Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 27, 1995, for purpose of conducting a full committee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 a.m. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the nomination of John Garamendi to be Deputy Secretary of the Interior.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee to meet on Thursday, July 27 at 9:30 a.m. for a hearing on S. 929, the Department of Commerce Dismantling Act.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be allowed to meet during the Thursday, July 27, 1995 session of the Senate for the purpose of conducting a hearing on spectrum reform.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 27, 1995, at 10:00 p.m. to hold a hearing on ``Prison Reform: Enhancing the Effectiveness of Incarceration''

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee on the Judiciary be authorized to hold a business meeting during the session of the Senate on Thursday, July 27, 1995 at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, before the Senator from Alaska offers his amendment, let me say that I think we have come a long way here in the last couple of days. I want to congratulate all those who have been involved in the negotiations--Senator Lott, Senator McConnell, Senator McCain, Senator Levin, Senator Feingold, Senator Wellstone, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Breaux, and Senator Johnston. I probably am leaving out someone. But I just want to suggest that we have gone from what I think was a bad idea to a very good idea. But we are very, very close. I think the importance of what has happened is that we agreed on sort of the basic package--I hope we have--where both sides have given and taken some. And now what we are doing is offering just a few amendments. Where we cannot agree, we will jump the ball here and see who gets the tip. If you win, you win. If you lose, you lose. Then we go ahead and finish this bill, and get it behind us. We earlier promised--at least the leader did--that we would take up this bill on the 28th of July. It is now our hope that we can finish on the 28th of July both the lobbying bill and gift ban bill and have those behind us so that we can move on to other important legislation. I do not know of anybody in this body--I agree with the Senator from New Jersey. It is not a question of integrity, or honesty. It may be a perception. But the one thing that concerns many of us on both sides of the aisle is that we want to be certain we do not get somebody in trouble because if you are at some event you get a gift. And somebody may disagree on all of these things. We hope we have worked this out because, as I said, I received five birthday cakes last weak. I only ate one piece. I do not know what the value of the cakes was. They were all given in good faith. We had a good time. I shared it with a lot of people--things like that. I talked with Senator Campbell from Colorado. He is the only native American in this body. He said that, if you get a gift from his community, it would be an insult to return it. There are a lot of people. We have a lot of friends. If you do not have any friends, you do not have to worry about gifts. You do not need a gift ban. But a lot of us have a lot of friends. I think we all have a lot of friends. We want to make certain that we do not get anyone in trouble. We are on the right track. We are doing the right thing. I certainly support what has been done so far. We would like to complete action on this bill tomorrow. I am not in the position yet to announce votes. But what we are trying to do--I think some of my colleagues were scattered and I know some are at the White House. A number of colleagues are with the Korean war veterans attending a dinner at the White House tonight. As I said, we hope to announce fairly soon that we have an agreement, or that we can stack votes, and have the votes tomorrow morning. Then there would be no further votes tonight. We are not yet in a position to make that announcement. That is what we are working on. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Let me indicate to my colleagues that after this vote, we will have a period for the transaction of morning business to extend about 45 minutes. At the expiration of morning business, we hope to have--maybe not--an agreement, but we will go to the gift ban proposal at about, hopefully, 1:30.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, in June 1950 the Communist North Korean Army invaded the Republic of Korea in an all-out effort to extinguish the light of freedom. Although America was weary of war, we came to Korea's defense and joined with many other nations to repel this unprovoked assault. From the start of the war until the Korean armistice was signed in July 1953, almost 1\1/2\ million Americans stood shoulder to shoulder in the fight for freedom. Inchon, the Chosin Reservoir, Old Baldy, Pork Chop Hill--all were the locations of famous battles, and all bore witness to American courage and sacrifice in the face of unspeakable hardship. And at the war's end, over 54,000 Americans had made the ultimate sacrifice. More than 100,000 were wounded. And over 8,000 were missing in action. One of those who made the ultimate sacrifice was Ens. Jesse Brown, America's first black naval aviator. And his story bears repeating. In December 1950, Ensign Brown was a member of Fighting Squadron 32, aboard an aircraft carrier somewhere off Korea. He flew 20 close air- support missions, providing cover for our outnumbered marines at the Chosin Reservoir. The battle was fierce; our men on the ground were in a desperate situation. On December 4, 1950, Ensign Brown's aircraft was hit while making a strafing run against the enemy. With tremendous skill, he managed to crash land on a rough, boulder-strewn slope. He survived the crash, waving to his friends as they circled overhead. They knew he was in