Tom Daschle

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I urge Democratic Senators to come to the floor. We have a whole series of amendments that ought to be debated. This is prime time and a very important opportunity. I hope we will not let it go to waste. There are Senators who have expressed their interest in amending this bill, and they ought to come to the floor to offer these amendments. I urge Cloakrooms to encourage Senators to come to the floor at their earliest convenience. Mr. FEINGOLD addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, in March I introduced a bill to address a serious problem brought to my attention by the retirees of the John Morrell meatpacking plant in Sioux Falls. Unfortunately, the situation has deteriorated in recent months and I feel that a new bill is needed to address the issues raised by this incident and to protect future retirees from being placed in a similar predicament. Last January more than 3,000 retirees of the Morrell Co. in Sioux Falls and around the country found out that their health benefits were being terminated by their former employer. With just a week's notice, these retirees, many of whom had accepted lower pensions in return for the promise of lifetime health benefits, were suddenly faced with the prospect of losing the benefits that they had assumed would be available for them and their spouses during their retirement years. The bill I introduced in March would have required employers to continue to provide retiree health benefits while a cancellation of coverage was being challenged in court. However, the Supreme Court recently refused to hear the Morrell case, leaving this group no possibility of a judicial remedy for their problems. Meanwhile, thousands of retirees and their families are left stranded without health coverage. I am introducing a bill today to allow early retirees and their dependents who lost their health benefits to purchase continuing group insurance coverage until they become eligible for Medicare. This would not prohibit employers from modifying their retiree health plans to implement cost-savings measures, such as utilization review or managed care. But it would protect retirees from suddenly losing their employer-sponsored health benefits. This legislation simply extends COBRA coverage to early retirees and their dependents whose employer-sponsored health care benefits are terminated or substantially reduced. There would be no direct cost to the employer. COBRA currently requires employers to offer temporary continuing health coverage for employees who leave their jobs. The employee is responsible for the entire cost of the premium, but is allowed to remain in the group policy, thus benefiting from lower group rates. This legislation would extend the COBRA law to cover early retirees and their families, until they are eligible for Medicare. This bill would help secure health coverage for the most vulnerable retirees, at no cost to the Federal Government. It simply allows those workers who may not be able to purchase coverage elsewhere to take advantage of their former employer's lower group insurance rate. These retirees deserve this kind of health security. Workers often give up larger pensions and other benefits in exchange for health benefits. It never occurs to these employees that their benefits could be taken away, with no increase in their pensions or other benefits to compensate for the loss. Early retirees have often been with the same company for decades, perhaps all of their adult lives. They rightfully believe that a company they help build will reward their loyalty, honesty and hard work. When these hard-working people abruptly lose their health coverage, they suddenly have to worry that high medical costs will impoverish them or force them to rely on their children or the Government for financial help. Each day without insurance they live in fear of illness and injury. In this particular case, Morrell retirees received a simple, yet unexpected, letter stating their health insurance plan was being terminated, effective midnight, January 31, 1995--only a week later. The benefits being terminated, the letter said, included all hospital, major medical and prescription drug coverage, Medicare supplemental insurance, vision care, and life insurance coverage. For those retirees under 65, this action poses a particular problem. While Morrell did give them the option of paying for their own coverage for up to 1 year, for many that is simply not enough time. For example, if a retiree leaves the company at age 59, he or she will not be eligible for Medicare for 6 years; the original offer from the company could have left him or her without coverage for 5 years. This bill will help many Morrell retirees; but there are thousands of other workers who could also benefit from this legislation. A 1994 Foster-Higgins report found that two-thirds of American companies surveyed had plans to reduce retiree health benefits or to shift more costs to retirees in the coming years, and 2 percent said that they were actually eliminating benefits altogether. The presence of preexisting conditions can make it impossible for elderly Americans to purchase health insurance; insurers may refuse to enroll people who they expect to be heavy users or they may price the policies so that they are simply unaffordable. Consequently, early retirees with medical conditions, such as heart disease and diabetes, need to be continuously covered until they become eligible for Medicare. This bill is not a cure, but it is a step in the right direction. It will help secure coverage for early retirees who cannot afford to buy an individual insurance policy. Under this legislation, Morrell retirees could be paying a premium of $500 a month per couple. While this is a lot of money for retirees on limited incomes, it is substantially less than if they purchased coverage on their own. And, of course, many are currently unable to purchase insurance at any price. As I have said repeatedly, the long-run solution is comprehensive health reform that guarantees every American citizen--and every American employer--access to affordable health care. I have fought over the years for comprehensive health reform and was deeply disappointed when the 103d Congress was unable to pass legislation addressing some of our health care system's most serious problems. If we had passed health reform, the Morrell retirees I have spoken about today would not face this loss of their health benefits. Clearly, the problems we talked about in last year's health reform debate did not solve themselves when the session ended. But some of these problems, like the one the Morrell retirees face, cannot wait for the long-run. I hope we can pass this measure expeditiously, to help alleviate the harshest aspects of the injustice created by the Morrell Co. decision to eliminate retiree health coverage, and so that others are helped as they face the problem Morrell retirees are grappling with today. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I would subscribe to what the majority leader indicated. None of the legislation contemplated for completion except perhaps welfare reform--we will have to see where we are on that, but I think by and large the legislation pending is all legislation that I am hopeful we can work through. I am not as optimistic about the degree to which we can work through these very significant amendments on DOD unless we have some understanding as to what the timeframe may be and whether or not some of these amendments could be offered as amendments to defense appropriations, but there are very serious questions here that have to be addressed. And I think Members ought to expect long days and a Saturday session in order for us to accomplish all that the leader has set out for us to accomplish in the next week and a half.

