J. Exon

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank the Chair and I thank my friend from Michigan, Senator Lott, and others for their cooperation. I would simply say, we have just gone through an exercise in futility, although finally successful. Had the Senator allowed me to proceed, I would have been almost through with my statement at this time. But at least I appreciate the consideration that has been offered by both sides. There has been some criticism about the possibility of redundancy with regard to this authorization bill, particularly with regard to ballistic missile defenses. I simply say, this is the time to pause, this is the time to reflect, this is the time, if you will, to take some time. Because what we are about, in this authorization bill, is going to have long-range, possibly serious implications, in the view of this Senator, who has worked on these matters for a long, long time. Later in the day, I believe, probably my colleague from Arkansas, Senator Bumpers, will be addressing some of the issues that I will be addressing now, and he will probably be referencing a statement that came out of Moscow today with regard to what the Russians are doing and not doing and thinking as we proceed in this area. Certainly, the policies regarding the national security interests of the United States should not be dictated by Moscow. But certainly, since we are talking about the possible violation if not the outright violation of treaties that we are a party to and a part of, we are talking about serious business here. And whatever redundancy is necessary to get that message across should be the order of the day. Mr. President, I rise to offer my thoughts on the fiscal year 1996 National Defense Authorization Act. Rarely in my 17 years in the U.S. Senate have I come to the floor to take issue with a Defense authorization bill reported out of the Senate Armed Services Committee. As a member of the committee, I have usually been satisfied that the reported bill was the product of a bipartisan effort to further advance our national security objectives. [[Page S 11241]] To my dismay, the content and philosophy embodied in this year's bill is a significant departure from those of previous years. Crafted with little bipartisan consultation, the bill reported out of the committee represents a regrettable and potentially harmful U-turn in our national security policy that will, unless corrected, return the United States to the confrontational cold war policies of the 1980's that predated the fall of the Soviet Empire. While much in the committee bill is laudable and will greatly enhance the readiness and capabilities of our Armed Services, I am fearful that these constructive elements of the authorization bill will be offset by misguided efforts to defend against threats that do not exist and hostile attempts to scuttle international agreements intended to enhance our security through peaceful means. As originally drafted--I emphasize ``originally drafted''--in the Armed Services Committee, this bill attempted to: abolish the Department of Energy; gut the cooperative threat reduction program responsible for the removal of thousands of Russian nuclear warheads from their missiles; prevent the administration from carrying out a number of important nuclear non- proliferation agreements relative to North Korea and the former Soviet Union, and purchase unwanted B-2 bombers at a potential cost totaling tens of billions of dollars. While the majority of the Armed Services Committee was successful in overturning these and other astonishing hardline recommendations, many provisions remain in the reported bill that will return us to the cold war mentality of yesteryear. Among the most objectionable of these reversals are bill provisions that: advocate violation of the antiballistic missile treaty; as has been briefly addressed and will be addressed more so by the Senator from Michigan on an amendment that I am a cosponsor of. Add over $500 million in star wars missile defense funding; endanger ratification of the Start II Treaty, and resurrect at least two battleships. Let me repeat that because this is an old battle that this Senator has carried on against unneeded, unwanted, and useless battleships. It resurrects at least two battleships at a cost of nearly a $0.5 million a year with untold future modernization and operations costs; and, mandates the resumption of nuclear weapons testing. These are just a few of the things that I think are terribly wrong with this bill. The defense authorization bill is rife with legislative initiatives and reshuffled spending priorities intent on rekindling an arms bazaar that will have both domestic and international repercussions. The bill includes $7 billion--let more repeat that this bill includes $7 billion--in additional spending above the administration's request, a large majority of which has been siphoned off for the purchase of ships, planes, trucks, and other weapons not requested by the Pentagon. The so-called readiness debate we used to hear so much about is dead after only a year. The real winners in the committee reported bill are the defense contractors who stand to receive billions of dollars in unexpected weapons buys. While our domestic spending accounts are being squeezed tighter and tighter--and while the polls are showing very clearly that with all the hoopla the standing in the public with the newly created Congress is going down and down. The people are catching on. So I emphasize again, Mr. President, while our domestic accounts are being squeezed tighter and tighter, this bill contains a Christmas list or unexpected gifts for home State contractors that carry staggering price tags: $770 million more for missile defense contracts; a $650 million downpayment for two more DDG-51 destroyers; $1.3 billion for the unrequested LHD-7 assault ship; 12 more F-18's than asked for and the list goes on. Add in to this mix a committee initiative establishing a loan guarantee program for defense