trouble, however, when he remained in the cockpit when smoke began to billow from the wreckage. Finally, a fellow member of the squadron could stand it no longer. As the others attacked and held off advancing enemy troops, Lt. Thomas Hudner ignored the dangers of the mountain terrain and enemy troops, and made a deliberate wheels- up landing. He ran to Ensign Brown's plane, now erupting in flames, and found his friend alive, badly injured, and trapped in the cockpit. Lieutenant Hudner shoveled snow with his hands to keep Jesse from the flames, burning his own hand badly in the process. Finally, a Marine helicopter arrived. Lieutenant Hudner, joined by a crewman from the helicopter, struggled desperately to get Jesse out. Unfortunately, Ens. Jesse Brown died on that slope in Korea. As President Eisenhower said, Jesse Brown and all those who fought in Korea proved ``once again that only courage and sacrifice can keep freedom alive upon the Earth.'' Unfortunately, as time passed by, the courage of our soldiers and the rightness of our cause seemed to be forgotten, as the Korean war was buried in the back pages of our history books. This week, however, with the dedication of the Korean War Memorial here in Washington, DC--in fact, at about 3 o'clock today--Americans join together to pay a long-overdue tribute to the men and women who sacrificed in this so-called forgotten war. As inscribed at the site, the Korean War Memorial honors the ``sons and daughters who answered the call to defend a country they never knew and a people they never met.'' The haunting images of 2,400 soldiers and the rugged figures of a combat patrol remind us of the Americans and of their allies from 21 other nations who responded when freedom was threatened. The lessons of the Korean war are clear: There are no quick and easy fixes to preserve freedom. And there is no substitute for American leadership. Mr. President, it is with great pride that we honor the sacrifice and the legacy of our Korean war veterans. Let us proudly remember their sacrifice and build on the legacy they earned.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, earlier this year, I promised to introduce legislation to get the Federal Government out of the business of dividing Americans, and into the business of uniting Americans. Today, I am fulfilling this commitment. The Equal Opportunity Act of 1995, which I introduce today, stands for a simple proposition: The Federal Government should not discriminate against, nor should it grant preferences to, any individual because of that individual's race, color, ethnic background, or sex. Whether it is employment, or contracting, or any other federally conducted program, our Government in Washington should work to bring its citizens together, not divide us. Our focus should be protecting the rights of individuals, not the rights of groups through the use of quotas, set-asides, numerical objectives, and other preferences. Let me be frank. While I have questioned and opposed group preferences in the past, I have also supported them. That is my record, and I am not hiding from it. But many of us who supported these policies never imagined that preferences would become a seemingly permanent fixture in our society. They were designed to be temporary remedies, targeted at specific problems suffered by specific individuals. Unfortunately, during the past 25 years, we have seen the policies of preference grow, and grow, and grow some more. Pitting individual against individual, group against group, American against American. For too many of our citizens, our country is no longer the land of opportunity--but a pie chart, where jobs and other benefits are often awarded not because of hard work or merit, but because of someone's biology. We have lost sight of the simple truth that you do not cure discrimination with more discrimination. I fully expect that the professional civil rights establishment in Washington will be out in force denouncing this initiative, defending the status quo, and claiming that we are somehow ``turning back the clock'' and unraveling decades of civil rights progress. And no doubt about it, great progress has been made in the four decades since the civil rights revolution began with the landmark Brown versus Board of Education decision. Countless young men and women of all races attend and graduate from our finest universities. Thousands of African-Americans have been elected to public office--in Congress, in State legislatures, as mayors of our Nation's largest cities, as Governor of Virginia. And Colin Powell has inspired us all, rising from the ranks of the ROTC to become our Nation's top military official, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. But for the millions of Americans who each day evade the bullets, send their kids to substandard schools, and wade through the dangerous shoals of our Nation's underclass, progress seems to be nothing more than a mirage. A mirage that fades away, leaving the stark realities of life behind. And what are those realities? The reality is that the national assessment of educational progress has released its findings on the reading ability of America's graduating high school seniors for 1994. According to the study, only 12 percent of black high school graduates are proficient in reading. Fully 54 percent have below basic reading skills, which means they are condemned to 50 more years of life on the bottom rung of the economic ladder. These children do not need preferences. They need schools that work. The reality is that the U.S. Justice Department estimates that 1 out of every 21 black men in America today can be expected to be murdered, a death rate double that of U.S. soldiers during World War II. Last week, 12-year-old Quinton Carter of Queens Village, New York, was shot dead in a dispute over 25 cents with a 16-year-old. The viciousness of this senseless act is no longer shocking to us because children