John Chafee

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to discuss the Helms amendment that we have just returned to. What this amendment does is provide that no moneys appropriated under this act shall be used to implement or carry out the red wolf introduction program. Mr. President, the amendment goes on to say, ``and that the amount appropriated under this paragraph shall be reduced by $968,000.'' It is agreeable with the Senator from North Carolina that that last phrase I just stated--``and that the amount appropriated under this paragraph shall be reduced by $968,000''--can be stricken. Now, Mr. President, I presume that to have that amendment modified to that extent would have to come from the individual presenter of the amendment; am I correct?

Mr. CHAFEE. Well, the Senator from North Carolina might come back. If he does, I would prefer to have him do it. If he does not, at the conclusion of my remarks, I will ask unanimous consent to have that stricken. I will proceed pending the return of the Senator from North Carolina, if he chooses to come back. He and I discussed this, and there is no doubt of his position on this particular clause. Mr. President, a little review of the record. In 1967, which was 28 years ago, the red wolf was listed as endangered. By 1980, which was some 15 years ago, the red wolf was officially declared as extinct in the wild. It was gone, except in a few zoos. In 1987, the Fish and Wildlife Service reintroduced red wolves into the Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, which is in Dare County, NC. The red wolf population was determined to be what they call a ``nonessential experimental population.'' In other words, they released these pairs of wolves with the hope that they would come back and repropagate. Nonetheless, they are not a strictly experimental population. By calling them ``nonessential,'' it meant that if they trespass out of their areas and so forth, they could be shot by the local individuals in the area if they destroyed wildlife and so forth or farm animals. Now, a minimum of 40 to 50 red wolves are known to exist in the area now. In 1991, the Fish and Wildlife Service initiated a second reintroduction effort in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park. Part of it is in North Carolina and part of it is in Tennessee. In addition, there are some 200,000 acres of privately owned land that is part of the recovery program. I presume that the great bulk of that privately owned land is owned by timber companies, not by somebody with a plot of 2 to 5 acres, but instead hundreds, indeed, thousands of acres owned by the timber companies. A bill to allow private landowners to trap and kill red wolves on private lands in certain parts of North Carolina was passed by the State legislature and went into effect in January of this year. Recently, the Fish and Wildlife Service promulgated a special rule providing more flexible management to private landowners. In other words, this is treated somewhat differently than strictly an endangered species. There is no taking. You cannot shoot, you cannot trap them. Mr. President, I was interested to discover that there are two red wolves in a captive breeding program in Roger Williams Park Zoo in our capital city of Providence, RI. An effort is being made throughout the country to bring back this species that, indeed, was declared extinct in the wild, and considerable success has attended it. With this amendment by the distinguished senior Senator, my longtime seatmate--we sit side by side and have for some 12 or 14 years--would provide that no moneys appropriated under this act--that is the Endangered Species Act--or the Interior appropriations, could be used in connection to implement or carry out the red wolf reintroduction program. I think that is unfortunate, Mr. President. I know that the senior Senator from North Carolina has ticked off some occasions when red wolves have attacked livestock, but I think those are relatively rare situations. What I worry about, Mr. President, is that each of us can come in and tick off individually these species that have been reintroduced in our States, and we do not want that. We all know in the Senate there is what they call senatorial prerogatives--a privilege, a deference. Both Senators from North Carolina are Republicans. I presume that the traditional deference will be granted to them. It would not make any difference if they were both Democrats, or one Democrat and one Republican. Judicial deference will be granted by many, saying if that is what you want in your State, that is your business. I think there is another view to this, Mr. President. I think it is to the advantage of all of us as a nation, as members of this society, as Americans, to have these populations come back. If they get out of hand, if we have wolves roaming all over the place and killing livestock--sheep and cattle, ducks, chickens, whatever it might be-- there are ways of handling that. No question about it. I do not think they represent a threat. I think the country is better off if we have some red wolves in these great national forests or great national parks or wildlife refuges, whatever they might be. I might point out, Mr. President, that where these are taking place is in lands that belong to all of us. It is not just lands that belong to the folks in North Carolina or the folks in Tennessee. They belong to all of us. Mr. President, I am sorry that this amendment has been presented. I suspect