will hug and love each other.
  Well, we have had 30 years of that in Ireland. From the time I met 
Martin Agronsky in a restaurant, as he came out after a 3-week visit in 
London, he said they would never get together for 30 years. And he was 
right. I have been to Northern Ireland. They have the hospitals, the 
roads, the airports, and the infrastructure, and they are not hugging 
and loving yet.
  Apparently, according to the Senator from Delaware, a stable Europe 
or a stable Balkans was never and never will be.
  I don't think this is the proper military deployment. We have to 
bring this to a head and acknowledge the mistake we made, and do the 
best we can. The best we can is to follow the Warner-Byrd resolution 
whereby we have the people behind us.
  I will make one political comment. Governor Bush wandered aimlessly 
into this debate yesterday. If I were the President of the United 
States, I would never want troops committed in a deliberate fashion as 
these were without the support of the American Congress, the American 
people, and the Senate.
  I would not want them to give me a basket case, if I were elected 
President. But I would want, by gosh, some requirement that we look at 
it in an objective fashion, and consider my military, my foreign policy 
advisers, and look at what was on the ground to see if it was 
worsening, as it is today.
  We keep saying we are going to get rid of Saddam Hussein, Milosevic 
is going to fall, and Castro is going to disappear. When will we ever 
learn?
  The Warner-Byrd resolution helps us to begin to learn so we can 
actually discuss this in an intelligent fashion.
  The arrogance of America came out markedly in the comments of the 
Senator from Delaware--that were it not for Americans none of this 
could happen; not at all. I hope they get a European defense force. I 
hope they take over.
  I voted in 1971, before the Senator from Delaware came here, to cut 
the troops in Germany back to 5,000. That was the Mansfield amendment.
  Let's not say we are responsible for everything and anywhere, and 
that it only can happen with us.
  I think they are going to have to take over. I think when they take 
over it will be dealt with properly.
  I, again, thank the Senator from Virginia and the Senator from West 
Virginia.
  I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, while our distinguished colleague is here, 
and on my time, I would like to say that he has followed this matter 
for some time. He was on the Appropriations Committee at the time this 
amendment was voted into the bill. My recollection is that 23 Senators 
voted to put it in. Am I not correct?
  Mr. HOLLINGS. That is exactly right; overwhelming majority.
  Mr. WARNER. Three opposed and two abstained.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. That is correct.
  Mr. WARNER. Showing that the full committee of the Senate 
appropriations gave overwhelming support to this amendment.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. That is right, though we are really debating the 
amendment of the Senator from Virginia. We knew, and we could see it. 
We went into the different parts of that debate. To get down to all of 
these extraneous things my friend from Delaware brings out is not the 
point at all. We are not trying to send a message to Milosevic. We are 
trying to send a message to ourselves; to our policy; send a message to 
the GIs out there that is not willy-nilly. General Clark said only 
yesterday that it could be 5 years. Come on.
  Does he think we will keep America's GIs out there in Kosovo 5 years?
  Mr. WARNER. That is precisely why, when I visited the region in 
January of this year--I try to go every 6 months or every several 
months. The officials told me, the U.N., the E.U., all of them said: 
Senator, if they just keep the money flowing and the police flowing, 
then eventually we can get some timetable for the withdrawal not only 
of U.S. forces but other military forces and turn it over to a civil 
society to operate itself with such security as needed along the 
borders.
  We are not pulling out. We are 100 or so miles away for some of our 
troops in the NATO installations. The sky is not falling in.
  The Senator raises a key point. For General Clark to come up and say, 
in effect, that if we take out just the U.S. combat troops--again, 
leaving 100,000 in NATO, just a short distance away--Milosevic would 
read that as a signal and come charging across the borders--what does 
that say to the other allies? There are 32 nations providing armed 
forces in the KFOR force of a total in excess of 40,000. It says ``You 
don't count.''
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Exactly. And the timing of this, just when we were 
assuring Russia that NATO was a purely defensive force, we were 
admitting three new countries. We destroyed the overall policy. This 
was a mistake from the word go and they don't want to try to explain 
it; they are embarrassed to do so.
  But the Senator and I can bring it to a head and we can develop a 
policy. They are running around politicking and traveling the world. 
But we have a serious commitment, and I don't want to have any GIs 
hunkered down there and afraid to walk on the streets, with the KLA in 
charge. Meanwhile, we are sitting back here thinking this is a 
wonderful commitment and America is keeping NATO together. No.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. We have got the 
attention of the Senate now. We have a debate that will last 10 hours, 
well into tonight and tomorrow.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. I commend the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senator from 
Michigan is recognized for up to 30 minutes.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield my time to the Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, there is no need to yield. Following him, 
I think Senator Hutchison of Texas, and then the Senator and I will 
have a debate well into the evening, I expect.
  Mr. LEVIN. I look forward to that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. I thank the Senator from Michigan for yielding his time.
  First, there are no more respected and trusted Members of the Senate 
than Senator Warner and Senator Byrd. When one approaches their 
amendment and their language with respect to Kosovo, it is with a 
position of both, as I mentioned, trust and respect.
  However, after examining the amendment, I must disagree with their 
conclusion and the amendment. Let me also say by way of an aside, I 
certainly do support the underlying provisions of the military 
construction appropriations bill and I commend both Senator Burns and 
Senator Murray for all their hard work.
  As I indicated, I am concerned about the amendment offered by my 
colleagues, Senator Byrd and Senator Warner. The Byrd-Warner amendment 
provides for several things. First, section 2410 of the bill would 
prohibit the expenditure of funds for the continued deployment of 
ground troops after July 1, 2001, unless the President seeks and 
secures congressional authorization to continue the deployment beyond 
that date.

[[Page S4085]]

  This, I think, is one of the more central parts of their amendment. 
Essentially, it says our troops will come out by July 2001 unless the 
Congress acts affirmatively to keep them there.
  There has been some discussion throughout this debate about 
senatorial prerogative and roles of the Senate in forging policy with 
respect to deployment of our troops. I don't believe this debate is 
ultimately about, or should be about, senatorial prerogatives. It is 
quite clear, given the power of the purse, we can compel the extraction 
of our forces by simply cutting off the funds. That principle is clear. 
What is at stake here is the consequences of such an action, whether 
such an action would inure to our benefit or whether it would be a 
costly error. I believe it would not inure to our benefit. I believe 
the consequences would be detrimental not only to our position in the 
world, our position in NATO, but ultimately to the position of our 
forces within Kosovo.
  Let me suggest what I believe to be the consequences of the passage 
of this amendment. It would signal to those forces both within the 
Albanian Kosovars and the Serbian Kosovars that our commitment to 
staying in Kosovo is limited to a year. As a result, they will, for 
their own protection and also to advance their own particular plans 
after our departure, begin to rearm, begin to become much more 
provocative, begin to assault each other.
  Frankly, given the imbalance of population and forces within Kosovo, 
it is more likely that the Albanian Kosovars will try to seek a final 
remedy by displacement of Serbians out of Kosovo before, in their view, 
the departure of the summit forces, which would likely be accompanied 
by significant reduction, or certainly a diminution, of the 
international commitment to Kosovo.
  With this combination, we are creating a very destabilizing situation 
within Kosovo. That destabilized situation would, I think, jeopardize 
the safety of our forces there. As a result, we would have a situation 
where we were injecting the kind of uncertainty, the kind of 
instability, that would, I think, blow up in our faces in terms of our 
troops.
  I mention what the Albanian Kosovars might do. I think Milosevic, 
being shrewd, clever, and unyielding, would seek to regain through this 
action what he lost on the battlefield, would continue to accelerate 
the introduction of his forces back into Kosovo in the guise of 
civilians; would begin, if he could, to circumvent embargoes on weapons 
to bring weapons in, setting the stage for violence, for acceleration 
of violence, which I think inevitably would touch our troops.
  Finally, if one is sitting back and watching these developments from 
within Kosovo, and one is expecting a vote of this Congress with 
respect to whether our troops will stay or they will go, one might 
conclude or deduce, based upon recent history, that the quickest way to 
accelerate our departure is to harm our troops. That is one lesson, 
perhaps imprecise, but one lesson of Somalia. When American forces, 
with overwhelming firepower, confronted basically tribal forces armed 
with AK-47s and RPGs, we were staying the course until tragically we 
lost two helicopters and a number of Army rangers and Army personnel, 
and then quickly we were through. We don't know if that is the lesson 
the leadership in Kosovo would draw, but certainly it is plausible.
  As a result, as we spin out these consequences, the requirement 
within this amendment to withdraw, unless there is congressional 
approval, sets in motion a chain of events which I think will not lead 
to stability, will not lead to an environment of peace and tranquility, 
or at least minimize violence, but could very well unwittingly, 
unconsciously--and certainly this is not the intent of anyone here 
particularly--lead to more violence, more instability, which perhaps 
would force us to withdraw for political reasons long before we could 
ever sit down and have a vote in this Senate and in the other body on 
whether we should continue our presence in Kosovo. Essentially, what we 
are doing here today, as I mentioned, is not charting the prerogatives 
of the Senate but trying to assess the consequences of what we will do, 
trying to look ahead and not to the rear. One could come here, and I 
think should come here, and question how we got into Kosovo, how we 
were consulted by the White House. Many of these questions are 
legitimate. Many of these questions have been raised many other times 
on this floor. But today we should be looking ahead. As we look ahead, 
I think the consequences of this act would be detrimental rather than 
helpful to our international position and to the safety of our forces 
on the ground.

  There is a second provision, and that provision is to develop a plan 
to shift responsibility for providing ground forces to European nations 
by July 1, 2001. Again, I do not believe there is anyone in this body 
who would question the central role that Europe must play in securing 
the peace, not just in Kosovo but in the entire Balkans. So the plan 
for the organized shift of responsibilities is sensible. Certainly I 
approve of this. I do not think anyone disapproves of it.
  There is a final proviso and that is withholding 25 percent of the 
fiscal year 2000 supplemental funds unless the White House certifies 
that European allies are paying their promised share of reconstruction 
and humanitarian assistance. Again, no one can question or argue that 
the Europeans should do more, should do their share. Whether or not 
this amendment would prompt them to do that is another question. But 
this is an element of the amendment that I believe certainly engenders 
the kind of debate, and we hope pressure, political and otherwise, that 
would require the Europeans to pay their share, to carry their load, to 
respond to a crisis that is in their backyard and not in our backyard.
  All of these elements together--but most particularly the first 
element, the deadline for withdrawal if there is no approving vote by 
the Congress of the United States--are troubling and will, as I 
suggested, set in motion a series of events that could not only 
destabilize our position but force us to pull out, not in an organized 
way but in quite a disorganized way.
  We all are concerned about what appears to be an open-ended 
commitment. I do not believe this is the way to respond to that 
concern. Perhaps there is no good way to respond to that concern. 
Perhaps the only way to do so is to begin to work with our allies so, 
on a programmed, planned basis, we can substitute additional U.S. 
forces with European forces. Perhaps it is by working with the United 
Nations to see that they back up their words with real resources, real 
dollars, so they can begin the reconstruction, and also to work with 
the European Community so they can do the same in terms of their 
commitments; also to begin to work with international groups, the 
United Nations and others, to develop the capacity to have available 
real police forces, not those who have been trained to patrol the 
reasonably serene streets of metropolitan areas in the United States 
and Canada and elsewhere, but those police forces that are trained for 
this type of almost paramilitary operation.
  Those steps take time. But that is a way to address this issue of an 
open-ended commitment of our military forces. It is an issue we must 
address because, regardless of what we do with respect to Kosovo, we 
have similar challenges in East Timor and other places that require the 
same kind of international humanitarian and reconstructive aid, as well 
as international police forces.
  There is another issue that emanates from this amendment, and that is 
the message we are sending to our allies about our participation in an 
international effort. We are in Kosovo because, not only are we a 
member of NATO, we are the leader of NATO. Our allies have joined us in 
this effort. This is not a unilateral American response to a problem. 
This is an international response with our allies through the mechanism 
of NATO. Indeed, I believe if we are signaling our response is 
weakening, that signal will be taken very badly by our allies in Europe 
and around the world.

