[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 731-735]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


[[Page 731]]

   SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE, THE MIDDLE EAST AND OUR FLAWED ENERGY POLICY

  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, several weeks ago, Senator Specter and 
I had the unique privilege to represent our nation and this body during 
a visit to Germany, the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Bosnia, Egypt 
and Israel.
  While in these nations, we were able to meet with a number of 
government and non-governmental leaders who familiarized us with the 
current situation in southeastern Europe and the Middle East.
  I found our discussions with these leaders to be extraordinarily 
educational and highly productive, and their insight helped us assess 
the broad spectrum of issues that shapes both of these volatile regions 
of our globe.
  Our first stop was in Munich, Germany where Senator Specter and I 
spoke with members of the U.S. Embassy about trade, security and 
foreign policy issues facing the United States and Germany.
  We also met with a number of leaders of the Munich business community 
to talk about trade issues affecting the United States and the European 
Union, (EU). Specifically, we discussed steel, bananas, and 
genetically-modified beef--all issues currently dominating our trade 
relations.
  We further spoke about the deployment of the National Missile Defense 
system, our commitment to the ABM Treaty and the concern in the U.S. 
that the Europeans are moving away from their commitments to NATO.
  Our second stop was in Belgrade, Yugoslavia. It was my first trip to 
Yugoslavia in many years; since before Milosevic came to power. I had 
been asked to go many times--even by the Patriarch himself--but I said 
that I would not go until Milosevic was no longer in power. I had taken 
the same view with regards to Croatia; I would not go there until 
Tudjman was gone.
  The fact that in the last year I've visited both Croatia and 
Yugoslavia says that a lot about the change that has happened.
  And I am proud of the fact that I was the first member of the House 
or Senate to visit Croatia's new president, Stipe Mesic, and that 
Senator Specter and I were the first U.S. elected officials to fly into 
Yugoslavia and congratulate President Kostunica.
  I think it's important for the American people to know that our 
efforts in southeastern Europe are paying dividends for the cause of 
democracy, the rule of law, human rights and a market economy.
  However, a part of me often wonders if we had taken as much of an 
interest in southeastern Europe in the early 1990's as we do today, 
perhaps we wouldn't have to have U.S. troops in Bosnia and Kosovo.
  Still, we are making progress in restoring order and building peace, 
and though some may not agree, it is in our national interest to be 
involved in the Balkans.
  I was impressed with the leadership of Yugoslavia's President 
Kostunica. He has surrounded himself with bright, capable individuals 
who share their President's eagerness to bring their nation back into 
the fold of the international community.
  Our discussion focused on a number of issues, including reintegrating 
Yugoslavia into the international community after Milosevic's downfall, 
the country's continuing economic challenges, the humanitarian issues 
facing the people--including a lack of power, medicine and medical 
equipment--and the situation in Kosovo, the Presevo Valley and 
relations with Montenegro.
  I was also impressed with Zoran Djindjic, the Serbian government's 
prime minister. Our meeting largely focused on the same subject matters 
discussed with President Kostunica.
  We also discussed in detail the war crimes issue and America's strong 
interest in seeing progress in this area. I reminded him that Congress 
had laid out conditions in the FY 2001 Foreign Operations 
Appropriations bill in order for U.S support to continue.
  From Serbia, we traveled to Bosnia to visit our American troops. We 
were met by Major General Smart who gave us an overview of the 
situation in Bosnia. He informed us that the men and women under his 
command understand the importance of their mission, have high morale 
and are performing beyond expectations.
  After lunching with some of our men and women in uniform from Ohio 
and Pennsylvania, Senator Specter and I rode along with some of our 
troops on a Humvee patrol through the area.
  I asked a couple of the young soldiers with whom we were patrolling 
what they thought would happen if the United States were to pull out of 
the region. They answered without hesitation that the ethnic 
hostilities between the Serbs, the Croat's and the Muslim's would 
almost immediately resume.
  Their assessment--these two young men who are right in the thick of 
it--made it clear how important it is to maintain an ongoing 
international military presence in Southeastern Europe for at least the 
immediate future. In my view, Bosnia's government structure which was 
created in Dayton is fundamentally unworkable, and it must be 
reassessed if there is ever to be a lasting peace in Bosnia.
  After a return to Belgrade for more meetings, we flew to Egypt, where 
we met with President Mubarak.
  We had a detailed discussion about the latest peace plan put forward 
by President Clinton, Egypt's role in the peace process, and the 
comparative positions of the Israelis and Palestinians.
  During the meeting, we encouraged President Mubarak to support 
President Clinton's peace initiative, and requested he urge other Arab 
leaders to support the peace initiative in Israel.
  From Cairo, we went to Israel to meet with Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak 
and Ariel Sharon and other leaders to discuss the fragile peace 
process.
  Mr. Peres felt that economic cooperation is a key to conflict 
resolution, believing that if people have something to lose in war or 
violence, they will be less likely to fight. We also discussed the 
issues of the day in the negotiations--the Temple Mount and refugee 
returns.
  Mr. Barak expressed his disappointment at the failure of various 
peace initiatives, and concern that the Palestinians may be learning 
the wrong lesson: that continued violence strengthens their negotiating 
position.
  He stressed the opposite: that violence is slowing the peace process 
and strengthening the negotiating position of the Israelis. Mr. Barak 
was hopeful that negotiations would continue throughout the American 
presidential transition and the Israeli elections. Thank God they have.
  We then met with Ariel Sharon, and immediately discussed his 
controversial visit to the Temple Mount last September and the impact 
it had on the peace process. I indicated that many Americans felt it 
was inflammatory.
  Mr. Sharon explained that his visit was a normal event and that every 
Israeli citizen has the right to visit the Temple Mount because of its 
religious significance. Evoking images of Richard Nixon, he further 
stated that he was the only candidate for Prime Minister who could 
reach a true peace agreement with the Palestinians.
  After my meeting with Mr. Sharon, I joined U.S. Consul General Ron 
Schlicher for a dinner discussion with Faisal Husseini. Husseini is a 
leading figure in the Palestinian community. We had a lengthy 
discussion regarding the ongoing violence and tensions in Israel, 
prospects for peace, and the Palestinian perspective on the last 50 
years.
  The next day, I also met with Mr. Jawdat Ibrahim, a young Palestinian 
businessman who was deeply interested in the peace negotiations. I was 
interested in his view--and through him, the Palestinian view--on 
current events. Our discussion was interesting and it added an 
important perspective to my trip.
  Mr. President, at this time, I ask unanimous consent that a longer 
statement outlining many of the observations that I was able to make 
over the course of our trip be printed in the Record following my 
remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See Exhibit 1.)
  Mr. VOINOVICH. Mr. President, one of the true benefits of traveling 
overseas is it gives lawmakers an opportunity to see first hand the 
political,