there will be considerable support for it. I indicated to the Senator from North Carolina that I would not be voting for it. I wanted to point out to others my feelings on it, and those that chose not to vote for it, obviously, I would be grateful for that likewise. I think more than this particular case, Mr. President, yes, if we agree with red wolves, that is all right, the world will not come to a stop, but where do we go from here? What is next? What is after this? Then, I believe, going after a grizzly or another type of wolf, no matter what it is. These have been declared endangered species, and in some cases extinct species, as in the case of the red wolf. Again, I want to express my appreciation to the distinguished Senator from North Carolina for taking out the last part dealing with the specific sums. Now, why did he do that? He was gracious enough to do that because I pointed out to him that when he takes money from the recovery funds, it means that whole series of other animals and species and flora, there is less money for that recovery program. There is a long list of things seeking to be protected under the recovery moneys which are very, very limited. I think total it is $36 million in all. This would cut that by nearly $1 million. An hour or so ago on this floor we managed, with the help of the distinguished managers of the bill, to increase that part in the recovery program by about $1.5 million. We are cutting it by $1 million. I am thankful, and I want to express my appreciation to Senator Helms in that particular provision. Mr. President, I do not see the Senator here. I know it is with his approval that I ask unanimous consent that the final clause in the amendment of the Senator which follows the word ``program'' be eliminated. That is, the clause that says ``and that the amount appropriated under this paragraph shall be reduced by $960,000.''

Mr. CHAFEE. No question about that, otherwise I would not be doing it.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to take a few moments, if I might, to speak in favor of the committee amendment which would continue to allow the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program [FEHBP] to offer coverage for abortion services. If this committee amendment is rejected, we will be responsible for creating a lower standard of health insurance coverage for our female employees than they could otherwise obtain in the private sector. We are creating, if this amendment is rejected, a lower standard for our female dependents than they would receive if they worked in the private sector. This seems to me to be terribly unfair. In the United States, women have a constitutional right to choose an abortion. But that right is meaningless if women do not have access to abortions or cannot pay for the service. Many who are opposed to abortion rights know that. So they come up with ways to make it more and more difficult for women to obtain a safe, affordable abortion. Those attacking the coverage of abortion services, in my judgment, are engaging in that attempt. Some Federal employees might not want to participate in a plan that provides for abortion coverage, and that is their right. The amendment before us does not require plans to offer abortions. It simply allows plans to include that service. In fact, of the 345 plans that are now offered under the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program, out of 345, 178--about half--offer some form of abortion coverage. So an employee who is opposed to abortion, he or she can choose one of the other plans, choose out of the 167 that do not offer abortion services. There are approximately 1.2 million women of reproductive age who rely on the Federal Employee Health Benefits Program for their medical care; 1.2 million women. Who are these women? They are our colleagues here in the Senate and in the House of Representatives. They are here with us now on the Senate floor. They are our staff members, they are our daughters and our wives. Right now, all of those women or their families pay for a portion of their health insurance. As happens in the private sector, the employer, in this case the Federal Government, shares part of that cost. The employee pays part; the Federal Government pays part. This is not any gift from the Federal Government. What the employee is receiving is part of his or her compensation in the form of these health benefits. I disagree that this is Federal money being used to pay for abortions. The Federal health benefits are part of a Federal employee's earnings. If we follow the opponents' argument, it follows the Federal employee could not use his or her earnings from the Federal Government to pay to purchase an abortion, since that would be, if you follow the logic they are applying here, a Federal subsidy. Why could they not use their own money? Because the Federal Government pays their salary. Opponents to the committee amendment contend that women can simply use their own money to purchase abortion services. This is not an inexpensive procedure. The average cost of an early abortion is $250 if performed in a clinic. In many places there are no such clinics. There is travel and there is the need to go into a hospital, and this can cost as much as $1,760. I would also point out that one-quarter of all Federal employees earn less than $25,000, and nearly 18,000 Federal employees have incomes below or just slightly above the poverty level. So the cost for an abortion, for those women in particular, causes