contractors to export their weapons overseas and you can understand why defense contractors throughout the country are popping champagne corks: Christmas has indeed come early. But the bill to the taxpayer is not complete at the committee passed authorization of $264.7 billion. There is a built-in cost overrun. In the rush to fund these and other unrequested multibillion dollar weapons, the committee majority did not fund the anticipated expenses for ongoing Department of Defense operations in Iraq and Bosnia. This outstanding bill, the cost of which will in the mean time come out of Pentagon operation accounts, will come due next year and I warn my colleagues to not be surprised when this $1.2 billion expense is funded in part by more domestic spending cuts. Ironically, this built-in cost overrun is nearly identical to the cost of the LHD-7 add-on. I would hope that the Senate will reconsider this issue during floor debate and decide to place the operations funding of our troops in the field overseas above the cost of building an unneeded naval vessel. While the funding priorities in this bill are questionable to say the least, there should be no doubt as to the design and effect of the bill on arms control and international relations. The defense authorization bill before the Senate takes aim at scuttling the ABM Treaty by requiring that the United States break out of the treaty and deploy a multiple site national missile defense system by 2003. Caught in the cross hairs of the committee's aim is the START II Treaty as well. Although this arms control agreement is a good deal for the United States as well as global security, the defense authorization bill does its best to see that it is killed in the cradle. That is precisely what will happen if the bill provision to break out of the ABM Treaty is approved. Ratification of START II will be blocked by the Russian Duma and the new alliance between our two countries will, in turn, be irreparably damaged, thrown into a resumption of the cold war, and still higher defense budgets. The bill is filled with jabs at Moscow designed to create distrust toward the United States and harm our new alliance. As if breaking out of the ABM Treaty and derailing START II Treaty ratification is not enough, the bill adds $30 million for a new antisatellite weapons program, it attacks and limits the Nunn-Lugar program that has been responsible for the safe and accountable disarming of over 2,500 former Soviet nuclear warheads, it cuts Energy Department nonproliferation, arms control, and verification funding, it recommends reconstituting our nuclear weapons manufacturing complex at untold billions of dollars while at the same time advocating the resumption of U.S. nuclear weapons testing. This last committee initiative is contrary to U.S. policy and is designed to scuttle ongoing comprehensive test ban negotiations and any prospect of reaching a treaty agreement. I will have a great deal more to say about the issue of nuclear testing later on during the consideration of this bill. In summary, I am concerned with the tone and substance of the bill. The level of micromanagement placed on the Pentagon and the Department of Energy is unprecedented and harmful to our Nation's standing in the international community. Many of the committee initiatives are driven by a desire to defend against a superpower threat to U.S. security that simply does not exist. At a time when our one-time enemies are now allies and the world community is committed more than ever before to the peaceful resolution of conflicts, the committee bill is at odds with reality and in strong need of amendment before it can properly serve our Nation's security interests. At a time when American leadership in the world community is strongly needed, we cannot be viewed as a nation living in the past, jousting with imaginary dragons in order to lay claim to the mantle of being ``strong on defense.'' We are a strong country, the preeminent military power in the world by far. But we must also be forward looking and recognize that it is in our national interest as well as in the interest of other nations to encourage arms control and alliances based on collective security. It is unfortunate that some feel more comfortable in an adversarial environment than in one based on cooperation and a lowering of superpower antagonism. Like a beehive, the world in 1995 has the capacity to be both dangerous and peaceful. If handled properly, the hive can be benign and capable of producing sweet honey. If agitated, however, it can become hostile and threatening. The defense authorization bill in its present form is a sharp stick ready to be jabbed into the hive. The design and [[Page S 11242]] intent of the bill is to agitate the world community to the ultimate detriment of ourselves. This is not the time in history to rekindle the rhetoric of the cold war. I urge my colleagues to support amendments that will correct these and other self-defeating elements of this flawed legislation. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I believe the Senator from Nebraska has about 5\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I rise as a cosponsor of the amendment to eliminate numerous objectionable provisions on missile defense contained in the pending authorization bill. There was no more contentious issue in the Armed Services Committee markup of this bill than the issue of missile defense. The committee was divided 11 to 10 on numerous unsuccessful votes to amend the missile defense language. There is a good reason for the controversy surrounding this section of the bill. No single issue is more deserving of amendment than this one. The committee bill is nothing short of a power grab on the part of the Senate Armed Services Committee. The slim majority that approved the missile defense provisions in the bill is not satisfied with simply making foreign policy; it wants to override the foreign policy position of the President of the United States, our Commander-in-Chief