[[Page 732]]

social and economic conditions of nations that many of us only read 
about in the papers or see on the nightly news.
  It also allows us to see how these conditions in one part of the 
world can have a profound impact on an entirely different part of the 
world.
  So it was with my trip to the Middle East, where I was able to see 
how events there have a direct effect on events in the United States. 
Many people in our nation do not realize this, but there actually is an 
``interconnectedness'' of issues between nations that sometimes we 
don't think about.
  One thing that I have thought a lot about since my visit is just how 
much the ``on-again/off-again'' peace process in the Middle East 
affects our nation's energy policy, particularly as it relates to our 
national security.
  While I was in Israel, I met with Richard Shotenstein, the Managing 
Director of the Ohio Department of Development's Eastern Mediterranean 
Regional Office, an office I created as Governor of Ohio.
  He told me that the tensions surrounding the ongoing Middle East 
crisis have dramatically lessened the interest of Ohio companies in 
business opportunities in the region.
  He also indicated that there is a growing anti-Americanism, largely 
seen in boycotts, spreading throughout the Arab world, where many view 
the U.S. and Israel as intimately linked. Thus, anti-Israel trends 
become anti-American trends.
  This should be a concern of every American given the fact that today, 
the United States is more dependent on foreign oil than at any other 
time in history.
  In 1973, at the time of the Arab oil embargo, we imported 35 percent 
of our oil to meet our domestic needs. Today, that number averages 58 
percent and it is estimated that we could be importing 65 percent of 
our oil by 2020.
  Unless we address our own domestic energy needs and become less 
dependent on foreign oil, we may be held to the whims of the OPEC 
nations, and indirectly, to the vagaries of the Arab world--
particularly in Iraq, arguably our nation's biggest enemy.
  On January 17, the New York Times reported that the OPEC nations were 
going to reduce oil production by 1.5 million barrels per day. Although 
this will likely drive up prices, the real problem to watch for is what 
Iraq will do.
  According to the article:

       If Iraq indeed keeps exports to a trickle, Saudi Arabia--as 
     the largest producer in OPEC and its de facto leader--may 
     feel compelled, as it has intermittently over the last year, 
     to increase its own output to make up for the Iraqi supplies. 
     But the Saudis might be able to replace only part of the oil 
     that Iraq took off the market.

