Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment Nos. 705 through 731 En Bloc

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I want to, in the minute or so I have left, congratulate the chairman of the committee for a job very well done. The managers' amendment, which he sent to the desk, I might point out, amends the legislation to name this legislation the Admiral James W. Nance Foreign Relations Act, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001. Bud Nance was a man who was a dear, close friend to the chairman, and a close friend of many of us in the Senate. He served this country with extraordinary distinction in the final years of his life. He served as staff director of the Foreign Relations Committee. One of Bud Nance's objectives, which he shared with the chairman, was that this particular legislation become law, and he began to reestablish the relevance of and the bipartisan nature of the committee. He deserves great credit for that. I think the idea of naming this legislation after him is very fitting and appropriate. I thank the chairman again for his cooperation, for his willingness to listen, and for his help. He is a lucky man to have had such a close friend. I yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. The managers amendment which I am pleased to cosponsor with the chairman amends this legislation to name it the ``Admiral James W. Nance Foreign Relations Act, Fiscal years 2000 and 2001.'' Admiral ``Bud'' Nance was a dear friend of the chairman and a close friend of many of us in the Senate. He served his country with extraordinary distinction, and in the final years of his life served as Staff Director to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. One of Bud Nance's objectives, which he shared with the chairman, was to see this particular legislation become law. The Senate's approval today will be a major step to that end. When this legislation becomes law we will have authorized the payment of most of the United States arrearages to the United Nations and encouraged significant reforms in that body. In addition, the Congress will have authorized the funding of our activities overseas for the years 2000 and 2001. I look at those dates and can't help but think that in many ways, this being but just one, your friend, our friend, Bud Nance, will indeed be with us as we enter the new millennium. I would like to thank the majority staff for their work in helping put this bill together--particularly Steve Biegun who assumed the role of staff director after our friend Bud Nance passed away. Patti McNerney has been tireless as majority counsel in leading the complex staff negotiations that helped make this bill possible. I would also like to thank Brian McKeon, our minority counsel for his hard work and the rest of the minority staff, including Jennifer Park and our Pearson Fellow, Joan Wadelton who put many long hours in with the rest of the majority and minority staff. We would not be looking at final passage today without all their dedicated efforts.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield for 5 seconds?

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Correct.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask the Senator, how much time does he need?

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. The pain is real, the need is real, but the answer is wrong. We are not voting up and down on this bill. We are voting to proceed. I am going to vote to proceed in the hope that between now and the time we vote on this bill, the administration and others understand there is a need for an answer. This is not the answer. I would vote against the bill, but I will vote to proceed.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. My friend from Iowa is correct. This is an important Convention and I assure you that from my point of view this new Convention on the Worst Forms of Child Labor should be a high priority. I am aware that this Convention pertains to abolishing child slavery, child prostitution and other hazardous work endangering a child's well- being. Therefore, I will work with the Chairman of the Committee to try to bring this treaty before the Committee as soon as practical after it is submitted by the President.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield, it is true; we have accepted it. It is a very good amendment and we are delighted to do that.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the privilege of the floor be granted to the following members of the minority staff of the Foreign Relations Committee: David Auerswald, an American political science fellow, and Joan Wadelton, a Pearson fellow, during the pendency of the State Department authorization bill, S. 886.

Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. BIDEN. Will the Senator yield for a unanimous consent request relating to staff?

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, with the permission of my colleague from North Carolina, I ask unanimous consent, with respect to the State Department authorization bill, any amendments on the list of amendments in order to the State Department authorization bill must be filed at the desk by 11:30 today, that there be no further votes today, and the next vote would occur beginning at 5:30 on Monday.