killing other children in arguments over sneakers or other items of clothing have become all too commonplace. These young men and women--the victims of violence--do not need preferences. They need more police, more protection from the scourge of crime, and laws that keep violent criminals behind bars. And, Mr. President, the reality is that millions of children today are born into homes without fathers. In some neighborhoods, the out-of- wedlock birthrate has climbed to a staggering 80 percent. And study after study has concluded that children of single parents are far more likely than those in two-parent homes to fail in school, or to be a victim or perpetrator of crime. Again, these children do not need preferences. They do not need a set-aside. They need homes, and families and communities that care. Mr. President, it is time to stop making government policy by race because making government policy by race is a diversion from reality, an easy excuse to ignore the problems that affect all Americans, whatever their race or heritage may be. We must begin by ending the ridiculous pretense of quota tokenism-- special contracts, a set-aside there, a couple of TV stations, a seat or two in the Cabinet. This is a band-aid. A diversion. A corruption of the principles of individual liberty and equal opportunity upon which our country was founded. This legislation may not be perfect. And it certainly will not solve all our problems. But it is a starting point--a starting point in a national conversation, not just on the future of affirmative action, but on the future of American. Mr. President, 12 years ago it was my privilege to serve as floor manager for the legislation marking Martin Luther King, Jr.'s, birthday as a Federal holiday. And in leading off the final debate on that bill, I said these words: ``A nation defines itself in many ways; in the promises it makes and the programs it enacts; the dreams it enshrines or the doors it slams shut.'' A nation also defines itself by how it treats its citizens. Does it divide them by focusing on the policies of the past? Or does it unite them by focusing on the realities of the present? The choice is ours. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the Equal Opportunity Act, a section-by-section summary, and statements by Dr. William Bennett of Empower America; Milton Bins, chairman of the Council of 100; Linda Chavez of the Center for Equal Opportunity; and Brian Jones, president of the Center for New Black Leadership, be reprinted in the Record immediately after my remarks.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Nunn amendment, and the yeas and nays on final passage; and if we could have 10-minute votes on each of those.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, as I understood last night we had about 15 minutes. I would be happy to yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman. Mr. President, I have listened with great care to the distinguished Democratic leader, and I have a lot of respect for him. But I do not think the world is going to collapse if we do the right thing. That is what it is all about. NATO is going to collapse? Our allies are going to leave us? They are not going to leave us. We are the leader of the free world. But we have not acted like it in this instance. But we are. We did not act like it in the last administration--but we are--when it came to Bosnia. So I am not as troubled about the world coming apart here, now, if the Senate does what it should have done months and months ago, and maybe a couple of years ago. This is not about rolling over the President. This is about the Senate of the United States. It is about Republicans and Democrats with a shared common view--and some on each side, I might add. I believe we do not have many opportunities like this to sort of turn away from the historic failure and chart a new path for America. It does not have to do with the U.S. Senate. And I know it is a difficult vote for my colleagues on the other side with a President of their party. And I commend those who have stood up and said, ``We are going to do the right thing.'' This is not politics. This is not about President Clinton or President Bush or anybody in the Senate. It is not the Dole amendment or the Lieberman amendment. This is a message from the U.S. Senate, supported, I might say, by dozens and dozens of groups all across America. And without reading all the groups, the Action Council for Peace in the Balkans, Americans for Saving Bosnia, America Council for Public Affairs, American Jewish Conference, American Muslim Council, American Task Force on Bosnia, and on and on it goes. Then the Action Council for Peace in the Balkans, represented by outstanding Americans, Democrats and Republicans, Morris Abrams, Frank Carlucci, Hodding Carter, Max Kampelman, Frank Fahrenkoph, Richard Burt, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jeane Kirkpatrick, and that list goes on and on. Albert Wohlstetter, Paul Wolfowitz, John Silber, Albert Shanker-- Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals, who I guess believe the people have a right to defend themselves, even if they are a little, tiny country with no lobbyist running around the Congress. They will not be affected by what we did yesterday on lobbying reform. They do not have any. We get long-distance calls, overseas calls, from the prime minister and the foreign minister, and they called yesterday. And as they were calling, they were telling us that Zepa was about to fall, and it did. So it seems to me that what we ought to be doing here is the very responsible, right thing--a nonpartisan, nonpolitical, bipartisan message to the world, not just to Bosnia--that if you are an independent nation, if you are a member of the United Nations, as the Senator from New York so eloquently stated yesterday, you have a right to self-defense. You do not have a right to American troops. You do not