Joe Biden

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I ask unanimous consent the letter from President Clinton to the leaders be printed in the Record.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I be able to proceed for 30 seconds.

Mr. BIDEN. I don't have it. I am sorry.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished Senator from Rhode Island.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, parliamentary inquiry. How much time remains?

Mr. BIDEN. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Minnesota, and then 2 minutes to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I would suggest we alternate back and forth.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I yield myself 1 minute. Of the 3 minutes remaining, I yield myself 1 minute, and I ask my friend from Virginia to close on behalf of the proponents. There are a number of Senators who wished to speak today--Senator Specter, Senator Hagel, Senator Smith. There are a number of people who wanted to speak. In the interest of a limited time, we have been unable to do that. And I apologize for that. But the reason why I think it is appropriate that the Senator from Virginia close the case for us is that no one has been more instrumental in bringing about the ability to vote up or down on this proposal as well as the outline of the proposal. I thank him for his leadership. I yield the remainder of the time under the control of the Senator from Delaware to the Senator from Virginia.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the reading be dispensed with.

Mr. BIDEN. I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, this is a very straightforward concurrent resolution, but I think it bears reading again. It says, Authorizing the President of the United States to conduct military air operations and missile strikes against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), That the President of the United States is authorized to conduct military air operations and missile strikes in cooperation with our NATO allies against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro). It is straightforward and simple. It is a clear up-or-down vote on whether or not we support the action that is contemplated by the President, that NATO, through its action order--so-called action order--has authorized Solana to call for at his discretion and concurrence with the leaders of the 19 NATO countries. I think we have debated this a lot. There are very strong views on this. I happen to think this is an authority that Congress should be giving the President, but at a minimum I think most of us agree that the President needs to hear from the Congress as to what our position is. I strongly urge my colleagues to support this resolution. I reserve the remainder of the time.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. That is correct.

Mr. BIDEN. I will be happy to yield the floor.

Mr. BIDEN. There is a big difference. The difference is it is in the center of Europe, No. 1. No. 2, if Europe in fact becomes destabilized, we are deeply involved in matters far beyond what is existing now. I acknowledge to my friend, though, what was at stake in the Middle East was oil, was economic security, and was a lot of other things at the time. So it is, in fact, a legitimate point to make that that was a critical vote. I voted against that involvement--I am sure the next point my friend was going to make. I voted against that involvement. I insisted, along with others, there be a resolution to authorize the use of force. But the argument I would make is, although you can argue it made sense to do what we did, it is a different reason why we moved; a different reason why it occurred; a different reason why it was necessary. It seems to me, comparing what we did in the gulf, comparing that to what we do here either for purposes of justifying action here or not justifying action here, is an inappropriate analogy. It stands on its own. It either made sense or it didn't make sense. It turns out it made sense to move in the gulf and I argue it makes sense for us to take this action now in the Balkans. So, if I can conclude so my friend from Kentucky, who has been seeking the floor, can get the floor, Senator Nickles started off a few moments ago pointing out that seven of us, assigned by the leadership, met to see whether we could work out a compromise resolution. Senator Nickles pointed out that the resolution that we agreed to move with, assuming the procedural circumstances allowed it to be done, was one that was a straight-up authorization for the use of airpower in conjunction with NATO against Serbia and Mr. Milosevic. That was the language as to how to proceed that was agreed to. Senator Nickles indicated he would vote against that, notwithstanding the fact that he helped craft what the language would be. And that makes sense, by the way. He was trying to figure out what is the best, simplest, most straightforward way to get an up-or-down vote on what the President wants to do. In the meantime, the President has sent us a letter asking for legislation to be able to do this. He has asked us whether or not we would support the use of airpower in conjunction with NATO. I think we should get, at the appropriate point, an up-or-down vote on that. I understand my friend from Alaska may have an amendment to that resolution, if it ever comes up freestanding, dealing with a prohibition of ground troops, but we should get to the business of dealing with that which we are getting at now. I hope through the leadership of the majority leader we can somehow clear the decks and get to a vote on the resolution.