  I shudder to think how Iraq would use its influence should they gain 
a more dominant role in the production of crude oil in the Middle East.
  It is one of the major reasons why a lack of a reliable supply of 
energy should be of great concern to all Americans.
  Consider the rolling electricity blackouts that California is now 
experiencing. Consider also natural gas prices which are expected to 
skyrocket 70 percent by the end of winter according to predictions by 
the Department of Energy.
  Add in the fact that home heating oil prices have already jumped by 
40 percent and more, not to mention high gasoline prices, and it should 
become crystal clear that our country's lack of a comprehensive energy 
policy must be addressed.
  Since at least the mid-1970's, Congress and presidential 
administrations of both parties have been unwilling, unable and 
unmotivated to implement a long-term energy policy.
  As I have stated, the United States relies on more foreign sources of 
oil than at any other time in history. However, even if we wanted to 
increase the production of crude oil in this country, there has not 
been a new refinery constructed in 25 years due, in part, to changes in 
U.S. environmental policies.
  Additionally, 36 refineries have closed since the beginning of the 
Clinton administration, in part, because of strict environmental 
standards.
  Last year, the existing refineries were running at 95 percent 
capacity or higher for much of the year. With our refineries running at 
these levels, even if a greater oil supply was available, there would 
be no capability for refineries to turn it into useful products.
  As a result, we must currently rely on overseas supplies at an 
astronomical cost from a region fraught with instability. Until new 
refining capacity is available, even minor supply disruptions will 
continue to lead to drastic increases in fuel prices. No one has dared 
contemplate what would happen should major disruptions occur.
  In addition, natural gas heats 56 million American homes and provides 
15 percent of the nation's electric power, for nearly one-quarter of 
our energy supply.
  Because natural gas burns so cleanly, it is easier to obtain the 
environmental permits necessary to build natural gas-run energy plants. 
Thus, it is easy to see why virtually all new electric generation 
plants that are currently being built will use natural gas for fuel.
  The popularity of natural gas is good for the air we breathe, but the 
high demand for it is beginning to pinch the pocketbook, resulting in 
soaring costs. We should not forget that other energy resources are 
available which can provide additional sources of clean, low-cost 
power.
  New technologies are making coal an increasingly cleaner source of 
electricity. We should not forget this valuable, abundant natural 
resource--with an estimated domestic supply of 250 years--as we move 
forward with an energy policy that not only protects our environment, 
but also continues to meet consumer's needs for power.
  I support efforts such as those in the National Electricity and 
Environmental Technology Act, introduced last week by Senator Byrd. His 
bill creates research and development programs that provide incentives 
for developing clean-coal technologies in the U.S.
  As my colleagues know, if we are to decrease our dependence on 
foreign energy sources, research and development will be important to 
ensure that coal can remain a viable energy option in the future.
  During this energy crisis, it is critical that we restructure our 
country's disjointed energy policy into a national plan that is 
comprehensive, cohesive and cost-efficient.
  Last year, the Majority Leader and Senator Murkowski introduced 
legislation to address many of these problems. I was proud to be an 
original cosponsor of that legislation in the 106th Congress, and I 
will cosponsor Senator Murkowski's bill when he introduces it this 
year.
  In addition, Senator Murkowski and I sat down last week to discuss 
the role that environmental regulations play in our nation's energy 
policy. We agreed that it is imperative that we work to harmonize our 
environmental and energy policies so that clean, affordable and 
reliable energy can be made available to all consumers.
  To help accomplish this goal, we both agreed that the key to a 
comprehensive energy policy will rely on environmental regulations 
that, while protecting public health and the ecosystem, are based on 
cost-benefit analysis and sound science. As Chairman of the Senate's 
Clean Air Subcommittee, it is something that I will work towards in the 
107th Congress.
  Finally, with the extreme cold weather we have experienced so far 
this winter compounding our current energy crisis, we need to encourage 
the President to provide more funding for the Low Income Home Energy 
Assistance Program--LIHEAP--to meet the pressing needs of those who are 
most vulnerable to skyrocketing energy prices. Certainly if we have a 
supplemental this is an emergency that needs to be addressed in that.
  Under LIHEAP, states are required to use the Federal funds they 
receive to provide the greatest level of benefit to the greatest need.
  That means in my State of Ohio, some 220,000 households are expected 
to be helped this year--10 percent more than last year--with each 
household receiving payments between $150 and $400 to cover energy 
costs.

[[Page 733]]

  Last week, along with a number of my colleagues, I asked the 
President to provide $300 million in emergency LIHEAP funds. Should he 
allocate these funds, it will help hundreds of thousands of low income 
families, seniors and the disabled get through our current energy 
crisis.
  Our national security depends on our ability to guarantee a reliable 
energy supply. To do this, we must lessen our dependence on foreign 
oil, investigate alternative fuels and energy sources and ensure an 
adequate delivery and supply infrastructure.
  At the same time we are developing this energy policy, we must insist 
that it does not result in diminishing our environment or public 
health. We cannot allow that to happen. We must continue to improve the 
environment and public health. It is a complex task, but one I know 
that we can accomplish if we work together on a bipartisan basis. We 
need to get the environmentalists, industry, and consumers--all of us 
in the same room talking to each other, so we can come up with a policy 
that is fair to everyone.