Mr. DASCHLE

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

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, 30 years ago today the Senate passed the law creating Medicare. Two days later--on July 30, 1965--President Lyndon Johnson signed that bill into law. In doing so he made a quantum leap toward fulfilling the goal--first championed by President Truman--to end the scandal of poverty and poor health among older Americans. [[Page S 10909]] He also changed dramatically what it means to grow old in America, and to watch our parents grow old. Medicare helps seniors replace dependence with dignity, uncertainty with stability, and destitution with financial security. Over the last three decades--despite the turmoil of wars and recessions and even a crisis in our health care system--Medicare has survived to become one of the most popular--and successful--programs in our Nation's history. Ask America's families. They will tell you. Medicare is not some Great Society extravagance. It is the cornerstone of financial security and independence of older Americans and their families. Indeed, when you ask people what Medicare should look like in the 21st century, most Americans say we should make only minor changes in the program--or no changes at all. The American people want us to preserve Medicare and strengthen it, not weaken it. They want us to honor the commitment we made 30 years ago to seniors and their families, not abandon it. The Route to Passage of Medicare Passage of the Medicare bill did not come easily or quickly. It took 20 years. Twenty years from the time Harry Truman began the campaign for a national plan to provide affordable health care for all Americans. Although big-money special interests and their allies in Congress were able to block President Truman's plan by claiming falsely that it would mean ``socialized medicine,'' Democrats did not give up. Instead, we refocused our efforts on the area of greatest need: health security for America's seniors. In 1960, the Medicare concept gained an important supporter when then-Senator John Kennedy sponsored a Social Security approach to health care for the elderly. Again, Republicans invoked the fear of social welfarism. These criticisms only strengthened Kennedy's resolve. As a presidential candidate, he was even more determined to make Medicare a reality. Three times Kennedy requested passage of Medicare, and three times it was opposed in large measure by Republicans and defeated. In the short-run, President Kennedy's efforts failed. But they laid important groundwork for the final, successful push for Medicare's passage. After President Kennedy's death, President Johnson took up the fight. Though criticism of Medicare continued--some of it from Members who today serve in this chamber--President Johnson was undeterred. Congress finally passed the measure, and the bill was signed into law 30 years ago this Sunday. Republican Budget It is a strange and sad irony that the Republican majority chose the year of Medicare's 30th anniversary to unveil a budget that threatens to severely weaken the program. Thirty years after its passage, we are fighting to preserve the one program that, more than any other, older Americans and their families count on for economic security. It was only a year ago that Republicans and Democrats alike spoke in this Chamber of the need to ensure health security for all Americans. Today, Republicans are rushing headlong in the opposite direction. Instead of extending coverage to all Americans, they are preparing to increase dramatically health costs for older Americans. In their drive to gain control of this Congress, Republicans assured us that any dollars they cut from Medicare would be plowed back into the program to strengthen and improve it. They promised to balance the budget, cut taxes, leave Social Security and defense spending untouched, and do no harm to Medicare. Many seniors hung their hats on this promise and gave the new majority the benefit of the doubt. Now we know the truth. We have seen draft Republican plans for Medicare. And we know that their promises to protect the program were hollow. What a way to say ``Happy Anniversary'' to Medicare and the people who support this program. Faces of Medicare Beneficiaries There are many in this Chamber who would like to reduce the Medicare debate to numbers on a ledger. But this debate is about more than debits and credits. It is about people, and the promises we have made to them. Today's Medicare beneficiaries lived through the Great Depression and the Second World War. They established homes and built families. They always looked to the future instead of dwelling on the hardships of the past. Most are now retired and live on modest Social Security benefits, pensions, and savings. And most depend on Medicare as their primary source of health coverage. They do not live lives of leisure and luxury. Three-quarters of Medicare beneficiaries have incomes below $25,000 per year. Fewer than 5 percent have incomes over $50,000. And each year, health care costs chew up a growing percentage of their incomes. The average senior today spends over 20 percent of his or her income on health care--even with Medicare coverage. For many seniors, the prospect of living without Medicare is unimaginable. What should they give up to pay their doctors bills? What would those who want to cut Medicare have older Americans do without? Food? Heat in the winter? Electricity? Should they not go to the doctor when they are sick? Should they not take the medicine they need? Our Republican colleagues say their Medicare cuts will not hurt anyone. That is not true. Cutting Medicare by $270 billion--which is what Republicans are proposing--will cost seniors nearly $900 per year in additional out-of- pocket expenses--$900 a year from seniors living on fixed incomes so that we can give more tax breaks to the rich. Republicans will claim differently, that a more efficient program will absorb the cuts. But their numbers simply do not add up. They call it reform. I call it what it is: an insurance hike. Money to pay for higher premiums will not materialize out of thin air. It will come out of Social Security checks. Or, it will come out of the savings seniors worked so hard for--savings they are counting on to last the remainder of their lives. This is the human side of the Medicare debate. It is a side of the discussion that makes some of us feel uncomfortable, and rightfully so. But it is a side we must recognize and address. We owe it to our Nation's seniors. Conclusion It is true that everyone must sacrifice if we are to balance our budget. No one knows about change and sacrifice more than older Americans. They did what was necessary to make the blessings of that freedom available for us today. All they are asking in return from us now is that we keep our promise to them. When President Johnson signed the Medicare legislation 30 years ago in Independence MO, standing next to him was President Truman, the man who had 20 years earlier staked so much of his own Presidency on health security for all Americans. After the bill had been signed, President Truman turned to President Johnson and said, ``You have made me a very, very happy man.'' When I look at what some Republicans are preparing to do to Medicare, I wonder what Harry Truman would say today?

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, it is with great pleasure and respect that I announce that Senator Robert C. Byrd has now become the first U.S. Senator in history to cast 14,000 votes. [Applause, Senators rising.]