  We did an extraordinary job with our military forces, our air power, 
in securing our entry into Kosovo, the entry of NATO. It would seem to 
me to be turning away from that great military success at this juncture 
by our own action, essentially signaling to our NATO allies we are no 
longer prepared to assist

[[Page S4086]]

them in the efforts in Kosovo. I believe it would, in fact, trigger 
their parliaments to conduct the same types of debates we are 
conducting, and the same type of vote if this measure passes. And, as a 
result, the cohesion, the commitment--not just of the United States but 
of NATO and European forces--would be dissipated and, in fact, we would 
see perhaps the end of international involvement in Kosovo.
  The other thing to recognize is that, of the 49,500 troops on the 
ground, 5,300 are American forces, about 10 percent of the total. This 
is not a disproportionately American-led operation today on the ground 
in Kosovo. Indeed, if you look at the U.N. international police forces 
in Kosovo, of the 1,900 police officers, 430 are Americans. In terms of 
reconstruction, we are scheduled to pay about 14 percent of the 
reconstruction, 20 percent of the humanitarian aid. These numbers are 
in line with a joint international effort not dominated by the United 
States, but our shared participation is vital to its success.
  If we choose to make this judgment with respect to Kosovo, we also 
have to ask ourselves, reasonably: Will our participation elsewhere be 
questioned? What about our Australian allies who have shouldered a 
disproportionate burden in East Timor and have asked us repeatedly both 
for practical and political reasons to participate with them? Will they 
suddenly get nervous about our resolve there and curtail their 
activities in a country which desperately needs international support 
to make the transformation from a dependency, a captured territory, 
really, of Indonesia, to an independent country?
  We can see many other places around the world where our resolve might 
be seriously questioned. So the ramifications of this vote are not just 
within the context of Kosovo. They would reach out across the globe 
literally to raise questions of our role in the world with respect to 
our allies and our adversaries.
  Speaking of adversaries, one has to ask how would this be interpreted 
by Milosevic in Belgrade? I think he would see this as his salvation. 
After losing five wars in the Balkans, after seeing his country 
practically dismembered, after seeing his cities destroyed from the 
air, suddenly we would offer him the hope of some ultimate 
justification because, if we leave, the pressure on our allies to go 
also will be, perhaps, unstoppable. Also, if we leave, and if my worst 
fears come about that there is renewed interethnic violence between 
Serbs and Albanians within Kosovo, he will be able to stand in his 
figurative pulpit and claim that he is doing precisely what we did; 
that he is using his military forces to stop the ethnic cleansing of 
Kosovar Serbs by Kosovar Albanians, and that he is justified, morally 
and politically, on the same basis we were, to enter back into Kosovo 
with force, if necessary, to vindicate the same moral principles we 
claimed.
  Would that not be a terrible irony in history? Yet that very well 
could happen. I believe Milosevic and his colleagues in Belgrade would 
embrace any slight weakening of our resolve.
  The other aspect we have to look at, and it is one that is geared to 
all of us here but none more so than the sponsors of this amendment, is 
the status and the safety of our forces.
  Again, one can always conjure up dangers, particularly when we have 
troops in as close contact as they are. The simple uncertainty of what 
we might do a year from now with respect to a vote would, I think, 
inject increased risks to our forces in the field. I do not think we 
should do that. I do not think it is necessary to do that.
  We have heard from General Clark. He has been emphatic about his view 
that this course of action would not be wise or judicious. We have 
heard similarly from Secretary of Defense Cohen.
  Our troops in the field already face a difficult task. They have 
combat power, but ultimately it is the resolve and the support of this 
Nation that stands behind them which is their greatest weapon.
  They are in a very difficult and dangerous situation. They are in 
urban areas. Like so many of my colleagues, I traveled to Kosovo last 
July with Senator Levin, Senator Sessions, and Senator Landrieu. We 
traveled through Kosovo. It is and has been a violent land. It is a 
place where we saw as we went into Prizren, a town in the German 
sector, fires burning by renegades who are still trying to avenge 
themselves against the Serbs.
  In that complicated area with cities, I do not think we want to 
unwittingly invite the hotheads, the terrorists, the ideologues to 
begin attacking our forces because that is not a place where our 
advantages militarily will come to the fore. In fact, we will be 
severely disadvantaged.
  I hope we will reject this amendment. This is always very positive 
and productive because this body should be a place for debate and 
discussion. Senator Warner and Senator Byrd have, once again, focused 
our attention on this issue in Kosovo, once again reminding us of how 
we got into the situation and also reminding us of our obligations to 
look ahead. In that sense, they have done a great service to this 
Senate, as they have done throughout their careers.
  If we seize that challenge, if we look ahead, if we try to carefully 
measure the likely consequences, this amendment will not advance our 
cause, will not advance our position in the world, will not provide 
additional support and resolve to those forces within Kosovo that are 
seeking peace and reconciliation. It will, at best, create uncertainty 
and doubt which will generate, in my view, violence and, at worst, be a 
green light for those forces that want to finally eliminate their 
ethnic rivals or those forces that see this as an opportunity to, once 
again, get the upper hand on their ethnic rivals.
  All these suggest we should reject this amendment and that we try, if 
we are concerned about the long-term status of our forces in that area, 
to work for an acceleration, as part of this amendment calls for, an 
acceleration of international assistance for reconstruction and 
humanitarian affairs, an acceleration of the deployment of police 
officers to absorb the responsibilities which now are being held by 
military forces, to accelerate our readiness for peacekeeping around 
the globe because we know, although we regret, there will be other 
situations such as this.
  If we can do that based upon this debate, then we have accomplished a 
great deal, but I urge my colleagues to oppose these provisions and 
support Senator Levin's amendment to strike so we can send a message to 
our allies, to our soldiers, to our adversaries that we will stand 
behind our forces in Kosovo.
  I thank the Chair. I yield back my remaining time to the Senator from 
Michigan.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Rhode Island for 
his typically thoughtful comments. He has made a truly great 
contribution to this Senate. We spend a lot of time with him on the 
Senate Armed Services Committee. He has made an extraordinary 
contribution not only based on his own intellectual powers but on his 
own experience which is invaluable to us in the Senate. I thank him for 
his insightful comments.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I agree with my distinguished colleague 
from Michigan. We do have a very valued member of our committee in this 
distinguished Senator from Rhode Island. It is interesting that he 
joined Senator Chafee, while that great Senator, that tower of 
strength, was here, and he was always so deferential and respectful to 
Senator Chafee. In his own right, he proudly graduated from West Point 
and served his hitch in the U.S. Army. He reminds me of that when we 
get excessive naval funds through our committee. We thank the Senator. 
While I may not agree with his conclusion, his participation on this 
committee and this matter is of great importance to us.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I believe Senator Hutchison wants to be 
heard at this point. I have no objection whatsoever to that, even 
though that is a change in the order of battle.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I suggest to my colleague that he go ahead 
and initiate his remarks, if that is his desire. She is about to 
arrive. We can put in a short quorum call.
  Mr. LEVIN. If we can put in a short quorum call.

[[Page S4087]]

  Mr. WARNER. In that time, we can work on the time for the rest of the 
evening.
  Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEVIN. 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. LEVIN. Mr. President, the issue before this body tomorrow--at 
least the principal issue--will be whether we are going to set a 
deadline for the withdrawal of U.S. ground forces from Kosovo by the 
middle of next year. I will be coming back to that issue a little bit 
later in my remarks. But before we directly address that question, I 
would like to go back a bit in time and talk about how we got here and 
about NATO's air campaign.
  That campaign was the correct response to Milosevic's brutal 
repression of the Kosovo population and was the correct response to 
Milosevic's effort to spread instability in the region.
  Now that ethnic cleansing has been reversed, for the first time in 
the 20th century, NATO's peacekeeping mission was the right thing to 
do, to give the people of Kosovo a chance to live peaceful and 
productive lives. And NATO's peacekeeping mission is the right thing to 
continue, to give that chance to live a chance to flower.
  We are at a crucial point with respect to Kosovo. Ten months into the 
NATO-led peacekeeping phase of the operation, there are some 
encouraging signs. There are not such encouraging signs, I am afraid, 
inside the Senate.
  The first and most significant fact in Kosovo is that over one and a 
half million people have returned to their homes, homes from which they 
were driven, and they have returned either from abroad or from the 
woods.
  Mass torture, rape, and looting were the substance of daily life in 
Kosovo just a year ago. There is still too much violence, but the 
contrast is stark. When the NATO-led Kosovo force, or KFOR, arrived in 
Kosovo in June of 1999, there was a weekly murder rate of about 50. It 
is now down to an average of five--still too high, but comparable to 
large cities in the developed world.
  The discussion taking place within the international community is now 
how fast, how many, to where in Kosovo the Serbs and other minorities 
should return. There is still a long way to go in Kosovo before Kosovo 
is safe for all of its former residents, but progress is being made.
  Dr. Bernard Kouchner, head of the U.N. mission in Kosovo, had it 
right when he said that ``Kosovo is emerging from 40 years of 
communism, 10 years of apartheid, and a year of ethnic cleansing, and 
that it is simply unrealistic to expect that a Switzerland would be 
created there in less than a year.''
  Some who maintain that a deadline should be set now for the pull out 
of U.S. combat forces point to the fact that the United States flew 
over 70 percent of the missions in the air campaign. The argument is 
that it is now the Europeans' turn to bear the peacekeeping burden. 
Well, that is exactly what is happening. The European nations are 
providing over 80 percent of the peacekeeping troops for Kosovo, and 
the United States is providing about 15 percent of the troops. The 
Europeans have responsibility for four of the five peacekeeping sectors 
in Kosovo. The KFOR commander is presently a Spaniard. He was preceded 
by a Brit, and then preceded before that by a German. The Eurocorp, a 
multilateral command composed of Belgium, France, Germany, Luxembourg, 
and Spain, took over the KFOR headquarters function last month. Last 
week, NATO announced that an Italian would become the KFOR commander in 
October.
  Moreover, the European nations, either as part of the European Union, 
or individually, have pledged to provide more than 75 percent of the 
financial contributions to Kosovo. Now, that brings us to the provision 
that is included in the military construction appropriations bill. This 
provision makes the decision now that U.S. ground forces will pull out 
of Kosovo after July of next year. That is the heart of the matter. It 
is a decision in this bill now that those ground forces will pull out 
of Kosovo in the middle of next year.
  If we leave this language in the bill, Congress will be deciding to 
pull our ground forces out next July. We will have an opportunity later 
to reverse that decision if we change our minds. But unless Congress 
changes its mind, the decision is made. Nothing more needs to be done. 
It is a self-effectuating decision. If Congress does nothing, those 
troops--we would be deciding now--must come out in the middle of next 
year.
  In another part of the language, it says that if the Europeans do not 
meet specified percentages of their pledges for financial assistance 
and police contributions, the withdrawal of our forces would start in 
August of this year, unless Congress enacts a joint resolution 
providing otherwise. But if Congress does nothing, the decision is made 
now. This is not left to a later decision of Congress. We would be 
deciding now that those troops must come out, if the Europeans do not 
meet very specified percentages of certain pledges for financial 
assistance.
  I have been one that has criticized the Europeans for not delivering 
on those financial pledges--particularly for not providing more 
civilian police for Kosovo. I have joined our chairman, Senator Warner, 
in criticizing the Europeans very publicly, very openly. We have talked 
to the foreign and defense ministers from Britain, France, and Germany, 
as well as the Ambassador of the European Union to the United States. I 
have publicly said it is a little more than hypocritical for 
the European Union to talk about grand plans for European security and 
defense identity at the same time they are not appropriately living up 
to their pledges of financial assistance and civilian police for 
Kosovo.