                               Exhibit 1

 Observations in Southeastern Europe and the Middle East, January 29, 
                                  2001

                     (By Senator George Voinovich)

       On the morning of December 28, 2000, Senator Specter and I 
     left Andrews Air Force Base for a 7 day assessment of the 
     situation in Southeastern Europe and the Middle East and the 
     prospect for peace in either region. The first leg of our 
     journey consisted of an approximately nine hour flight to 
     Munich, Germany where we were scheduled for an overnight 
     stay. Arriving late that evening, we were met by Consul 
     General Robert W. Boehme and John McCaslin, a U.S. Foreign 
     Commercial Service officer. We had an interesting discussion 
     about a variety of trade, security and foreign policy issues 
     facing the United States and Germany.
       The next morning, (December 29), Senator Specter and I met 
     with a number of leaders of the local business community. We 
     had an interesting conversation about a variety of trade 
     concerns facing the United States and the European Union, EU. 
     Specifically, we discussed the steel, banana, and 
     genetically-modified beef issues currently dominating our 
     trade relations.
       When the conversation turned to technology, I was surprised 
     to learn that the Germans are facing the same shortage of 
     highly-trained information technology workers that our nation 
     has been struggling with in recent years. This problem has 
     been exacerbated by the growing number of entrepreneurs 
     funneling venture capital into the high-technology sectors of 
     the economy.
       We also had an interesting discussion about National 
     Missile Defense, NMD. The business leaders we met with 
     explained their deep concern that the United States' 
     commitment to an NMD system may create another Cold War with 
     Russia and China. They were also concerned with our continued 
     commitment to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, ABM Treaty, 
     and indicated that their views largely reflected those of the 
     German people.
       Finally, we discussed the European Union's, EU, European 
     Security and Defense Policy, ESDP. Senator Specter and I made 
     it clear that many Members of Congress are concerned that our 
     European allies are moving away from their commitments to the 
     North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO. The group responded 
     by explaining that the Europeans will continue to view NATO 
     as the foundation of the trans-Atlantic relationship.
       After the meeting in Munich, Senator Specter and I flew to 
     Belgrade in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, FRY. Ours was 
     the first American plane to land in Serbia since the Kosovo 
     bombing campaign in early 1999.
       While a number of the buildings in the central section of 
     the city were abandoned due to bomb damage, I was generally 
     impressed with the city's landscape. It was clear that 
     Belgrade was once the economic, political and cultural heart 
     of Tito's Yugoslavia.
       We immediately met with Vojislav Kostunica, the recently 
     elected President of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia at 
     the Federation Palace, and it was not lost on me that we were 
     the first federally-elected officials from the U.S. to meet 
     the man who toppled Slobodan Milosevic. He reminded us that 
     it took Yugoslavia less time to elect their new president 
     than it did for us to elect the President of the United 
     States.
       The President sat down with us after completing a meeting 
     with Boris Trikosky, the President of the Former Yugoslav 
     Republic of Macedonia, whom I personally had met last 
     February during a visit I made to Croatia, Macedonia and 
     Kosovo. The discussion President Kostunica had with Senator 
     Specter and me focused on the progress that has been made in 
     reintegrating the FRY into the international community after 
     Milosevic's downfall, the country's continuing economic 
     challenges, the humanitarian issues facing the people 
     (including a lack of power, medicine and medical equipment), 
     and the situation in Kosovo, the Presevo Valley and relations 
     with Montenegro.
       We spent a great deal of time stressing to President 
     Kostunica the importance of cooperation with the United 
     Nations' International Criminal Tribunal for the Former 
     Yugoslavia, ICTY or the Hague. We made it clear that Congress 
     will demand significant progress in this area in order for 
     economic assistance to continue to be made available to the 
     FRY. We also highlighted the view of many in the U.S. that 
     Milosevic must be brought to justice for the crimes he 
     committed against humanity in Bosnia and Kosovo; 