Mr. DASCHLE. Senators are welcome to cosponsor the resolution throughout the day.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I know I speak for all Senators in congratulating him on this unprecedented accomplishment. I note that this is only his latest in a most distinguished career. Senator Byrd's remarkable voting [[Page S 10755]] record began on January 8, 1959, when he cast his very first vote in the Senate. Fittingly, it was a vote on Senate procedure. During his next 13,999 votes, he has served as the secretary of the Senate Democratic Conference, the Senate majority whip, the Senate majority leader, the Senate minority leader, and President pro tempore. This record of Senate service means that Senator Byrd has held more leadership positions in the Senate than any other Senator in history. He has cast more votes than any other Senator. It was on April 27, 1990, that he cast his 12,134th Senate vote to surpass Senator William Proxmire. Recognizing that monumental vote, the current majority leader, Senator Dole, remarked that: When another person writes the history of the Senate, they will look back on this era and they will note the significance of this giant in the Senate, Robert C. Byrd. Indeed, they will, Mr. President, because this Senate giant from West Virginia has been an active participant in so much of our Nation's history. He has served in the Senate under nine Presidents, through assassinations and resignations. He has been an integral part of the high drama and history of the second half of the 20th century, including the cold war, the civil rights movement, Vietnam, Watergate, Iran-contra, and the collapse of the Soviet Union. Today, we pause to recognize this extraordinary leader for the milestones in his legislative career, and they are many. They include being one of only three U.S. Senators in American history to be elected to seven 6-year terms; being the first sitting Member of either House of Congress to begin and complete the study of law and obtain a law degree while serving in Congress; being the first person to carry every county in the State of West Virginia, 55 of them, in a contested Statewide general election; being the only person in the history of West Virginia to serve in both chambers of the State legislature and both Houses of the U.S. Congress; obtaining the greatest number, the greatest percentage, and the greatest margin of votes cast in Statewide contested elections in his State; being the first U.S. Senator in West Virginia to win a Senate seat without opposition in a general election; and serving longer in the Senate than anyone else in West Virginia history. He wrote his incomparable four-volume history of the Senate, an award-winning study that has brought our understanding of the history and workings of this subtle and complex institution to new heights. This is quite a record for a poor boy from the hills of West Virginia, who was raised by foster parents in a coal company house and who had to walk 3 miles to catch a bus in order to attend school, who rose from collecting scraps for hogs to become a gas station attendant, a produce salesman, a meat cutter, a welder, and a grocery store owner. Mr. President, Senator Byrd will cast more votes, we hope he will write more books, and we know he will help make more history, but to me his greatest feat will always be the dignity he has brought to this institution every day the Senate is in session and the way he has served and the way he shares his reverence for this institution with all of his colleagues. I am pleased and very proud to be one of them. So today, Mr. President, we congratulate Senator Byrd not only for today's historic vote but for his remarkable career of which today's feat is symbolic. I should also note that in a few months our esteemed colleague on the other side of the aisle, Senator Strom Thurmond, who is only a few votes behind Senator Byrd, will also reach this particular milestone, and I look forward to recognizing his achievement as well. Today, however, is Senator Byrd's day and the Senate Democrats and Senate Republicans alike join together in honoring and celebrating Senator Byrd's historic feat, becoming the first U.S. Senator in history to cast 14,000 votes. So I send a resolution to the desk on behalf of Senator Dole, Senator Rockefeller, and myself and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I, too, commend the distinguished Senator from Ohio and associate myself with the remarks of the Senator from Virginia because I believe the Senator from Virginia said it very well. We owe a big debt of gratitude to all Korean war veterans. It is this memorial, I think, that perhaps puts that gratitude in proper light and emphasizes the remarkable contribution that each and every one of those veterans made to our freedom. We have the good fortune to serve each [[Page S 10785]] day with three of those veterans. We just heard two of them. Senator Warner, Senator Glenn, and Senator Chafee all served admirably during that difficult time. All came back to serve this country in other capacities with great dignity and extraordinary valor. President Kim this afternoon, during the dedication, remarked again that freedom is not free. That statement reminded me of a comment made several years ago while I visited East Germany that democracy is something one either has to fight for or work at. But we do not have the luxury of doing neither. These three distinguished veterans of the Korean war understand the need to do both. They fought for freedom and, ever since returning, have worked at democracy. So I know I speak for all Senators in our expression of personal gratitude to them for their achievements and for the contribution that they have made to this country. Mr. President, ``The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting.'' Those words, by the Czech writer Milan Kundera seem especially poignant today as America dedicates a memorial to those ``forgotten veterans,'' which Senator Glenn so eloquently addressed, the men and women who fought and died in the Korean war. And it is a honor that is long overdue. The other day, I had the privilege of visiting with two Korean war veterans from South Dakota, who had come to Washington this week for the dedication. Don Jones was 22 years old when his foot was ripped apart by a hand grenade in North Korea on October 1952. He spent 6 months recuperating in a Tokyo hospital, and then he went back to Korea to fight some more. Orville Huber was 24 years old when he was hit in the head by a piece of shrapnel in July 1953, just 2 weeks before the war ended. They both won the Purple Heart. After the war ended, they returned to South Dakota. There were no parades, no fanfare. When I asked them what they would like to hear the American people say after all this time about the sacrifices that they made in Korea, Orville responded simply: ``We would just like to hear that people remember.'' Perhaps the reasons the Korean war has receded in our memories is because it was unlike either the war that preceded it or the war that followed. Rationing brought World War II into every American home, and television brought the Vietnam war into our homes. But Korea was different. Except for those who actually fought there, Korea was a distant land and, eventually, a distant memory. So today, as we dedicate our Nation's Korean War Veterans Memorial, it is fitting that we remember what happened in Korea and why we went there in the first place. The wall of the Korean War Veterans Memorial bears an inscription that reads: ``Freedom is not free.'' It was repeated by President Kim yesterday in the joint session of Congress, and repeated again by the President of the Republic of Korea today during the dedication. In the case of South Korea, the price of repelling Communist aggression and preserving freedom was very high indeed. Nearly 1\1/2\ million Americans fought to prevent the spread of communism into South Korea. It was the bloodiest armed conflict in which our Nation has ever engaged. In 3 years, 54,246 Americans died in Korea--nearly as many as were killed during the 15 years of the Vietnam war. Freedom is not free. Nearly 1\1/2\ million Americans sacrificed part of their lives to preserve freedom in Korea--and more than 54,000 Americans sacrificed all of their lives. The nobility of their sacrifice, at long last, is now recorded for all of history at the Korean War Veterans Memorial. Look into the faces of the 19 soldier statutes that make up the memorial and you can feel the danger surrounding them. But you can also feel the courage with which our troops confronted that danger. So it is a fitting tribute indeed to the sacrifices of those who fought and died in that faraway land. But there is also another tribute half the world away, and that is democracy--democracy--in the Republic of South Korea. Over the past four decades, the special relationship between our two nations that was forged in a war has actually grown into a genuine partnership. Our two nations are more prosperous, and the world is now safer, because of it. As the writer said, ``The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting.'' The free world won an important battle in the struggle against power more than four decades ago when we beat back the forces of communism in South Korea. Today, it is the responsibility of all those who value freedom to remember the struggle and the honor and the commitment of all of those who fought and who ought to be remembered in perpetuity. The Korean War Veterans Memorial is one way that we can truly live up to that responsibility. Freedom is not free. We must recognize--and I hope future generations will always recognize--that democracy truly is something we must either fight for or work at. Mr. President, I yield the floor. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I object. Let me just respond. I was under the impression that we had an agreement that following the disposition of the Ryan White Act, we would go back to the legislation relating to gifts. That has been everyone's understanding. I am hopeful that we can do that. I think we are very close. I think we could work under a time agreement. I had the opportunity to talk to a number of those who have been actively involved in the negotiations, and I think progress is being made. So there is really absolutely no reason at this point to move on to other legislation until we resolve that. I hope that all our colleagues will understand that and will persist in keeping to the schedule that everyone was working under the assumption we would have, beginning with the disposition of the Ryan White Act.