have a right to American air power. You do not have a right to American anything. But you have a right to self-defense. And that is what this debate is all about. We are a big country. They are a small country. And I guess it would be good if Bosnia would just go away. If they would just surrender, our problems would end for a while until somebody starts writing the history of this era. It would be a stain on the West, almost. Well, maybe not almost. It would recall previous stains on the West when we stood by and watched the genocide in World War II. Call it ethnic cleansing, call it anything you want. The Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, said we are going to abandon Bosnia. We are not going to abandon Bosnia. We are going to do what we have been told by their elected officials they want us to do, lift the arms embargo. And again, I know that things do change. But I remember in 1992, candidate Clinton said lift the arms embargo and have air strikes; let us provide some leadership, he was saying to President Bush, who was fairly quiet on this issue himself. Lift the arms embargo. And I remember going to meetings at the White House in, I think, April and May of 1993. It was all for that purpose. The President was for it. The Vice President was for it. This Senator was for it. But I must say, there was a mixed group there, as we do have from time to time. We get mixed advice. The President got mixed advice that said: Do not do it; do not get involved. This is an immoral and unjust policy that we have in effect now. They ought to take away the key from Boutros Boutros-Ghali, lock the door and throw away the key as far as he is concerned. They are not even certain yet; they are still debating whether or not we have the dual- key approach, whether anything can ever be done by NATO without U.N. approval. I think NATO is in difficulty because nobody can find a mission. Without a mission, why are they there? And they are troubled by this. I have been there. I have talked to them. And I have heard them all tell us the same thing: Do not lift the arms embargo. The U.N. protection forces are doing the best they can. And they are, and they should be commended. Some have lost their lives. They are our friends and they are our allies. But we are the leader of the free world. We cannot abdicate that responsibility. We cannot abdicate that leadership and say, well, not this time; we want to pass on Bosnia. This is a European problem. So we go along with the Europeans until it fails. They tell all the Bosnians we are going to have these six nice safe havens for you. You give up your heavy equipment. You are not going to need it. This is safe. So they give up their heavy equipment. Now they have rifles to fire against tanks and artillery weapons. And how many safe havens is it going to take to get anybody's attention? How many are going to fall? Two already, two more in danger, Sarajevo and Bihac. How many more-- all? Four? Five? Six? And then suddenly we recognize that this must be a failed policy? We have had a lot of activity in London and Brussels. We have had a lot of pounding the table and demanding the Serbs do this and do that, and they did it. They just took another safe haven. They are scared to death. I was asked on a program last evening, and I do not mean it to sound like this, but I think the person asked the question, well, they are not killing as many people now so there must be something good coming out of it. And maybe the killing has been reduced as far as numbers. There were only 630 casualties in July, 130 killed. An average of 4 or 5 are killed daily, 12 and 15 are wounded, and last weekend 7 children were killed. Now, does that mean we have to rush in and help everyone because we are the world's policeman? Absolutely not. But it seems to me--and I am not an expert in foreign policy--that this country ought to have a right through its elected leaders to say to us: It is time to go, U.N. protection forces. When they leave, lift the arms embargo and let us defend ourselves. It always seemed to me that was sort of a basic right, an inherent right that all Americans enjoyed, and all Americans would defend somebody else's right to defend themselves or some nation's right to defend itself. And suddenly it is all mixed up. The House, by a vote of 3 to 1, has sent the world a message. I know it is tough for the British, and it is tough for the French. I have talked to the Prime Minister, and I have talked to the President of France. They are our allies, and they are our friends. We have been their friends in tough, tough times, and we have provided the manpower and the money and the weapons. Now, there have been a lot of efforts to muddy the waters and say, boy, if you do this, you are going to Americanize the war. That is one I cannot fathom. I have talked to Senator McCain about it. I do not know how you Americanize the war. If you withdraw the protection forces and lift the arms embargo, the Democratic leader said as sure as that happens, there are going to be American troops there. Who said so? I assume the President would come to Congress. They are not asking us to die for Bosnia. They are asking us to give them a chance to defend themselves and they will do the dying for their country. They are not asking for American ground troops. Oh, they would like some air cover, but they are not even asking for that. The amendment before us is very important. This amendment does not prohibit United States assistance to Bosnia, military or financial. I would say, since Soviet-style weaponry is the preponderance of what the Bosnians use, certainly we would not be providing the bulk of the arms. I think we can find some consensus if we pass this resolution and if a veto is overridden. This amendment also does not prevent the United States from seeking a multilateral lifting of the arms embargo in the U.N. Security Council. I do not happen to believe