     specifically, that he be brought to the Hague.
       In response, the President indicated that he was very aware 
     of American concern over the war crimes issue, and that he 
     shared our concern but for very different reasons. Milosevic 
     is thought to have stolen over $1 billion from the people of 
     Serbia during his rule, ordered the murder of many of his 
     political opponents and manipulated the results of several 
     elections, among other crimes.
       President Kostunica made it clear that the Serb people want 
     him to be held accountable for his crimes against the Serb 
     people before he faces any international court or charges for 
     war crimes. He also indicated that a domestic trial would 
     begin to show to the people of the FRY what horrors were 
     committed on their behalf over the last ten years.
       He explained that Milosevic's control of the media 
     prevented the vast majority of people from the truth about 
     Bosnia and Kosovo. A trial would begin to present these ugly 
     realities. He pointed out that the International Criminal 
     Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia is expected to open an 
     office in Belgrade as a sign of growing cooperation and 
     understanding between The Hague and the FRY.
       The next meeting we held was with Miroljub Labus, the 
     Federal Deputy Prime Minister responsible for economic 
     policy, and his senior team. I was very impressed by his 
     understanding of the various problems dragging down the 
     Serbian economy. He made a point to stress the humanitarian 
     crisis the country is facing.
       He also made it clear that their efforts to reinvigorate 
     the economy, attract foreign investment and begin to address 
     the nation's debilitated infrastructure would not likely have 
     an effect for several months. He explained that Milosevic's 
     rule had left the economy in such a shambles that they were 
     only now beginning to pick up the pieces.
       I stressed the importance of resisting the traditional 
     Balkans temptation to fill key jobs in the new government 
     with family, friends and political allies. Given the troubles 
     before them, now is not the time to bring in political hacks. 
     Labus must assemble a clean, well-qualified team, and from 
     what I saw, he has done so thus far.
       I was very impressed by Deputy Prime Minister Labus and his 
     team. The future Serbian Minister for Finance, Bozidar 
     Djelic, and the FRY's Stability Pact Coordinator, Milan 
     Pajevic, attended the meeting as well. It was clear that they 
     understood the importance of addressing their people's needs 
     in the short-term.
       We then met with Zoran Djindjic at his campaign 
     headquarters. Mr. Djindjic ran Mr. Kostunica's presidential 
     campaign and has been active in the opposition movement in 
     Serbia for years. It was widely reported that he would soon 
     be installed as the Serbian government's prime minister, and 
     in fact, on January 25, he was sworn in as prime minister. As 
     my colleagues may not be aware, under the FRY's constitution, 
     the prime minister of Serbia is given a great deal of power, 
     thus, Mr. Djindjic will be intimately involved in finding 
     solutions to the various problems facing his country.
       The discussion largely focused on the same subject matters 
     discussed with President Kostunica--reintegrating the FRY 
     into the international community after Milosevic's downfall, 
     the country's continuing economic challenges, the 
     humanitarian issues facing the people (including a lack of 
     power, medicine and medical equipment), and the situation in 
     Kosovo, the Presevo Valley and relations with Montenegro. We 
     also discussed in detail the war crimes issue and America's 
     strong interest in seeing some progress in this area. I found 
     Mr. Djindjic to be well-versed in all of these matters and 
     largely aware of the official American position on them.
       Of the various matters covered, the issue of Montenegro's 
     relationship with Serbia was discussed in the most detail. 
     Mr. Djindjic's passion for retaining the existing structure/
     relationship with Montenegro was clear. As some of my 
     colleagues may know, President Djukanovic of Montenegro has 
     indicated that, in response to the popular will of his 
     citizens, he may be forced to hold a referendum on 
     Montenegrin independence in the next few months. Mr. Djindjic 
     indicated that such a move would create a crisis between 
     Serbia and Montenegro which would have the potential to have 
     a broader regional impact.
       I then traveled to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for a 
     meeting with Foreign Minister Goran Svilanovic. Again, in an 
     effort to be consistent in my message to the new government, 
     I explained in detail the importance of