Mr. DASCHLE. Just for a clarification. I am interested in knowing if the cloture motions are on the bill or the motion to proceed, and if they are on the motion to proceed, can the distinguished Senator from Mississippi inform us on the number of filibusters on motions to proceed to bills so far this year?

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, if I can respond briefly, and I appreciate the explanation given by the Senator from Mississippi, I suspect what this means is there will be cloture motions filed. Frankly, I think the message that that sends is not the one that many of us would really like to see. No one is holding up State Department authorization. No one is holding up foreign aid appropriations. No one is holding up any legislation of which I am aware. So to lay down cloture motions under these circumstances seems to me, first, premature, and then second, in violation of what I thought was an understanding we had on both sides that we would go to gifts. There was not any axiom to that, any corollary that said it was only if we had some agreement about the procedure or about amendments that we would return to gifts. The issue was, would we do gifts and lobbying together this week? The answer was, yes, we were going to do that. Now we do not have that understanding. It is a violation, certainly, of the understanding that we have had on both sides. So I am very disappointed, frankly, that the majority has seen fit to file cloture motions prior to the time we even have any appreciation as to whether or not there are objections to the bills themselves or even going to the bills. There are none, to my knowledge.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I will be very brief. Let me just say, I appreciate the answers given by the distinguished Senator from Mississippi. He did not answer my question as to the number of votes cast, or I should say the number of cloture votes taken, or the number of filibusters actually endured as we consider the motion to proceed. If I recall, there is not one. Last year and the year before, there were many occasions when the majority leader was compelled to file a cloture petition because there was a filibuster on the motion to proceed. I will simply restate for clarification, we had an agreement. The agreement was we go back to gifts when this legislation is finished. We are in violation of that agreement, No. 1. No. 2, I think it sends the wrong message about the desire of the majority to work with us in trying to accommodate an agenda. We were only given this a couple of minutes ago. I am surprised and disappointed. We will work through it and we will certainly do our best to accommodate the schedule. We also would like to see a completion of a lot of these items. I think we can do so without throwing cloture petitions down prior to the time we even have some consultation as to whether it is necessary. I thank the Senator. I yield the floor.

Mr. DASCHLE. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. I object.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, we are about to vote, and I would like, simply, to summarize, as best I can, the situation as many of us understand it to be this afternoon. As we begin, I think there is much about which there is complete agreement. We all agree that the current situation is horrifying--the ethnic cleansing, the violence, the violation of human rights, pictures on television, all of which we believe we simply should not tolerate. We all agree that the status quo is untenable. Zepa fell yesterday, and there continues to be Serbian aggression in areas throughout Bosnia that we are simply unwilling to accept. We all agree that lifting the embargo is desirable. And we agree that the Bosnians ought to be able to defend themselves. We agree on all of those points. I do not think there is a Senator in the Chamber who would disagree on any of that. The issue before us is not a question of if we lift the embargo, but how. How do we lift it so we can enable the Bosnians to fight for themselves but protect our other vital United States interests as well? That is the issue. We have a number of specific questions relating to this embargo that go beyond enabling the Bosnians to help themselves, and on that issue, the question of how we keep in balance, in proper perspective, all of these various aspects of the decision. I am afraid our decisions are being driven as much by emotions as they are by the facts, as they are by the cool consideration of the consequences of lifting the embargo unilaterally this afternoon. That is understandable. We see the Serbian atrocities and we want to respond. We see a one-sided war spreading day by day, and by all that is right we want to scream, ``Enough. Enough.'' We want to be able to help in some way, because all too often countries have stood by while atrocities of this kind have been perpetrated. And we want no part of that. We are united by that outrage, by that contempt. We are united by the resolve to do something more. And I understand that, as does every Senator in the Chamber this afternoon. What divides us, what really divides us, is how best to transform resolve into action. Really, the question is, as we try to come to some agreement as to what our action ought to be--the question is, do we give NATO and the United Nations one more chance to succeed? Do we give them one more chance to act to stop Serb aggression before we lift the embargo? Or must we lift it right now, unilaterally? The President has made himself very clear. The President has urged us to give our united efforts that chance. The President has urged us to recognize the purpose of our alliances, to demonstrate our commitment to multilateral efforts. How many times have we said to the United Nations and to other members of the world community: We need your help. We need your cooperation. We need your participation? How many times did we send people to Britain and to France and to countries all over the world during the Persian Gulf war saying, ``Help us, this is a united effort''? How many times did we go to other countries and say, ``We have to put some constraints on Libya, or on Cuba''? And will we, at some point in the future, go to our allies and say, ``We need your help with North Korea, with China''? That is what the President is asking us to bear in mind as we make the decision we must this afternoon. The choice is clear. Recognizing our desire to lift the embargo, do we give this effort another chance, recognizing that progress has been made in the last few days? Recognizing that, at some point, time does run out, do we allow them the opportunity to demonstrate, with whatever resolve we can muster, that in the remaining weeks before winter sets in that we use all of the muscle, all of the force, all of the resolve that we in a united way can muster, or face the consequences of unilateral action which could lead this country to great peril and, frankly, to very disturbing precedents? A unilateral lift means in large measure unilateral responsibility. A unilateral lift means accelerated deployment of U.S. forces, and on that there can be no question. If we lift, they leave. If we lift, we help them leave. If we lift, we are there, and the action spreads. And then what? A unilateral lift means the possibility of the disintegration of NATO. What do we tell our NATO