a definite hardship. For 10 years, those working women could not buy health insurance that included abortion coverage. At the same time, in the private sector two-thirds of the fee-for-service plans and 70 percent of the health maintenance organizations provided abortion coverage--and still do. Two years ago we were able to get equal treatment for our colleagues, our staff members and family members by overturning the ban on abortion coverage. Today we are being asked to return to a two-tiered, unfair system which would deny abortion coverage to Federal employees and their families, even if they are raped or are victims of incest. We are talking about a legal medical procedure, a right upheld by the Supreme Court on more than one occasion. It is time, in my judgment, we stop trying to find ways to get around this right by making the procedure shameful or inaccessible or too dangerous for a doctor to perform. I urge my colleagues to support the committee amendment and oppose the effort by Senator Nickles. I thank the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, despite the end of the cold war and collapse of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet Union, I think we can all agree that the United States still needs capable and effective military forces, and indeed that is why we are voting right now, very shortly, on a $264 billion appropriation, or authorization, for the U.S. military services. I do not think anybody in this body will argue that the United States will always be a maritime nation. Indeed, Mr. President, 95 percent of our export/import tonnage is carried by ship. That is an astonishing figure to me. Yes, 5 percent is carried over land to Canada and Mexico, or by air; but 95 percent is carried by ship. During the time I spent in the Navy Department, I learned that submarines are a relatively inexpensive way for a potential adversary to disrupt international commerce. Far too often, the press reports that the Navy does not really need the Seawolf. We are told that it is a ship solely designed to confront the Soviet Navy on the open ocean. This allegation is simply not true. I would like to refute it. The fact of the matter is that the third Seawolf has a valid military mission and will be instrumental in enabling the Navy to fulfill its national security obligations around the world. Now, yes, the Soviet Union is gone, and its military forces inherited by Russia are undergoing substantial downsizing. There is no question about that. It is also very clear that the Russian Navy--in particular, its submarine force--has not been scaled back in the manner other components of the Russian military service have been. For example, it is estimated that by the year 2000, which is only 5 years from now, Russia will have about 122 submarines in its fleet, more than half of which will be advanced third-generation vessels. Already today, Russia has several operational submarines that are quieter than the quietest United States submarine at sea. Russia's latest submarine will be operational by the year 2000--the one under design now--and is expected to rival the capabilities of our best attack submarines. To illustrate these advances, I would like to insert in the Record a February 12 article from Defense News documenting recent Russian undersea efforts. I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE. He goes first under the request?

Mr. CHAFEE. I hope I have helped to dispel the myth that the submarine is a relic of the cold war and we no longer need submarines. To the contrary, the Seawolf is a very relevant military platform to face the threat of the post-Soviet world. For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing the McCain amendment. I thank the Chair and thank the Senator from Maine.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I am deeply concerned over this bill's provision affecting the ABM Treaty, and I would like to discuss my support for the Levin amendment. Let me give a little bit of history. The ABM Treaty was agreed to 20 years ago. What does it do? We hear a lot about the ABM Treaty, but what does it do? What is the key part of it? The thrust of it was to prevent the United States or the Soviet Union from gaining the ability to unilaterally --that is one side alone--to launch a ballistic missile attack against the other without the possibility of retribution. In other words, the whole purpose of the treaty was to prevent either side from employing a defensive system to shoot down incoming missiles, because that would, in effect, encourage one side to launch an attack knowing that they would be protected from any retaliation. Since that time, the geopolitical situation in the world has changed. The Soviet Union no longer exists and the Warsaw Pact has collapsed. There has also been rapid technological advances that could not have been predicted at the time that the ABM Treaty was signed. Given these dramatic changes, I certainly understand the interest to take a look at this ABM Treaty. It has been 20 years. It is appropriate to have modifications and to look at it again. But, the point I want to make is, the changes to this treaty, or any other treaty, for that matter, must be negotiated by the President of the United States, in consultation with his military and diplomatic advisers and, obviously, with confirmation by the Senate. Such changes should not be dictated by the legislature, either the House or the Senate. Let us look at what S. 1026 does in regard to the