  So I believe that we should be continuing to put pressure on the 
Europeans to live up to our commitments, and I think we ought to live 
up to our own commitments as well. I have a number of concerns with the 
Byrd-Warner language relative to the Europeans' commitments.
  First, I don't agree with the consequences that would follow if the 
President is unable to certify that the Europeans are meeting their 
precise commitment; namely, in the absence of a majority vote of both 
Houses of Congress, our ground forces would automatically have to 
withdraw from a NATO-led peacekeeping operation. I don't object to 
voting on that issue, but I strongly believe that the proper way to use 
the power of the purse is to vote directly on whether or not to cut off 
funding. That is what we did in Somalia in 1993 with the Byrd 
amendment, and in 1994 with the Defense appropriations bill, with that 
amendment. But that is very different from what is being proposed now, 
which is to require a withdrawal of U.S. forces later, unless a later 
vote authorizes the peacekeeping operation, or unless specific targets 
are met by the Europeans.
  Throughout our history, while we have used the power of the purse to 
cut off funding for the deployment of our forces, Congress has not, to 
my knowledge, enacted legislation that would require the Congress to 
affirmatively vote at a later date to allow a deployment to continue. 
The provision before us basically says if Congress doesn't act in a 
specific way at a later date, our forces must withdraw from Kosovo, so 
that the fate of Kosovo may very well be determined by the impetus of 
Congress to act.
  The power of the purse is a vital power. It is totally appropriate to 
seek to exercise that power. But the power, as wielded here, sets up a 
process by which nonaction by the Congress would lead to the withdrawal 
of our forces from Kosovo. The Byrd-Warner provision decides now to 
require the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Kosovo next July, 
unless Congress changes its mind in the interim. The issue then isn't 
whether Congress has the power to set deadlines. Of course we have the 
power. If that were the issue before us, the vote on this would be 100-
0 to maintain that power. The issue before us is whether we want to 
force the withdrawal of ground forces from Kosovo in July of 2001. That 
would be an unwise exercise of a power that Congress clearly had.
  So the language before us isn't about a theoretical principle that 
Congress has the power to set deadlines. The

[[Page S4088]]

Byrd-Warner language exercises that power. No further action is needed 
later, and unless further action is taken later, our ground forces 
would be withdrawn next July.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, will my distinguished colleague yield?
  Mr. LEVIN. If I may finish this one thought, I will be happy to 
yield. That is what it comes down to. The proponents do not want us 
participating--by their own words--in NATO-led ground forces, even at a 
junior partner level of 10 or 15 percent because, in the words of the 
proponents in a Dear Colleague letter they sent, ``The Europeans should 
be responsible for the ground element of the Kosovo peacekeeping 
mission.'' That is what the proponents wrote to all of us. They don't 
want us participating. They want us out of there. Unless we change our 
mind, we will be out of there because, in their words, ``The Europeans 
should be responsible for the ground element of the Kosovo peacekeeping 
mission.''

  By the way, I reiterate, we are supplying 15 percent of the forces. 
We have pleaded with the Europeans for years to become more active in 
their own defense, and they have now responded. They are now the senior 
partner, with 80 percent of the ground forces. We are 15 percent, and 
the other non-Europeans are 5 percent.
  We are the junior partner right now. But the language in this bill 
says we don't want to even perform that role. That is what will unravel 
this mission and endanger this mission in the eyes of NATO and its 
leaders.
  I am happy to yield to my friend.
  Mr. WARNER. It is just a question to my distinguished colleague. He 
used the term ``inaction by Congress.'' Indeed, I say to my colleague, 
Congress has been inactive on a number of occasions when we sent our 
troops abroad and expended our taxpayers' money. That is one of the 
purposes of this bill. To establish a precedent of inaction not 
conceived by the Founding Fathers--indeed, we are given coequal powers.
  I want to go back to the bill itself, on page 71, ``congressional 
priority procedures,'' and ``joint resolutions, defined.''
  I interpret that clause in the Byrd-Warner language that only one 
Senator is required, I say to my distinguished colleague. One Senator 
can bring forth that resolution. I commit to you that I will be that 
Senator, if necessary. So there will not be, in my judgment, inaction 
by the Congress after the President sends his report up.
  Mr. LEVIN. If the Congress does nothing, under this language those 
troops are out of there.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator is correct. But I am saying I commit to be 
the one Senator who requires the Congress to speak on it. So it will 
not be inaction. Congress will take action. The senior Senator from 
Virginia will be the one who will come to the floor under this 
provision and demand it.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is limited reassurance because it doesn't answer the 
heart of the problem, which is that if Congress does not vote later to 
authorize those troops, we are deciding now that those troops must 
leave.
  General Clark told us the problem is that in the year between now and 
then you have tremendous uncertainty, to put it mildly, as to whether 
Congress will authorize those troops to continue despite the commitment 
of one Senator to vote that way. It is that uncertainty which creates 
danger for our troops. Those aren't my words. Those are the words of 
General Clark's, who commanded those forces until a few weeks ago. That 
is the uncertainty which creates problems inside of our NATO alliance. 
That is the problem that creates in Milosevic the hope that he can 
restore himself to power for 1 year. For 1 year what is going to be the 
law of this land is that, unless Congress by majority vote decides to 
authorize those troops in Kosovo, the American forces must leave.

  It is a dangerous uncertainty. It is a debilitating uncertainty in 
terms of NATO. It is an encouraging uncertainty in terms of Milosevic. 
And it is an uncertainty that we should not create. There would be a 
way to avoid this. There is a way that I suggested.
  The way to avoid this is to guarantee the Senator from Virginia an 
opportunity that he could vote to pull the plug a year from now. That 
is a lot different. That is not this language. That was language which 
I suggested to my good friend from Virginia that we could guarantee a 
year from now that there would be an opportunity to force the 
withdrawal of those troops. That doesn't create the year of uncertainty 
which this language does because the language in this bill that my 
amendment would strike creates the uncertainty because if Congress does 
nothing a year from now, if the majority does not act a year from now 
to authorize these troops, the year of uncertainty between now and then 
will take a horrendous toll. Those are not my words. Those are the 
words of General Clark, the expert in the field. It seems to me that is 
a significant difference.
  One other point, and I would be happy to yield further, but I 
probably want to do this on my good friend's time.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I will be happy to have all of my 
questions on my time.
  Mr. LEVIN. In the middle of the air campaign, while our fliers were 
putting their lives at risk over Kosovo, the House of Representatives 
could not even muster a majority to support our air campaign. My good 
friend says he will be the one to trigger this vote in the Senate. I 
have no doubt that he would. Once he says something, he means it. I 
would bet my life on it. I have bet an awful lot on his words many 
times, and I have never lost a bet.
  But I will say this: You can't tell us what the House of 
Representatives will do, or what 99 other Senators will do a year from 
now, and the problem, General Clark tells us, is that year of dangerous 
uncertainty is destabilizing, discourages our allies in NATO, 
encourages Milosevic, and is a real morale buster for our troops. It 
endangers our troops. It puts them at greater risk during this year. 
That is what General Clark told us in his letter, which I will read in 
a few moments.
  I would be happy to yield.
  Mr. WARNER. First, the Byrd-Warner amendment is very carefully drawn 
so that the next President of the United States in following up with 
President Clinton's report with the next President's report. It is not 
required of him to wait until July as is now written. Indeed, Senator 
Byrd and I thought we would give it additional time. If the next 
President perceives that there is some turbulence and doubt in the 
minds of our allies, he can file the report. Then this Senator pledges 
under the bill within the 10 days to come forward with that resolution 
and have this body act. I will guarantee. I will draft somebody in the 
House to do the same thing.

  Mr. LEVIN. Will the Senator guarantee a majority vote in both the 
House and Senate?
  Mr. WARNER. I can't guarantee that.
  Mr. LEVIN. That is the problem.
  Mr. WARNER. I can guarantee, if the facts of the case are so strong 
and the turbulence so great amongst our NATO allies, then I think this 
Chamber will act in a responsible way in the best interests of the 
United States and all those involved.
  Time and time again, I remind my colleagues in this debate, why are 
we so fearful that if the facts are there to justify the continuation 
of this mission this chamber will not vote in a majority to support the 
next President in his petition? That is underlying this whole debate.
  Mr. LEVIN. I think my friend and I know from a whole lot of debates 
in this Chamber that, while the facts may be clear to either of us or 
both of us, they may not be clear to a majority of this Chamber the way 
we see those facts. It is that year of uncertainty. It would be about a 
year.
  Mr. WARNER. The President could file this report in March.
  Mr. LEVIN. It could go up to, let's say, 10 months of uncertainty. 
That is a dangerous period of time, which is, by the way, not necessary 
to create.
  If my friend wanted a guaranteed vote on whether or not to pull the 
plug on our forces next year, that can be arranged--a guaranteed vote. 
But that is not what this is.
  Let's be very clear on this. This says that unless the majority 
decides a year from now to authorize something, that automatically 
then, on automatic pilot, self-effectuating, we are deciding now, and 
those troops must leave. And it is that dangerous period between now 
and then--whether it is 10 months, 12 months, or 14 months--it is that 
destabilizing dangerous period which the

[[Page S4089]]