and the person in which the Constitution vests the power to make foreign policy. The committee bill in its present form moves to end our Nation's 23- year participation in the ABM Treaty and move aggressively to deploying multiple missile defense sites throughout the United States. More specifically, it defines our national missile defense policy in terms that not only abrogate our Nation's treaty obligations but also sets in motion a disastrous course of events that will profoundly threaten our national security. That is right, Mr. President, contrary to how it is being advertised by the proponents, the national missile defense system called for in this bill will harm, not enhance, our national security. By voting our intention to break out of the ABM Treaty, we will be feeding the paranoid rhetoric of the militaristic, conservative wing of the Russian Duma looking to place Russia back in an adversarial relationship with the United States. Members of this body must not ignore the sobering consequences of breaking out of the ABM Treaty and strengthening the hand of Russian extremists. Not only will withdrawing from the ABM Treaty endanger our new alliance with Russia, it will likely sink future ratification of the START II Treaty and further implementation of the START I Treaty. The language in this bill is a dagger pointed at the heart of a whole array of arms control agreements, least of which is the ABM Treaty. It will imperil a whole generation of arms control agreements which will in turn have far- reaching consequences both domestically and internationally. It will hasten the return to a time of bigger Defense budgets, an arms race in space, larger nuclear arsenals and a general erosion of global security. To best describe what type of national missile defense system is envisioned by this bill, I will read directly from section 233 of the bill. It states: It is the policy of the United States to deploy a multiple- site national missile defense system that (a) is highly effective against limited ballistic missile attacks on the territory of the United States, and (b) will be augmented over time to provide a layered defense against larger and more sophisticated ballistic missile threats. This is no different from the flawed star wars concept pushed by President Reagan during the height of the cold war. In their rush to revive this concept of a shield against a Soviet missile attack, the committee majority is willing to trample the ABM Treaty along with START I and START II, and the START agreements that were contemplated to follow. As a Nation, we have spent $35 billion in taxpayers' money on ballistic missile defense since 1983. The costs of implementing the type of system envisioned in the bill could easily reach or exceed that amount. No one knows for sure. A CBO report in March of this year, prepared at my request, estimates that a single site--not a multiple site, but a single site--system could cost $29 billion to complete. Additional sites necessary to provide the protective umbrella called for in the bill would cost an additional $19 billion, for a grand total of $48 billion. Is this the fiscal commitment we are ready to endorse? I think not. By voting for the missile defense provisions in the bill, that is exactly the road the Senate will be supporting--$48 billion for a Star Wars system all over again. By the way, it may not work as advertised. After already spending $35 billion, there is no high degree of confidence that we can operationally deploy the technology capable of intercepting a large and sophisticated strike against the United States by the year 2003. I call it ridiculous. The technology is far from proven and like the Maginot Line following World War I may be the wrong defense against the emerging threat, easily circumvented by a terrorist nuclear attack employing a delivery means other than a ballistic missile. While the superpower threat has disappeared and the cold war is over, there seems to be a wave of nostalgia sweeping over some in the Senate to gain a renewed sense of mission and purpose by reconstituting the threat facing the United States. The testimony provided to the Armed Services Committee by both military and intelligence witnesses are in agreement that an enemy ballistic missile threat against the United States does not exist and will not emerge, if at all, well past the 2003 deployment mandate in the bill. I am struck by the irony that in trying to defend against a nonexistent threat we would by our rash actions be unwittingly fostering the very threat we profess to originally be addressing. In other words, our actions would be a self- fulfilling prophesy. Mr. President, Senator Levin and others have already spoken to the numerous flaws contained in this bill language. I simply ask each Senator to read the language in the bill closely before voting on the amendment. The words speak for themselves. The only proper action is to support the Levin amendment and strike the objectionable sections of this bill that have been outlined by many of us who have studied this issue. Mr. President, I yield the floor and yield back any remaining time assigned to me by Senator Levin. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I was simply saying to the Senator from Georgia, I was asking the same basic question just a little differently than the Senator from New Mexico. I am strongly in support of the amendment by the Senator from Georgia, and would like to make a statement in support of that amendment. As I understand the procedure, though, it is attached as a second- degree amendment to a sense-of-the-Senate amendment offered by the Senator from Arizona. I am questioning what the situation would be if we vote on the second-degree amendment, which I support, then vote on the Kyl amendment, which is a sense of the Senate. If the Kyl amendment fails, that would take along with it the amendment that I support offered by the Senator from Georgia. I am wondering if I properly understand the procedure.