ABM Treaty. This is what it says: It is the policy of the United States to deploy a multiple- site national missile defense system. The ABM Treaty says each nation can only have one ABM site, one site in each nation. This says ``No, no, we are changing that policy.'' It is the policy of the United States to deploy a multiple- site national missile defense system. That policy is clearly in violation of the ABM Treaty. We are going to hear arguments back and forth, does that mandate that there be multiple sites? It can be argued both ways, and it obviously is an arguable point. But there is no question but we are declaring that it is the policy of the United States to have multiple sites. Whether that is a mandate or not, I do not know, but certainly I do not want any part of it. We have gotten along with the ABM Treaty for 20 years. If we want changes, let us negotiate them. Let us not have them emerge from this Senate dictating in a way or declaring it is a policy to have these multiple sites. What else does the bill we are debating today do? It prohibits ``any missile defense or air defense system or system upgrade or system component that has not been flight tested in a unilateral,'' and here we go ahead and define what is an ABM qualifying flight test. Next, it goes on--here is an important point, Mr. President--it states the sense of Congress that: . . . the President should cease all efforts to modify, clarify, or otherwise alter U.S. obligations under the ABM Treaty pending the outcome of a Senate review. Look, who is in charge around here? Is it the Senate of the United States, or is it the President under his constitutional powers? We say, no, he cannot do anything until we have a Senate review of the treaty. How long is that going to last? It could last 3 years; it could last 10 years. During all of that time, the President's hands would be tied. I really do not think that is what we want. The provisions of this bill constitute an unwarranted usurpation of Presidential authority to conduct foreign policy on the most sensitive of national security matters. Mr. President, Congress simply should not be in the business of dictating to the President how to interpret, how to implement, or how to renegotiate a binding treaty of the United States. As a Republican Senator, I would never impose those kinds of conditions on a Republican President, and as a Republican Senator, I do not suggest that they should be imposed on a Democratic President. Secretary of Defense William Perry has warned that these provisions would jeopardize Russian implementation of the Reagan and the Bush--who are they? Republican Presidents--Reagan-Bush negotiated START I and START II Treaties. These treaties involve the destruction of thousands of nuclear warheads. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Shalikashvili has similarly cautioned that the bill's ABM provisions should [[Page S 11270]] probably impact our broadened security relationship with Russia. I do not argue with the premise that the United States ought to pursue missile defense technologies in order to deter potential aggressors who have made substantial progress in this field. Yes, we ought to do some work in that area. I also do not oppose appropriate modifications of the 20-year-old ABM Treaty that are negotiated by the President. But this bill simply goes too far. Congress must not legislate such specific modifications to the treaty. So, Mr. President, I am in support of the Levin amendment and urge my colleagues to support it. So I want to thank the Chair and thank the Senator from Michigan. Mr. THURMOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE. Thankfully, today Russia is not a major adversary, and I am hopeful that this administration and future ones will indeed strengthen U.S.-Russian relations. We are all for that. However, in these uncertain times, unforeseen political instability or a rise in anti-West nationalism could result in Russia becoming a genuine undersea threat in the future. That is a big nation. Perhaps more importantly to the United States in the near term is Russia's sale of its very capable submarines to potential United States adversaries abroad, a move that poses a very serious challenge to our Navy. There are many nations that recognize the cost effectiveness of submarines, even relatively unsophisticated ones: diesel power, for example. Listen to this statistic, Mr. President. According to the Office of Naval Intelligence, more than 600 submarines are operational in the navies of 44 countries. That is an astonishing statistic. Mr. President, 44 nations have submarines. I must say, I have difficulty adding up what the 44 are. Iran recently purchased two Kilo-class submarines from Russia. These vessels are operational today. Who would ever have thought Iran would have submarines? A third Kilo submarine is scheduled for delivery from Russia to Iran this year. In addition, China--that great inland land-based power--intends to buy as many as 22 diesel-powered submarines from Russia over the next 5 years in its quest to enhance its military capability in the South China Sea. What about North Korea? Who ever thought of North Korea as a great military power? Who would have thought it is an undersea threat? Yet it possesses, if you can believe it, the world's fourth largest submarine force and could use these submarines in a variety of belligerent coastal missions. Yes, the cold war is over and we are grateful for that. However, I think we ought to