NATO Secretary General and General Clark have told us endangers the 
mission and endangers our troops.
  It is unheard of, I believe. There is no precedent that we can find 
for the Senate or the Congress ever deciding in year 1 that unless 
something is authorized in year 2, relative to a deployment of forces, 
that those forces must be withdrawn. We have pulled the plug on 
deployment.
  I have voted to pull the plug on deployments. I have voted to end 
deployments in Haiti. I voted, after my dear friend from Virginia and I 
went to Somalia, both before and after, to set deadlines and pull our 
troops out of Somalia.
  That is not what we are doing here. What we are doing is deciding now 
that if Congress doesn't authorize a deployment next year--be it May, 
June, or August--those troops must go. It creates between now and then 
a very dangerous period, and a period which is demoralizing for our 
troops, according to the former commander. That is what we ought to 
avoid. It is unnecessary for us to do that.
  Some people ask, is there anything wrong with exercising the power of 
the purse? My answer is, I am going to defend the power of the purse. 
Senator Byrd is surely correct in saying we have the power to do what 
the Senator from Virginia and he proposed that we do. I don't doubt 
that. I doubt its wisdom--not the power of Congress, but whether it is 
wise for us to do what is being proposed.
  When it comes to the constitutional power issue, if that were the 
issue before us, whether or not Congress has the power to do what the 
Senator proposed, if that were the question, I would say we have the 
power. I think we would have a 100-0 vote. I hope so in terms of the 
prerogative of this branch of Government. The question isn't power. It 
is wisdom.
  Is this the right thing to do?
  Do we want to create this year of uncertainty and instability? Do we 
want to put into place a self-effectuating, automatic process which 
would lead to the withdrawal of forces later unless something happens 
between now and then? I think the answer clearly is no.
  I will quote from this letter I referenced, General Clark's letter, 
which I have printed in the Record. I use only a few paragraphs from 
the letter.
  General Clark wrote that the provisions in the bill before the 
Senate:

       . . .would, if enacted, invalidate the dedication and 
     commitment of our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines, 
     disregarding the sacrifices they and their families have made 
     to help bring peace to the Balkans.

  He also wrote:

       Our service men and women and their families, have made 
     great sacrifices in bringing peace and stability to the 
     Balkans. This amendment introduces uncertainty in the 
     planning and funding of the Kosovo mission. This uncertainty 
     will undermine our service members' confidence in our resolve 
     and may call into question the sacrifices we have asked of 
     them and their families.

  General Clark continues:

       These measures, if adopted, would be seen as a de facto 
     pull-out decision by the United States. They are unlikely to 
     encourage European allies to do more. In fact, these measures 
     would invalidate the policies, commitments and trust of our 
     Allies in NATO, undercut U.S. leadership worldwide, and 
     encourage renewed ethnic tension, fighting and instability in 
     the Balkans.

  He also wrote:

       Our allies would see this as a unilateral, adverse move 
     that splits fifty years of shared burdens, shared risks and 
     shared benefits in NATO.
       This action will also undermine specific plans and 
     commitments made within the Alliance. At the time that U.S. 
     military and diplomatic personnel are pressing other nations 
     to fulfill and expand their commitment of forces, 
     capabilities and resources, an apparent congressionally 
     mandated pullout would undercut their leadership and all 
     parallel diplomatic efforts.

  General Clark continues:

       Setting a specific deadline for U.S. pull-out would signal 
     to the Albanians the limits of the international security 
     guarantees providing for their protection. This, in turn, 
     would give them cause to rearm and prepare to protect 
     themselves from what they would view as inevitable Serbian 
     reentry. The more radical elements of the Albanian population 
     in Kosovo would be encouraged to increase the level of 
     violence directed against the Serb minority, thereby 
     increasing instability as well as placing U.S. forces on the 
     ground at increased risk.

  I repeat that one sentence because it seems to me when, up until 
recently, the commander reaches this conclusion, as well thought out it 
is, that our forces on the ground will be at increased risk while they 
are there if this action is taken, we should pay some very significant 
heed to those words.
  Mr. WARNER. At some point, would the Senator allow asking questions? 
I find very troublesome the accusation by General Clark. I have always 
believed General Clark to be a very brilliant field commander, despite 
the fact he was reversed in his desire to do certain things in Kosovo 
by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Secretary of Defense, 
time and time again. As a matter of fact, I was a supporter with him on 
the ground troops issue, traveled with him the day before the 
hostilities ceased.
  That we would do something to place in harm's way those who serve 
today and those who serve for the remainder of the time--I looked, as a 
matter of record, at the cosponsors of this resolution. I think I 
counted 10 persons who are veterans of previous wars and engagements. 
For General Clark to be pointing a finger at up to a dozen Members and 
saying, we veterans are taking an action endangering our people--let me 
ask this question.
  Mr. LEVIN. That is not the issue. This is not a personal issue. This 
is an issue of judgment on the effect of a particular proposal. He is 
not saying that the intent of the proponents is to put our forces on 
the ground at increased risk. General Clark knows the Members of this 
body. He knows nobody in this body would intentionally place U.S. 
ground forces at increased risk.
  Mr. WARNER. I could examine the record of your remarks.
  Mr. LEVIN. What he is saying is, from reading the letter, this action 
will do that. He is not saying it is intended to do that. He is saying 
this is what the effect of this action will be. I don't think the 
persons who support the language that is in the bill can fairly believe 
that General Clark is aiming anything personally at them in terms of 
their intention because there is nothing suggesting that.

  Mr. WARNER. I say to my colleague, 23 Senators have already taken an 
action. They voted on it in the Appropriations Committee. They have 
taken that action. And you go back and count among the 23 those who 
proudly served in uniform for this country.
  Let me turn to another point. How do our allies feel, listening to 
this debate where we are saying they are of little consequence? If we 
pull out 2,000 or 3,000 ground combat troops, leaving the support 
troops in place, why, the sky is falling in, says General Clark. What 
does that say to the other 30-plus nations that have their troops 
there: You are ineffective; You won't hold the line; You break ranks?
  I think that is a fallacious argument.
  Mr. LEVIN. Let me try to answer the question of how our allies feel. 
We have direct evidence on that. We have a letter from Secretary 
General Robertson.
  Mr. WARNER. I am familiar with that letter.
  Mr. LEVIN. I will read now in response to the question of how our 
allies feel from a good friend of ours, George Robertson, whom we both 
know well, Secretary General of NATO.
  Mr. WARNER. He is a fine naval man.
  Mr. LEVIN. He says:

       The question of Congressional prerogatives is an internal 
     matter for the U.S. Congress and the administration to 
     resolve. I'm in no position to comment. Where I do have a 
     concern, however, is that in the way the legislation is 
     written, it would not just affirm the Congressional 
     privilege, but point toward a single policy outcome--the 
     withdrawal of U.S. forces.
       As Secretary General, the prospect of any NATO ally 
     deciding unilaterally not to take part in a NATO operation 
     causes me deep concern. It risks sending a dangerous signal 
     to the Yugoslavian dictator, Milosevic--that NATO is divided, 
     and that its biggest and most important ally is pulling up 
     stakes.

  That is how our NATO allies feel about this language.
  Some have argued that Congress has never authorized or even formally 
debated U.S. involvement in Kosovo since the Senate on March 23, 1999, 
authorized airstrikes against Yugoslavia.
  By the way, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the letter from 
the Secretary General of NATO, Mr. Robertson, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:


[[Page S4090]]


                                                    North Atlantic


                                          Treaty Organization,

                                          Bruxelles, May 16, 2000.
     Senator Trent Lott,
     Majority Leader,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Senator Tom Daschle,
     Minority Leader,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senators Lott and Daschle. I am writing to express my 
     concerns about legislation currently under consideration that 
     could result in a U.S. withdrawal from the NATO operation in 
     Kosovo.
       As I understand it, the principal authors of the Kosovo 
     language have two concerns: to affirm the Congressional 
     prerogative to approve or disapprove U.S. military 
     deployments, and to insist on a proper sharing of burdens 
     among the United States and the European Allies.
       The question of Congressional prerogatives is an internal 
     matter for the U.S. Congress and Administration to resolve. I 
     am in no position to comment. Where I do have a concern, 
     however, is that in the way the legislation is written, it 
     would not just affirm the Congressional privilege, but point 
     towards a single policy outcome--the withdrawal of U.S. 
     forces. Unless the Congress votes otherwise in a year's time, 
     the Administration would have to begin withdrawing forces. 
     And regardless of any vote, the Administration would be 
     required to produce a plan for total hand-off of the NATO 
     operation to the European Allies.
       As Secretary General, the prospect of any NATO Ally 
     deciding unilaterally not to take part in a NATO operation 
     causes me deep concern. It risks sending a dangerous signal 
     to the Yugoslav dictator, Milosevic--that NATO is divided, 
     and that its biggest and most important Ally is pulling up 
     stakes. I would hope the question of Congressional privilege 
     being addressed could be dealt with in a way that does not 
     presume a U.S. withdrawal.
       Concerning the issue of U.S.-European burden-sharing, I 
     agree with those who argue that the U.S. must not carry a 
     disproportionate share of the load. But the facts on the 
     ground today show that this is not the case. European states 
     are providing 80 percent of the forces in KFOR. The 
     Europcorps is providing the NATO headquarters for the 
     operation. The single largest contributor is Italy, with 14 
     percent of the force. Italy will take over KFOR headquarters 
     in October.
       The European nations are also carrying by far the largest 
     financial burden in providing assistance to Kosovo, and are 
     providing twice the U.S. contribution of civilian police. The 
     bottom line is that in Kosovo today, burden-sharing is 
     working.
       In my view, while ensuring proper burden-sharing is 
     important, we should not let that issue distract us from our 
     larger policy objectives. The NATO presence in Kosovo needs 
     to be decided on the merits of our being there--the job that 
     we are doing and that we need to finish.
       Just over one year ago, NATO aircraft--led largely by the 
     United States--put an end to the most brutal ethnic warfare 
     in Europe since World War II. One and a half million people 
     had been driven from their homes but, thanks to NATO's 
     action, they have been able to return. In a region that has 
     suffered so much--from communism, from de facto apartheid, 
     and then from abhorrent ethnic cleansing--NATO has meant the 
     difference between life and death, between hope and misery.
       I believe that we owe it to ourselves, if not the people of 
     that region, to finish the job we began. As Secretary General 
     of NATO, I will pursue that goal with the utmost vigour. I 
     hope I can count on continued U.S. support, even recognizing 
     that the European Allies must continue carrying the largest 
     share of the load at this stage.
       With warm good wishes
           Sincerely,
                                                 George Robertson,
                                                Secretary General.