that the amendment by the Senator from Georgia is necessary. I know he has offered it in good faith, just as he did offer an amendment last August in good faith, but I do not believe it is necessary. I do not think it detracts much from the resolution. It does not add much to the resolution. On August 10, 1994, President Clinton sent a letter to the distinguished Senator from Georgia which stated: I am writing to reaffirm my administration's support for lifting the international arms embargo on Bosnia and Herzegovina . . . It has been my long-held view that the arms embargo has unfairly and unintentionally penalized the victim in this conflict, and the Security Council should act to remedy this injustice. That was President Clinton's statement a year ago about lifting the arms embargo. The letter goes on to state: In this regard, if by October 15-- This was last year-- the Bosnian Serbs have not accepted the contact group's proposal of July 6, 1994-- Which, I might add, the Bosnians did accept-- it would be my intention within 2 weeks to introduce formally and support a resolution at the United Nations Security Council to terminate the arms embargo on Bosnia and Herzegovina. Further, as my administration has indicated previously, if the Security Council for some reason fails to pass such a resolution within a reasonable time, it would be my intention to consult with the Congress thereafter regarding unilateral termination of the arms embargo. Those are all President Clinton's words. I believe that 9 months is more than a reasonable time, with all the atrocities, all the things we have witnessed, as the Democratic leader said. I listened to the Democratic leader last night on C-SPAN, and I have listened to others. I listened to the remarkable statement made by the Senator from Delaware last evening, Mr. Biden, and many, many others on both sides of the aisle. I have listened to Senator Warner from Virginia, who has had a different view of this issue up until now, and he has told us in very vivid terms why he now holds the view that a great majority do. So I just ask the question, Is the leadership to say, ``Well, we've got a failed policy but we have to stick to it and we should not persuade our allies it is a failed policy''? It might be embarrassing for the British to have to leave, or it might be embarrassing for the French to have to leave. And America is going to be blamed if they leave. We are being blamed right now. We are being blamed right now, but, as I said, we may be blamed more in the history books for what did not happen. The opposition is also saying, the Dole-Lieberman bill will Americanize the war--America will be alone in providing assistance to the Bosnians. Mr. President, that is simply not the case. We know that most of the members of the United Nations support lifting the arms embargo on Bosnia. Going first does not mean going it alone. Mr. President, finally, the opposition to Dole-Lieberman is saying that this bill abandons Bosnia. In my view, this is truly twisted logic. I believe that at this very moment the Bosnians feel abandoned. The issue is not how many troops are on the ground or how many planes are in the air, but what these troops and planes are doing. It seems to me that if they are doing nothing, the Bosnians feel abandoned. Let us face it, these forces are essentially bystanders as events in Srebrenica painfully demonstrated. If we are worried about abandoning the Bosnians, let us listen to the Bosnians. Ask the Bosnians if they feel abandoned by this legislation. The truth is, the Bosnian Government strongly supports this legislation. They know the price they are paying. They know the price they are willing to pay. In conclusion, I would urge my fellow colleagues to support this legislation. I would urge them to search their consciences. The U.S. Senate has the historic opportunity to make a difference. To do what is right. To let the Bosnians live defending themselves, rather than die defenseless. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from over 40 organizations in support of this bill, along with a letter of strong support from Lady Margaret Thatcher be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOLE. How much time remains?

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for 10-minute votes.

Mr. DOLE. I will just conclude by saying this is not a partisan discussion. It is not a partisan debate. It is not about Democrats and Republicans, not about philosophy. It is not about politics. It is about whether some small country that has been ravaged on all sides, pillaged, women raped, children killed, do they have any rights in this world? Do they have a right to say to these big countries like France and Great Britain and America that it is time to go, ``Let us fight and die for ourselves.'' That is what this is all about. They have said our amendment is simple. It is simple. That is what it does. Maybe I missed something in my lifetime, but I have never missed the point that people have a right to defend themselves. And if we stand in their way, and if more are killed and more are raped and more little boys 12 years old are taken off to camps and more are hung on trees and more throats are cut because we imposed our will on this little country--``You cannot do this because we do not want you to do this.'' It is their country. It is their lives, their blood. I think it is time for a change in policy. And I hope we will have a resounding vote in favor of the Dole-Lieberman resolution. I want to congratulate and commend my friend from Connecticut for his tireless efforts, nonpartisan, going back--I think we worked together l\1/2\ years on this issue, without any disagreement, never talking about the political advantage. This is not about politics; it is about life or death for a little country.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I call for the regular order with respect to S. 641.

