Larry Craig

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, this is a pay-go style amendment that would be applied to all new mandatory spending. I would seek to debate that in the morning, and I ask unanimous consent that it be laid aside.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, is the pending business the Specter amendment?

Mr. CRAIG. The Senator from Iowa would debate that; is that the intent at this time? Would the Senator from Iowa mind if I introduced and laid aside an amendment at this moment? It would take me a half minute.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Iowa for yielding.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I be allowed to introduce an amendment without laying the Specter amendment aside. That amendment is at the desk.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I would like to announce for the public that a hearing has been scheduled before the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land Management of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. The hearing will take place on Wednesday April 14, 1999, at 2:00 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building in Washington, DC. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on S. 415, a bill to amend the Arizona Statehood and Enabling Act in order to protect the permanent trust funds of the State of Arizona from erosion due to inflation and modify the basis on which distributions are made from the funds, and S. 607, a bill to reauthorize and amend the National Geologic Mapping Act of 1992. Those who wish to submit written statements should write to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC 20510.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order, following the remarks of the Senator from Louisiana, Senator Landrieu.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Arkansas.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Thurmond.

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the senior Senator from New Mexico.

Mr. CRAIG. I yield 1 minute to the Senator from Georgia.

Mr. CRAIG. I reclaim my time and yield the remainder of it to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, while I opposed the concurrent resolution which was adopted this evening, I think it is very important that it be said, once again, that this resolution does in no way authorize the commitment of ground troops and that the President certainly--I think this Senator believes as many others do--needs to seek the counsel of the Congress if that day should become necessary, in at least the eyes of our Commander in Chief, that he consult fully with us on that issue.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I thank my colleague from Delaware for those remarks.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, March 24. I further ask unanimous consent that on Wednesday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of the proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, and the time for the two leaders be reserved, and the Senate then begin consideration of S. Con. Res. 20, the budget resolution.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration, en bloc, of the following bills reported by the Environment and Public Works Committee: Calendar No. 53, S. 67; Calendar No. 56, S. 437; Calendar No. 57, S. 453; Calendar No. 58, S. 460; Calendar No. 59, H.R. 92; Calendar No. 60, H.R. 158; Calendar No. 61, H.R. 233; and Calendar No. 62, H.R. 396. I further ask unanimous consent that the bills be considered read a third time and passed, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to any of these bills be printed at the appropriate place in the Record, with the above occurring en bloc.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Senate concurrent resolution 1 be discharged from the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 73, which was reported by the Foreign Relations Committee.

Mr. CRAIG. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution be printed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. CRAIG

Mr. CRAIG. Is also the Smith-Craig amendment to the Lott amendment in order, or is the appropriate order at this time the Lott-Hutchison amendment?