allies, that this organization, which has stood now for 50 years--ironically we celebrated that anniversary this year--what do we tell them the next time they come to us or we go to them? ``Well, as long as everything is going OK, as long as it is comfortable for us, we will join you. But, you know, if things get rough, if we disagree with you, we have the right to say NATO does not matter anymore. NATO is not going to be an alliance. We are going to pick and choose for ourselves whether or not and when we want to be involved in NATO.'' Do we really want to send that message to our NATO allies? Do we really want to say NATO does not count? Do we really want to suffer the consequences of a disintegrated NATO with all that is going on in Europe today? A unilateral lift means the demise of other multilateral embargoes. Let there be no mistake about that either. I do not know how we tell our allies we still need them in the Persian Gulf, we still need them in Libya, and, by the way, we do not want you to send anything to Cuba. How do we say that with a straight face, Mr. President? A unilateral lift could dramatically undermine our President and this country's credibility. If we roll over the President this afternoon, then what? ``Go out there, Mr. President. We are united, Democrats and Republicans. We want you, as the Commander in Chief and as the articulator of foreign policy, to go do your thing. We are just going to roll over you when we decide we do not like what you are doing.'' What kind of standing is this country going to have with all of the world? We have one President at a time. We have one Commander in Chief at a time. We have a State Department that we delegate responsibility to, to create foreign policy. A unilateral lift, Mr. President, unfortunately may not even work; arms may not even get through. We are talking here about 3 months before anything actually reaches Bosnia. That assumes that we can get through Croatia, that the Croatian ports will be open, that the lines will be available to us. It means that somehow we have all that worked out but our allies, after we have ignored their pleas, are going to agree to end the embargo and allow our supplies to get through into Bosnia. Then, what if arms are not enough? What if our allies have gone? What happens then, Mr. President? What happens when we find out 6, 8 months from now that this did not work, and our allies are gone and the horrific acts that we see on television right now are continuing? What happens then when the Bosnians come to us and say, ``We need your help; you have seen what we have seen on television, and we cannot tolerate this.''? Will we send troops to stop the spread of the war to Macedonia or Kosovo, or, God forbid, Turkey or Greece? What then? Are we still going to make these courageous speeches about how horrifying and difficult it is for the Bosnians? Will we be willing then to rush to their support? Mr. President, this is not a time to divorce ourselves from a united effort. Let us make a decision based upon what comes not only from our hearts but from our efforts as well. Let us vote ``no'' on this resolution. I yield the floor. Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I move to table the motion. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, for all the reasons already provided, I object.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me describe for our colleagues briefly what this unanimous-consent agreement entails so everyone has a clear understanding of what the situation is. We will come in at 8:30 in the morning. At that time, we will have debate for 2 hours and 10 minutes, to be equally divided. We will then recess to attend the joint meeting to hear the speech from the President of South Korea, reconvene at noon, and have an additional 90 minutes of debate, again to be equally divided, followed then by recognition of the two leaders for one-half hour under which leadership time will be used, and with the completion of that time, an immediate vote first on the Cohen amendment, and then on the Nunn amendment, and then finally on final passage. So there will be two blocks of time, an hour on either side approximately in the morning, 45 minutes on either side beginning at noon. What that means is that there is very limited time, and I encourage my colleagues to keep their remarks brief. We have already had a number of requests for time tomorrow morning on this side. I urge my colleagues to be accommodating and to take into account the fact that a number of Senators will wish to be recognized and to be heard. It is not my intent to allocate any time beyond 10 minutes tomorrow morning to any Senator except Senator Nunn, who has an amendment pending or during that period beginning tomorrow noon. So this accommodates a number of concerns raised and certainly allows us to reach a time for final passage sometime in early afternoon, and I appreciate the cooperation of the Senators on both sides.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. In contrast to those concerns, some of the sponsors of this amendment believe that by lifting the arms embargo, we can avoid the awful possibility of sending United States ground forces to Bosnia or we will let the Bosnians fight their own war. But it is not that simple, and we know that. We have a responsibility in this Senate to speak honestly to the American people, to tell them the potential consequences of lifting the arms embargo at this time and in this manner. The Dole-Lieberman amendment requires the amendment to lift the embargo upon completion of the withdrawal of the United Nations protection forces or 12 weeks after the Bosnian Government requests the withdrawal of U.N. troops. While the President may extend the deadline for lifting the embargo for up to 30 days, if he determines and reports in advance that the safety, security and successful completion of the withdrawal of UNPROFOR requires more time, the fundamental problem remains the same. Under this resolution, America's military and diplomatic policy in the Balkans conflict will be determined not by the President and not by the Congress, but by the actions of the Bosnian Government. Let me restate that, Mr. President, because it is so critical to an appreciation of what this vote is all about. America's military and diplomatic policy in the Balkans will be determined not by the President, not by the Congress, but by the actions of the Bosnian Government. What is not addressed in the bill is what happens when the U.N. forces, including substantial forces of our NATO allies, begin to withdraw from Bosnia. What happens? As we all know, the President has promised our NATO allies that the United States will provide up to 25,000 ground combat and logistic troops to assist in the safe evacuation of the U.N. peacekeepers from Bosnia. It could very well mean that we will be forced to send U.S. troops into a situation of heightened conflict that would risk American lives. There is no question that the long nightmare in Bosnia must end. There is no question that the United States must play a role in resolving the nightmare. But let us be fully cognizant of what is truly at stake. Let us not pretend that there is an easy way out, because there is not. There should be no confusion in the minds of any of my colleagues regarding what a vote for this bill actually means. What