recognize that the world is still a dangerous place. That is why we have this massive defense bill before us. Undersea threats remain a fact of life that we ask our military forces to address. I am convinced that completion of the Seawolf program with its third Seawolf will give the United States the ability to respond to these still potent undersea threats. Contrary to what we sometimes hear in the press, the Seawolf's capabilities are more than the ability to engage the former Soviet Union in open ocean conflict. The Seawolf would be used to strike both land and sea targets with its cruise missiles, making it a versatile platform against any potential adversary. It will allow the Navy to covertly and quickly exert special operation forces. The Seawolf will be given a wide variety of missions in our Navy of the future. As the director of submarine plans, Adm. Dennis Jones, said recently, ``We must fundamentally change the way we will fight in the future.'' Included among the undersea missions is a demonstration over the next year to assess how a submerged submarine can control an unmanned aerial vehicle. This new mission and others are described in a June 12 article from the Defense News that I ask be printed in the Record, Mr. President.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, this bill includes an amendment to the Clean Water Act based on a 5-year effort by the Navy to develop environmental standards that would apply to the non-sewage discharges from its ships. The Navy has a goal of building and operating environmentally sound ships and this amendment to the Clean Water Act will help them reach that goal. The Clean Water Act amendment in his bill was developed by the Navy and sent to the Senate by the administration in early June. In addition to consideration by the Armed Services Committee, this proposal was also reviewed by the Committee on Environment and Public Works which has jurisdiction over the Clean Water Act. As chairman of that committee, I sought comment on this administration proposal from members of the committee, the coastal States, the Coast Guard, EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and from other organizations with an interest in coastal pollution problems. There was general support for this approach. It is seen as a net environmental improvement, because it provides for treatment of discharges from vessels that are not controlled today. Some concerns were expressed by the States. They wanted to be consulted before the rules are issued. They wanted to be sure that treatment systems used to control these discharges are the most effective, consistent with the mission of the Navy. And they wanted assurance that current environmental requirements like section 311 dealing with oil spills would not be overridden. The Environment and Public Works Committee developed a set of amendments to the administration proposal to address those concerns. The committee then reported an original bill, S. 1033, on July 13. The amendment that Senator Warner and I are offering to the DOD authorization bill today is the text of the bill reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee. The committee also filed a report on S. 1033 which explains the provisions of our amendment and is to be looked to for legislative history on this amendment. We have agreed to move this amendment to the Clean Water Act on the DOD authorization bill to facilitate the Navy's efforts to develop environmentally sound ships. The Navy has taken the lead in this area and they should be rewarded for their initiative with speedy enactment of this proposal. With that said, let me address the substance of this amendment for a moment. Even though vessels are considered point sources of pollution under the Clean Water Act, EPA regulations have exempted many discharges from the permit requirements of the act. Currently, sewage discharges are regulated under section 312 of the Clean Water Act. It requires that each vessel be equipped with a marine sanitation device to treat sewage before it is discharged. But many of the other wastewaters like graywater from showers and sinks, bilge water from the hold of the ship, wastewater from the boiler or water from cleaning the deck or equipment are not regulated under the Clean Water Act. Some coastal States have taken an interest in these discharges, but there is no comprehensive Federal program. The amendment we are offering requires the Secretary of Defense and the Administrator of EPA to act jointly to [[Page S 11308]] identify the non-sewage discharges from ships that need attention. For each discharge that has a significant adverse impact, EPA and DOD would identify an appropriation pollution control technology or management practice to reduce the pollution. These standards would only apply to ships of the Armed Forces and the Coast Guard. Once the Federal regulations are in place, the States would be preempted. A State could not impose its own, inconsistent, regulations. But if a State identified a particularly sensitive coastal or marine area, it could establish a so-called ``no-discharge zone'' where all discharges of a particular type would be banned. Mr. President, the Navy is to be congratulated for this effort. It will improve water quality in our estuaries and ocean waters. I am pleased that the Senate has moved this legislation quickly to assist the Navy in its efforts.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I cannot hear very well. Is the Senator using his microphone?