Mr. BIDEN. Reserving the right to object, I will object, and I want to explain why. The reason I object is there are several amendments from Senators who are not going to be able to be here today. They are necessarily absent. So they would be shut out completely from introducing their amendments. On behalf of the leadership, I object.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I will object.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I had a very brief discussion with the chairman of the committee about the second part of the Senator's amendment, which I happen to support fully; that is, instead of going from 3 years down to 1 year. All the reasons the Senator stated seem valid to me. A 2-year time period, it seems to me, is more reasonable. I suspect the chairman may be inclined to agree with that. With regard to the first part of the amendment of the Senator relating to this issue of the seriousness of the offense, right now it is 1 year and 2 years. This would allow the State Department to make an independent judgment as to whether or not a reprimand or suspension should stay in the file beyond the time period here. I raise the question whether or not we may be able to work something out. I have not had a chance to talk to the chairman about this to see whether it makes sense to him, but it seems to me the greatest difficulty with the first part of the amendment of the Senator, as it relates to the reforms we are trying to implement, is leaving open- ended this notion of who determines the seriousness of the offense. Having the Director General of the Foreign Service determine the seriousness of the offense without us, the committee, knowing how he or she will go about making that determination, in effect leaves a hole wide enough to eliminate the reform. I am not asking my colleague from North Carolina to respond to this yet. I raised a moment ago in private with the Senator from Maryland whether or not he would be agreeable to amend the first part of his amendment to suggest the Director General had to submit to the Congress and the committee a set of regulations about how he or she would determine what constitutes the seriousness of the offense; in other words, how that would be determined. We would put the burden on them to come back to us to tell us, so we had some faith it would not be an ad hoc way of approaching this and we would have some sense of how to proceed. I do not know whether or not that is amenable. It obviously needs to be fleshed out more than I have just outlined it, whether or not that is amenable to the chairman. But I suggest there is a possibility that the Senator, if he is willing, could work with us to see if we could work out some procedure that may enable the chairman to agree, for his part, to accept the amendment. Is the Senator amenable to that approach, I ask the Senator from Maryland?

Mr. BIDEN. I say to my friend from Maryland, I appreciate his willingness to try to work this out. I think we can work out the issue of the nature of the seriousness of the offense through regs being submitted. I am told there is one other concern that is being suggested now. Right now there is a floor of 2 years for suspension.

Mr. BIDEN. Pardon me?

Mr. BIDEN. I thank the Senator. Unanimous Consent Agreement

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, today we begin consideration of the State Department Authorization Act for fiscal year 2000 and 2001, which was reported out of the committee 17-1. Mr. President, as I said, today the Senate begins consideration of the State Department Authorization Act for Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001. The bill was reported by the Committee on Foreign Relations on April 21 by an overwhelming vote of 17 to 1. The bill contains several titles, which Chairman Helms has just summarize. Let me just take a few minutes to highlight the major provisions of the bill. First the bill revives the so-called Helms-Biden legislation on paying our overdue bills to the United Nations. This proposal, I remind my colleagues, was approved by the Senate in June 1997 by a 90 to 5 vote. Unfortunately, it was ultimately sidetracked by the other body in the last Congress. The version in this bill contains several changes from the bill approved in 1997--changes that were made to reflect the time that has passed since the deal was devised in the 105th Congress. This package meets the central objective that I have--to pay back most of our back dues, or arrears--to the United Nations. It provides for the payment of $926 million in arrears, nearly all that we owe to the United Nations, over the course of three years, with the amount of funding released in each year contingent on the achievement of specific reforms in the United Nations. Significant changes have been made to the final plan that we passed in the last Congress: First, the bill provides a waiver for the two toughest provisions in the package--the requirement to achieve a reduction to 20 percent in our regular budget assessment rate, and a requirement to establish a ``contested arrears'' account for those arrears that are in dispute between the United States and the United Nations. Seocnd, the bill provides more money upfront. A provision permitting the President to waive $107 million in reimbursements owed by the United Nations to the United States has been moved from ``year three'' to ``year two'' of the bill. This will allow $682 million to be paid to the United Nations as soon as the ``year one'' and ``year two'' conditions are met. That is enough to cover most of our $712 million debt to the regular and peacekeeping budgets, which together constitute the bulk of our arrears. I should emphasize here that a significant amount of this funding--$575 million--has already been appropriated in the last two fiscal years. I expect that the third year of funding will be appropriated this year--because this money is exempt from the limits imposed by the 1997 Balanced Budget Act. So once we pass this bill, and the Secretary of State makes the necessary certifications, the money can begin to flow. This package is the product of lengthy negotiations that began over two years ago. The final details of this