it means is that the President of the United States, the Commander in Chief of our Armed Forces, will be required by law to act in response to actions taken by a foreign government, the Government of Bosnia. It means, by design, by this legislation itself, not only are we responding for the first time to a foreign government, required to respond in a way that may not be in our best interest, but we will have to ignore our closest allies and unilaterally lift the embargo to do so. It means this Nation will very likely be forced to assume sole responsibility for arming and training the Bosnian army. That is what this means. And it means almost certainly--it means almost certainly--that in all of this, U.S. troops will die. This is a very slippery and treacherous slope we would embark on with the passage of this bill. And I would remind my colleagues that, if we enact it, we have got to be prepared to face the almost certain consequence of U.S. involvement of U.S. ground troops in Bosnia sometime very soon. No one can read the accounts of ethnic cleansing, no one can look at those images of terrified refugees trudging a trail of tears from one Bosnian city to another in search of safety and not be horrified. I understand the arguments of those who say we cannot stand by and allow genocide to occur unchecked and unchallenged. I understand those arguments and agree with the moral concerns of those who advance them. But let us be clear, forcing U.N. protection forces to withdraw from Bosnia, which is the most likely effect of the bill, can only increase, not decrease, the horrifying acts of genocide in Bosnia. Mr. President, what happens then? What happens when the U.N. forces are gone? What happens when NATO forces are gone? What happens when we continue to see night after night on the televisions across this land that genocide, the horrific acts that we have seen so far, and there is no one there to protect them? What will we do? Do we continue to say it is unacceptable and we will keep sending arms? And then watch this spread to Kosovo and Macedonia and other parts of this region? Is that what we are allowed to do? What happens? We are left with the untenable choice after all our allies have washed their hands of this situation to accept one of two things: either to accept the horrific acts that we will continue to see, Serbians rolling over the Bosnians, with or without additional arms; or some unilateral insertion of American troops to stop this from spreading and to stop the holocaust that we see already. That is the untenable choice we are going to be given if our allies leave. The very best case scenario, Mr. President, assumes that it will take 2 to 3 months to arm and train the Bosnian army. That scenario also assumes the arms will actually reach the Bosnian army and that they will not be captured by Bosnian Serbs and that the Croatian Government will allow all of the arms to be transported through their ports and across their land. That is what we are assuming, that somehow the Croatian Government will say, ``OK. We will subject ourselves to whatever may come, all of the repercussions that may come with opening our ports to the Bosnians so that the Bosnians can ship tanks and heavy weaponry through our ports, through our land, to fight the Serbs.'' How many people really believe that is what is going to happen? Mr. President, to suggest that the Bosnian Serbs will simply wait patiently and peacefully to decide what the Croatian Government is going to do, to decide whether or not the Bosnian army is being armed, seems to me to be very naive. We are talking about a regime that shells unarmed women and children as they wait in line in safe areas to collect their daily ration of water, a regime that is committed to ethnic cleansing. Should we really believe that this regime will hold its fire while the U.S. troops are training the Bosnian army to defend its own people? Can we, without endangering U.S. or allied troops, counter their fire? We know the answers. I have grave doubts. The likelihood is that the Bosnian Government will escalate its campaign of genocide, will overrun the remaining safe areas quickly while it still has the ability to do so with little resistance. And it is entirely possible that this escalation could occur while U.S. troops are on the ground in Bosnia. Then what? Those who would vote for this bill must also be concerned about [[Page S 10651]] the very real possibility that withdrawing U.N. troops from Bosnia now and unilateral lifting of the embargo will greatly increase the risk that the war in Bosnia will spread. While the United States may have no direct national security interest in Bosnia itself, we certainly would have security interests at risk in fighting that would go south to the region in Kosovo, in Macedonia, where 500 U.S. troops are now stationed and involve our NATO allies of Greece and Turkey. I believe that every Member of this Senate is deeply concerned about the tragic events that are taking place in Bosnia. And I believe that every Member of this Senate would like to see an end to the fighting that has left thousands of innocent people dead, millions of people displaced, torn from their homes, torn from their families. And I do not believe there is any disagreement about the goal we all share: to end the aggression and the atrocities born in the Bosnian conflict. The only disagreement is over how we can best achieve that goal. And the question is again before the Senate, should the United States on our own, against the wishes of our allies, end the arms embargo, or should we continue to act in concert with our allies and the United Nations to end the arms embargo? Considering this question, let us remember that Bosnia is not the only Nation in which the United States is engaged in a multinational effort to impose sanctions or take other collective measures. There is a collective action to impose sanctions against Iraq, against Cuba, against Libya, and it may become necessary to impose sanctions against others to control the spread of nuclear weapons, or for other reasons. All of these collective efforts are of great importance to this country. Mr. President, if we unilaterally terminate the arms embargo, then what is to prevent our allies from doing the same on collective actions with which they disagree? What do we tell them? What standing do we have to suggest to them that they must comply but we will not? We cannot have it both ways. We cannot expect our allies to support us on collective actions that suit us if we refuse to support other collective actions that may make us uncomfortable. Senator Exon and others have raised important questions about the consequences that lifting the arms embargo could have on NATO. Fifty years ago this summer, the NATO alliance freed Europe, freed the world actually, from the great evil of Nazism. And for nearly 50 years, until the start of the Serbian aggression 40 months ago, NATO has kept peace in all of Europe. The NATO alliance was essentially there to end the cold war, and now it is essential to the continued stability of both Europe, as well as the United States. Our NATO allies are imploring us not to lift the arms embargo unilaterally while they have troops in Bosnia. They are imploring us to stand with them as they continue to seek a negotiated settlement against the odds, recognizing the