Mr. EXON. I hope that maybe Senator Packwood would be better served by open hearings. In closing, let me say that if the amendment offered by the Senator from California fails, the Senate fails, and the time will never come when the Senate can redeem itself in the eyes of the public and/or the eyes of itself. The Senate self-esteem is at issue. It was important yesterday. It is important today. It will be important tomorrow. The Senate itself is on trial, and I hope that it does not fail in accepting the amendment offered by the Senator from California.

Mr. EXON. I thank the Chair, and I thank my friend and colleague from California. I have been listening with great interest to the debate. It is one of those painful debates that the Senate has to go through from time to time, and I have been through many of them. I simply say I think we all owe a debt of gratitude to Members on both sides of the aisle who serve on the Ethics Committee. It is a thankless task. I think I have supported the Ethics Committee any time there has been any controversy. I would simply say that I have served in this body longer than any other Member on either side of the aisle on the Ethics Committee, and therefore I think I have some claim to what I think is proper for this body and for this institution and for what it stands. I wish to thank personally once again now by name the distinguished Members on both sides of the aisle who have served with great distinction, in my view, on the Ethics Committee, as have Members of the body before them, once again a totally thankless task. If I were charged with an ethics violation, I would have complete confidence, I might say to the President, and the Members on that side of the aisle, Senator McConnell, Senator Smith, Senator Craig, and likewise the three Senators on this side of the aisle, Senator Mikulski, Senator Bryan-- and, of course, Senator Bryan used to serve as the chairman of the committee--and certainly the newest member of the committee has served with great distinction, the Senator from North Dakota, Mr. Dorgan. I have no ill will toward any of them. I think they have done a very yeoman job. But we are now down to a situation where we have to make a decision, and I stand here today in defense of the Senator from California for what I think is a proper course of action. I looked through the previous open hearings that we have held in the Senate since I have been here, Cranston in 1991, Durenberger in 1990, Harrison Williams in 1981, and Herman Talmadge in 1978. I was here through all of those. And I remember the difficult task, very difficult vote that we as Senators were called upon to cast after the Ethics Committee had made its recommendations, all of them, I might say, after open hearings. Therefore, I simply say that I have been quite amazed at the broadside against the Senator from California for what I think is a very legitimate action on her part. When she first made her announcement of considering going to and asking the Senate to go on record, I intended to visit her about it and see what was behind it. Then about that time a Member on that side of the aisle made a public statement--it has not been retracted as far as I know--that I consider a direct threat to the prerogatives of the Senator from California, by saying if the Senator from California proceeded with her action, that Senator on that side of the aisle might well investigate other prominent Members of the Democratic Party on this side of the aisle. That was a threat. That should never have been made. And it is about time to receive an apology for that. With that statement, Mr. President, this one Senator, who tries to be evenhanded on these things, recognized and realized that the Senator from California was only doing what I think is right and should be done. The Senate of the United States is on trial. The institution is being looked at by the American people today, and its credibility is on trial. I have no ill feelings against Senator Packwood at all. I have worked with him on many, many important measures over a long period of time. I would just happen to feel better, frankly, if the Senator--could I have 2 more minutes?