  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, some have argued that the Congress has not 
authorized or debated United States involvement in Kosovo since the 
Senate, in March of 1999, authorized airstrikes against Yugoslavia. 
That is not correct.
  On June 10, 1999, during the House of Representatives consideration 
of the Department of Defense authorization bill, the House approved an 
amendment offered by Mr. Skelton that deleted language in the bill as 
reported out of committee that would have prohibited any funding for 
combat or peacekeeping operations in Yugoslavia after September of 
1999. The vote on the House floor was 270-155.
  Additionally, on May 25, 1999, during the Senate's consideration of 
the Department of Defense authorization bill, Senator Specter offered 
an amendment that would have prohibited the use of funds for the 
deployment of United States ground troops in Yugoslavia, except for 
peacekeeping personnel, unless authorized by a joint resolution 
authorizing the use of military force.
  Senator Specter's amendment was tabled by a vote of 52-48. Proponents 
of this bill assert that Congress has a constitutional responsibility 
to address policy issues involving the deployment of U.S. troops 
overseas in instances in which American men and women are being sent 
into potentially dangerous situations.
  But the language singles out the involvement in Kosovo. The language 
relates to Kosovo, not to a general principle. The United States has 
been enforcing a no-fly zone in Iraq for more than 9 years. U.S. and 
British aircraft are being fired upon by Iraqi forces almost daily. 
They respond by attacking Iraqi air defense and command and control 
installations. Our pilots are clearly at risk. Total incremental costs 
for our operations in the Persian Gulf are $1.2 billion a year. It is 
estimated that for this fiscal year it will be about $1 billion.
  The United States has been contributing forces to NATO-led 
peacekeeping troops in Bosnia for 5 years. The U.S. contingent in that 
effort is 4,600 troops. With the passage of time, the risk to our 
troops in Bosnia is probably less than it is in Kosovo, but they are at 
risk. More than $9 billion has been appropriated since fiscal year 1991 
for Bosnia-related operations.
  We have 3,700 troops in South Korea. In testimony before the Armed 
Services Committee in March of this year, the Director of the Defense 
Intelligence Agency said that war in the Korean peninsula could occur 
at any time. Our troops in South Korea are clearly at risk. It does not 
appear that our U.S. troop deployments in the Persian Gulf or Bosnia or 
Korea are going to end anytime soon. There is no fixed date for the end 
of these deployments. But they are important missions and our troops 
should remain deployed until those missions are completed.
  Proponents suggest we are abdicating our responsibility by not 
specifically authorizing U.S. troops' participation in the NATO 
peacekeeping operation in Kosovo. Surely Congress is not abdicating its 
responsibility by not having expressly authorized deployments in the 
Persian Gulf, Bosnia, and Korea as a condition of their continued 
deployment. So the issue before the Senate is not a principle or else 
that principle would presumably be consistently applied.
  The issue before us is not the power of Congress. We have that power. 
Every one of us, I hope, would vote to defend that power. I will as 
long as I am in the Senate of the United States. If the issue is does 
Congress have the power of the purse to end the deployment, I will 
defend that principle. But I will not defend its application every time 
there is an attack on the deployment of our forces or an effort made to 
end the deployment of our forces.
  The question here is, Is it wise now to say that a year from now, 
unless Congress votes affirmatively and changes its mind, that we are 
saying now that those forces must leave Kosovo? That is the question. 
It is the wisdom of the application of the power in these circumstances 
in this way that is the issue before the Senate. It is not the abstract 
power of the purse or the abstract power to force the pullout of 
American forces because there cannot be any doubt that we have that 
power constitutionally. The question is, Is it wise to exercise that 
power now in Kosovo in this way, with the resulting year of dangerous 
uncertainty, as General Clark has outlined to us--endangering the NATO 
effort in Kosovo, endangering the morale of our forces in Kosovo, 
emboldening Milosevic to return to Kosovo? That is the question. Is it 
wise to exercise that power now to be effective a year from now unless 
we change our mind? That is the only issue, not the abstract power of 
the Senate.

  I could give many other examples of where we have forces in different 
places. I have talked about the Persian Gulf, Bosnia, and South Korea. 
We have forces in the western Sahara; we have forces in Sinai; we have 
forces in East Timor. We have forces in a number of places around the 
world--and in many ways I think we are overstretched, by the way. We 
have forces in so many places, but I do not believe there has been any 
specific congressional authorization for the deployment of U.S. 
military personnel to any of those deployments. We could cut off 
funding for those deployments; we have that power. But a failure to 
specifically authorize them cannot represent an abdication or the loss 
of constitutional power over the purse. It cannot mean

[[Page S4091]]

that. We have not abdicated our power or abdicated the power of the 
purse by failing to authorize forces in East Timor or Sinai or in 
Bosnia or in South Korea or in Germany. We have decided as a Congress 
not to withdraw those forces. Any one of us at any time on any 
appropriations bill related to defense or on the defense authorization 
bill could offer an amendment saying we want those troops out of there. 
Then we would debate the wisdom of doing that. But the issue is the 
wisdom, not the power.
  Finally, I hope General Clark's words and those of NATO General 
Secretary Robertson will be with us as we vote on this amendment. Just 
to pick one sentence from General Clark's letter to conclude, this 
language, if it stays in this bill:

       . . . would be seen as a de facto pull-out decision by the 
     United States. Those measures are unlikely to encourage 
     European allies to do more. In fact, these measures would 
     invalidate the policies, commitment and trust of our allies 
     in NATO, undercut U.S. leadership worldwide, and encourage 
     renewed ethnic tension, fighting and instability in the 
     Balkans.

  That is what the year of uncertainty that this language, if left in 
this bill, will precipitate. I hope we will avoid that. I hope we will 
strike this language, and I yield the floor.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wish to pick up on that last sentence of 
the de facto decision.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Senator from Virginia.
  Mr. WARNER. General Clark, again, is a Rhodes scholar, a brilliant 
officer, but I do not agree with him about his perception of the 
Congress of the United States. I believe the next President, whoever 
that may be--Albert Gore or George W. Bush--will be able to assess this 
situation, come to the Congress, make the case, and the Congress will 
act responsibly. That can be done in an accelerated fashion. It does 
not have to wait until next July. Indeed, we tried in the amendment to 
give more time.
  So I close by saying to all those who want to join behind General 
Clark, I feel very strongly that that is a pretty severe indictment of 
the chain of events that are to be carefully undertaken, first, by 
President Clinton; second, by the next President of the United States, 
and then by the Congress. We must remember that we are a coequal 
branch. We repeat that and repeat that, but in Europe their 
parliamentary forms of government are quite different than ours. There 
is not the coequal stature with the constitution in place, with regard 
to their various forms of legislature, or general assemblies, whatever 
the case may be. They are quite different and they have to be 
respectful of how this situation works.
  I come back to Senator Byrd's statement, which is a brilliant 
statement, recounting World War I, World War II, and all the 
participation that this great Nation has given in this century towards 
peace and stability in Europe.
  Are they now to turn their back on that history? I say no. I say to 
my good friend from Michigan, and I say to General Clark, I believe 
they have gone just a step too far. I have more confidence in the next 
President and confidence that this President can make a strong case, 
and I have confidence in the institution of the Congress of the United 
States.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from Alabama. 
Who yields time? Does the Senator from Virginia yield time?
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I wonder if my distinguished colleague 
from Alabama will forbear. With regard to time on our side, there are a 
number of Senators who have indicated a desire to address the Senate 
tomorrow. Tonight I will put in place a UC to enable them to have a 
specific period of time.
  I point out, this is a bipartisan decision with which we are dealing 
in the Senate. We have our distinguished elder statesman, Mr. Byrd, 
leading it. We have another distinguished elder statesman, Mr. 
Hollings. I ask unanimous consent whereby, from the other side of the 
aisle, Senator Torricelli, Senator Cleland, and Senator Feingold each 
have 6 minutes apiece at their disposal. On our side, we will lead off 
tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock with Senator Roberts, and he desires 15 
minutes; Senator Warner, myself, during the course of the morning, I 
reserve 20 minutes for myself; Senator Hutchison of Texas desires 7 
minutes; Senator Inhofe desires 7 minutes; and Senator Snowe desires 7 
minutes.
  I want to make those time commitments to guarantee that our 
colleagues who have indicated to me a desire to speak will have that 
time tomorrow. My understanding is there will be 5\1/2\ hours of debate 
tomorrow prior to the vote at 2:30 p.m. which is fixed by order. The 
leadership may, of course, in some way change that, take leadership 
time, and so forth. Basically, it is 5\1/2\ hours. Senator Byrd, under 
a previous order, still has an hour left of his time. So that should be 
recited. I ask that in the form of a unanimous consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, I am not sure what the 
request is. I am sure we can work something out. We are on the same 
wavelength. I am not sure what the request is.
  Mr. WARNER. The request is that these Senators I have enumerated be 
given those specific times under my control.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Virginia has the right to 
control his time as he sees fit without unanimous consent. That is what 
is throwing me a bit. I do not know exactly for what he needs a 
unanimous consent relative to time under his control.
  Maybe we can work at it the other way around. My good friend from 
Virginia and I work out these problems every day, and I am sure we can 
work this one out, even though it is a bit complicated on the time.
  Parliamentary inquiry: How much time remains to each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia has 2 hours 50 
minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. That is under the 10-hour agreement.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is under the 10-hour agreement.
  Mr. WARNER. Does that include the 60 minutes allocated to the Senator 
from West Virginia?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It does not. The Senator from West Virginia 
still has 60 minutes remaining, and the Senator from Michigan has 3 
hours 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, was any of the time that was used up 
tonight deducted from the time of the Senator from Virginia when I was 
speaking?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Whenever the Senator from Virginia was 
speaking, the time was charged to him.
  Mr. LEVIN. I thank the Chair. What we then have is a total, it seems 
to me, of approximately 7 hours of time remaining that we have to fit 
into the period between 9 a.m. and 2:30 p.m., which is 5\1/2\ hours; is 
that correct?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is anticipated the debate will go on longer 
tonight or time will be yielded back.
  Mr. LEVIN. Will our good friend from Alabama be speaking on this 
issue?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I will be. I want to talk some time tonight if it is 
not counted against other people's time.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator can talk tonight for such time as he desires 
because there will be, by virtue of the time agreement by the 
leadership containing tomorrow from 9 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., some time 
yielded back by both sides tonight, in my judgment, unless the Senator 
from Alabama goes into extensive remarks.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is also true on our side we have a good 
bipartisan group of supporters for our amendment to strike, including 
Senators McCain, Lugar, Lieberman, Hagel, Smith of Oregon, Robb, 
Voinovich, Mack, Lautenberg, Kerry, and Daschle. That is beyond the 
ones who have already spoken. I am not trying to allocate time for them 
or others who want to speak on our side tonight, other than to reassure 
them we are going to do as much as we possibly can with the time we 
have so that everybody has an opportunity to speak. While the Senator 
from Alabama is speaking, I wonder if the Senator from Virginia----
  Mr. WARNER. I withdraw the unanimous consent request. I have stated 
for the Record my commitment as the manager of the time to the 
colleagues I have enumerated. I will somehow tomorrow manage that very 
ably to see they are recognized. Then there will be others who will 
come forward. I will leave it at that.