difficulty, knowing there are no easy answers, appealing to us to help them as they have helped us. What will happen if NATO chooses at some point in the future to ignore us? What will happen to NATO if we ignore the urgent pleas of our allies now? Those are questions we must all ask ourselves, Mr. President, before we cast this crucial vote tomorrow. The end of the cold war and the resurgence of ethnic conflict and nationalism have created flashpoints all over this world. As the only remaining superpower, the United States is going to be asked again and again to send troops to resolve conflicts. Maybe these conflicts will have long histories and maybe they will be intractable, but we will be asked and, in some cases, we will commit, and as we make those decisions, we, by ourselves, must recognize that we cannot solve every problem in the world. We are going to need the help of our allies in dealing with these problems, and the only way we can deal with them without resorting to unilateral action is in those difficult times, as we see right now, we recognize the implications of breaking out from multilateral efforts and taking upon ourselves the responsibilities that come with the actions that we are now contemplating. I understand and, frankly, I empathize with the motivations of my colleagues who have introduced and supported this bill. The carnage in Bosnia cries out for decisive action to end the suffering of helpless men, women and children who daily are abused, killed by Bosnian Serb gunmen. But we must not, we must not allow our frustration over the failure to reach a settlement of the Bosnian crisis to force us into actions that will only worsen the situation. We must not lose sight of the fact that breaking with our allies carries with it the risk of long-term consequences, and we must not pretend we are decreasing the chances that U.S. ground troops will be sent to fight in Bosnia when, in fact, the very opposite is likely to happen. So as we debate this proposal, let us consider carefully what is in our Nation's best interest, in the best interest of the Bosnian people now and in the future. Let us recognize that this is an issue beyond Bosnia, in spite of our outrage, in spite of our frustration, in spite of our desire to respond in some way. We must also recognize the commitments, the long-term ramification and the extraordinary nature of the decision that we will be making tomorrow afternoon. Mr. President, we will have more time to talk about this tomorrow. I certainly hope that we will not allow our decision to be made by emotion, rather by objective calculation of what is best for the effort, what is best for our long-term alliances, what is best for this country, what is best for the men and women we will be called upon to send to Bosnia should this situation worsen and should the need for U.S. forces be more evident as the weeks and months unfold. Mr. President, I now yield the floor. Exhibit 1 The White House Washington, July 25, 1995. Hon. Thomas A. Daschle, Democratic Leader, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Leader: I am writing to express my strong opposition to S. 21, the ``Bosnia and Herzegovina Self- Defense Act of 1995''. While I fully understand the frustration that the bill's supporters feel, I nonetheless am firmly convinced that in passing this legislation Congress would undermine efforts to achieve a negotiated settlement in Bosnia and could lead to an escalation of the conflict there, including the possible Americanization of the conflict. There are no simple or risk-free answers in Bosnia. Unilaterally lifting the arms embargo has serious consequences. Our allies in UNPROFOR have made it clear that a unilateral U.S. action to lift the arms embargo, which would place their troops in greater danger, will result in their early withdrawal from UNPROFOR, leading to its collapse. I believe the United States, as the leader of NATO, would have an obligation under these circumstances to assist in that withdrawal, involving thousands of U.S. troops in a difficult mission. Consequently, at the least, unilateral lift by the U.S. drives our European allies out of Bosnia and pulls the U.S. in, even if for a temporary and defined mission. I agree that UNPROFOR, in its current mission, has reached a crossroads. As you know, we are working intensively with our allies on concrete measures to strengthen UNPROFOR and enable it to continue to make a significant difference in Bosnia, as it has--for all its deficiencies--over the past three years. Let us not forget that UNPROFOR has been critical to an unprecedented humanitarian operation that feeds and helps keep alive over two million people in Bosnia; until recently, the number of civilian casualties has been a fraction of what they were before UNPROFOR arrived; much of central Bosnia is at peace; and the Bosnian-Croat Federation is holding. UNPROFOR has contributed to each of these significant results. Nonetheless, the Serb assaults in recent days make clear that UNPROFOR must be strengthened if it is to continue to contribute to peace. I am determined to make every effort to provide, with our allies, for more robust and meaningful UNPROFOR action. We are now working to implement the agreement reached last Friday in London to threaten substantial and decisive use of NATO air power if the Bosnian Serbs attack Gorazde and to strengthen protection of Sarajevo using the Rapid Reaction Force. These actions lay the foundation for stronger measures to protect the other safe areas. Congressional passage of unilateral lift at this delicate moment will undermine those efforts. It will provide our allies a rationale for doing less, not more. It will provide the pretext for absolving themselves of responsibility in Bosnia, rather than assuming a stronger role at this critical moment. It is important to face squarely the consequences of a U.S. action that forces UNPROFOR departure. First, as I have noted, we immediately would be part of a costly NATO operation to withdraw UNPROFOR. Second, after that operation is [[Page S 10652]] complete, there will be an intensification of the fighting in Bosnia. It is unlikely the Bosnian Serbs would stand by waiting until the Bosnian government is armed by others. Under assault, the Bosnian government will look to the U.S. to provide arms, air support and if that fails, more active military support. At that stage, the U.S. will have broken with our NATO allies as a result of unilateral lift. The U.S. will be asked to fill the void--in military support, humanitarian aid and in response to refugee crises. Third, intensified fighting will risk a wider conflict in the Balkans with far-reaching implications for regional peace. Finally, UNPROFOR's withdrawal will set back prospects for a peaceful, negotiated solution for the foreseeable future. In short, unilateral lift means unilateral responsibility. We are in this with our allies now. We would be in it by ourselves if we unilaterally lifted the embargo. The NATO Alliance has stood strong for almost five decades. We should not damage it in a futile effort to find an easy fix to the Balkan conflict. I am prepared to veto any resolution or bill that may require the United States to lift unilaterally the arms embargo. It will make a bad situation worse. I ask that you not support the pending legislation, S. 21. Sincerely, Bill Clinton.