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I rise in support of the Nunn amendment, that I just referenced, to make $35 million available to continue the funding on the Corps SAM Program, also known as the MEADS or Medium Extended Air Defense System. This program will provide a rapidly deployable, highly mobile 360- degree coverage defense system to protect our maneuver forces against short- to medium-range ballistic missiles. Corps SAM will also defend against a full spectrum of air breathing threats against our troops, including advanced cruise missiles. The committee decision to terminate this joint NATO program is a mistake. Corps SAM will provide missile defense for our troops that other systems, such as the Patriot or the THAAD will not. Corps SAM will have the mobility necessary to advance with U.S. and allied ground forces in the field of battle. Sometimes Patriot's protective umbrella cannot provide this, and certainly not against short-range missiles that would otherwise underfly the THAAD Missile Defense System, as important as that system might be. Corps SAM is what the Congress has been pushing for for many years, a cooperative trans-Atlantic defense program. Pulling out the program now will harm ongoing, as well as future, cooperative ventures with our allies. More important, it will deny--I emphasize, Mr. President--it will deny our forces in the field of battle an important layer of defense against missile attack that does not otherwise exist. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support this modest addition. At a time when we are unwisely throwing billions of dollars, in my opinion, on unnecessary full-blown national missile defense systems, I believe we can afford this small investment in the protection of our troops overseas in battle conditions. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. LOtt addressed the Chair.

Mr. EXON. I resent that statement.

Mr. EXON. Will the Senator yield for an additional question before the----

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I would say to my friend from the State of Georgia, I have the same concern about this, basically, as posed in the question by the Senator from New Mexico. I am for and wish to make a short statement in support of the Nunn underlying amendment. But if I understand the procedures, the Kyl amendment is a sense-of- the-Senate resolution that I would strongly oppose because of its implications, even though it is only a sense-of-the-Senate amendment. What would be the situation if the Nunn amendment in the second degree to the Kyl amendment passes, and then the Kyl amendment itself falls? Obviously, it would take the amendment that I support, offered by the Senator from Georgia, along with it, would it not?

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Vote On Amendment No. 1856

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. No. I have not read that letter. I do not believe, in answer to my friend from Virginia, that we should necessarily be swayed by such a letter. If the Bosnian Government would make the official request to remove the peacekeepers at the proper agency, which I suggest is the United Nations, then I think it would be more meaningful. Will the Senator from Virginia agree?