Mr. BIDEN. I sure will.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I get confused by this because I think the analyses, although clearly heartfelt and searching, are totally out of proportion. This is Europe, not Asia. This is a place where we fought two world wars, where we got involved in the circumstances based upon the legitimate concern of the spread of communism. This is part of an industrialized world, not where we were in Vietnam. This is not a Tonkin Gulf Resolution, which was clearly open ended. This is closed ended. This is the circumstance. I find it fascinating--all these bad lessons we learned. What is the bad lesson we learned in Bosnia? We stopped bloodshed. We have 7,300 troops there. We have had as many as 365,000 troops in Europe to preserve stability and democracy in Europe for the past 54 years. We have 100,000 troops in Europe right now. We have 100,000 troops who sit there. If, in fact, it is a bad idea, and it is an open-ended commitment to keep troops in Bosnia, to keep the peace with not a single American life having been lost, without the destabilization of the region, without Croatia and Serbia being at war, without a flood of refugees into Germany and into the rest of the area--if that is a bad idea--then we shouldn't even have anybody in all of Europe. This is about stability in Europe. The idea of comparing this to Somalia--a life in Somalia is equally as valuable as a life in Kosovo. But the loss of a life in Somalia and the loss of a life in Kosovo have totally different consequences, in a Machiavellian sense, for the United States interests. If there is chaos in Europe, we have a problem. We are a European power. If, as a consequence of this, there is a flood of refugees into any of the surrounding--let's take Albania. Albania has a Greek population that is a minority population, where there is already a problem. If radicalized Albanian Kosovars are thrown out of Kosovo into Albania radicalizing that society--because, by the way, when they burn down your home, when they kill your mother, when they kneel your child on the ground and put a gun to the back of his head and blow it off, it tends to radicalize you. It tends to have that impact. We are talking about 400,000 to 800,000 refugees. What happens if, in fact, the flood of refugees goes rolling into Macedonia, where you have two-thirds of the population that is Slav, one-third Albanian? Just play out that little scenario for me. What happens in that region? I will not take the time of the Senate to go through the litany of why this clearly is in our interest. But at least let's agree that this isn't anything like Vietnam in terms of our interests--like Africa, or like a whole lot of other places. We have an alliance called NATO. All 19 members of NATO are in agreement that this is necessary. All of Europe is united. All of Europe is united in that we have no choice but to deal with this genocidal maniac. With regard to this notion of a peace agreement that this is designed--my friend from the State of Washington, I respectfully suggest, misstated the objectives of the administration. The objectives of the administration are the objectives of the rest of Europe--all 19 other nations as well as the contact group, I might add--and the objectives are these: To stop the genocide, stop the ethnic cleansing, stop the routing, stop the elimination of entire villages in Kosovo, to have some guarantee that the civil rights, civil liberties, life and liberty of the people living in that region, 2 million people, are somewhat secure. Why do we do that? Beyond the humanitarian reasons, why we do that is, we know what happens if it spins out of kilter. We know what the downside is if the entire area is engulfed in this chaos. We also know from experience what happened in Bosnia. When we acted, when we put ourselves on the line, when we demonstrated that we would not allow it to ``happen'' again, it worked. My friends say it isn't working in Bosnia, because, if we move through, all of a sudden everything will fly apart. That was the case in most of Europe for 30 years. If we removed the troops in Europe in 1954, or 1958, the concern was all of Germany would go. The concern was all of Europe would go. So we held out. We decided that democracy tends to bring stability. I, for the life of me, do not understand why you can just cut out an entire--I wish I had a map here--segment of Europe and say it can be in flames and chaos, and it has no impact on us; it will have no impact on the alliance; it will have no impact on our national security. That I do not understand. I do agree that this is not an easy choice. I do agree that to know exactly what to do is debatable, legitimately debatable. But I do not agree that the purpose of the administration is, as was stated, to hope to be permitted to send ground troops. The only reason why the proposal that was put forward by 19 NATO nations in Europe was put forward was not because we want to put in ground troops. It was because we wanted a commitment that the genocide and ethnic cleansing in Kosovo would stop. I remind everybody, by the way, in 1989 and 1990 their rights were taken away. Their autonomy was stripped. During that first 7-year period, there was a policy of nonviolence on the part of the Kosovars led by a doctor named Rugova. And what happened was what some of us predicted: By failing to stop any of the actions of Milosevic and the ultranationalists in Serbia, one thing was bound to happen. Maybe it is because I am Irish I understand it. I watched it. We watched it historically for 80 years in Ireland. That is, when peaceful means fail and people continue to be cleansed, denied their civil rights and their civil liberties, denied the ability to work, denied the ability to worship, denied the ability to speak their language, they become radicalized. So all of a sudden Rugova found himself odd man out, as the KLA gained credibility and momentum, basically saying: You are not getting it done for us so we are going to use the violent means. What do we think is going to happen if we walk away? The objective is to stop the oppression of men, women and children who are a minority in Serbia, but make up the majority in Kosovo; to say it will stop. The only way it will stop is one of two: Either Mr. Milosevic is denied the means to continue his oppression, or he comes to the table, agrees to stop it, and allows international forces in there to guarantee that he will stop it. That is what this is about. You may not think that is a worthwhile goal. I understand that. I understand that. But this is not about the desire to send troops. It is about the desire to keep that part of the world from spinning out of control. I see two of my colleagues wish to speak so I will cease with the following comment.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I appreciate the intervention by the Senator from Virginia. He is absolutely correct. Let me be even more precise. Seven of us agreed on the vehicle that we recommend to the leadership that we should be voting on. We agreed to that language. I came back with one of my Democratic colleagues, Senator Levin, spoke with the minority leader, and indicated that this is what we had agreed to. He indicated he thought that was an appropriate vehicle, appropriate way to proceed and I might add, some of the Senators in the room, although they agreed to the language, I want to make clear, were not agreeing to the substance of the language. They agreed that this is an appropriate test vote. This is an appropriate vote to determine whether or not the Senate agrees or disagrees with the President. Several of them--one of them at least--said, ``I will not vote for it''; two of them said, ``I will not vote for it but I agree this is how we should decide the issue.'' I understand that the majority leader has to make a judgment as to what vehicle we use, when we use it, how we will use it, but I hope we can get an up-or-down vote on some direct vote.

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I thank the Senator. Mr. BUNNING addressed the Chair.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Parliamentary inquiry: Is the Senate concurrent resolution at the desk?

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, I suggest that we need a lot less time than that. I suggest 30 minutes equally divided.

Mr. BIDEN. It is at the desk.

Mr. BIDEN. I suggest that it be reported.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a brief comment? Because I know the Senator from West Virginia wishes to speak on this. I want to be clear. I think the recommendation and the suggestion of the Senator from Alaska, which is consistent with what the Senator from West Virginia and he both said today to the President, is a good idea. I personally am prepared to accept that. I just add one caveat. I need another 3 or 4 minutes to run the traps. I want to make it clear, I accept this. I accept this personally. I think it makes sense. But I have calls in to several of our colleagues as to whether or not, since they were part of this on our side, they will go with this. I am confident. I believe they will. But I just want to be absolutely clear, and I think we should proceed. But I see the Senator from West Virginia who wishes to speak. I think it is a great and significant commitment that he has made with regard to the nonpermissive piece of this. I think it makes sense.

Mr. BIDEN

Mr. BIDEN. I send an amendment to the desk.

Mr. BIDEN. Sure. I withhold.