revised package were negotiated earlier this year between the chairman, the Secretary of State, and me. It is supported by the Clinton administration. I think we have a good deal here. It is not everything that I wanted. It is not everything that the Secretary of State wanted. And it is not everything the chairman wanted. That is the essence of compromise. And this is a solid compromise that I hope our colleagues will support. Let me briefly discuss a few other provisions in the bill. First, we fully funded the President's budget request for most of the bill, including the operating accounts of the Department of State, international and cultural exchanges, and international broadcasting operations such as the Voice of America. Second, we developed bipartisan legislation to improve security at our embassies. The tragic bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania last August underscored the vulnerability of our diplomatic posts. Some 80 percent of our embassies do not meet government security standards for setback from the street. An official review chaired by retired Admiral William Crowe concluded that there had been a ``collective failure'' in the U.S. Government in failing to address security at our embassies overseas, and called on the government to devote $1.4 billion a year over each of the next ten years to strengthen security. The bill before the Senate authorizes $3 billion over the next five years for construction of more secure facilities. This meets the President's requested funding level, and accelerates it by a year. Even though it is the amount that the President sought, we must recognize that it is just the beginning of what must be a sustained program of enhancing security. Working overseas is dangerous. We can never make our embassies bomb- proof or risk-free. But we owe it to our dedicated employees who work overseas to provide the resources necessary to minimize known risks. Third, the bill provides for the establishment of a new Assistant Secretary of State for Verification and Compliance, which will carry out a function that was handled at an equivalent level in the former Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. The verification function has long been headed by a Senate-confirmed official, and for good reason. Once a treaty is signed, we don't want its enforcement to be lost in the bureaucratic shuffle. Moreover, the existence this office will be of considerable importance in obtaining Senate approval of future arms control treaties. Fourth, the bill reauthorizes Radio Free Asia, which began broadcasting in 1996 pursuant to legislation that I introduced. Although it has been on the air less than three years, Radio Free Asia already plays an important role in providing news and information to the people living under dictatorial rule in East Asia, particularly the People's Republic of China, where freedom of the press remains a distant dream. I am pleased that we are giving our stamp of approval to continue the radio at an increased level of funding. This bill is a solid piece of legislation which enjoyed strong bipartisan support in the Foreign Relations Committee--as was reflected in the strong vote of 17 to 1 in the committee. I want to join the chairman in putting the Senate on notice in two respects. First, we will oppose any amendments that address foreign assistance or security assistance. Those measures do not belong on the State Department authorization bill. Second, we will oppose any measures dealing with ``sanctions reform'' or imposing new sanctions. The chairman has scheduled hearings for next month to consider the various bills on sanctions reforms that are pending in the committee; therefore, it would be premature to consider amendments on that subject at this time. I pay public tribute to the chairman. Quite frankly, his leadership and the consensus which he has built in the committee in the last 18 months has been remarkable. This bill is a product of Jesse Helms. There are some serious, significant changes we make--one of which I will speak to in a moment--with the United Nations. That is through the persistence of my friend from North Carolina. As my mom might say, everyone is capable of redemption, and of late, the State Department has finally redeemed itself on this one. I am confident--the Senator is correct--if and when Mr. Holbrooke is confirmed, we will have an advocate for the Senator's position at the United Nations. This bill contains several titles which the chairman has summarized. I will take a few minutes to highlight the major provisions of the bill from my perspective. First, the bill revives the so-called Helms-Biden legislation on paying our overdue bills at the United Nations. The Senator from North Carolina and I have always been friends. We have become very close friends, and we suffer from the same problem: Our friends get very angry with us when we compromise. I am sure the friends of the Senator from North Carolina are very angry that he has worked out a solution to the so-called arrearages to get this moving, and Senator Biden's friends, on my side of the aisle, are very angry that I have agreed to it because they think it should be more. The bottom line is, we have done some good work. The Senate acted on what we did once before. It was the herculean efforts of the Senator from North Carolina, taking on folks on his side of the aisle, which came to naught, and the not so herculean efforts on my part to take on folks on my side of the aisle who did not think this was enough. We are back. Hopefully, a little reason has permeated the environment and the purists on both sides will understand that what we have done is necessary in the national interest, very much in the interest of the American taxpayers, and is coupled to genuine reforms with which, when one thinks about it, nobody really disagrees. The argument on my side of the aisle is: We should not make them agree to the reforms by holding dues over their heads and holding arrearages over their heads. Nobody I have spoken with says what Chairman Helms wants is unreasonable. I do not hear anybody coming to the floor saying there is no bloated bureaucracy at the United Nations. I do not hear anyone