Russell Feingold

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Chair. I thank the Senator from Florida for his cooperation. I am working on an agreement on this amendment. I have offered this amendment today concerning the need for campaign finance reform because I firmly believe that there is a broad majority of Senators on both sides of the aisle who believe our campaign finance laws are in need of significant repair. My resolution asks the Members of the U.S. Senate whether they believe we have a seriously flawed system of campaign financing and whether they believe we should consider changing it during the 104th Congress. It is a simple proposition, but I think it is a very important one. I could not be more delighted that this resolution has bipartisan support in its cosponsorship. It includes the Senator from Arizona [Mr. McCain], the Senator from California [Mrs. Feinstein], the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Jeffords], the Senator from Minnesota [Mr. Wellstone], the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Simon], the Senator from Vermont [Mr. Leahy], the Senator from New Jersey [Mr. Bradley], the Senator from Delaware [Mr. Biden], the Senator from Florida [Mr. Graham], and the Senator from Hawaii [Mr. Akaka]. Mr. President, this resolution does not propose any specific reforms. It does not mention spending limits or public financing or PAC contributions or any of the other proposals that have been connected in the past with campaign finance. It merely says that sometime during the next year and a half this Chamber should consider legislation that will restore a greater degree of fairness and competitiveness to the elections that are involved to elect people to the Senate. Why is this necessary? It seemed that significant campaign finance reform was going to be achieved in the 103d Congress. Unfortunately, the effort fell apart as House and Senate negotiators were unable to bridge their differences. I am the first to say there was blame on the part of both parties for this falling apart, but I am offering this resolution today because there has not been any sort of indication that the Senate will be considering this issue either this year or next year. It is not even mentioned in the Republican contract. It is not on the majority leader's list of items we need to do before the August recess. I am afraid that it might not even be on the list of the things we need to do before the turn of the century if we do not pass some kind of resolution. It is clear that the campaign spending in our political system is spiraling out of control. The FEC recently released some startling numbers with respect to the level of spending in the 1994 elections. According to the FEC, the 1994 elections were the most expensive in history, sporting a price tag of $724 million. That is a 62-percent increase--Mr. President, a 62-percent increase--from aggregate spending just 4 years earlier in 1990. The effect of this escalation in spending to me is a sort of politics of exclusion as it becomes increasingly difficult for average working Americans to run for public office. It is very distressing that candidates are first and foremost judged on their fundraising ability and their personal wealth rather than their merits as candidates. I think most of us would agree that the democratic political system should encourage individuals to run for elective office but that is not what our current system does. If anything, the current system sends a message that political campaigns are expressly reserved for the very few who have the ability to do what the current system requires of them to run an effective campaign, and we all know it. The message we get is that if you cannot raise and spend millions of dollars, you are not really an effective or viable candidate. If you are a powerful member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, as was my opponent in 1992, and you have the ability to raise nearly $6 million for a campaign, then the current system, of course, accommodates you. If you are independently wealthy and if you decide you would like to use your wealth to run for elective office, as the current trend seems to me, then the current system also accommodates you. If you are a schoolteacher and serve part time in the city council and decide you would like to run for the U.S. Senate, then the current system tells you that based on your income level, employment status, and other such factors, you are automatically a long-shot candidate. Your positions on the issues are at best secondary. Your experience as a teacher and your record on the city council is secondary. Why? Because you lack substantial campaign funds, or a war chest as it is called now, that will inhibit you from getting your message across to a statewide electorate. This makes you a long shot, and the thought of not running at all has to cross your mind. This has to change. Unfortunately, despite the nearly universal agreement that something needs to be done to curtail campaign spending and improve the election process, time and time again Congress fails to pass the needed legislation. So I offer this resolution today because there needs to be, first of all, a clear statement that campaign finance reform should be on the agenda for this Congress. It is not even mentioned, as I said before, in the Republican contract, and we need to figure out a way to get it onto the agenda. The only effort that has been made in the whole Congress this session on campaign finance reform was to take away the campaign finance system we have that has helped make Presidential elections more fair. Thankfully, we defeated that effort, and we did it on a bipartisan vote. It is now time to refocus our efforts on fixing the congressional system and to find answers to a disturbing question. That is, how, Mr. President, can we expect ordinary Americans to run for elected office when the price tag is literally, literally millions of dollars and the costs escalated at a rate of over 60 percent in the past 4 years? I know recently there was a handshake between the Speaker of the other body and the President about a commission. I noticed there was no Member of this body who was a party to that agreement, so it did not terribly impress me in part for that reason. But the Speaker recently just backed off of that anyway, so let us not assume that any sort of commission will even be created let alone believe that it will make a difference. There is no reason at all for this body not to move