[[Page S4092]]

  Mr. LEVIN. If our good friend from Alabama will yield one more 
second, it is possible we can at least divide the time tonight after 
the Senator from Alabama concludes so we will know how much each side 
has.
  Mr. WARNER. First, how much time is remaining again with the Senator 
from Virginia?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia has 2 hours 50 
minutes. The Senator from West Virginia has 1 hour. The Senator from 
Michigan has 3 hours 4 minutes; that is less 2 hours 55 seconds divided 
between the two Senators for this portion of the debate.
  Mr. WARNER. The Senator from Virginia has 2 hours and?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Fifty minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. With the addition of the distinguished Senator from West 
Virginia, that is 3 hours 50 minutes. The Senator from Michigan has?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia plus the Senator 
from West Virginia will have 10 minutes less than 4 hours.
  Mr. WARNER. Understood.
  Mr. LEVIN. We have 4 minutes more than 3 hours, if anybody at this 
hour can figure this out.
  Mr. WARNER. Our colleague tonight will consume part of my time, and 
we will almost be in balance at the conclusion of this evening. The 
vote is going to happen at 2:30, so we are running around with 
fractions tonight.
  Mr. LEVIN. This is my last intervention before my friend from Alabama 
speaks. I wonder if we can get an idea of approximately how long the 
Senator from Alabama expects to talk tonight.
  Mr. SESSIONS. If it is not disrupting Senator Warner's time, I want 
about 40 minutes, give or take 5 minutes.
  Mr. WARNER. Why don't we do 30?
  Mr. SESSIONS. I will do my best.
  Mr. WARNER. It seems to me we are going to have 5\1/2\ hours 
tomorrow. We will discuss this together. I will listen to the Senator 
from Michigan's views.
  In order to get some certainty for the opening of this debate 
tomorrow, which will commence immediately after the Senate is formally 
opened and the prayer is given, Senator Roberts from Kansas would be 
given 15 minutes to be followed by Senator Lautenberg of New Jersey for 
15 minutes. Then I will only make known that Senator Burns, of course--
he is the chairman of the subcommittee for MILCON--will undoubtedly 
require some time. I assure him now that that time will likewise be 
given to Senator Burns.
  So the purpose of my unanimous consent is to see that those two 
Senators be recognized in that order for a total of not to exceed 30 
minutes equally divided, 15 minutes each. I ask unanimous consent that 
that be the order.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is 
so ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. It is possible Senator Lautenberg will need 20 minutes. 
That additional 5 minutes will come out of our time.
  Mr. WARNER. That is fine.
  Mr. LEVIN. OK.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Alabama is recognized for up to 30 minutes.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I have enjoyed hearing two great 
Senators tonight, Senator John Warner, who chairs our Armed Services 
Committee, and Senator Carl Levin, who is the ranking member on that 
committee. They are able patriots who are skilled advocates and who do 
a great job of presenting their viewpoints.
  I have always said about Senator Levin that if I were in trouble, I 
would want him to defend me. I think we have a foreign policy situation 
that is in trouble, and he does a good job of defending it.
  It is more than a legal question, however. It is a question of 
policy. It is a question of the commitment of American troops. It is a 
question of the wealth of the United States being committed to this 
area of the world.
  I do believe our troops are doing a great job. Last year, I had the 
privilege, within 10 days of the end of the bombing in Kosovo, to 
travel there with Senator Levin and two other Senators. We toured that 
area.
  I returned there, not too many weeks ago, for my second visit at 
Easter time. We had the privilege of meeting with troops and touring 
the area and celebrating Easter Sunrise Services with our troops there.
  Our soldiers--men and women--are extraordinarily skilled. They are 
doing a great job for our country. They do what we ask of them. They 
have good morale. I will assure you that the morale of our soldiers is 
not going to be undermined if the Congress of the United States says: 
We are going to review this matter come next August or September or 
October--which is probably when we would do it because I think that is 
Senator Warner's and Senator Byrd's commitment; it would actually be 
next October, 17 months from now.

  They are not going to have their morale hurt because we have not 
forgotten them. They are not going to have their morale hurt if the 
Members of the Senate are discussing what is going on there and 
evaluating the situation. That is a matter that strikes me as really 
not good to be said. I would dispute that.
  The intervention and the whole commencement of this exercise in 
Kosovo has been a colossal failure of diplomacy and a colossal failure 
of foreign policy. That is my view of it. I do not claim to be a 
thorough foreign policy expert, but I have watched this matter from the 
beginning. A lot of people have not done so. We have gotten confused 
about what has happened.
  Senator John Warner, time and time and time again, since this 
involvement in Kosovo began, has done his best to support the 
President, even when he had doubts about it. He supported the Secretary 
of Defense; he supported the Chief of Staff; he supported General Clark 
because he felt it was his duty to do so. I know he was uneasy about 
that.
  But how long do we go? It has been a year now. We are talking about 
having a vote a year from now again to see whether or not we want to 
continue there. What is so dangerous about that? Why are people so 
afraid to have a debate and a vote? I do not understand that.
  I think it is our duty, as Members of Congress, who represent the 
taxpayers of this country--who pay our salaries and pay the cost of 
that war effort that has come out of our defense budget--to confront 
this question and make some decisions about it. If anything, I believe 
we have been too lax. We have been too unwilling to confront the 
challenges that have occurred and too unwise about how to go about 
that.
  So this Warner-Byrd amendment is a bipartisan amendment. It came out 
of the committee 23-3. That is the kind of vote we got in the 
committee. It has powerful support, broad bipartisan support. It is not 
extreme. It is not irrational. It is not going to cause NATO to 
collapse.
  We have done our bit in Kosovo. Make no mistake about that. We have 
done our bit there. So the Congress has been patient. We have supported 
the President. He consistently misled the people of the United States 
and this Congress.
  I remember upstairs, in the secret room, we had our briefings. And 
they started talking about this bombing. They said it might be over in 
3 days; it might be over in 10 days. I remember one of our Senators 
asked: What if it is not? What if the bombing does not work? What do we 
do then? And they said: We believe it is going to work. I decided then 
if we did not have a plan better than that, we did not need to go into 
this operation.
  But let me share what really happened.
  Basically, what happened in this area, as I see it, is Milosevic 
started a nationalist campaign in Serbia and Yugoslavia that was very 
dangerous, horrible, unwise, that destabilized this whole area and 
helped lead to the tragedies that we have today. There is no mistaking 
that.
  Remember now, though, before this bombing started we had 1,000-plus 
peacekeepers in Kosovo. We had some violence, periodic violence. This 
was with KLA guerrillas fighting, ostensibly, the Serb Government.
  So we had a situation there which was definitely deteriorating in 
some ways. The Serb and KLA forces were sparring, but it was not out of 
control. We had 1,000 peacekeepers there.
  We made a number of efforts to negotiate a peace agreement that could 
have provided for an orderly transition in that area to a more just 
society.

[[Page S4093]]

That was our goal and responsibility. I think it was a challenge that 
was difficult but could be met.
  Not long ago, in the Old Senate Chamber, right off the Rotunda of 
this Capitol, we had Senator George Mitchell, who did the peace 
negotiations in Northern Ireland, as our speaker at the Majority 
Leader's Lecture Series.
  He told us how he accomplished it in the face of the intractable 
forces that seemed to be at work. He said: There we kept talking. He 
said: I learned from the Senate that people can talk and talk and talk. 
And I would let them talk. They would talk and talk and talk. They 
would completely get everything out of their system. We would stay 
there into the night, day after day after day. Tensions began to go 
down. People began to think more clearly about the possibility they 
could work out their differences.
  But that is not what happened here. I have often thought if we had 
had George Mitchell in Yugoslavia instead of the ``masters of the 
universe'' that we did have, who thought they could dictate a peace 
agreement and make it happen, we might have avoided this war.
  The fact is, as the Economist Magazine said a few weeks ago, maybe it 
could not have been avoided, but it did not have to be started as soon 
as it did, and there was a chance it could have been avoided if we kept 
the negotiations going. I have no doubt about that.
  Remember what happened. Our leadership demanded that the Serbs and 
the KLA--the Kosovars--come to Rambouillet, France, where we would 
begin to have a peace conference. We were just going to settle this 
thing, like a mama bringing two children together. We were just going 
to bring them together, and we were going to get together and settle 
this once and for all. And as time went along, the President said: You 
are going to reach a peace agreement, or the United States is going to 
bomb you. NATO is going to bomb you.

  They would not agree. They kept on fussing, and they could not reach 
the agreement. Things were really tense. Henry Kissinger referred to 
that as a reckless event; it is a dangerous, high-risk operation to 
risk everything on a Rambouillet peace conference under those 
circumstances.
  I asked Secretary of Defense Cohen--and I serve on the Armed Services 
Committee--in the history of the United States, had he ever known of a 
circumstance in which the United States got two contesting, contending 
parties together and said, if you don't agree to the peace agreement I 
write up, we are going to bomb you? Of course he said no. This is 
unprecedented, in my observation, in the history of the world.
  So we did that, and we undertook this reckless gamble, and we were 
just going to force these people to do it. You remember, even the 
Kosovars would not agree. They left the agreement, and then the Serbs 
were going to leave the agreement. Apparently the Americans told the 
Kosovars: You come back and sign this thing because we really will bomb 
these guys. If you will sign it, we will make them sign it. So they 
came back and the Kosovars signed, but the Serbs would not.
  By the way, the agreement we were asking them to sign basically said 
we can send troops throughout Yugoslavia, anywhere we want to--NATO can 
send troops anywhere.
  It is very difficult for any nation that had any respect for its 
sovereignty to agree to some of the things that were in that agreement. 
Regardless, they would not sign it. Days went by, time went by, and 
people were saying: You promised, Mr. President, you were going to 
bomb. You are not going to bomb. You can't be trusted. Your word was 
not good.
  He was under investigation and had his credibility questioned 
severely right in this body by the American people. So it was a 
question of would he follow through on his worldwide public commitment 
to start a war. Of course, eventually, he did. He started to bomb.
  I want to mention how that was conducted, but I will just say this 
about it. The Air Force general who conducted that war testified in a 
postwar congressional hearing in the Armed Services Committee, and I 
was there. I remember asking him--he was unhappy with the fact that he 
was not allowed to start the bombing aggressively, that he was dictated 
to targets he could go after. There were only certain limited targets, 
and it was a slow start. He opposed that privately. He was very 
aggressive, and he warned that that was not the way to do a war.
  If you are going to get involved, you have to go with full force, 
aggressively at the beginning. We have learned that over the years in 
this country. But, oh, no, we had to get all 17 NATO nations to sign 
off on every target. And somebody would object, and they would object, 
and you could not do this target or that target, and only these limited 
targets so nobody would be injured, and we started off with this slow 
bombing campaign.
  Now, 3 days after that, the big event happened. Remember, we have 
been told repeatedly that the reason this war commenced--and we have 
almost forgotten the true facts of the situation, but we were told we 
were commencing and carrying out this war to stop ethnic cleansing. 
There had not been ethnic cleansing until the bombing started. It was 3 
days after the bombing started that Milosevic sent his troops south 
into one of the most vicious displays of violence that I suppose anyone 
has ever seen against a basically defenseless people. They burned 
houses, ran people out, moved families and children. You saw them on 
TV. They were on wagons; they were walking; they were on mules and on 
horses, trying to survive in those camps. They ran them out.