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to pay tribute to the Rough and Ready Engine Co., No. 5 of Warren, RI on the occasion of its 50th annual clambake, which will occur on August 6, 1995. Declared ``Rough and Ready Clambake Day'' by the Warren Town Council, this day commemorates both the professional and charitable work of the Roughs, as they have been fondly nicknamed by the town. Part of the fire company's charter ``* * * To assist in the extinguishing of fires, the protection of life and property and to enhance the general welfare of the community * * *'' is also the Roughs' motto. The Rough and Ready Clambake commemorates 50 years of charitable work with the State of Rhode Island. In 1994 and 1995, over 10 organizations and charitable institutions within the community have benefited from donations totaling over $3,000. The Roughs have sponsored a Little League baseball team and a youth soccer team. Three residents of Warren were given the opportunity to attend Camp Stonetower, a camp for children with mental disabilities. During the Christmas season, the Roughs annually prepare dinner baskets for distribution through local churches to those in need within the community. I ask my colleagues in the Senate to join with me and all Rhode Islanders in commending the members of the Rough and Ready Engine Co., No. 5 for their many acts of generosity and good will within their community, and in wishing them continued health and prosperity.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, a week ago last Tuesday, July 18, the Washington Post had a very exciting article about the return of the peregrine falcons to the Washington area and the birth of a male peregrine falcon baby chick at 75 feet high on a window ledge of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Northeast Washington. This is exciting news for those of us interested in the Endangered Species Act and the return of some of these species that have been so endangered in our society. As a matter of fact, one of the things that led to the near demise of the peregrine falcon was the use of DDT and other pesticides which have now been banned. Because of the prevalence of those pesticides, particularly DDT, there were only 100 known pairs of peregrine falcons left east of the Mississippi, but they are making their comeback. I wish to pay tribute not only to the Endangered Species Act, not only to our action in banning DDT, but the work of other areas such as the World Center for Birds of Prey which is located in Boise, ID, where raptors such as the peregrine falcon are brought together and the breeding takes place, and then they are put out in various parts of our country to live in the natural environment. So this is exciting news. There are plenty of people who trash the Endangered Species Act, but I think it is important to bring to the attention of the public where that act has been successful as in this instance of the return of the peregrine falcon. I thank the Chair. I thank my friend from Missouri for permitting me to go ahead. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an article from the Washington Post entitled ``And Baby Falcon Makes Three'' be printed in the Record.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask that I might proceed for 2 minutes as in morning business.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I would like to ask the leader one quick question. They are going to dedicate the war memorial at 3 o'clock. What is the leader's plans for that?

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, like many others, I had the privilege this afternoon to go down to the mall for the dedication of the Korean War Memorial, and it was an extremely impressive ceremony. I urge any who might have the opportunity to visit that memorial to seize upon that opportunity. There are a series of figures, 19 in all, I believe, in a very haunting memory of what took place in Korea. Each of the figures has a poncho, while they are soldiers, marines advancing in a loose formation, and I think the way the figures are designed it gives an impression of the climate of Korea, the arduousness of the climate. It brings back memories of the very coldness that was in Korea in the winter, and in the summer the extreme heat that took place there. It was my privilege to serve in Korea in the summer of 1951, the fall of 1951, the winter of 1951 and 1952, and during that time I had the opportunity to serve as a rifle company commander in the Marines in D Company of the 7th Regiment of the 1st Marine Division. We were defending the steep hills in the eastern section of Korea. What are some of the memories that I have of those days? First, Mr. President, what comes to memory is the extreme competence of the young marines with whom I was serving. I guess I was old compared to them; I was 27 at the time, and these young enlisted men, most of them were 19 or 20 years old. But what struck me was not only their ability to endure extreme hardships, whether the hardships of the march or the hardships coming with the dangers that were involved, or the hardships of the coldness and the heat that I just described, but also the competence that they displayed. When you said to a young group of six Marines, the oldest being 20 years old, that they were to take a patrol down in front of our lines, go deep down, cross the river, go up on the other side and scout out the enemy territory, they listened carefully, and absorbed their instructions to carry them out without a phrase of objection or reticence or fear. And all of that reflected I think not only on their