forward on this. We cannot pretend that this is not a pressing problem, and we cannot pretend that we do not know how to deal with it. Congress has to demonstrate to the American people that it can act responsibly and decisively and that it can approach this problem in a bipartisan manner. On another front, Mr. President, the set of figures recently released by the FEC gives us some telling data, surprising data. For example, contributions by political action committees to all congressional candidates back in 1990 totaled $149 million. Now, this went up slightly in 1992 to $178 million but stayed in 1994 at $178 million. So, Mr. President, PAC contributions, even though many people would like to see them eliminated, have been fairly level over the past three election cycles. On the other hand, and this is what really shocked me, contributions and loans from candidates themselves--in other words, those who contribute to their own campaigns--increased at a rate of 37 percent from the 1992 level. So personal contributions to your own campaign is now sort of the new growth industry in the area of campaign financing. That means the greatest increase in campaign financing comes from candidates that finance themselves. That translates into an electoral system tailored only for those who either have access to a large base of campaign contributors or another group, those who have the personal wealth and means to afford an expensive political campaign. Either way, again, the schoolteacher that serves on the city council is becoming increasingly less likely to have any chance at all of seeking this office and attaining it. Mr. President, not too long ago, I heard one of the candidates for President, the Senator from Texas, say something that I found kind of fascinating. Announcing his bid for the Republican nomination to the White House in 1996, the Senator from Texas stated that he had the most reliable friend you can have in American politics, and that is ready money. There was a time when the most reliable friend you could have in politics was a strong record on the issues, substantial grassroots support, or maybe even the endorsement of a large newspaper in your State. But a candidate for the Presidency has indicated that he may be the best candidate in 1996 not because of his stance on the issues, not because of his popularity with the voters in his party, but because he has the most money, or at least did at that time, of the eligible candidates. Those remarks are simply an accurate portrayal of what our election system has become. It is not so much about your stance on the issues or the speeches you give on the campaign trail or even the countless volunteers that the Senator from Minnesota and I remember so well from our campaigns who usually sit in unairconditioned offices all day stuffing envelopes for you. Sadly enough, our election system has become all about money--who has it, who can raise the most, and who can spend the most. It is no longer one person, one vote. It is more $1, one vote, or $1 million, 1 million votes. I was a supporter last year of S. 3, the campaign finance reform bill, and that bill was filibustered. I did not believe that it was a perfect bill, but on balance I believe it represented a substantial improvement over the current system and it clearly would have installed a level of fairness back into our campaign system. On the first day of the 104th Congress, I introduced S. 46, another attempt to try to reform our campaign system. I do not hold out any false hopes that my bill will become law in the near future. That is why I am certainly willing to compromise on this issue and to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to write a bill that will somehow get us off the road we are on of further protecting incumbents and encouraging multimillion dollar campaigns. I do, however, in working with the Senator from Arizona, who has been a tremendous partner in this issue, believe that certain principles have to be included. A good bill has to provide incentives to keep campaign spending down to a reasonable level, and it has to provide some sort of assistance to legitimate but underfunded challengers, so that our elections will indeed be competitive and fair. I also want to see candidates raise more of their funds in their own home States rather than constantly crisscrossing the country looking for funding from the west to the east coast. Mr. President, for the past several months, the Senate has been diverting almost all of its attention to the Republican Contract With America. This was the campaign that said, ``Put us in power and we will change the way Washington does business.'' But it is disappointing again that this subject has not really come up. How can you change ``business as usual'' without suggesting that we need to change the outrageous degree of fundraising, the disproportionate influence of out-of-State special interests, and the lack of competitive challengers to well-placed incumbents? Though it was not part of the contract, I know there are Members on the other side of the aisle who truly are committed to comprehensive campaign finance reform. And I continue to believe that we can have a bipartisan reform bill. In fact, Mr. President, just look at very recent history. We have had statements by the Senator from Kentucky indicating: The 102nd Congress is faced with many challenges, not the least of which is ensuring the credibility of this institution and the electoral process of our Nation. To that end I [Senator McConnell], along with the Senate Republican leader, Senator Dole . . . am introducing the Comprehensive Campaign Finance Reform Act. This bill is the most sweeping legislation ever put forth on this issue. [This reform act] would restore integrity and competitiveness to our electoral process while preserving constitutional rights and our 200- year-old democratic freedoms. That is from January 1991, by the Senator from Kentucky. More recently, in January 1993, the now majority leader stated: Just as Congress needs reforming, so, too, does the way in which you are elected to Congress. And today, as we have done before, Senate Republicans will be introducing legislation to reform our campaign finance system. . . . Again, this is an area in which I think we are going to need bipartisan effort if we are to have a meaningful campaign finance reform bill. . . . So I hope that we can maybe impose some deadline--30, 60 days--for Democrats and Republicans to work out a bipartisan package. The majority leader