[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 135 (Wednesday, October 25, 2000)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10955-S10957]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                         POLITICS AND ELECTIONS

  Mrs. BOXER. Let me take us back from before the unanimous consent 
request was made and kind of summarize where I was going.
  We had a statement by Governor Bush. The statement was that he wanted 
to see all of those peacekeeping troops come home from the Balkans. He 
said we should not be involved in peacekeeping, only in fighting. As a 
member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I am concerned and clearly 
our NATO allies are concerned. Lord Robertson, the NATO Secretary 
General, again, has said this could undermine our relationship with our 
NATO alliance.
  The Washington Post says one European Ambassador was quoted as 
saying: If the U.S. says it will not perform certain tasks, then the 
basic consensus of NATO begins to unravel.
  Now, I remember being very surprised, because I was at the second 
debate, when Governor Bush made the point that we were carrying the 
load in the Balkans in terms of the peacekeeping troops. I knew that 
was incorrect. The fact is, American troops are no more than 20 percent 
of the total. American aid represents no more than 20 percent of what 
is being provided to Bosnia and Kosovo.
  I would hate to see us walk away from peacekeeping and tell everyone 
we are the fighters; and then have our allies say: OK, you do the 
fighting; we do the peacekeeping. It is of great concern to me.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
some editorials that have been written on this subject by the New York 
Times, the Washington Post, and USA Today.
  There being no objection, the editorials were ordered to be printed 
in the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Oct. 24, 2000]

                              Risking NATO

       Gov. George W. Bush wants a new ``division of labor'' 
     within NATO, the U.S.-European alliance that has helped keep 
     the peace for the past half-century. His proposal would more 
     likely lead to a division of NATO itself--to the end of the 
     alliance.
       Mr. Bush hinted at this view before, with his denunciation 
     of U.S. ``nation-building'' in the Balkans, but it was his 
     national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, who spelled out 
     exactly what he means in a New York Times interview published 
     Saturday. Ms. Rice said that America's allies in Europe 
     should furnish the ground troops for missions such as 
     peacekeeping in Kosovo and Bosnia, while the United States 
     should offer ``the kind of support we can provide, such as 
     air power.'' In other words: You Europeans take all the risks 
     while we hover safety above the fray. No allies would long 
     accept such a deal, nor should they be expected to.
       The proposal is particularly misguided given that European 
     allies already are bearing the brunt of peacekeeping duties 
     in the Balkans. They provide about four-fifths of needed 
     troops. The United States has deployed some 11,000 troops in 
     Kosovo and Bosnia, less than one percent of its active duty 
     force. For the United States, this is a win-win situation: 
     Its policy is implemented, but the burden of implementation 
     is widely shared. Under Ms. Rice's proposal, which was 
     officially endorsed by Bush campaign headquarters, the United 
     States would lose its ability to steer policy, risk the 
     world's most successful alliance--and very likely inherit a 
     far larger burden once the Balkans erupted again.
       The Clinton Administration has picked an unfortunate 
     argument in response. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, 
     again to the Times, said that even raising the issue was 
     dangerous to U.S. interests. This recalls the Gore-Lieberman 
     campaign's contention that Mr. Bush's criticism of U.S. 
     military readiness is dangerous because it comforts U.S. 
     enemies. This effort to squelch debate is preposterous; these 
     are precisely the kinds of issues that should be aired in a 
     campaign.
       The more sensible response would be to point out that the 
     Clinton-Gore policies seems to be having an effect. The 
     Balkans are at peace; democracy is sprouting almost 
     everywhere; even the apparently invulnerable Slobodan 
     Milosevic has been knocked from his perch. Of course many 
     problems remain, the gains are fragile and, yes, U.S. troops 
     will be needed for some time. But surely helping democracy 
     take root throughout Europe is worth the modest price of that 
     modest deployment.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, Oct. 24, 2000]