  I say to you, do not let anybody make the case that we had to bomb to 
stop that kind of ethnic cleansing. The ethnic cleansing started after 
we started the bombing--3 days. This effort with the NATO air 
campaign--what a blunder that was.
  By the way, we also announced that in the conduct of this war we 
would never use ground troops. That gave Milosevic a serious basis for 
confidence that certain things would not happen. He would not be 
threatened by events by which he could otherwise have been threatened. 
We were unwilling to use troops. He didn't have to prepare certain 
defenses because we eliminated the possibility that ground troops would 
be used.
  We were told this would be a joint air effort and we would have 
planes from other countries. Others did participate, but 75 percent of 
the actual combat missions were flown by U.S. pilots. In fact, it is a 
true statement to say that NATO meant to deploy the U.S. Air Force. 
They told our Air Force whom to bomb, when to bomb, and how to do it. 
They rejected our air commander's advice about how to conduct the war, 
and even General Clark's advice on many matters.
  So I asked our Air Force commander did he oppose this and did he 
think it was wrong the way they started controlling the targets he 
thought should have been hit. He said, ``Yes.'' I asked him, ``Did this 
prolong the war?'' He said, ``Yes.'' I said, ``Did it cost innocent 
lives because they didn't follow your advice?'' He said, ``Yes, sir.'' 
Why? Because President Clinton and Schroder and Tony Blair were 
conducting a political war, not a real war, in many ways.
  It took 78 days to complete this thing, resulting in the complete 
ethnic cleansing of Kosovo and extraordinary damage in Yugoslavia and 
in Kosovo and in areas surrounding there--a colossal disaster. How can 
anybody suggest otherwise? This was not a great victory, as some have 
tried to portray it. It was a disaster that, Lord knows, we should have 
done everything to avoid. As Henry Kissinger and others told us: If we 
get in there and deploy, it is going to be difficult to get out. We are 
going to be stuck. You do not want to be committed in the midst of 
these hostilities to a long-term occupation in Kosovo and those areas. 
You will find it difficult to get out.
  That is exactly what happened. In addition to this, our relationship 
with Russia soured. Russia is a big-time world power. Russia had the 
opportunity to be our ally. But our relationship with Russia over the 
last number of years has deteriorated. If you think this war didn't 
have anything to do with it, you are mistaken. They were very upset 
about the way this was conducted. It was basically a NATO attack on a 
non-NATO nation which posed no real military threat to any other NATO 
nation. They didn't like that. They have an identity with the Serbs. So 
it made the Russians very unhappy.

[[Page S4094]]

  Another nation that was very unhappy and with whom our relationship 
suffered was China. We, in the course of this, hit a Chinese embassy. 
They didn't like this from the beginning. They didn't like the idea of 
NATO attacking an independent sovereign nation. They opposed that and 
were paranoid about that. Then we hit their embassy, and that made it 
worse.
  We were told we had to end this war to help the economic growth and 
prosperity in the Balkans. Well, let me ask you, does anybody believe 
this war has helped the economic condition in Kosovo, Romania, 
Bulgaria, Slovenia, Croatia, or Macedonia? It has been a very 
unfortunate setback for those areas. Investment has slowed down 
substantially. People are nervous about investing in Yugoslavia and in 
those other areas. Don't forget, Yugoslavia itself has really been 
savaged.
  The whole area has not benefited, in my view, as a result of this 
war. How can it be argued otherwise?
  It has been a constant drain on our defense budget. I serve on the 
Armed Services Committee. I am very concerned about our inability to 
find necessary funds to take care of our soldiers' salaries and health 
care, and to keep our retention and recruitment up. Every day I see a 
need to invest in new weapons that we may need to have on the 
battlefield 10 or 15 years from now. We don't have the money to do it. 
I see $2 billion--$1.7 billion in consecutive years--going into Kosovo. 
That is real money that could do incredible things for our Defense 
Department.
  We are also troubled by Operation Tempo, the OPTEMPO, and the 
requirements placed on our men and women in uniform to be away from 
home.
  When you are there you see how dedicated our men and women are. When 
I was there this past Easter, we arrived at Camp Eagle Saturday night 
at 7 or 8 o'clock. I was there at 8:30 p.m., and a young officer that I 
knew asked me if I would be interested in speaking to a class. I said 
sure, I would be glad to. It was a political science class. ``Come on 
and go with me.'' I was walking off. This is Easter Sunday, a weekend, 
on a Saturday night at 8:30. There is a class going on. Sure enough, 
there were 25 soldiers studying a college class after a full day at 
work. The hours are basically 12 hours a day, or 10 hours a day, and 
sometimes 14 or 15 hours a day, counting PD. They give themselves 
totally to it and are tremendous soldiers. They are doing what they are 
called upon to do.
  We also were there when with the Texas National Guard. We visited 
them. The Texas National Guard has 700 National Guard members who were 
taken from their communities and sent there to operate the command 
center. They are doing a great job.
  But with regard to all of the soldiers, guardsmen, and active duty, 
they have families. They know that this is not an action that is 
critical to the national security. They feel as if they are helping. 
They feel as if they may be keeping people from shooting one another. 
But they wonder if it is ever going to end. Is it getting any better? 
Are they in the long term really being successful in what they are 
doing? When they call their wives and family--they have young 
children--they wonder whether they need to reenlist because they count 
up how many months and weeks and days of the last 1, 2, 3, or 4 years 
they have been away from their home while their children are growing 
up. They are wondering whether or not they want to reenlist and stay 
in. We can't ask too much of our soldiers. We have a limited number of 
troops. Our active duty forces are down 40 percent, really more than 40 
percent in personnel since the wall fell. That is a major reduction.
  But our OPTEMPO is higher than it has been any time in recent memory. 
We have troops committed all over the world. It drains us financially. 
It drains our families and servicemen and servicewomen. It causes them 
to wonder about whether or not they should reenlist.
  I don't think it is wise. We have to be sure what we do.
  I suggest that this Congress has been supportive of our troops. We 
made sure they had sufficient resources to build quarters, if the Army 
asked for them. If you go over there and look at them, they are 
permanent quarters. We are talking about having our troops out shortly. 
We bring a police force in, and when we create a local government, our 
troops get out.
  I was in Bosnia and Kosovo a few weeks ago. When we asked how long 
they would be here, and how long will it be before you can leave, they 
had no answer. They just would not say. They would not tell you that 
they saw any prospect that circumstances were such they could easily 
leave.
  In Bosnia, after 5 years of commitment, they were just a few weeks 
ago having city elections.
  Can you imagine that? The United Nations is supposed to create civil 
government. We are supposed to be able to get our troops out. It has 
been 5 years, and they just now are beginning to have a civil 
government.
  Many nations committed to sending over 5,000 police to Kosovo. These 
are retired police officers, and police officers who took a leave from 
various countries. They were supposed to go into the towns and cities 
in Kosovo and help create law and order, create a legal system, and 
create a government. We wanted to have government there. It is not 
happening.
  We have committed our police there. But many of the NATO countries 
have not gotten their police there. They have not been effectively led, 
in my opinion, by the United Nations. The government building plans of 
the United Nations are not being effectively carried out.
  What does that mean? Does that mean we just stay there forever?
  Both Senator Warner and Senator Byrd are saying we need to talk about 
this thing. We represent the people of the United States of America who 
are putting up $2 billion a year for this operation, and we want to 
know what is going on.
  I don't often agree with Barney Frank in the House of 
Representatives, but he said in the debate on this issue that we are 
just ``enabling'' the Europeans and the U.N. in their bad habits. We 
are enabling them. We could stay there, stay there, stay there, and 
they don't have to complete what they promised to complete to create a 
civil government.
  Who pays the bill? The American taxpayers pay the bill.
  We have a responsibility in this Congress. We have not really had a 
debate in this Congress since we voted on whether or not to allow the 
President to proceed with the air war when it happened.
  We have not discussed this issue seriously. The American people have 
not heard it discussed here, and neither have we debated it on the 
floor of this Senate.
  I salute Senator Warner and Senator Byrd for, if nothing else, 
causing this debate to be joined.
  People ask me about it. How did this happen? I thought you had to 
declare war. What is the matter with you Congressmen and Senators? The 
President just sends troops anywhere, starts dropping bombs anywhere, 
and you guys are just there like a potted plant?
  That is basically what has happened. We have been sitting here 
allowing it to go on and enabling the Europeans and the U.N. to fail to 
fulfill their responsibilities while the taxpayers pay the bill.
  I wish it weren't so. I think the people in Kosovo and in Bosnia are 
wonderful people. I don't know how they got into this kind of hatred 
and bitterness that leads to this kind of violence. But it is reality. 
We have the ability to do something about it.
  I recall that General MacArthur was able to create a government in 
Japan, and General Marshall and General Eisenhower reestablished 
Germany after being devastated in World War II.

  We have a situation in which nobody is really in charge. Nobody is 
being held accountable.
  At our hearings, the witnesses and even the military witnesses 
started talking about the international community. I asked: Who is the 
international community? Well, it is the groups of NGOs, private 
organizations, the World Bank, and NATO and all these things. I said: 
Do they meet somewhere? Do they vote? Do they make commitments? Do they 
sign agreements that they will do certain things as a group, this 
international community? No. Who does? NATO, U.N., and individual 
nations. That is who makes agreements that stick by them or don't stick 
by them. We have not held the U.N., NATO, and European

[[Page S4095]]

nations accountable. We have enabled them to continue in their bad 
activities. We need to stop that. We have a responsibility. I am not 
saying we need to pull out right now.
  They say: Just vote to cut off funds; that is all you have to do. 
Don't vote for this resolution; it is something next year. Just vote to 
cut off funds.
  What would happen if we did that? They would say: This is horrible. 
You can't vote to cut off funds. We haven't made any plans for it. You 
just up and cut off funds; that is an unwise and risky thing.
  I agree. I don't think it would be wise to vote to cut off all funds 
and bring troops home tomorrow. I am not sure that is a wise process.
  I like the idea of this amendment that says: NATO and all the 
European nations, if you don't fulfill your commitments, we are getting 
out of there. NATO, other European nations, we expect some progress 
made in establishing a civil government and we will vote a year from 
now and debate this issue. We hope things are improving and we can 
continue to be phasing down our troops and getting ourselves out of 
there. But you need to know that we are not a rubber stamp or a potted 
plant. This Congress does not have to keep funding this operation. You 
can be sure next July we will have that vote and some progress needs to 
be made. We need to see something working.
  The truth is, we are stuck. The question is, How do we get unstuck? 
Just vote to get out all at once? I think this kind of legislation is 
far better. I believe it is the right approach. I salute Chairman 
Warner.
  Somebody said a majority of the House of Representatives didn't 
vote to support this effort. They didn't vote to support it. They 
didn't support it. They didn't think it was a good idea. They allowed 
the President to do it, and they provided the funds to him to do it but 
they haven't liked it. When called on to vote, they didn't vote for it.