Mr. DOLE

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

Mr. DOLE

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

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I know there are a number of speakers who still want to speak this evening. We are also trying to reach an agreement, which I think we can request momentarily. Maybe not. It will be in just a few moments. So if I can just interrupt the Senator from Idaho later on. Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished Senator from New York for his outstanding statement. I say to my colleagues, I hope that we can reach some agreement so we can have a rather early disposition of this matter. I think some feel strongly on each side of the issue, but the issue has been debated. As we speak, I understand there is an all-out attack on Bihac. All out. I do not know where NATO is. I do not know where the protection is. It seems to me that what may have been a meeting in London to work out some plan apparently did not succeed. This is an issue that many Members have been speaking on before. It was back in the Bush administration, I guess, when I first raised questions about what was happening in Yugoslavia. I did not agree with my President, President Bush. I said so. Many others said so at the time. That was 1992. Here we are, halfway into 1995, and I have been working with many in this body, primarily the Senator from Connecticut [Mr. Lieberman], in a bipartisan, nonpartisan way to bring this issue before the Senate, but more importantly, before the American people. I do not imagine the average American has really spent a great deal of time focusing on what is happening in Bosnia. It is on the evening news. It is in the newspaper. It is on the radio. It is tragedy. It is suffering. It is rape. It is murder. It is slaughter. We are sensitive to that, but it is not close. It does not threaten America. There are no American troops involved, except those in NATO. It seems to me that we have an historic opportunity--not as Republicans, not as Democrats--but as a Senate. I have said for some time, we are the one best hope the Bosnians have--right here in the U.S. Senate. And then, hopefully in the House. In fact, we met this morning with the Speaker in a joint leadership meeting and suggested if we could pass this resolution, that maybe the House could take it up at a very early date and send it to the President. I have a different view than President Clinton. My view is if we pass this resolution, it will strengthen his hand in developing and shaping and directing policy, not weaken his hand, not Americanize what is happening in Bosnia. It seems to me that we have all known for some time that what is happening there is immoral. It is unjust. No doubt about it, it is easy to single out the aggressors. Today, the International War Crimes Tribunal indicted Bosnian Serb leaders Karadzic and Milosevic for war crimes. Maybe that does not mean anything. It means somebody else in the world recognizes what is happening. This is an independent body. Meanwhile, hardly deterred by this indictment, Milosevic is supervising attacks on Bihac and Sarajevo. In today's Washington Post, a senior State Department official is quoted as saying, ``The arms embargo is morally wrong.'' This is a State Department official. This same official was quoted last week as saying, ``The dual-key commands arrangement between NATO and the United Nations is insane.'' It is not a partisan statement. This debate has never been partisan in the sense that it was Republican versus Democrats, or the Senate versus the President or the administration. This is only one individual. Maybe this individual is wrong. What does this say about America? Are we willing to go along with immoral or insane policies because the rest of the international community is doing so? What does it say about us? What does it say about American leadership, including the Congress? Are we willing to go along with ludicrous commands arrangements that threaten U.S. air crews and are seriously damaging the credibility of NATO, that we are unwilling to use the influence, power, and prestige of the United States to lead the way and to do what is right in an effective way? I learned something today from the Senator from New York that I did not know about article 51, that we had made the motion or made the change or set the policy. It is fairly difficult to tell people there is not some inherent right of self-defense as an individual, as a nation. That is what this debate is all about. It is not about sending Americans anywhere. Again, referring to the letter that has been referred to that has been received by my colleague and myself from the Prime Minister of Bosnia and Herzegovina, he said: ``Today's vote is a vote for human life. It is a vote for right against wrong. It is not about politics. It is about doing the right thing,'' which should be easy for America to do the right thing. ``In just the past two days in Sarajevo, 20 people have been killed, while more than 100 have been wounded.'' After a while maybe people become immune, whether it is 10, 20, 50, or 100. I hear the voices raised about the U.N. protection forces, that if they are withdrawn, there could be American casualties, because I think most would support the effort the President has committed himself to, to help them withdraw. How long will they stay there? This is not an occupation force. Four years? Five years? Ten years? How long will the U.N. protection forces stay there, and how long will we continue to pay a large portion of that, 31 percent, as I recall, as the Senator from Virginia pointed out earlier. The President asked the Senate last week to postpone the vote. We did that, as we should have. The President made the request, and we honored that request. The President even suggested maybe the two of us could sit down and talk about policy. I am not certain I could talk about policy, not having the information, but I am certain that we ought to look at the facts. I want to say that the President sent a letter today, and he said: The passage 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. Now, I