                       No Time for a Balkan Exit

       Sharp contrasts emerged over the weekend in the way the 
     Bush and Gore campaigns view America's proper military role 
     in Europe. The debate began when Condoleezza Rice, one of 
     Gov. George W. Bush's leading foreign policy advisers, told 
     The Times's Michael Gordon that a Bush administration would 
     ask European members of NATO to gradually take over full 
     responsibility for providing peacekeeping forces for Bosnia 
     and Kosovo. Vice President Gore countered that carrying out 
     such a policy could destabilize the Balkans and jeopardize 
     the future of NATO, America's most important military 
     alliance.
       Debates over how and where United States military forces 
     should be stationed are a healthy part of presidential 
     contests. Ms. Rice's proposal is consistent with the Bush 
     campaign's view that extended peacekeeping missions degrade 
     the combat readiness of American military forces and that the 
     Pentagon should concentrate its resources on preparing for 
     crises where Washington alone has the might to deter, and, if 
     necessary, combat aggression, whether in the Persian Gulf, 
     the Korean Peninsula or a future military conflict in Europe.
       But on the specifics of America's role in the Balkans, Ms. 
     Rice's proposal is misguided for several reasons. The job of 
     securing peace in Bosnia and Kosovo is far from complete. The 
     American share of the peacekeeping has already been 
     substantially reduced. Finally, the NATO alliance has been 
     built on a concept of shared risk that is inconsistent with a 
     total withdrawal of American ground forces from Balkan 
     peacekeeping.
       It is true that military conditions in Bosnia are now more 
     stable than they were when NATO troops were first introduced 
     five years ago and that the situation in Kosovo has also 
     improved in the year since Serbian forces withdrew. But in 
     neither place is there yet enough security for displaced 
     refugees to return to their homes or for elections to take 
     place without the risk of physical intimidation. The 
     departure of Slobodan Milosevic from Yugoslavia's presidency 
     creates new opportunities for easing tensions in both Bosnia 
     and Kosovo, provided local troublemakers can be kept in 
     check. That will require a continued strong NATO presence.
       The Clinton administration, meanwhile, has done a good job 
     of insisting that America's share of peacekeeping 
     responsibilities be steadily reduced. There are now only 
     11,400 American troops in the Balkans, about one-fifth of the 
     NATO total. When NATO first went into Bosnia, about a third 
     of its 60,000 troops were Americans. Balkan peacekeeping 
     costs account for just over 1 percent of the Pentagon's $280 
     billion budget, leaving more than enough for military needs 
     elsewhere.
       Asking Europe to accept a total withdrawal of American 
     ground forces from the Balkans needlessly challenges some of 
     the basic assumptions of the Western military alliance. NATO 
     was formed not just to counter Soviet bloc military threats. 
     It was also designed to eliminate some of the historic 
     military rivalries in Europe that led to two world wars. NATO 
     provides a framework for European and American forces to 
     cooperate in joint operations under a single overall 
     commander--traditionally an American. Europe cannot be 
     expected to accept an alliance in which Washington exercises 
     political and military leadership but does not subject its 
     own forces to any of the risks of ground operations. The Bush 
     campaign is right when it insists that the United States must 
     be selective in where it stations ground forces. But the 
     Balkans is not the place to cut back.
                                  ____


                  [From the USA Today, Oct. 24, 2000]

             Bush Takes Unwise Step Away From Peacekeeping


                    today's debate: u.s. and europe

        our view: for the u.s. to lead nato, it must participate

       Most Americans want to see their country as a world leader, 
     but they are unenthusiastic about the human and financial 
     costs of doing what may be necessary to lead. So it's no 
     surprise that both presidential candidates have treaded 
     carefully on defining America's future role in peacekeeping.
       But during the weekend, the Bush campaign refined its 
     position in a way that's likely to win votes while weakening 
     the United States' leadership role in Europe.
       In a proposal that plays into the public's ambivalence, 
     George W. Bush's senior national security aide, Condoleezza 
     Rice, suggested that a Bush administration would tell NATO 
     that Europeans should take over peacekeeping in the Balkans. 
     The U.S. would focus instead on potential trouble spots where 
     it alone can act, she said, such as the Persian Gulf and the 
     Taiwan Straits.
       Her remarks were an effort to flesh out Bush's repeated 
     theme that U.S. forces should focus on the ability to fight 
     wars, not what he derides as ``nation building.'' It's 
     appealing logic to a country that has never been enthusiastic 
     about long-term foreign commitments. But it is rooted in the 
     dubious assumption that the United States can effectively 
     lead NATO, the West's primary defense alliance, without being 
     a full player.
       Both the recent history of the Balkans and the longer-term 
     history of Europe say that is shortsighted.