coming to the floor saying that the United States should pay more. Everybody says we should pay less as a percentage. I do not hear anyone arguing about the substance the chairman has been insisting on for years. We are down to: Are we doing it the right way? It reminds me of an expression--I will probably get myself in trouble with the French Government--which I think is classic. I was meeting with a State Department person, who will remain nameless, in a very significant position, negotiating a very significant agreement with the French relative to NATO. That is as much as I will say about it. I asked this fellow: Are the French going to agree with this? He said: Yes, I think they will, but it is kind of difficult. I said: What do you mean? He said: My friend's counterpart duly said to me last night, ``Yes, yes, yes, this will work in practice, but will it work in principle?'' That is what we are hung up on here. What the Senator has suggested in these reforms is practically what everyone has acknowledged is needed. What we have been hung up on is the principle of whether or not it should be done the way in which we are doing it. On the other side of the equation, nobody argues that if we do not come up with this $926 million we are going to badly hurt the United Nations. We are hurting our allies, we are hurting England, we are hurting the Germans, we are hurting others, because over $700 million of this money is for peacekeeping accounts that we agreed to sign on to with the Brits, with the French, with the Germans, and with our NATO allies. I think and I hope, I say to the chairman, a little bit of reason is seeping into this debate--I hope. I guess I am preaching to the choir here, but hopefully some of the congregation on the House side will hear what the choir is saying, because it is very important that we finally settle this issue and put it to bed. The version in this bill contains several changes from the bill approved in 1997, changes that were made to reflect the time that has passed since the deal we put together--the chairman actually put together--devised in the 105th Congress which made sense. Time has passed. We have had to make some adjustments. I compliment and thank the chairman, as well as the Secretary of State, who was not overwhelmingly enthused about this approach. We finally, through the leadership of the chairman actually, are all singing from the same hymnal, as they say up my way. The State Department is on the same page now, the Senator is on the same page, I am on the same page, hopefully, the House will get on the same page, and we can go on to the next hymn. I think this package meets the central objectives that we have, at least the ones I have--to pay back most of our so-called arrears to the United Nations. It provides for a payment of $926 million in arrears-- nearly all of that we owe to the United Nations--over the course of 3 years, with the amount of funding released in each year contingent on achievement of specific reforms in the United Nations. This package is a product of very lengthy negotiations begun over 2 years ago. The details of this revised package were negotiated earlier this year between the chairman, the Secretary of State, and me. It is now supported by the Clinton administration. I think we have a good deal. It is not everything I wanted, and it is not everything the Secretary wanted, and it is clearly not everything the chairman wanted, but that is the essence of compromise. This is a solid compromise. I hope our colleagues will support it. Let me briefly discuss a few other provisions of the bill. First, we fully funded the President's budget request for most of the bill, including the operations account in the State Department, international and cultural exchanges, and the international broadcasting operations, such as the Voice of America. Second, we developed a bipartisan legislative approach to improve the security of our embassies. The tragic bombings of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania last August underscored the vulnerability of our diplomatic posts. Some 80 percent of our embassies do not meet Government security standards for setbacks from the streets, just to state one aspect of the problem. The official review, chaired by retired Admiral William Crowe, concluded that there had been a ``collective failure'' in the U.S. Government in failing to address the security of our embassies overseas and called on the Government to devote $1.4 billion a year over each of the next 10 years to strengthen security. The bill before the Senate authorizes $3 billion over the next 5 years for the construction of more secure facilities. This meets the President's requested funding level and accelerates it by a year. Even though it is the amount that the President sought, we must recognize that it is just the beginning of what must be a sustained program of enhancing security. I know my colleague in the Chair knows better than anybody in this building what it is like to have a Government building vulnerable to and subject to terrorist attacks. No one knows the tragedy that flows from that better than the Presiding Officer. We are as exposed in our foreign embassies around the world as buildings are in this town. We cannot and we should not become ``Fortress America'' internally. But we must do the reasonable things that can be done outside of the country in hostile environments or environments where we have less control over the protection of our citizens. Working overseas is dangerous. We can never make our embassies bombproof or risk-free. But we owe it to our dedicated employees who work overseas to provide resources necessary to minimize the known risk. Third, the bill provides for the establishment of a new Assistant Secretary of State for Verification and Compliance, who will carry out a function that was handled at the equivalent level in the former Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. I might add, all we are doing now is putting in place what the distinguished chairman is the father of, and that is a significant reorganization of the State Department apparatus. When people ask me, why was this so important to Senator Helms and why did