  Mr. President, 39 out of 100 Senators in this body voted against the 
bombing. It has never been a universally supported activity. I don't 
know why we would have been afraid to have a vote. Why would it be that 
the Senate would be afraid to set a date to have a debate? I think that 
is what we should do.
  Let me say one more thing as I begin to close and bring this into 
context. I do not believe our Nation should be isolationist. I do not 
believe our Nation should withdraw from the world. I do believe there 
may be times that we are going to have to intervene all by ourselves, 
perhaps to preserve humanitarian rights, to protect the lives of 
innocent human beings when we have no strategic interest at all. But we 
have to be careful about that. We provided the military force, the air 
force to win this war. This is a European area. It is the backdoor of 
Europe. Kosovo has only 2 million people. We will debate in a few days 
giving aid to Colombia; Colombia is a nation of 38 million. No other 
country will help Colombia. On a scale of 1 to 10, they are far, far 
more important to this country than Kosovo, an agrarian area in the 
backdoor of Europe where European nations have a much more important 
interest in it than we do.
  We helped them. We did our role for NATO. We won the war. We did the 
bombing. We got the Kosovars home. I would never have proposed stopping 
that bombing after those Kosovar people had been run out of their 
homes. We had to see it through to the end once it started. I believe 
it could have been avoided. It strikes me odd that many Members on the 
other side of the aisle, the Democratic side of the aisle, tenaciously 
fought President Bush in his effort to deal with the problem in Iraq 
and Kuwait. That effort was clearly in the national interests of the 
United States.
  Saddam Hussein was an expansionist. He moved, using the wealth he had 
and the large population and army he had--unlike little Kosovo--south 
into an independent nation that had even more oil and took that nation 
of Kuwait. Everybody knew he would be turning his attention next to the 
other gulf states, to Saudi Arabia, and his plan was to take over all 
of the Middle East and all of its oil and use that wealth to create an 
army that could threaten the peace of the whole region. That was a 
threat. It was opposed almost unanimously by the Democrats in this 
body. By only a few votes was President Bush able to convince us of 
that war, a critical act for the United States. It would have been an 
absolute disaster had we allowed that to happen. We had to act.
  That is what the role of the United States is. This didn't meet any 
of those criteria. It does surprise me where we don't have a national 
interest, people want to involve themselves. Our resources are limited. 
I have been on the budget. We need the best soldiers, the best planes, 
and the best weapons in the world. We never want to see our soldiers be 
subjected to the kind of attacks of the Iraqi Army, being slaughtered 
by superior force. We never want to see that happen.
  How do we keep it from happening? We maintain a technological edge. 
How do we do it? We spend money on it. But if we are spending $2 
billion a year in Kosovo, spending money in Haiti, Somalia, or East 
Timor, time and time again, it affects our ability to modernize our 
military. Actually, it was that technology that allowed us to win. 
There are going to be other challenges. We will have other challenges. 
I believe we can meet them if we are not overdrawn.

  Recently, the Armed Services Committee heard from Ashton Carter, now 
a professor at Harvard. He served for several years as a high official 
in the Clinton Department of Defense. He talked about what the United 
States ought to be doing there. He said we keep talking about being in 
a post-cold-war era. He said that has been 10 years. All that means is 
we haven't developed a foreign policy for the future. That means we 
don't know what we are doing. We are in a post-cold-war era. We need a 
new vision for America.
  He suggested what we ought to do. He gave three lists of threats to 
this country: the A list, B list, and C list. The A list were threats 
from Russia, China, terrorism, and chemical warfare. This war in Kosovo 
has damaged our relationship with Russia and China.
  He listed a B list. He said a B list threat would be serious, perhaps 
a war in the theater of Northeast Asia or Southeast Asia, a major war 
in one of those areas. That could happen. That could threaten the 
United States.
  He listed a third list, the C list, and this is what he put on the C 
list: Kosovo, Bosnia, East Timor, Somalia, Haiti. His comments were 
that we are spending our time and our money reacting to events on the C 
list and not focusing our time and resources in confronting those 
threats that jeopardize the freedom and peace of this world.
  That is what the role of the United States is to be. We have to be 
ready for the big threat. There is a limit to how many of these wars in 
which we can be involving ourselves.
  Mr. President, I have great affection for the people I have gotten to 
know in Kosovo and Bosnia and Croatia. I am impressed with the 
struggles they are undergoing, and we want to help them, but we have 
done our bit. We have conducted this war. We have gotten the Kosovar 
people back home. We have done everything we could. I wish we had done 
it smarter, but we committed and we stayed through and we have gotten 
them there. Now the question is, Do we stay forever? Are we going to 
have an ability in this Congress to confront the future? Do we have a 
right to demand the President of the United States submit to us a plan 
for continuation there so we and the American people can evaluate it 
and vote yes or no? Is that unreasonable? Is that going to destroy 
NATO? Is that going to destroy the morale of our troops? I say no.
  As a matter of fact, it will be healthy for NATO to realize we are 
not going to continue to enable bad policies to continue. It will be 
good for our troops to know we are debating and caring about them, 
trying to make the right decision about them. I believe the Byrd-Warner 
bill is a reasonable and fair bill practically. I believe it validates 
the historic constitutional responsibilities of the great U.S. Senate. 
We are not potted plants. We do have a responsibility, and we ought to 
perform it.
  I salute Chairman Warner. I have never seen a person I admire more. I 
have never seen a person with greater commitment to the good of this 
country. He believes it is time for us to make some decisions, enter 
into some debate, and involve the American people.

[[Page S4096]]

  So I say it is the right thing to do. I have enjoyed being there, 
enjoyed meeting our troops. I do not want to do anything that would 
hurt them. But I am not one who believes we have to sit here and get a 
letter from General Wesley Clark and hide under the table. He did not 
get elected. He does not have the responsibility to make choices among 
health insurance, defense, and criminal justice, as we do. He does not 
have to go back to his voters and explain why it is in our critical 
national interest that their young men and women are committed around 
the globe, as we do.
  I believe we can improve this commitment. I believe we can improve 
our effort in the world if we talk about these issues more openly. I 
believe this bill will lead us in that direction and I support it. I am 
proud to do so.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.


                        Maritime Patrol Aircraft

  Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I do not want this issue to come up 
tomorrow at the markup on the defense bill, so I am doing this tonight 
so there is no misunderstanding.
  Not long after visiting Joint Interagency Task Force East an learning 
of the lack of readiness in the maritime patrol aircraft fleet, I made 
a second trip to Joint Interagency Task Force West and Coast Guard 
Pacific Area to determine whether this was a nationwide problem, or 
simply a problem of resource allocation.
  Unfortunately, what I learned is that the Coast Guard is in dire need 
of additional maritime patrol aircraft to backfill, supplement, and 
expand the Coast Guard capability to meet the many defense-related, 
drug interdiction, maritime enforcement and protection, and other 
aviation related missions.
  This amendment, which has been cleared on both sides of the aisle, is 
a first step toward addressing this glaring deficiency in our 
operational readiness in Coast Guard maritime patrolling capability.
  This amendment provides for the acquisition of six C-130J aircraft 
which will provide a unit size capability and allow the better 
allocation of all Coast Guard maritime patrol aircraft resources 
nationwide.
  I send the amendment to the desk and ask that it be considered as 
part of the managers' package when it is presented.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. COVERDELL. Mr. President, I applaud the Stevens/Coverdell 
amendment submitted tonight by the Senator from Alaska, appropriating 
funds for six C-130Js for the Coast Guard. Senator Stevens knows first 
hand of the Coast Guard's need for additional maritime patrol aircraft 
to meet the multiple aviation missions with which they are tasked. 
Through my close work with the Coast Guard and their efforts in our 
nation's war on drugs, I have also seen the need for these planes.
  In 1998, Senator DeWine and I introduced the Western Hemisphere Drug 
Elimination Act which restored a balanced drug control strategy by 
renewing our nation's commitment to international drug eradication and 
interdiction efforts. A crucial component of this strategy is the work 
the Coast Guard performs in guarding America's shores from drug 
dealers. One of the many areas the Coast Guard identified as needing 
improvement to fulfill this mission was their maritime patrol aircraft 
fleet. Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Loy said, in reference to the 
demands placed on the C-130 ``We've lost a full 25 percent or our 
availability while piling on additional mission requirements.'' It 
should also be noted that the Coast Guard flies their C-130s a third 
more hours than do the military services each year and the services own 
significantly more C-130s than the Coast Guard does.
  Mr. President, the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act passed the 
Congress just two years ago and now, through this amendment Senator 
DeWine and I have cosponsored with Senator Stevens, we are seeing the 
fruits of that effort. I am pleased to see that Congress is working to 
help the Coast Guard meet its many missions, particularly its efforts 
to end the scourge of illegal drugs plaguing this country.
  Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, yesterday, the United States Senate took a 
procedural vote on Senator Daschle's amendment to S. 2521, the military 
construction appropriations bill. Senator Daschle lost this procedural 
vote by 42-54.
  I did not support the Daschle amendment at that time because it was a 
procedural amendment to an unrelated bill. This unrelated Daschle 
amendment kept the Senate away all day from the important business of 
the military construction appropriations bill. In addition, it appeared 
that the Daschle amendment might indefinitely delay consideration of 
this important bill. As chairman of the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, I have a responsibility to secure passage of the important 
military construction appropriations bill. This bill provides 
critically needed funding for military construction projects, improves 
the quality of life for the men and women who are serving our country 
in the armed forces, and sustains the readiness of our armed forces. 
These areas are traditionally underfunded, and this bill provides the 
necessary funds to help make up for this shortfall. For these reasons, 
I did not support the Daschle amendment when it came before me on a 
procedural vote on May 16, 2000.
  Subsequent to the procedural vote on the Daschle amendment on May 16, 
2000, Senators Lott and Daschle reached an agreement to have two up or 
down votes--one on the aforementioned Daschle amendment and another on 
an amendment to be offered by Senator Lott. Under the agreement, debate 
on the amendments was limited by a time agreement.
  Once this leadership agreement was reached, it became apparent that 
the Daschle amendment would no longer indefinitely delay the military 
construction appropriations bill. Therefore, my previous objections to 
this amendment were no longer relevant.
  The Daschle amendment is a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. After 
stating a number of findings, the amendment states, among other things, 
that it is the sense of the Senate that ``Congress should immediately 
pass a conference report to accompany'' the juvenile justice bill that 
includes the Senate passed gun-related provisions.
  During the Senate's debate of the juvenile justice bill in May of 
1999, I supported the Lautenberg amendment, and other amendments to 
close the gun show loophole in the Brady act. I also supported an 
amendment to require licensed firearm dealers to provide a secure gun 
storage or safety device when a handgun is sold, delivered or 
transferred. Unfortunately, the juvenile justice bill has been locked 
in a House and Senate conference committee.
  I remain firm in my stance on these issues. I certainly hope that 
House and Senate conferees can reach an agreement in conference on the 
juvenile justice bill. And I will continue to support the common sense 
gun provisions that passed the Senate during the juvenile justice 
debate. I believe the Senate passed gun-related amendments to the 
juvenile justice bill will help keep guns out of the hands of convicted 
felons and increase public safety without infringing on the rights of 
law-abiding citizens. Therefore, when it became clear that the Daschle 
amendment would not indefinitely delay consideration of the military 
construction appropriations bill, I supported this amendment.

                          ____________________