background but the wonderful training they had received from the Marine Corps and the competence that each of them had. As we dedicated that memorial today, one asked oneself: What is being achieved here? It seems to me we all have to remember that those who died were young and they had no wives; they had no children; they had nobody to remember them. And so we look on the memorial as a way of remembering those who did not have the benefit of their own families to remember them. So we are all their families. That is the way we recall those who served there. I think one of the points that came from the talks today struck home with me, both from President Kim of Korea and President Clinton. They stressed that what took place in Korea was that for the first time in the postwar years the surge of communism was stopped and a line was drawn. The President of Korea said that this was the start of the falling of the Berlin Wall. Sure, that came many years after, but this was what started it all. So it made it all seem very, very worthwhile. So, Mr. President, I urge all who do have an opportunity to avail themselves of the opportunity to visit that memorial. There is an eeriness to it, but I think that is correct. I think it will bring back for those who have been to Korea many memories, and for those who have not, it will bring to their attention the fact that more people lost their lives in Korea in those short 3 years, than did in the entire Vietnam war, which lasted some 10 years. And I think it is so fitting that at last we do have a memorial for that war. Mr. REID addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE. Well, Mr. President, I did not start this. I did not start this this afternoon, for this particular reason. But I do want to thank the distinguished Senator from Michigan for his very, very kind comments. And I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. President. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I want to thank the distinguished Senator from Nevada for his very generous comments. I appreciate those. I would say that it was very nice of Jim Brady to say the things he did about me in his book. But, as in all circumstances, there are plenty there who did a lot more than I did. So, again, I thank my good friend from Nevada, whom we are very privileged to have on the Environment and Public Works Committee. It is an interesting book. It does portray, I think, so well the harshness of the climate, which the Senator from Nevada just talked about. And that was brought home in statues that are there of these figures. These figures are not marching smartly forward. They are covered with their ponchos. They are trudging with their heads down. I was there today looking at it. And if there is one thing I must have said 1,000 times-- when you have these units, you say to them constantly, ``Don't bunch up. Don't bunch up.'' There is something about marines when they are marching. They want to get together. And of course, that increases the chances of more people being injured when mortars and artillery come along. So you try to keep them spread out. And I could see myself saying to these groups, ``Don't bunch up.'' I will say this, the figures were apart. But I could just hear myself saying, ``Spread out. Spread out.'' So they are fairly [[Page S 10795]] well spread out. It is a very moving memorial. Again, I urge everybody to go down and take a look at it when they can. I thank Senator Reid for his kind comments. Mr. LEVIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask that I might proceed as if in morning business for the next 10 minutes.

Mr. CHAFEE

Mr. CHAFEE. The Senator from Maine was here before I was.

Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, I wonder if I could get in line.

Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, in previous debates over major foreign policy matters, I have been reluctant to challenge the President through the legislative process, whether the President was a Republican or a Democrat. It is that there is always danger in the Congress, the Senate in particular, or either branch, actually, in legislating foreign policy, especially the details of foreign policy. I came to this debate with a great deal of skepticism about the Dole- Lieberman proposal, to lift unilaterally the arms embargo in Bosnia. My voting record in the past on this issue reflects the skepticism that I have. Like all Americans who have witnessed the events in Bosnia in the past weeks, I am outraged by the continued brutal campaign carried out by the Bosnian Serbs against the people of Bosnia. What has taken place--there have been scores of atrocities, execution, ethnic cleansing, and the kidnapping of soldier-age men on trumped-up charges--these are all undisputed facts that have been brought home by very courageous journalists in the Balkans. Through all of this, the Serbs have scorned the views of the United Nations and have shelled safe area after safe area. The question the Senate faces today and tomorrow is, How does the United States respond to these horrors? What can we and our allies do to end the war and the suffering, and to restore legitimate authority to the sovereign Government of Bosnia and secure a lasting peace in the Balkans? Needless to say, these goals have been elusive since the war began 3 years ago. Previously, I have been supportive of the U.N. policy, which has been endorsed by the Clinton and the Bush administrations and our allies. The policy is to try to protect Bosnian Moslems from Serb aggression through the establishment of six ``safe havens'' in Bosnia, which