he work so hard to get it done, I analogize it to what our former colleague, Barry Goldwater, did in terms of the reorganization of the Defense Department. It is as consequential, it is as significant, and I believe it will be remembered as successful as Senator Goldwater's initiatives were with regard to the Defense Department. It basically takes us into the 21st century and recognizes how fundamentally changed the world is. I think he is to be complimented for it. I plan, as long as I am here, that every time we implement a new aspect of his reorganization plan, to remind our colleagues why it is occurring. It is occurring because the Senator from North Carolina was as persistent as he was, and as consistent as he is, in making sure this organization is modernized. The verification function had long been headed by a Senate confirmed official, and for a good reason. Once a treaty was signed, we did not want its enforcement to be lost in the bureaucratic shuffle. Moreover, the existence of this office will be of considerable importance to obtaining Senate approval of future treaties. Fourth, the bill reauthorizes Radio Free Asia, which began broadcasting in 1996 pursuant to legislation I introduced. I must tell you that we all have our pet initiatives that we care a great deal about because we think they have a significant impact on our security and our interests. I have been ferocious, and some suggest too vocal, in my support of the radios. But I want to again publicly thank the chairman, who maybe disagreed with me in some aspects of this, but was willing to go along with my basic approach on how to deal with the radios. I know, from his many years during the cold war, of his devotion to Radio Free Europe and Voice of America. I appreciate his lending his considerable support and weight to the way in which we are approaching, under the reorganization, the so-called radios. Although it has been on the air less than 3 years, by the way, Radio Free Asia already plays an important role in providing news and information for people living under the dictatorial rule in East Asia, particularly the People's Republic of China, where freedom of the press remains a distant dream. I am pleased that we are giving our stamp of approval to continue the radio at increased levels of funding to make it workable. There is much more to say, but I will stop at this point in the interest of accommodating my colleagues. But this bill is a solid piece of legislation which enjoys strong bipartisan support in the Foreign Relations Committee. Again, I want to remind everybody, this, as the defense authorization bill, usually attracts every contentious issue that is out there. It is because of the leadership of the chairman that we came out of the committee with a 17-1 vote. My colleagues should understand--it is presumptuous for me to say this--that this is a reflection of the fact that what is in this bill is solid. It is a solid, solid bill. We would not have gotten this kind of consensus out of an ideologically divided committee but a committee where we are totally committed to making sure we have the strongest ability, the greatest ability, to project our foreign policy around the world. Again, I thank the chairman for his leadership. I still think people are probably scratching their heads: How do Biden and Helms get along so well and produce such bipartisan approaches? Because I think we both respect each other, but also because I understand that the chairman's motivation here is to make this committee's work a product that can pass the bipartisan muster of the Senate and the Congress. I compliment him again for his leadership. I yield the floor. Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN. I suggest that, if the Senator is willing to do that.

Mr. BIDEN. I understand it, but rather than do this negotiation, probably on the floor, that is another part Senator Helms wants to take a look at. What I suggest is I think we are very close to being able to work this out. I commit to the Senator we will attempt to do that. Obviously, if we do not, he is entitled to a vote on this, but I am inclined to believe we can do this and accept it to his satisfaction in the managers' amendment. But we will have between now and Monday evening to try to work that out, if he is willing to do that?

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I am delighted that the Senate has agreed to pass S. 331, the Work Incentives Improvement Act of 1999, and I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important legislation. This bill helps maintain the autonomy and self-worth of some of our most vulnerable citizens, the disabled, by removing barriers that prevent them from returning to work. Disabled citizens in Delaware and elsewhere almost uniformly state that their most important goal is to return to work, not only for the income but for the need to be productive. However, because our laws currently put many obstacles in the way of disabled individuals who want to return to work, they often discover that they are better off financially and medically if they remain unemployed. The Work Incentives Improvement Act helps tear down some of these perverse provisions of law that block the disabled from achieving their goal of becoming productive, taxpaying citizens. First, and probably most important to the disabled, this bill helps them maintain appropriate health insurance through extensions and expansions of the Medicare and Medicaid programs. Most employer-sponsored insurance does not provide the specific types of coverage that the disabled need to enable them to return to work. Second, the Work Incentives Improvement Act helps the disabled obtain appropriate employment and vocational rehabilitation services through the Ticket To Work and Self-Sufficiency program, which extends access to such services provided by the private sector. Finally, this bill continues the demonstration project that allows the disabled who return to work to keep a portion of their cash payments as their work income increases; currently, the abrupt loss of these payments when income reaches a specific threshhold has been a severe disincentive for the disabled to return to work. Mr. President, I am honored to be a cosponsor of this important legislation that helps restore the disabled citizens of Delaware and throughout the United States to their rightful places as equal participants in our society, and I applaud its passage by the Senate.