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, let me make a few comments tonight--I have waited to allow other Senators to be heard--and I intend again to speak briefly tomorrow prior to the vote, but I wish to take some time this evening to express my personal position with regard to this issue and explain why I will be voting as I will tomorrow afternoon. We are again, as others have indicated, in a crisis in Bosnia. Just today, as was reported several hours ago, in open violation of the United Nations mandates, the Bosnian Serbs have seized another safe area, Zepa, under the protection of UNPROFOR, the United Nations protection forces. This despicable act of aggression by the Bosnian Serbs is now being followed by a brutal wave of ethnic cleansing that is forcing thousands of Bosnian women and children and elderly to flee for their lives. United Nations peacekeepers now find themselves under attack in a land where there is little peace to keep. This is not the first time the Senate has debated whether to terminate the arms embargo in Bosnia. In the 103d Congress, the Senate voted on the matter seven different times. Less than a year ago, on August 11, 1994, the Senate adopted two competing amendments to the fiscal year 1995 Department of Defense appropriations bill. The first of those amendments was offered by Senators Dole and Lieberman. It set a deadline of November 15 of last year for the President to break with our NATO allies and unilaterally end the arms embargo on the Bosnian Government. It passed by a vote of 58 to 42. The second amendment, offered by Senators Mitchell and Nunn, proposed a different scenario for lifting the arms embargo. It said first that if the Bosnian Serbs refused to accept a peace plan developed by the five-member contact group by October 15, 1994, then the United States would introduce and support a resolution in the United Nations to end the embargo completely. Second, the Nunn-Mitchell amendment said that if the United Nations failed to lift the arms embargo against Bosnia by November 15 of 1994, and if the Bosnian Serbs continued to reject the peace plan developed by the contact group, then no Department of Defense funds could be used to enforce the arms embargo against Bosnia. In addition, the President would be required to submit a plan to equip and train the Bosnian armed forces and consult with Congress regarding that specific plan. The Nunn-Mitchell language was included in the 1995 defense appropriations bill and signed into law on October 5 of last year. The administration has been unable, unfortunately, to convince the United Nations Security Council to lift the arms embargo multilaterally. But in keeping with the congressional mandate, the United States last November ceased participation in the enforcement of the arms embargo against the [[Page S 10650]] Bosnian Government. The administration also prepared and briefed the Congress on a plan to equip and train Bosnian armed forces. That is the historical context for the debate we are now experiencing here on the Senate floor. Today, as this Senate once again debates whether to lift the arms embargo against Bosnia, the credibility of UNPROFOR as peacekeepers has seriously eroded. What has not eroded is the overwhelming desire by the American people to see the bloodshed in Bosnia ended without committing United States ground troops to the Bosnian conflict. Yet, the Dole-Lieberman amendment would make this all the more likely by requiring the President to unilaterally lift the arms embargo against Bosnia. This amendment will place United States ground troops in peril by intensifying the conflict at the time when United States troops were assisting our NATO allies in the difficult and dangerous mission of withdrawing their scattered forces from Bosnia. Mr. President, today I received a letter from the President explaining his reasons for strongly opposing S. 21, which he believes ``could lead to an escalation of the conflict there, including the possible Americanization of the conflict itself.'' I ask unanimous consent that the President's letter be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks and urge all of my colleagues to consider carefully the President's concerns as we debate this legislation.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I think the two unanimous-consent agreements are ones we feel very, very encouraged by. I think there is little likelihood that all of the amendments that were listed in the unanimous-consent agreement dealing with Bosnia will be utilized, but I think it does allow for whatever extenuating circumstances may occur as a result of the ongoing meetings. But I certainly appreciate the cooperation and the sensitivity demonstrated by the majority leader on this issue. I hope at some point next week we can finalize our work on this resolution, however it may turn out. So tonight, I hope we can have a good debate on the cloture motion and also complete our work on the rescissions bill so we leave nothing other than the votes tomorrow morning on the rescissions package. There is a good deal of work we can do tonight. I hope Members are all aware that there will be additional votes, at least two additional votes tonight and perhaps more, subject to whatever else may be brought up as a result of legislative appropriations. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. DASCHLE

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I want to use just a couple of minutes of my leader time to comment on the pending matter prior to the vote. I will be very brief. Since the days of the New Deal, our Government's goal has been to expand opportunity, to give more Americans a fair chance to succeed, to open doors, not to close them. Affirmative action has been a bipartisan part of that goal for 30 years, since the days of the civil rights revolution. President Johnson issued the Executive order which authorizes programs of affirmative action. President Nixon greatly expanded and strengthened that Executive order 5 years later. For more than 30 years, Members of the Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, all supported the policy. In 1986, when President Reagan's advisors were urging him to repeal that Executive order, 69 Members of the Senate, Republicans and Democrats alike, joined in a letter to the President urging that he resist that advice. In 1991, 4 years ago, the Congress enacted the Civil Rights Act of 1991, reversing Supreme Court rulings which undermined fundamental civil rights--and part of the bill included the Glass Ceiling Commission, to study why women, who are 45 percent of the work force are less than 5 percent of top management in the private sector. Just 1 year ago, the full Senate, Republicans and Democrats alike, without a single dissenting voice, voted to establish a Government-wide goal of 5 percent of contracts for women-owned businesses. If affirmative action was needed 9 years ago; if a study of women's workplace role was needed 4 years ago; if a Government-wide goal for women-owned businesses was a good idea 1 year ago--then those who now, suddenly oppose all affirmative action, all goals, all efforts to study the makeup of our work force, have a responsibility to explain to the American people what has changed. In fact, not much as changed. Our goal is a colorblind society. But identifying a goal and reaching it are two different things. We have not yet reached that goal, and until we do, the amendment of the Senate from Texas should be voted down. It is an effort to divide people, not to find common ground. It is a political effort, and it deserves to fail. I yield the floor. vote on amendment no. 1825