[[Page 734]]

     cooperation with the International Criminal Tribunal, (The 
     Hague). The Foreign Minister's response echoed that of the 
     President and Mr. Djindjic.
       I was pleased to know that Mr. Svilanovic is pushing EU 
     membership as a long-term goal for the FRY. To that end, he 
     plans on traveling extensively in the near future to explain 
     the various issues facing his country, their plans to address 
     them, and their long-term agenda. I am hopeful that he will 
     be successful in this effort. I believe that a focus on EU 
     membership will encourage changes within the FRY that will 
     further instill a commitment to democracy, the rule of law 
     and human rights.
       For dinner that evening, I was pleased to join U.S. 
     Ambassador to the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, William 
     Montgomery, Foreign Minister Svilanovic, Professor Vojin 
     Dimitrijevic, who is head of the Belgrade Human Rights 
     Committee, and Milan St. Protic, the Mayor of Belgrade. It 
     was widely expected at that time that Mayor Protic would be 
     named as the FRY's Ambassador to the U.S. and since we've 
     been back in the United States, it has actually occurred. As 
     a matter of fact, just last week, I met with Ambassador 
     Protic to discuss a variety of issues of concern to his 
     nation.
       The dinner we had in Yugoslavia included a frank, wide-
     ranging, off-the-record discussion, where we exchanged views 
     on the opposition movement in Serbia during the Milosevic 
     years, the Bosnia tragedy and Kosovo. It was a dinner that I 
     am not likely to forget soon.
       The morning of December 30, Senator Specter and I met with 
     His Holiness Paul, the Patriarch of the Serbian Orthodox 
     Church, at the Patriarchate. The Patriarch discussed the 
     importance of reconciliation between the various peoples of 
     southeast Europe to the future of the region.
       He pointed out that cooperation and mutual respect between 
     the various ethnic groups in the region, between the Serbs 
     and Albanians in Kosovo, for example, is impossible while 
     violence continues. He expressed his deep concern and remorse 
     that nearly 100 Serbian Orthodox religious sites, included 
     centuries-old churches, had been destroyed in Kosovo since 
     the completion of the 1999 NATO bombing campaign.
       The Patriarch gave me a copy of a booklet that the Serbian 
     Orthodox Church prepared on the number of churches gutted, 
     damaged and destroyed. I told the Patriarch I had read it and 
     had shared copies that I had been given by Father Irini 
     Dobrevich with some of my colleagues.
       I reminded the Patriarch that I met with Bishop Artemiie on 
     his visit to the UN and the United States last year and 
     indicated that he is an effective voice for the Serbian 
     Orthodox Church in Kosovo. I stated that because of the 
     efforts of people like Bishop Artemjie, the U.S. State 
     Department is a little more focused in terms of their 
     involvement and concern with Yugoslavia.
       Further, the Patriarch Senator Specter and I discussed the 
     terrible ethnic cleansing that had happened and was 
     continuing to happen in Kosovo, and I asked him to keep me 
     updated on the ongoing situation in Kosovo.
       Finally, I thanked him for the leadership role the Orthodox 
     Church played in the removal of Slobodan Milosevic and their 
     push for free and fair elections, and for establishing a 
     Serbian Orthodox Church office in Washington, led by Father 
     Irini Dobrevich. I have gotten to know Father Dobrevich and 
     find him to be a breath of fresh air in Washington. He has 
     worked hard on behalf of Serbs in diaspora and continues to 
     respond to the many ongoing humanitarian needs in the FRY.
       Senator Specter and I then flew to Tuzla, Bosnia where we 
     were met and briefed by Major General Walter M. Sharp. Major 
     General Sharp commands Multi-National Division, a force of 
     some 7,000 soldiers. He was happy to report that the men and 
     women under his command understand the importance of their 
     mission, have high morale and are performing beyond 
     expectations.
       After the overview, we traveled to Camp Dobol where we 
     shared lunch with a number of Ohioans and Pennsylvanians 
     serving their nation in Bosnia. And I have to say that we as 
     a nation should be very proud of all of our young men and 
     women who serve their country, not just in Southeastern 
     Europe, but all over the world.
       Senator Specter and I then rode along with some of our 
     troops on a mounted patrol through area. It quickly became 
     clear to me that General Sharp's comments about the morale 
     and performance of his people were accurate.
       Although some of the scenery looked very peaceful, it 
     belied incredible tension in the area. I asked a couple of 
     the young soldiers with whom we were patrolling what they 
     thought would happen if the United States were to pull out of 
     the region. They answered without hesitation that the ethnic 
     hostilities between the Serbs, the Croats and the Muslims 
     would almost immediately resume.
       Their assessment made it clear how important it is to 
     maintain an ongoing international military presence in 
     Southeastern Europe for at least the immediate future.
       After our tour, we returned to Belgrade for more meetings.
       We met with Momcilo Grubac, the Federal Minister of Justice 