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I rise today to speak of the military technical agreement signed by NATO and Yugoslavia. That is a fancy way for saying that we accepted the surrender of Slobodan Milosevic. I just got off the phone with the Secretary of State who called me from Germany with another piece of very positive news. She indicated that because the G-8 was meeting in Germany, they put together a group of Europeans to flesh out in detail a Southeastern Europe Stability Pact, which is an idea generated by the German Government. The objective of that pact is to encourage democratic processes in southeastern Europe, in the Balkans, and to reduce tensions in the area. They have set up a very elaborate but clear timetable, and what they call ``regional'' tables, to promote democracy, economic reconstruction, and security. They have involved as the lead group the European Union, plus the OSCE, the United Nations, NATO, and to a lesser extent, the United States. The reason I bother to mention this is that the hard part is about to come. I hope we will have the patience that we did not show on this floor to win the peace. We have won the war, notwithstanding the fact many thought somehow we should be able to do this in less than 78 days. I think it is astounding that we talked about how this ``dragged on.'' We will probably find that close to 10,000 paramilitary and Serbian troops were killed. Only 2 Americans were lost in a training exercise--as bad as that is. Yet, we began to lose patience, because it wasn't done in a matter of 24 hours. If we have the patience, we can win the peace, because unlike pursuing the war, the bulk of the financial responsibility, organizational effort, and guidance will come from the Europeans. The European Union will take on the major portion of the responsibility for rebuilding the region, reconstructing the area. The American people should know that the President of the United States has tasked the Secretary of State to see to it--we will hear phrases such as ``mini Marshall Plan''--that the United States of America is not going to bear the brunt of the financial burden in reconstructing southeastern Europe. It is fully within the capacity of the Europeans. It is their responsibility. It is in their interest, and they are prepared to do it. On the military side, the first part is in place. The Yugoslav Government has capitulated on every single point NATO has demanded. The last several days of discussions between NATO and Yugoslav military commanders were not about negotiation. They were about the modalities of meeting the concessions made by Milosevic's government on every single point NATO demanded. It took some time to work that out. ``Modalities'' is a fancy foreign policy word. Translated, it means: How in the devil are they going to leave the country? In what order are they going to leave the country? What unit goes first? When do NATO forces, KFOR, move in so that no vacuum is created? By ``vacuum,'' I mean when there are no Yugoslav forces in Kosovo. That is what was going on. I got sick of hearing commentators on the air talking about how negotiations were going on between NATO and Milosevic. There were no negotiations. It was a total, complete surrender by the Yugoslavs, as it should have been. There is now a firm, verifiable timetable for withdrawal of all Yugoslav and Serbian military, and all special police--those thugs who have roamed the countryside in black masks, raping women, executing men, and wreaking havoc on a civilian population. Those thugs--half of whom are war criminals themselves, and should be indicted as such, like Milosevic--are required to leave. The worst of all are the paramilitaries. They all are also required to leave. If they do not leave, they will be killed or forcibly expelled. As I speak, this withdrawal has begun, although I trust Mr. Milosevic and the Serbian military about as far as I could throw the marble podium behind which the Presiding Officer sits. I am not worried, because even if they default, I am convinced of the resolve of NATO. We will pursue them. General Clark said 78 days ago that we would pursue them and hunt them down. And we did. And we will again, if necessary. The fundamental goal of NATO's air campaign has been achieved, notwithstanding all the naysayers on this floor, all the talking heads on television, and all the columnists. There has been an agreement for the return of all internally displaced persons and all Kosovar refugees who fled abroad. This is a monumental achievement, as it involves well over 1 million people. Some commentators have hesitated to call it a victory, but I do not. I understand why they hesitate to call it a victory. They called it a mistake up to now. So why would they call it a victory now? It is a victory--a victory for NATO, a victory for the United States of America, a victory for Western values, a victory for human rights, and a victory for the rule of law. In personal terms, it is a victory for President Clinton and his administration, which, despite unrelenting and often uninformed criticism that began almost immediately, stayed the course. I had some tactical disagreements with the way the administration proceeded. I don't think the President should have said at the outset that ground forces were off the table. He had to move back on that and make it clear that everything was on the table. That is susceptible to criticism. I point out, however, that the President of the United States of America never once wavered on his commitment to do whatever it took to end this ethnic cleansing. But, above all, it is a victory for the brave fighting men and women of NATO who carried out this air campaign, a majority of whom were Americans. Conversely, it is an unmitigated defeat for an indicted war criminal, the Yugoslav President, Slobodan Milosevic. Just in case anyone wonders, he did not just become a war criminal. He was already a war criminal