Mr. CRAIG. Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, I am here to join my colleague from Alaska and others who have spoken with great concern about the situation in Kosovo, and as it transpires, some of our feelings and concerns about what this country might do, and most importantly, what this country should not do. The Presiding Officer and I, on a weekly basis, engage ourselves in a telephone/radio conversation with a news program in Boise, ID. I was involved in that program yesterday morning, speaking about the atrocities in Kosovo, when I used the expression ``human hatred.'' This is not a difference in policy. This is not even a difference between Serbia and Kosovo in territory. This is a difference spelled out by 300 years of hatred, hatred that had boiled up out of differences of religious beliefs, and it is a hatred that has prevailed in the region so long and had cost so many lives that it is almost incalculable. Certainly in this American's mind it is. I have never known hatred of that kind. After that radio conversation was over, the emcee of that program asked if I would stay on the line and we visited privately. He reflected to me about how he and his wife had in their home an exchange student from Serbia. He said, ``You know, Senator Craig, you were absolutely right to use the term `hate.' '' He said, ``When we broached this subject with this young exchange student,'' I believe a junior in high school, he said, ``we were astounded by the hatred that rolled up out of this young man. Because he believed that the only solution to the problem in Kosovo was to kill the Kosovars or to simply run them out of the country, and that if his forefathers had done that, they would have a peaceful nation today, and the only solution for peace in greater Serbia was just that.'' That is exactly what Milosevic is doing as we speak. The term, for diplomatic reasons, is ``ethnic cleansing.'' It is quite simple, what it is. It is: Either get out of my way or I'll kill you; or get out of my country or I'll kill you, even though the country you are being asked to leave has been your country for 4, 5, 6, 10--20 generations before you. I think the current Presiding Officer and I would be hard put if somebody said: Idaho is not your home and you have to leave or we will kill you. That is what we are caught up in, those kinds of human dynamics. I must tell you, as an American I am drawn to the humanitarian arguments. It makes it very simple if you are drawn totally to those arguments to justify putting our men and women in uniform at risk. But I am not totally drawn to those arguments because, if I am, then what the President is proposing to do at this moment might be justifiable if he would follow certain procedures. It is those procedures I think we must talk this morning. It is those procedures the Senate will vote on, or about, within a few hours. We are talking about U.S. military activity over and on the soil of Serbia, an independent, autonomous nation. That nation is at war at this moment. It is a civil strife over the province of Kosovo, which would be like the State of Idaho within the United States of America. We would not call that a world interest, if Idahoans were fighting the rest of the United States for Idaho's independence. I think the country would react violently if Great Britain or NATO or Russia, for that matter, sided with Idahoans against the United States if we were attempting to break loose from the United States of America. Is that a reasonable parallel? Yes, I think it is, because that is the character of the political profile and the international structure in which we are about to engage ourselves. Kosovo is a place that most Americans could not find on a map, a place in which there is no direct American interest. I have defined its structure from a legal point of view, international point of view--a state sovereignty point of view. President Clinton has made it clear for some months that he will intervene there with an open-ended occupation force, perhaps preceded by airstrikes. That has been the context of the debate for the last good many months. Now we are associating ourselves with NATO as a partner of NATO. It appears that airstrikes may be imminent. He has made it clear that he does not think he needs congressional authorization for such a mission. Why? The treaty relationship; our presence in NATO. That is the argument that he makes. I will have to tell you, though, I think we should not make the mistake of simply arguing that is how you justify a certain approach of the kind that this President is taking. The U.S. airstrikes would be an attack on a sovereign nation. The administration has, in fact, admitted that. The State Department Under Secretary Thomas Pickering confirmed that Kosovo is sovereign territory of Serbia, and that attacking the Serbs because they will not consent to foreign occupation of a part of their territory would be an act of war. Again, hearkening back to the relationship: If Idaho were attempting to break away as an independent State from the United States, that would be called a civil war within the boundaries of the greater United States and this country would look with great concern if a foreign nation were attempting to involve themselves on the side of Idahoans. I have to think this administration's policy is inconsistent with constitutional government and the rule of law. Let us not forget the Constitution of the United States gives the sole power to declare war to the Congress, article I, section 8--not to the President, but to the Congress. Nothing in the laws or the Constitution of the United States suggests that a determination by the United Nations Security Council or the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is a substitute. The proposed mission in Kosovo is contrary to the principle of national sovereignty and is a major step toward global authority. Just last year we debated the expansion of NATO. I opposed that expansion. I opposed it for the simple reason it did not begin to disengage the United States from an ever-increasing, larger presence in the European Continent. Quite the opposite, it seemed to be expanding our presence. Russia, at that time, was quite concerned that they saw an international organization growing on their border. Now, they were appeased by us saying: Remember, by treaty NATO is a defensive organization. Only if the nations of NATO were attacked would NATO respond. Yet, today, NATO is proposing a