[[Page S10956]]

       The tragedy of post-Cold War Europe in the '90s was that 
     our allies were unable to deal with chaos, ``ethnic 
     cleansing'' and the serious threat of an expanding war on 
     their doorstep until the United States belatedly got 
     involved. In both Bosnia and Kosovo, European governments 
     squabbled among themselves until the United States finally 
     agreed to share some of the risk on the ground. The ethnic 
     cleansing was curtailed without a single U.S. casualty.
       Today, Americans comprise less than 20% of the Bosnia-
     Kosovo peacekeeping force, a contribution former NATO 
     commander Wesley Clark calls the bare minimum if the United 
     States wants to have any influence on NATO actions there. If 
     the United States were to pull out, the record suggest it 
     would be naive to expect Europe to respond meaningfully to 
     the next Bosnia or Kosovo.
       The deeper risk extends beyond the Balkans to the overall 
     U.S. role in NATO. Since NATO's formation in the wake of 
     World War II, it has served to quiet the continent's 
     longstanding rivalries. Weakening U.S. leadership would set 
     off a counterproductive race to fill the gap, with 
     unfavorable consequences for U.S. interests.
       A core part of the Bush argument is that the armed forces 
     are too stretched to manage peacekeeping and prepare for war 
     effectively. But the U.S. deployment to the Balkans is less 
     than 10% of our military in Europe, and the cost is scarcely 
     1% of the Pentagon budget. Whatever shortcomings there may be 
     in defense readiness or troop morale, blaming them on Balkans 
     peacekeeping defies logic.
       Vice President Gore, who played a central role in the 
     Clinton administration's policy in the Balkans, accused Bush 
     of a ``lack of judgment and a complete misunderstanding of 
     history.''
       Expecting Europe to act decisively on its own or to accept 
     U.S. leadership without at least token U.S. involvement in 
     the field is sadly unrealistic.

  Mrs. BOXER. I am going to read a little bit from those editorials 
when I can find my glasses, which is an important thing. Here they are. 
When I started out in politics, I did not need these reading glasses. 
So that shows you how long I have been around.
  This is from the Washington Post:

       The Balkans are at peace; democracy is sprouting almost 
     everywhere; even the apparently invulnerable Slobodan 
     Milosevic has been knocked from his perch. Of course, many 
     problems remain, the gains are fragile and, yes, U.S. troops 
     will be needed for some time. But surely helping democracy 
     take root throughout Europe is worth the modest price of that 
     modest deployment [of peacekeeping troops].

  The New York Times says that George Bush's adviser's proposal is 
misguided. That is the proposal to say that we will no longer 
participate in peacekeeping.

       The job of securing peace in Bosnia and Kosovo is far from 
     complete. The American share of the peacekeeping has already 
     been substantially reduced. Finally, the NATO alliance has 
     been built on a concept of shared risk that is inconsistent 
     with a total withdrawal of American ground forces from Balkan 
     peacekeeping.

  Now, we know that America's share, they say, of peacekeeping 
responsibilities is steadily reducing.

       There are now only 11,400 American troops in the Balkans, 
     about one-fifth of the NATO total. When NATO first went into 
     Bosnia, about a third of its 60,000 troops were Americans. 
     Balkan peacekeeping costs [are only] 1 percent of the 
     Pentagon's . . . budget. . . .
       Asking Europe to accept a total withdrawal of American 
     ground forces from the Balkans needlessly challenges some of 
     the basic assumptions of [our] western military alliance.

  Our Western military alliance has served us well. Why would we now--
when we see the tinderbox over in the Middle East--come up with a plan 
that would shake up our allies, that would worry our friends? This is 
the time not to make those kinds of proposals. And those proposals 
themselves are dangerous for the world.
  I will also quote from USA Today. So you are seeing a whole number of 
newspapers coming out against this Bush plan.
  They say:

       The deeper risk extends beyond the Balkans to the overall 
     U.S. role in NATO. Since NATO's formation in the wake of 
     World War II, it has served to quiet the continent's 
     longstanding rivalries. Weakening U.S. leadership would set 
     off a counterproductive race to fill the gap, with 
     unfavorable consequences for U.S. interests.

  I have to believe this kind of a policy--either it was not thought 
out or it is a radical departure from what has worked for us not only 
through the cold war but after the cold war. Governor Bush says we 
can't do all this alone. And I agree with him; we can't do all this 
alone. But the bizarre thing is, he is pulling us out of a situation--
or would want to, if he were President--where we are only about 20 
percent of the force. This is an example of the way we ought to 
integrate all of the responsibilities of the various allies. I find it 
amazing that this policy would come up at this time when we have the 
world in such a precarious position as we look at what is happening in 
the Middle East.
  So in any event, in closing, I will make these points in two areas: 
education and foreign policy.