Mr. EXON. I hope I will not disappoint the Senator from Kansas with my remarks. Mr. President, the vote that I will cast on the Dole-Lieberman measure on the critical, complicated, and extremely dangerous situation in Bosnia is one of the most important, if not the most important vote, that I have ever cast in the Senate. I will vote no, Mr. President, because I am convinced that this ill- advised Americanization of the war will gut our relationships with our traditional allies, sow the seed for the end of NATO, and make the United Nations substantially less of an instrument for the settling of disputes. To my colleagues, I say vote no. This is not the correct course of action. Vote no, I plead--I plead, since I am convinced that this ill- advised action could turn out to be disastrous for the world and for the United States of America. Mr. President, last Wednesday I addressed the Senate on the reasons why I oppose S. 21, the Dole-Lieberman bill to unilaterally lift the arms embargo against Bosnia. Since that time, the United States has met with our European allies to assess our collective policy in response to Serbian attacks on two Bosnian safe havens. I am convinced now even more than last week that passage of S. 21 in its present form would only worsen the situation in Bosnia. With the deployment of the French and British Rapid Reaction Force and the recommitment of the alliance, including the United States, to the use of air strikes to blunt Serbian attacks on safe havens, the crisis in Bosnia has entered an important new phase that I think we should recognize. The alliance is now committed to meet Serb aggression against civilian populations with force unencumbered by a restrictive dual-key arrangement for authorizing airstrikes. As Secretary Christopher said in his July 21 press briefing, the city of Gorazde, our most immediate concern, will be defended. Unilateral lifting of the embargo prematurely starts a series of events in motion that will directly undercut the agreement reached by the alliance over the weekend. Lifting the embargo will result in an infusion of arms on all sides of the conflict--not simply the Bosnian Government, but to all sides--that will only sustain the ability to wage war, inflict casualities, and terrorize the civilian populations. Removal of the peacekeepers would be inevitable and the dogs of war will be unleashed, newly strengthened, to carry on the fight until one dog remains or there is nothing left alive to fight over. As I said during my statement last week on S. 21, I am not a supporter of an embargo that hinders the Bosnian Forces in there ability to defend themselves. I also question the effectiveness of the peacekeepers to fulfill their mission when a peace agreement is not in place. We have turned over responsibility of protecting civilians on the ground and seeing that convoys of food and medicine get through to our allies. We have asked that the French, the British, the Dutch, and many other countries shoulder the costly burden of putting their soldiers at risk on the ground, while we lament their inability to stop the bloodshed and demand that something be done, we suggest by Dole- Lieberman that we ``courageously'' unilaterally lift the embargo. It is disingenuous for the U.S. Senate to be calling for a unilateral lifting of the embargo and undercutting our allies when their soldiers are the ones dying in an attempt to protect innocent men, women, and children. The United States lost 43 men in Somalia in an operation to save hundreds of thousands of lives imperiled by starvation. The French have now lost 42 men in Bosnia since arriving in June 1992. I could only imagine the howls emanating from this Chamber had a nation not involved on the ground in Somalia decided, contrary to international agreement, to supply arms into Somalia that in turn further endangered Americans there. Our foreign policy is not made in a vacuum and we must be aware of the standards we ask other nations to adhere to when we contemplate a course of action that places us at odds with our allies. Sure, proponents will say that the situations are not the same and that S. 21 provides for a lifting of the embargo after the peacekeepers are withdrawn. But the point is that this bill is the impetus for the Bosnian Government to demand that the peacekeepers leave. S. 21's enticement to remove the shield, now reinforced by this weekend's decision, is the promise of arms, a promise, by the way, that S. 21 neither fulfills nor addresses. Similarly, the bill before us refuses to take into account the need to authorize United States forces to assist in the withdrawal of United Nations forces from Bosnia. S. 21 is only half of the story. The other half of the story no one wants to be bothered with is a lot more messy: thousands of United States ground troops in Bosnia extracting our allies; increased fighting among combatants as the arms pour in to Bosnia and its cities become the battlelines; more brutality; more death; and ever-deepening scar of human suffering. There are no easy courses of action with respect to our policy in Bosnia. No alternative is guaranteed to reach a peaceful and equitable settlement. President Clinton has joined our allies in strengthening the prospect of bringing the Serb Forces attacking civilian safe havens to heel. I have heard none of the proponents of S. 21 suggest that lifting the arms embargo and removing the U.N. peacekeepers will reduce the fighting. Likewise, the proponents of S. 21 will not tell you that by pulling out the peacekeepers protecting the safe havens Serbian forces will cease their attacks on civilian populations. That is so because we know such a conclusion is faulty, as the events of the past have clearly shown. Every one knows the opposite is true. Lift the embargo, pull out the peacekeepers, flood the region with more arms, and watch the bloodshed rage. S. 21 will prolong the war, not end it. S. 21 will lead to more casualties, not less. The West's dedication to use air strikes to keep the Serbians at bay improves the prospect that the military balance will shift to the point that the Serbs cannot exploit their advantage in the Eastern Bosnian enclaves, thus hopefully--I say hopefully because nothing is assured--leading to a realization that this war cannot be won on the field of battle. After all, Bosnian Government Forces are numerically superior to the Serb Forces and have been retaking land from the Serbs in some of the western areas. Perhaps the status quo is the lesser of two evils. But there are no simple solutions. We must work with the hand that we are dealt. I believe the President's policy and that of the NATO alliance is measured and appropriate under the circumstances. It has been totally agreed to by our military leaders. This is not Kansas. We can not click our heels three times and expect the problem to go away. Our allies are doing their best in a very difficult situation. Let us not undercut them. Let us not undercut our President as he carries out his constitutional authorities as Commander in Chief. S. 21 has the allure of cotton candy. But as we know, the sweet taste soon disappears and leaves only the threat of tooth decay. Cotton candy is not good for you and S. 21 is not good for the cause of peace in Bosnia. I urge the Senate to not endorse a course of action that resigns us to a cynical view that endorses the rearming of the region in a misguided hope that more arms, more fighting, more American involvement will further the prospect of peace. When tens of thousands of women and children were being brutally hacked to death by machetes in Rwanda, I do not recall anyone in the Senate taking the floor calling for the need to send arms to the persecuted minority in Rwanda to defend themselves. I mention this because the Senate has a way of being selective in its indignation over foreign policy matters. The Congress has an unfortunate tendency to be inconsistent in how we involve ourselves in foreign affairs. So let it not be a surprise, if S. 21 becomes law, when at some point in the future an ally of ours decides to break out of the Iraqi, Libyan or Serbian international embargo and points to our vote today as justification for the action. The fact is that the present policy has the best shot, although I agree it is a long one, of realizing a peaceful settlement to the fighting in Bosnia. We hope and we pray that that will happen. Until we as a Nation have forces involved in there are more than we have [[Page S 10618]] now, our indignation over the recent policy decisions in the Balkans rings, in the view of this Senator, as somewhat hollow. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I note the presence on the floor of the majority leader, the principal sponsor of the amendment. I have been waiting for some time, but if the Senator from Kansas, the majority leader, wishes to make a statement, I am happy to yield.