major offensive effort against the nation of Serbia, a longstanding friend and once a part of the greater Soviet Union. It is not by accident that the armaments that we would go up against are largely Russian armaments. Now what are we to say to the Russians, ``What we said about NATO last year is not true; NATO has become an offensive force, driven by a certain set of politics or international attitudes as to how the rest of the world ought to look''? Can we justify an American national interest because this war might spread beyond the boundaries of Serbia? I am not sure we yet can do that. I am not sure this President has yet justified that or clearly explained to the American people, as he must, the role that the men and women of our armed services might play and the role that they would play in risking their lives. That is the issue at hand. So, what kind of a precedent are we going to set with this action? All actions establish precedents, especially if they appear to be outside established law or proven law. What country are we going to claim the right to attack next, if we determine that its behavior within its own boundaries, its own territory, is not up to some kind of international test or international standard? Should we attack Turkey to protect the Kurds, China to protect Tibet or Taiwan, India to protect the Muslims in Kashmir? It is reasonable for me to ask those questions on the floor, because today the President is contemplating participating in an attack on Serbia in behalf of the Kosovars. Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and now Kosovo, these missions are profoundly damaging to our legitimate defense needs. This is not just a question of money or stretching defense dollars too far, although that factor will be considered as we debate defense budgets in the near future. Worse, it is an insult to the personnel in our Armed Forces who volunteer to defend America, not to go off on every globalist, nation- building adventure that our President appears to be willing to send them to. No wonder America's best are frustrated by the ever increasing changes in the role of our Armed Forces. Putting American troops in a quagmire is something I know a little bit about. The Presiding Officer and I grew up in a period of American history where Americans were bogged in a quagmire in Southeast Asia, a quagmire that we finally simply had to drop our hands and walk away from, because we could no longer sustain it politically as a nation and we could no longer justify that another 1, 2, or 3 American lives should be lost, added to the list of over 60,000 young men and women of our age who lost their lives there. I am not suggesting that Kosovo is that kind of fight, but I am suggesting that any long-term effort in the greater Yugoslavia that dramatically increases the role of the American soldier could put us at that risk. Mr. President, I have asked some profound questions today and, I think, reasonable questions as to the role of this country in foreign policy and as to the role of the President as the Commander in Chief of our country. Today we are debating and today we will vote on the right of the Congress to express its will to work with the President in shaping foreign policy. I understand how the Constitution works. I understand that our President is the chief foreign policy officer of our country. But when his foreign policy is questioned in the way that it is now being questioned, I think he has the responsibility not only to argue it clearly before the American people but to be willing to argue it here on the floor of the Senate. Some of our leadership are at the White House as I speak, and they are listening to a President who is trying to convince them not to have the vote today here in the Senate. Quite the opposite should be happening. The President should be saying, let us debate this issue, let us vote this issue, and, more importantly, I will go to the American people and sell to them why America ought to be involved in Serbia or in Bosnia, that there are American interests there. He, the President, should lay them out, define them, clarify them and, therefore, justify the potential taking of American life that military adventure can always result in. That is the responsibility of the Presidency, not to simply negotiate with NATO as a treaty organization and then come home to America and say: But we have already debated this, we are already involved in this, we can't back up now or it would implode NATO. Maybe NATO ought to be imploded, if it is becoming an offensive organization. Maybe it ought to step back and say: Wait a moment, we are by treaty only defensive. We should not become adventurists for the sake of a greater international philosophy on how greater Europe ought to be operated. Having said all of that, let me close where I began. There are human atrocities. They are real, and they are horrible. We should engage ourselves in every way possible to help stop that kind of human atrocity, but then again, we didn't do that in Africa on many occasions, all just within the last 4 or 5 years. I am not sure why this is now so important when others were not. Is it because our allies have convinced us? By the way, if we fly aircraft over Serbia, 58 percent, or a very large portion, the majority, of those aircraft will be ours. Is it because we are the ones who have the power and our European allies have convinced us to use that power in their behalf to stabilize their backyard? I am not sure. I, like most Americans, am reasonably confused. I, like most Americans, have had to study to try to understand where Serbia is, where Kosovo is, what the politics of this region are. Those are the issues at hand. This is not a vote that should be taken lightly. This could be the beginning of a very lengthy process, a very costly process, costly in human lives, American lives, and certainly in tax dollars. Those are the issues at hand, Mr. President. Why should you shy from your responsibility as Commander in Chief of going to the American people to debate this and causing your people to come here to debate this, instead of in a close-door session at the White House, pleading with us not to take a vote on this issue? Nobody should be embarrassed by an up-or-down vote. Nobody should be embarrassed by this kind of debate. It is our responsibility as a country. We cannot walk away from it. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that time under the quorum call be equally divided.