  I think there are some interesting new developments the American 
people ought to look at. One, we have a candidate for President, who is 
the Governor of Texas, who is using Texas as the model. We just learned 
that Texas is almost dead last as a place people would want to raise 
their children. That is an unbiased report that came out. We have a 
Rand study, which is a study that Bush himself has cited, which says 
these kids in Texas are simply not making it.
  We now have this foreign policy fiasco. While the Republicans want to 
look at what went on in 1995 between Russia and America, we now realize 
that what we ought to be looking at is this latest proposal by Governor 
Bush, and to try to debunk it, that would say we ought to pull our 
peacekeeping troops out, that America should not even have a role in 
peacekeeping. It is rattling our NATO allies.
  Again, NATO has served us well. Why? Because we all cooperate and we 
work together and we come up with plans together. And to have this, if 
you will, ``Molotov cocktail'' from George Bush just thrown out--
unprovoked--to shake up our NATO allies, and say, ``We are not going to 
do peacekeeping; we are going to do fighting,'' I say to this Senate 
that I do not like that division of responsibilities, where America 
does all the fighting and our NATO allies do the peacekeeping.
  I do not like shaking up our allies at this time. I think it shows a 
certain recklessness, a certain lack of experience, a certain 
misunderstanding of history of what it has been like for us to build 
these alliances. As a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, I am 
very concerned by this proposal. I believe it will have a very negative 
impact.

  I am someone who has fought long and hard for burdensharing. I have 
offered a number of amendments in the House and the Senate asserting 
that it is important our allies carry their fair share. I will go on 
record as saying 80 percent of the troops in the Balkans is a fair 
share; 80 percent of our commitment in the Balkans is being paid by the 
Europeans, 20 percent by the Americans. That is good. That is a fair 
share. That is working.
  To throw this kind of a proposal out there at this time when the 
Middle East is in crisis, when we need our allies at the table, when we 
need good relationships with our friends, shows a certain 
irresponsibility and riskiness upon which the American people are not 
going to look very kindly. And certainly, while the Foreign Relations 
Committee is beating up on the Vice President 2 weeks before an 
election about Russia-United States relations; our problem today isn't 
Russia-United States relations; our problem today is trying to do the 
best we can with our allies in the world to end some of these tragedies 
going on in the Middle East, to work for a new Yugoslavia that is 
democratic, to make sure we build on Madeleine Albright's seeming 
success in North Korea where, by the way, we have 37,000 troops. Maybe 
my friend from Illinois knows this. I did not hear any comments about 
pulling out troops from the Koreas, but maybe that is his next 
proposal, where we have kept the peace and stability.
  Mr. DURBIN. If the Senator from California will yield.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to yield.
  Mr. DURBIN. She has raised an important point. Most people would 
agree that the Governor of Texas has limited personal exposure and 
experience when it comes to foreign policy issues. That does not mean 
he is disqualified. There have been Presidents who have been Governors. 
But we have to judge him on what he has said.
  His suggestion of the withdrawal of troops in some parts of the world 
raises serious questions as to whether or not he has considered the 
consequences. The United States made a commitment, for example, in 
Europe after World War II to stop the spread of communism. It cost the 
American people

[[Page S10957]]

trillions of dollars. It paid off: 250 years later, communism is 
virtually wiped off the map and these countries, the Balkans and 
eastern European countries, now enjoy democracy and freedom.
  There was only one country in the world that could do that, and that 
was the United States. We have military skill, the great men and women 
in uniform, and we have a reputation of involving ourselves in foreign 
policy--not to come away with any property or treasure; we are there to 
try to promote the ideals and values of our country.
  So when Governor Bush suggests withdrawing troops in some parts of 
the world, you have to wonder, has he really reflected on this? Has he 
taken the time to try to measure why he would change policies that even 
his father supported, perhaps President Reagan supported, and now he 
wants to change these policies and approaches?
  This is an important element. Thank goodness we live in a world that 
is generally at peace, but it is a dangerous world that at any moment 
can flare up. We need leadership in the White House that understands 
the consequences of its actions.
  I salute the Senator from California. What we are seeing happen today 
in North Korea--where they are finally talking to us; they are finally 
agreeing to perhaps end the missile testing--is a very positive 
development. It is only because the United States made a commitment in 
South Korea with the lives of our service men and women and then kept 
troops there to protect it that we have reached that point today.