Mr. EXON. As I said in my speech last week, I remind my friend from Virginia that, if that would happen, that would be the proper means of doing it. I do not believe that it necessarily follows that, since the Senate had received a letter from the President of Bosnia indicating what his intentions are, that necessarily in and of itself justifies our taking the action that S. 21 provides.

Mr. EXON. I thank my friend for that forthright statement. I suspected that would be his answer. Will the Senator from Virginia tell me if such an authority is granted in S. 21 as presently before the Senate?

Mr. EXON. Will the Senator from Virginia tell me about how our allies, who presently have combat troops on the ground at risk and being killed, what is their attitude toward the letter that the Senator from Virginia is using to justify S. 21? Does he think we should take into consideration the commitment of the United Nations, the commitment of our allies, the commitment of NATO? Does that have anything to do with the situation?

Mr. EXON. But not as a part of S. 21?

Mr. EXON. I would simply point out that I thought it was rather interesting that my colleague from Virginia indicates that the President of the United States has not suggested that. I would simply point out that I think the Senator from Virginia would clearly say that the driving forces behind S. 21 are taking little, if any, heed from the recommendations of the President of the United States on the matter of S. 21. But the Senator from Virginia is insisting that they might take heed of a request from the President to authorize a sending of troops into Bosnia to extricate U.N. personnel. Is that correct?

Mr. EXON. I ask my friend from Virginia if he recognizes and realizes, or might even concede that, if S. 21 passes, or if it does not, if the Bosnian Government would make its formal request to the United Nations that the U.N. peacekeepers be withdrawn, under that kind of a scenario, will the Senator from Virginia support the sending of 25,000 American troops into Bosnia to help extricate the U.N. forces there on the ground at this time in great peril?

Mr. EXON. But the Senator from Virginia clearly does not support the Commander in Chief in his present efforts, nor does he support our allies in NATO and in the United Nations and our traditional allies. He does not accept their recommendations with regard to not unilaterally lifting the embargo. But I take him at his word in the future. Let me say, Mr. President, that one of the most troubling matters on S. 21 for this Senator is that I find that many of my closest friends and colleagues, including my distinguished friend from Virginia, with whom I have had the pleasure to serve for 17 years now on the Armed Services Committee, are on the opposite side of this Senator on this particular issue. We have a different view in looking at it. I think the Senator from Virginia and others that are supporting S. 21 are taking an unwise course of action. But I do not for a moment feel that they are doing it for other than what they think is best. I just do not agree with their judgment on this issue.

Mr. EXON. May I ask the Senator from Virginia, has the Government of Bosnia made a formal request to the United Nations for such action?

Mr. EXON

Mr. EXON. I know that.

Mr. EXON. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. EXON. There was a unanimous-consent agreement to that effect?