have heard that dozens of times in the past 2 weeks. It is not that I want to criticize the President. It is not an accurate statement. That is not what we are about. That is not what we are about. I just want to set out the facts very quickly. With respect to negotiations, the 1-year anniversary of the Bosnian Government signing a contact group plan has come and gone. Bosnia signed it; the Serbs never have. Never have, and probably never will, as long as the only repercussions are the huffing and puffing of Western leaders and the buzzing of NATO planes overhead. As for talks in Belgrade, Milosevic is driving a hard bargain. He wants the sanctions lifted but is busy supplying the Bosnian Serbs with weapons, as exposed recently by the New York Times, I think, two or three Sundays ago. They are getting weapons and troops and other support. The bottom line is that no negotiation process is in place, and I do not think there will be one until the Serbs pay some price for their aggression. As for escalation of the conflict, the conflict has escalated. More United Nations troops are being deployed, and as United States and European leaders issue more empty threats, the reality is the indecisiveness and ineffectiveness of the West invited the Serbs to move rapidly on all the so-called safe havens. The London ultimatum on Gorazde has neither stopped assaults in Gorazde or curbed the attack in Bihac. I indicated we just had a call from the foreign minister, saying it is underway, full force right now, and Sarajevo, also. And, as pointed out by the Senator from New York and others, there is still bickering over the dual-key approach. Is it in? Is it out? Will it work? Will it not work? So we have Boutros Boutros-Ghali back doing what he does best, blocking any action against the Serbs that might remind the world that they are the aggressors. [[Page S 10622]] But the point I really want to focus on is this Americanization, because that frightens the American people. Somebody asked me a question at a town meeting this weekend, ``Why should we Americanize the war by lifting the embargo? I said, ``We are not.'' But that is the word, that is the official word from some. There is no doubt now that our fingerprints are all over this conflict. We would not like to think so. I would call it ``this disaster.'' It is disaster, it is failed. It is a failed policy. Our fingerprints are on Srebrenica, on Zepa. We have not only tolerated, but participated in a failed and morally flawed approach. And I do not believe, as the leader of the free world, that we can escape responsibility. We are not the other countries. We are America. We are the United States. We are the leader of the free world--supposedly to provide moral, spiritual, economic and, where necessary, military leadership. Last fall the Congress passed the Nunn-Mitchell position as part of the fiscal year 1995 defense authorization bill. We passed so much I am not certain anybody has really gone back and taken a look at that. My staff did, went back and showed it to me, reminded me what we said then. It has been almost a year now. In the sense of the Congress, the section stated: ``The acceptance of the contact group proposal by the Government of Bosnia should lead to the lifting of the arms embargo.'' The Bosnians accepted the contact group. The Serbs never have. The embargo is still in place. In the section entitled ``Interim Policy'' it states--this is the same thing we passed: If the Bosnian Serb faction attacks any area within those areas that have been designated by the United Nations as ``safe areas,'' the President or his Representative should promptly, formally introduce and support in the United Nations Security Council a resolution that authorizes the selective lifting of the Bosnia arms embargo, authorized to allow the provision of defense weapons such as antitank weapons, counter battery radars and mortars to enable the forces of the Government of Bosnia and Herzegovina to defend the safe areas. That was a year ago, and the safe areas as we speak are being overrun. Maybe Tuzla will be left. Maybe Sarajevo. Maybe Gorazde. Two have already fallen. One is under attack. There is no attempt to lift the arms embargo. This is what we passed. The Senate passed this. The President accepted it. We have not had any selective lifting of the arms embargo. There has been no effort to prevent the safe havens from falling. We asked the Bosnians to ``turn in your heavy weapons and you will be safe. We will protect you.'' Once they have done that, they have nothing to fight with. They have no artillery pieces. They have no heavy weapons. They have rifles against tanks--not a fair fight. So when do we start? When does NATO strike? When does Boutros Boutros-Ghali turn in his key so somebody can make a decision. When we have three safe havens left? Or two safe havens left? Or one safe haven left? Or no safe havens left? This was a policy developed by the British and the French and we signed on. We were asked to wait, be patient. I know it does not seem like it has been very long since we voted here in the Senate. But let us just assume we were in Bosnia all this time. Every day, every day, every day the shells were coming in. They were hauling off our children. They were murdering our wives. They were raping our sisters. Every day, every day, every day we were adding to the death toll of innocent people who only wanted a chance to defend themselves. It is pretty safe here in the Senate Chamber. And I know we cannot have policy made by what we see, images we see on television or in the newspapers or reports from commentators who are on the scene. And maybe the Bosnian people understand that, well it has been a year, it has been 2 years, it has been 3 years--maybe someone will help us help ourselves. And while the Bosnian people may understand the international community's unwillingness to protect them, they cannot understand the unwillingness to allow them to protect themselves. There is no way they can understand that. If we are attacked in our homes, if we are attacked in our Nation, we have a right of self-defense. And, as the Senator from New