in 1993 when I spoke to him. He was a war criminal for his actions in Krajina. He was a war criminal for his actions in Bosnia. He is a war criminal for his actions in Kosovo. Had he not been stopped, he would have continued his vile ethnic cleansing. By the way, I encourage my colleagues to read the Genocide Convention. I will not take the time now to recount it, but what has been perpetrated by Milosevic in Kosovo is genocide. Our victory, I suggest, shows that patience and resolve can pay off. It should leave no doubt in the minds of the people throughout Europe and elsewhere in the world of the ability of a unified NATO to achieve its objectives. Now we have to move more swiftly to the second stage of the Kosovo campaign--peace implementation. I read with some dismay today in the major newspapers that the House of Representatives is considering denying the funds to allow any U.S. participation in the implementation of peace. They seem determined to compound the mistake they made just several weeks ago. The reconstruction of Kosovo, as I said, and confirmed by my conversation with the Secretary of State from Germany a half-hour ago, is primarily the responsibility of the European Union. I met with Helmut Kohl, the former Chancellor of Germany, just before the 50th anniversary summit of NATO. We met over at the Library of Congress for the better part of an hour and had a lengthy discussion. He is a very knowledgeable man and until last fall was the longest serving leader in Europe. He pointed out that there were 12 million refugees in Europe after World War II, and that the Europeans were able to handle the problem. He pointed out that the fifteen countries of the European Union have a combined gross domestic product larger than that of the United States of America. Anything remotely approaching a mini Marshall Plan is fully, totally, completely within the financial capability of our European friends, and it is primarily their responsibility. We should and must and will participate. But as I said to the President of the EU, as well as to the chancellor, and as well to every front-line state leader and every leader of the NATO alliance with whom I met, the sharing of the reconstruction burden in southeastern Europe should not be as it is in NATO, roughly 75-25. It should be more like 90-10. It is primarily their responsibility, and they understand they will greatly benefit from a reconstructed and more unified southeastern Europe. I wish them well and hope their initiative will succeed. This ratio, as I said, should be juxtaposed with the heavy responsibility we bore militarily in the Yugoslav campaign. The overwhelming majority of airstrikes when ordinance was dropped was carried out by our forces, and we have footed the lion's share of the bill. We have done this as the leader of NATO and as the only military power in the alliance capable of shouldering the burden. I do not complain about America's shouldering more of the burden when no one else is capable. But I do and will complain when others are equally or more capable than we are, and they do not take the lion's share of the responsibility. But in this case there is no argument, because the Europeans understand their obligation in economic reconstruction, and they are able and willing to carry it out. As I mentioned, they have already demonstrated the willingness to take the lead by proposing a Stability Pact for southeastern Europe, which at a later date I will discuss in detail. The European Union plan, in my view, should be coordinated with our own ongoing SEED program, which has already accomplished much in economic and democratic reconstruction in the former Communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe. But the key question is the reconstruction of Serbia. There should be no reconstruction of Serbia as long as an indicted war criminal is Yugoslavia's President, as long as he is on the political scene. Once the Serbian people remove him, the Western World will be ready, willing, and able to come to the aid of Serbia and do it gladly. I hope that we will have the nerve to arrest Milosevic, send him to the International Criminal Tribunal at the Hague, and God willing, see him convicted. Only then, only when Serb people understand the extent of the atrocities Milosevic is responsible for, will they face up to the harsh reality of what they, quite possibility unintentionally, but nonetheless enabled to happen. It is time to end the perpetuation of the myth that Serbia is a victim. I do not propose to be able to say exactly when and how Milosevic will leave office, but I predict there will be no Milosevic in power at this time next year. I think his days are numbered for three reasons. First of all, most Serbian citizens realize if Milosevic had accepted the Rambouillet accords last February, they would have had substantially the same result but without having their country crippled by 11 weeks of bombing. Second, as the troops return from Kosovo, the word will spread of the horrible casualties the Serbian troops have suffered. They do not know that yet because of the repressive Milosevic regime that manipulates the news. The number of Serbian military, paramilitary and police casualties will, I predict, total nearly 10,000. When the Serbian people learn of this carnage, I predict they will be angry, not merely at NATO but at Milosevic for bringing this upon them. Ten thousand Serbian soldiers and special police were killed, many of them slaughtered in B-52 raids in the last days of the war when Milosevic was stalling on signing the military technical agreement. When the extent of Serbian combat losses sinks in, there will be fury against Milosevic and his cronies. Third, as KFOR--that is the acronym for the NATO implementation force--occupies Kosovo, I am convinced that every prediction I made here about the atrocities that were taking place will unfortunately be proven correct. You will be stunned at the evidence that will be uncovered of the brutality and the atrocities committed by the Serbians on a mass scale, far greater than the horrible massacres we already know about. These revelations, I believe, will further alienate the many decent Serbs who rallied behind