     at the Federation Palace. Mr. Grubac stressed his 
     government's commitment to the rule of law. He explained that 
     his first task will be to modernize the legal framework 
     within the FRY to bring it into compliance with international 
     standards. He was quick to point out that the years under 
     Milosevic had set the country and its people behind in this 
     area.
       Again, we discussed in great detail the importance of 
     cooperation with the international community on war crimes. 
     As expected, his comments largely reflected those of 
     President Kostunica. However, he did indicate that the FRY 
     will no longer harbor indicted war criminals. He added that 
     an internal criminal proceeding to deal with Milosevic would 
     be important to further establishing democracy in the FRY.
       We then traveled to the Federal Parliament Building where 
     we met with Dragoljub Micunovic, the President of the Chamber 
     of Citizens, and a number of other leading parliamentarians. 
     On the war crimes issue, Mr. Micunovic agreed that 
     accountability must be established to remove the sense of 
     collective guilt that is beginning to become more and more 
     prevalent in the FRY. On Milosevic specifically, he indicated 
     his strong belief that Milosevic would be tried domestically 
     and by the international community if there were evidence to 
     support charges.
       Senator Specter and I then joined Mr. Micunovic at a press 
     conference to discuss our meeting and our general impressions 
     from our visit to Belgrade.
       I explained my position about the bombing campaign, that I 
     really believed that other diplomatic routes should have been 
     pursued in dealing with Milosevic. I also explained that had 
     the U.S. not legitimized Milosevic's leadership at Dayton, 
     and not refused to support the resistant movement in 1997, 
     the situation could have been a lot different in Serbia. 
     There could have been an earlier removal of Milosevic from 
     office and avoidance of the whole war, and the death, 
     destruction and human suffering that accompanied it.
       One of the questions I was asked was whether the U.S. and/
     or NATO leaders should appear before a war crimes tribunal 
     for the air war conducted over Kosovo. I made it very clear 
     that the responsibility for the bombing rest solely with 
     Milosevic--not the United States or any of her officials, nor 
     NATO. To those in NATO and the U.S., Milosevic and his thugs 
     were a cancer that had to be removed from Serbia for the 
     crimes he has committed. With Milosevic out of power, it is 
     now possible to stabilize southeastern Europe, integrate 
     Serbia into the EU and improve the standard of living and 
     quality of life of all the Serbian people.
       That evening, I joined a number of OTPOR activists for 
     dinner. As my colleagues may know, it was the demonstrations 
     by OTPOR members against Slobodan Milosevic's attempt to 
     steal last autumn's election from Mr. Kostunica that hastened 
     the downfall of Milosevic. I was heartened by the youthful 
     spirit of the people I met and I suggested some new roles 
     that they could play now that Milosevic has been removed from 
     leadership.
       I was thoroughly impressed with the quality of this group 
     of leaders in Yugoslavia, men and women who were able to 
     mobilize a nearly 70 percent youth vote turnout in the 
     election that toppled Milosevic. I am sure that they will 
     continue to be a significant force for democracy in the years 
     ahead.
       The next day (December 31), we traveled to Cairo, Egypt 
     where we met with U.S. Ambassador Daniel C. Kurtzer. He 
     explained that President Mubarak, with whom we were planning 
     on meeting the next day, was consumed with the Middle East 
     peace process.
       With that in mind, we discussed the political environment 
     among the Arab and Israeli peoples, Prime Minister Barak's 
     political position in light of the upcoming elections in 
     Israel and Arafat's negotiating positions in the discussions.
       The morning of New Year's day (January 1, 2001), we met 
     with President Hosni Mubarak at his presidential complex in 
     downtown Cairo. We had a detailed discussion about the latest 
     peace plan put forward by President Clinton, Egypt's role in 
     the peace process, and the comparative positions of the 
     Israelis and Palestinians. During the meeting, we encouraged 
     President Mubarak to support President Clinton's peace 
     initiative, and that he should urge other Arab leaders to 
     support the peace initiative in Israel.
       After meeting with President Mubarak, Senator Specter and I 
     had a news conference where we indicated that we would send 
     out a telegram encouraging other Arab leaders to come out 
     publicly in favor of the initiative. We also announced that 
     we would be urging President Clinton to meet with Chairman 
     Arafat for the purpose of clarifying the details of the 
     proposal and to keep the parties talking to one another 
     rather than seeing the peace discussions end precipitously. 
     Later that day, we sent a telegram encouraging other Arab 
     leaders to come out publicly in favor of the initiative and 
     continuing the negotiations. We were pleased that ultimately 
     the President did meet with Arafat and that the Arab leaders 
     came out and said that they were supportive of the 
     initiative.