York so eloquently pointed out, that is article 51, now, of the United Nations Charter. So we have had all the excuses. We have heard them over and over again. We heard them in the last administration. I do not know, I have listened to the Senator from Virginia ask the rhetorical question about NATO. I am not certain what happens to NATO, what the future of NATO is. I know they are in a box. But their credibility is on the line, too. It has been weakened. There is no question about it. In the eyes of the international community, the people--notwithstanding our commitment to NATO and the importance to NATO--NATO has been weakened because of its subordination to the United Nations. So the NATO alliance, I think, is in some jeopardy. The Serbs will attack. This is what Secretary Christopher said earlier today, if the Dole-Lieberman legislation is passed, ``the Serbs will attack.'' I thought the Serbs have been attacking every day. They are attacking right now as we debate the resolution--not because we are debating the resolution--they have been doing it for a week or 10 days in Bihac. They were given a green light in the Bush administration. The Bush administration talked about a united Yugoslavia, even after they had elections in Croatia and Slovenia. There was no more Yugoslavia. So, it seems to me the London conference certainly was not a red light for anybody to stop. The green light is still on. The Serbs understand the green light is still on, and they are making all the headway they can. We are also told that if this passes and becomes law, it is going to end humanitarian assistance. I think we have heard the Prime Minister, Mr. Silajdzic, say from time to time: When you talk about food or talk about death, it is difficult. They are living a subsistence existence. But the bigger picture is they have no protection. What good is food against snipers and heavy shells and death? They have no future. They are at the mercy of Western leaders who think they know best. I can understand the British. It would be embarrassing if they withdrew. I can understand President Chirac. He is new. He wants action; something to happen. And they have just lost two more French soldiers. I have the highest regard for the members of the United Nations protection forces, whether they are from Bangladesh or Great Britain or France or Pakistan or wherever. So I would just conclude by saying many of us believe that the arms embargo is illegal.

Mr. DOLE. Indeed, an arms embargo was never imposed on the independent, sovereign state of Bosnia. An arms embargo was imposed on Yugoslavia, which no longer exists, at the request of Belgrade, at the suggestion of Britain. And, as has been said here by everybody, Bosnia is a member of the United Nations. They are an independent nation. They have a right to self-defense. But this is not just a vote about Bosnia. It is a vote about America. It is a vote about what we stand for, about our humanity, and our principles. And I know, probably relentless pressure is coming from the British and the French and others of our allies, traditional allies, just to stick a little while longer--1 more week, 1 more month. In about 2 more months we will be into winter again--2\1/2\ more months. And that is when the suffering really begins, when it really begins. I know there will be a little hiatus here if the U.N. protection force is withdrawn and we lifted the arms embargo. It will be a very difficult time for the Bosnians. But it is a very difficult time for them now. We have the rapid reaction forces now in place in some areas. But let us face it. It has been a fact for weeks and weeks the United Nations protection forces could not even protect themselves, let alone protect the safe areas or anyone else. So it would seem to me this is not a vote about Republicans or Democrats or philosophy. It is a vote about what is right. Again, as stated by the Prime Minister as he closes his letter, he said: Our people ask that we be allowed only our right to defend ourselves. It is on their behalf that I appeal to the American people and Government to untie our hands so that [[Page S 10623]] we may protect ourselves. The slaughter has gone far enough. My people insist that they would rather die while standing and fighting than on their knees. In God's name we ask that you lift the arms embargo. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE. Obviously, in my view--and I think the view of everyone-- the preferred policy would have been some negotiated settlement months ago, a week ago, or a year ago. But that has not happened. As I said, the Bosnians signed on the dotted line with the contact group recommendations. The Serbs never have. So how long do we wait? There is no negotiating process in place now. Preferred options? We have listened to everybody except the people in Bosnia. Do they not have any rights? Can they not say, ``U.N. protection forces get out. Lift the arms embargo. Let us die for our country''? That may not be the best option. People are going to be injured. People are going to be killed. They are being injured and killed as we speak. There is not any good option.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me indicate to my colleagues that at 2:15 we will return to the Bosnia resolution which we will complete today. We hope we can do that without a number of amendments. I know there are 4 hours of debate, and we have debated this issue over and over and over again. I think it is--maybe not ironic, but another safe haven has fallen as we begin the debate. It seems to me that it is going from bad to worse on a daily basis. I believe it is time that we lift the arms embargo. We have strong bipartisan support. Senator Lieberman will lead the effort this afternoon. So I appreciate his willingness to cooperate.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President there will also be, for those who have an interest, a joint leadership meeting of House and Senate leaders at noon today where we will discuss the legislative effort between now and the so-called August recess, whenever that begins. And we will try to go over matters of mutual interest.