  Mrs. BOXER. I thank my friend.
  I ask unanimous consent that Senator Durbin be given 5 minutes 
following the completion of my time.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, I did not hear the request.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask that Senator Durbin be given 5 minutes when I 
conclude my time.
  Mr. KYL. I object, Mr. President, on the ground that I was going to 
speak at a quarter till.
  Mr. DURBIN. May I make an inquiry of the Chair?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Enzi). The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I want to be fair to my colleagues. It was my 
understanding that the Democratic side would have the first 25 minutes 
in morning business and then the Republican side. But in the interest 
of my colleagues who have given up their own time, I am happy to work 
out an arrangement with them.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is the objection over adding 5 minutes or 
taking the 5 minutes?
  Mr. KYL. Let me withdraw the objection.
  Mrs. BOXER. I was just making sure that Senator Durbin would be 
recognized for the next 5 minutes.
  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, might I withdraw my objection. I did not 
understand the Senator's request. My understanding was that the 
minority time would have expired about now. I understand that is not 
the case. Therefore, I do not object to the request of the Senator from 
California to have Senator Durbin speak next. I was hoping to be able 
to speak before noon, but that may not be possible.
  Mr. DURBIN. May I ask for clarification? How much time does the 
Democratic side have remaining in morning business?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic side has a little over 24 
minutes. The Republican side has 20 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Would the Chair make an inquiry of my two Republican 
colleagues as to how long they would like to speak.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. President, if I could clarify, it is no big deal. 
What we had was the morning business time divided between Republicans 
and Democrats. The leader's time took some of that, so we didn't have 
enough. We ought to share equally what remains. Whatever that division 
is, it ought to be divided between the two of us.
  Mrs. BOXER. If I may restate my unanimous consent request, 
understanding that we have 24 minutes remaining, I would appreciate it 
if Senator Durbin could follow my remarks so we have some train of 
thought. Then we can take the next 10 minutes from the Republican time, 
if they would like to use it. I don't think Senator Durbin has a 
problem; I don't have a problem.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. If we would determine exactly the time that is remaining and 
then maybe add to that my opportunity to speak after Senator Durbin.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to.
  Mr. KYL. If we could suspend one moment.
  Mrs. BOXER. I am happy to do that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

  Mr. KYL. Mr. President, might I ask if we could suspend the request 
for one moment. Senator Thomas is technically in control of the time on 
our side. He should be the one who understands this request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. When the Senator from California finishes, the 
Senator from Illinois will speak for 5 minutes, followed by the Senator 
from Arizona.
  Mr. KYL. I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. Out of the 10 minutes I originally had, how much time do 
I have remaining?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has used her time.
  Mrs. BOXER. I ask unanimous consent for 60 seconds to recap what I 
said before the time goes to Senator Durbin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. We have taken longer deciding who is going to talk than 
we have on what we really want to say. I will sum up my points today.
  I think two issues are coming to the floor in this election. 
Education is one of them. We have the Governor of Texas saying his kids 
in Texas are doing great. We learned today that was based on a State 
test, not a national test. So that is something we have to look at. We 
have a new study showing that Texas is one of the worst places to raise 
a child. That is from another objective, nonpartisan study.
  Now we have a hearing going on in Foreign Relations beating up on 
Vice President Gore for something that happened in 1995, when not one 
Republican ever complained about it until 2 weeks before the election, 
when Governor Bush has now made a proposal that in essence threw a bomb 
into NATO--figuratively, not literally--and our NATO allies are worried 
and concerned that suddenly we have on the table a proposal--not very 
well thought out, in my view--that would drastically change NATO and 
would say, in essence, that the United States will be the fighters, 
someone else will be the peacekeepers.
  I think it is more dangerous for our people to take that on alone. It 
is a big worry I have. It shows in this sensitive time why we need 
proven, effective, experienced leadership in the White House. We don't 
want to have someone coming in and throwing this kind of proposal into 
NATO. We need our NATO allies now more than ever. We have great 
opportunities for peace in the world. We are not going to make them 
come true if we dissect NATO and destroy it.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, for the sake of my colleagues on the 
floor, Senator Thomas and others, it is my understanding that I am to 
speak for 10 minutes, and then the Republican side will be recognized.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The request was made for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Five minutes, fine. I will confine my remarks to 5 
minutes in the interest of my patient colleagues. After Senator Thomas 
and Senator Kyl, I would like to reclaim the Democratic time under 
morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________