[[Page 735]]

       I found President Mubarak to be an engaging, affable man, 
     committed to peace yet struggling to maintain a very 
     difficult political position. Given Egypt's crucial role in 
     maintaining relative peace in the region since the Camp David 
     Accords, it was an honor to meet him. I believe his role will 
     be crucial in the coming weeks, months, and years if peace is 
     to truly be reached in the Middle East.
       After the meeting and press conference, we flew to Tel Aviv 
     and then drove to Jerusalem for a series of meetings. Our 
     time in Israel began with a discussion with U.S. Ambassador 
     Martin Indyk who updated us on the American perspective on 
     the peace negotiations. We examined the right of return and 
     Temple Mount issues in some depth which quickly confirmed my 
     impression that the issues facing the negotiators are 
     incredibly complex.
       We then traveled to the Knesset building where we had a 
     series of meetings. We first saw Shimon Peres, a friend I 
     have known for years. He indicated that he did not believe 
     that the schedule imposed on the ongoing peace talks, 
     considering the U.S. presidential transition and the upcoming 
     election for prime minister in Israel, was realistic. I 
     agreed.
       I believe that it was a mistake and is a mistake to set 
     deadlines on the discussions because they create unnecessary 
     pressure. I believe that it is best to continue an active, 
     open dialogue for as long as necessary, even if it appears 
     that little progress is being made.
       Mr. Peres commented how advances in information technology 
     had fundamentally altered the worlds of diplomacy and 
     warfare. He also explained that one of the keys to peace in 
     the region that has not been properly addressed is economic 
     cooperation.
       He believes that if people have something to lose in 
     conflict or violence, they will be less likely to fight. This 
     is a message I had received from him several years ago and 
     was crucial in my decision when I was Governor of Ohio to 
     open a Middle East trade office, the Eastern Mediterranean 
     Regional Office, in Israel.
       We then discussed the issues of the day in the 
     negotiations--the Temple Mount and refugee returns. As 
     always, I found his analysis to be insightful.
       Senator Specter and I then visited with Prime Minister Ehud 
     Barak. As my colleagues would expect, the peace process was 
     the only matter discussed.
       Mr. Barak expressed his disappointment at Camp David's 
     failure and the various peace initiatives attempted since 
     then. He also expressed his concern that the Palestinians may 
     be learning the wrong lesson in recent months--that continued 
     violence strengthens their negotiating position. Rather, he 
     made it clear that violence is slowing the peace process and 
     strengthening the negotiating position of the Israelis.
       Mr. Barak was hopeful that negotiations would continue 
     throughout the American presidential transition and the 
     Israeli elections. It was clear, however, that the continued 
     violence was putting a great deal of pressure on him.
       We then met with Ariel Sharon who is widely expected to 
     defeat Mr. Barak in the upcoming elections for prime 
     minister. We immediately turned to his controversial visit to 
     the Temple Mount last September and the impact it had on the 
     peace process. I pointed out to him that many of us felt that 
     his visit was inflammatory, that it did nothing to aid the 
     peace process and that if elected Prime Minister of Israel, 
     he would have to make it very clear that he was for peace. 
     Mr. Sharon explained that his visit was a completely normal 
     event and that every Israeli citizen has the right to visit 
     the Temple Mount because of its religious significance. I 
     also expressed my opinion that in visiting Israel for the 
     sixth time in twenty years, the situation there was more 
     critical and explosive than I'd ever seen.
       We then discussed his plans for the peace process, should 
     he be elected prime minister. He made a number of strong 
     statements regarding his commitment to the process. He argued 
     that since only President Nixon could open the door to China, 
     only he could come to a peace agreement with the Palestinians 
     given his military background.
       After the Sharon meeting, Senator Specter traveled on to 
     Jordan to continue examining issues in the Middle East. I 
     remained in Jerusalem to continue to examine the situation in 
     Israel.
       That evening, I joined U.S. Consul General Ron Schlicher 
     for a dinner discussion with Faisal Husseini. Husseini is a 
     leading figure in the Palestinian community. We had a lengthy 
     discussion regarding the ongoing violence and tensions in 
     Israel, prospects for peace, and the Palestinian perspective 
     on the last 50 years.
       I thought it was important that I have a balanced 
     understanding of the current situation in Israel and was 
     pleased to have the opportunity to meet with Mr. Husseini.
       The next day (January 2), I met with Ehud Olmert, the Mayor 
     of Jerusalem. I met Mr. Olmert on my fourth trip to Israel in 
     1993. He indicated how important it was to retain Jerusalem's 
     integrity during the course of the peace negotiations.
       He also argued that the various plans being considered, 
     including President Clinton's proposal, were fundamentally 
     flawed on this point. He strongly believes that the people of 
     Jerusalem, his constituents, will never agree to a divided 
     capital city. Richard Shotenstein, the Managing Director of 
     the Ohio Department of Development's Eastern Mediterranean 
     Regional Office, attended the meeting with Mayor Olmert.
       Afterwards, I spoke with Mr. Shotenstein regarding the 
     Office's recent activities. While there have been some great 
     successes, he explained that the tensions surrounding the 
     ongoing Middle East crisis have dramatically lessened the 
     interest of Ohio companies in business opportunities in the 
     region.
       He also indicated that there is a growing anti-Americanism, 
     largely seen in boycotts, spreading throughout the Arab 
     world. This trend has especially impacted consumer products. 
     Mr. Shotenstein explained that to many in the Arab world, the 
     U.S. and Israel are intimately linked. Thus, anti-Israel 
     trends become anti-American trends.
       I then met with Mr. Jawdat Ibrahim, a young Palestinian 
     businessman who was deeply interested in the peace 
     negotiations. I was interested to see his view--and through 
     him, the Palestinian view--on current events. Our discussion 
     was interesting and it added an important perspective to my 
     trip.
       Later that day, I met with a group of Ohioans now living in 
     Israel. After meetings with various political leaders, I 
     wanted to have an opportunity to discuss the issues of the 
     day with people whose lives are affected by the ongoing 
     violence. The group made it very clear that there was a very 
     real sense of fear living in Israel.
       Some described risking their life simply driving to and 
     from work. Others feared that their car would explode when 
     they started it every morning. Still others recounted phone 
     calls from relatives living in America expressing concern 
     about the safety of their grandchildren. I cannot imagine 
     living with this kind of fear.
       The last day of the trip (January 3), I had a telephone 
     conversation with Benjamin Netanyahu. While I was 
     disappointed that scheduling conflicts prevented our meeting 
     in person, I found his analysis of the situation in the 
     region to be very insightful. I hope to have the opportunity 
     to meet him on my next visit to the region, although he 
     indicated that he would make it a point to meet with me the 
     next time he visited the United States.
       Following my phone conversation, I had another meeting with 
     Ambassador Indyk to discuss the various things I had learned 
     during my visit to the region.
       I was pleased to travel with my colleague, Senator Specter, 
     to two of the most important regions to our national security 
     at such a crucial time. I gained valuable insight as to the 
     fragility of peace, and came away with a new and deeper 
     appreciation for our American democracy.
       Mr. President, as we welcome a new administration to the 
     White House, I am hopeful that President Bush and his foreign 
     policy team will be successful in promoting peace, stability 
     and prosperity in these areas. We must never forget that both 
     southeastern Europe and the Middle East are important to our 
     national security and our nation's future.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wyoming is recognized.

                          ____________________