Milosevic as their patriotic duty during the bombing campaign. We know that KFOR's task will be a daunting one. Millions of mines must be removed. All booby traps must be found and disposed of. And--I do not know how it can be avoided--surely some NATO forces will be killed. I pray to God that this will not happen. I pray to God that KFOR turns out as successful in that category as the military campaign has, but I do not think we can count on that. All armed locals and irregulars in Kosovo must be intimidated into submission. The KLA must be turned into a demilitarized police force under civilian control. All these will be difficult tasks, but I am confident that they can be accomplished if we maintain resolve. Nothing, however, that happens from this point on can detract from the magnitude of the victory we have achieved. Had President Clinton heeded the call to negotiate with Milosevic, it would have been a disaster. Had President Clinton heeded the call to stop the bombing, it would have been a disaster. Had President Clinton heeded the call to run roughshod over our NATO allies and disregard their wishes, the alliance would have fractured and that, too, would have been a disaster. This place, including Democrats, would have run out from under him faster than I can walk from here to the door of the Chamber. It is remarkable how he was able to keep the alliance together. Most importantly, had President Clinton not stayed the course and achieved this victory, our geopolitical position in North Korea, in Iraq, and in many other parts of the world would have suffered grievously. I ask my colleagues to think about what at this moment Saddam Hussein is thinking. Had we listened to those who said: Cease and desist, partition, stop bombing, negotiate with Milosevic, cut a deal--what do you think would be happening in Baghdad now? But the President did stay the course, and our magnificent fighting men and women performed in an exemplary way. Because we have succeeded in the military campaign, and because we have the ability to succeed in the civilian reconstruction that will follow, the world has seen that the President of the United States, the American people,, and a united NATO have the will to respond to crises and successfully defend Western values and interests. I will be taking the floor again many more times in the following weeks on this issue. I know my colleagues are probably tired of my speaking on this. It has been something I have been discussing since 1990. But we are finally finding our sea legs. I will conclude by saying that in the case of Kosovo and Yugoslavia, American interests are at stake, the cause is just, the means are available, and the will was present. For Lord's sake, let's not now, out of some misguided sense of isolationism or partisanship, do anything other than finalize this victory and secure our interests. Think about it: the removal from Kosovo of the Serbian troops means, at a minimum, that Slobodan Milosevic's goons will no longer be able to harass, rob, rape, expel, or kill over a million Kosovars. I believe he has lost his ability to overthrow the Montenegrin Government, and certainly to overthrow Macedonia's government and to fundamentally destabilize Albania, Romania, and Bulgaria. This is a significant accomplishment, but most importantly, it demonstrates that not only this President, but also the next President, whether he or she is a Republican or a Democrat, is going to be faced with very hard choices. I respectfully suggest that he or she should not underestimate the will, the grit, the patience, or the common sense of the American people. They know what we did was right. I was in Macedonia. I have been in the region a half a dozen times. I have also had the displeasure of meeting alone for almost 3 hours with Slobodan Milosevic, at which meeting, in early 1993, he asked what I thought of him. I told him then that I thought he was a damn war criminal and should be tried as such. He looked at me as if I had said, ``Lots of luck in your senior year.'' It did not phase him a bit. Even some of my staff said as we were leaving: You said that to a President of a country. I said: I don't care. He is a war criminal. The justification of what we did was best summed up on my last trip a few weeks ago. I was sitting in the airfield outside of Skopje in Macedonia. I walked into a tent where there were about 15 young Americans ranging in age from 18 to 30, all noncommissioned officers. They were the crew that was gathered together from all over the world to make that airfield compatible for our Apache helicopters and for the large C-130s that were flying in with food deliveries. I walked in, and we started talking. They were taking a break. We were sitting on cots. I thanked them for what they were doing. I said: You know, I am getting a lot of heat back home. Some of my colleagues, including some of my seatmates, refer to this as ``Biden's war.'' Some of my friends are telling me this is another Vietnam. What are you guys--there was actually one woman--what do you all think about that? Do you think this is another Vietnam? One, I believe a sergeant about 24 years old, looked at me and answered: Senator, let me ask you a question. When you were 24 years old, if they had called you up and sent you here, would you have had any doubt about the justice of what you were doing? All of a sudden it became clear to me. They had no doubt. Our young fighters have no doubt about the justness of what they have undertaken. They knew it was right. We did the right thing. I pray to God that we have the courage and the patience and the ability to resist our partisan instincts on both sides and stay the course. Because if we do, we can bend history just a little, but bend it in a way that my grandchildren will not have to wonder about whether or not they will have to fight in Europe in the year 2020 or the year 2025. I congratulate the Senate for, at the end of the day, every day, having done the right thing in this war. I congratulate the President and his administration for having had the political courage to stay the course. I plead with my colleagues in the House to do the right thing. I suggest the absence of a quorum.