are towns and cities in which the civilian population and humanitarian aid deliveries would be defended by the U.N. protection force, UNPROFOR. With the United Nations maintaining at least a modicum of stability in Bosnia, negotiations could take place in search of a lasting political settlement to some very serious and longstanding disagreements. I have been opposed to U.S. unilateral lifting of the arms embargo in the former Yugoslavia, a move that would undoubtedly and understandably result in a serious rift with our allies by endangering the lives of their participating troops in UNPROFOR. I have come to the regretful conclusion that the U.N. mission in Bosnia has failed. I do not think we ought to pin much hope on it for the future. After 3 years of very-well-intentioned and courageous attempts to halt the bloodshed in the former Yugoslavia, we cannot ignore the facts. First, the six [[Page S 10640]] U.N. safe areas are anything but safe. Srebrenica has already fallen to Serb forces. Zepa is on the verge of falling. The other four, especially the northwest enclave of Bihac, are subject to heavy shelling from the Serbs. The United Nations mission of protecting the Bosnians is further discredited by additional atrocities such as ethnic cleansing on the part of the Serbs. UNPROFOR is having a hard enough time protecting itself, never mind the long-suffering Bosnians. Finally, the U.N.'s failure is illustrated by the chronic Serb attacks on humanitarian aid deliveries since the inception of the U.N. mission. While I am encouraged by the allied declaration recently in London last week to reinforce the U.N. contingent in Bosnia, I have great doubts this will prove to be a successful, long-term solution. Indeed, it appears unclear whether any safe area other than Gorazde will be defended. We have heard a number of different accounts as to whether NATO forces must still obtain U.N. permission before retaliating in response to continued Serb attacks. It has also become clear that earnest, well-intentioned diplomatic efforts have failed in the Balkans. These efforts, largely through the contact group--what is the contact group? The contact group is composed of the United States, Britain, France, Germany, and Russia--these efforts have simply not produced an agreement all sides could accept. The most recent contact group peace proposal in which the Serbs would be given 49 percent of Bosnian territory was accepted by the Bosnia Government but rejected by the Bosnian Serbs. Given their overwhelming military advantage, the Serbs have shown little willingness to agree to any diplomatic solution that falls short of their goal of creating a greater Serbia out of the internationally recognized sovereign nation of Bosnia. So strong is the evidence pointing to the failure of the U.N. mission and diplomatic efforts in Bosnia, that despite my stated inclination not to legislate foreign policy, I believe that Congress ought to step in and require the Clinton administration to move in a different direction. After much reflection, I am convinced that the only logical choice we have in Bosnia is to give the Bonsians what they currently lack and what they desperately seek: the ability to defend themselves through lifting the U.N. arms embargo. There is no doubt that this embargo, imposed in 1991, even before the establishment of the nation of Bosnia, has overwhelmingly worked to the benefits of the Bosnian Serbs, who inherited massive amounts of arms and equipment from the former Yugoslav army. In fact, the Bosnian government army is more than double the size of the Serb army, but has fared poorly in trying to defend its nation, largely due to the embargo-caused lack of equipment. I have serious concerns that the infusion of heavy military equipment into Bosnia could cause the war in the Balkans to spread. That is a possibility. But I am at the same time convinced that an equitably equipped Bosnian military would halt the Serb advances and eventually force the Bosnian Serbs to the negotiating table. It is, after all, the goal of the world community to see a settlement to the Balkan War agreed to at the negotiating table. Whether a Bosnian military success will take 1 week or 1 year, no one can say for sure. We certainly cannot take such a military escalation lightly. But, in the end, I have concluded that unless we are willing to settle for continued frustration over failed U.N. peacekeeping and diplomatic efforts in Bosnia, we simply must give the Bosnians the opportunity to defend themselves against unending Serb aggression. My support for lifting the arms embargo only comes with the very significant modification made to the Dole-Lieberman bill. The proposal now only provides for lifting the embargo after the U.N. has left, or 12 weeks after a Bosnian request that they leave. This change should mollify those of us who were concerned that last year's proposal was understandably opposed by our allies, whose troops constitute the bulk of the U.N. Protection Force, Mr. President, I do not take this vote lightly, not do I believe that a military solution has to be the best course of action for Bosnia. However, 3 years have passed since the U.N. arms embargo was imposed on the former Yugoslavia, and the situation there is as bad as it ever has been. The unending bloodshed, suffering and horrors inflicted on the Bosnian people call out for a change in course. I believe it is time for the United States to lift the arms embargo.

Mr. CHAFEE. I yield.

Mr. CHAFEE. Madam President, did we get a firm commitment that the Senator from Delaware will be in his usual crisp style?