then went on to say: If ever there was an issue that cried out for bipartisan cooperation, it is campaign finance. Senator Boren of Oklahoma and Senator McConnell of Kentucky are this Chamber's acknowledged campaign finance reform experts. Perhaps if Senator Mitchell and I gave them 30 days to get together and hammer out a comprehensive reform proposal, they would succeed. And, finally, Mr. President, simply a copy of the front page of S. 7, which is the legislation by the majority leader and many other Members on the other side of the aisle calling for Federal campaign finance reform. So it is clear that the other side is on record in favor of doing this. Let me simply reserve the remainder of my time at this point and say that this is the amendment which we worked, on a bipartisan basis, to put together that can at least start us on the real road to campaign finance reform, not just a resolution, not just a commission, but a true bipartisan effort that I hope will bear fruit. Mr. President, how much time do I have remaining?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator. As I look at Senator Murray and the Senator from Minnesota, I know we were all serious candidates. But we know that among the things that got attention were things like Senator Murray's tennis shoes and I had a blue van with an Elvis Presley ``endorsement.'' The Senator from Minnesota had a green bus. I think those were fine and they had to do with a serious process that was connected with it. I do not think it should be necessary for somebody to just happen to hit the right moment and right sense of the people in their State. We ought to be able to get our message out with fairness and equality. As I look at the Senators, I want to compliment the Senator from Washington in helping us get this agreement. She is trying to get this appropriations bill approved. She is managing it for the Democratic side. We did want to get this on other bills, as we indicated. We thought there were perhaps slightly more appropriate vehicles, such as the telecommunications bill. This is where you get the daunting nature of the task and the discouragement of candidates. If you look at the contributions in the report of Common Cause on the telecommunications bill, among the levels of contributions to Members of this body from groups involved with that bill, one Senator received $273,000. Many others received in the one hundred ninety thousands and in the one hundred seventy thousands. There are over 20 people who got over $100,000 in campaign contributions in connection with that issue. We thought that would be a good bill to do it on, but people urged us to let that bill alone. Now the regulatory reform bill--that is the one on which I spent a lot of time here trying to attach it to. I heard one Senator in this body say that in the 23 years he has been here, he has never seen the business community more unified on an issue. That is sort of good news and bad news. Of course, we all want to be probusiness when we can, but when you have complete unanimity in the business community, I think sometimes you have to take a look at the other side, and what people who might be affected by it would do. The report of Public Citizen, again, shows enormous levels of contributions, Senators receiving over $300,000 in contributions from the interests in that issue, and many others in the $200,000 or $100,000 category. That is just an interest relating to that one particular bill. So we decided to use this bill as a vehicle to make this simple statement. I believe, Mr. President, that this is the beginning. People often say, what is the point of a sense-of-the-Senate resolution? Well, what we are trying to do, as the Senator from Arizona knows, is to try to take the first step. You have to take the first step, which is to get everybody on record either for or against the concept of campaign finance reform. It is regrettable that we are a quarter of the way through the 104th Congress and we have not even taken that first step. But I hope today, when the tabling motion is made, that the Members consider what the view of the people of this country is. I am confident that whether you are Republican or Democrat, the American people are generally disgusted with the way these campaigns are financed. Perhaps the California Senate race was the most extreme example. When you tell someone that a person spent $28 million of his own money trying to get elected to the U.S. Senate, they really wonder whether they have anything to do with the process at all anymore. How can they possibly even dream of running for the U.S. Senate if that is the kind of ante that is required? So, Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I yield back the remainder of my time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I ask unanimous consent that I may be yielded such time as I may require, on the time of the Senator from Arizona.

Mr. FEINGOLD. I yield 4 minutes to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, how much time do I have?

Mr. FEINGOLD. I do yield and reserve the remainder of my time.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will take a moment of my time. I want to comment, in light of the comments of the Senator from Arizona. I have only been here 2\1/2\ years, but I have never seen a greater demonstration of bipartisanship and courage as I have seen on the part of the Senator from Arizona in his willingness to try to make sure a Member of the minority party and himself have an opportunity to raise an issue of this kind. That is exactly the kind of conduct that the American people have been crying out for, and it has been a tremendous experience for me to know that in this body, that people assume is so partisan, that these kinds of experiences do and can occur. So I want to thank him at this point, and I look forward to working with him on this issue.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Let me, first of all, ask the question and say that I fully agree with the Senator from Arizona that it certainly would not be accurate to assign to only one party the blame on this issue. In fact, in my comments I indicated that this thing went down last session not just because of a Republican filibuster but also, I think, because of substantial Democratic opposition in the other body. That has to be said. There have been many different analyses of what happened on November 8, but I ask the Senator from Arizona if he does not think in part the problem of the Democrats had to do with the failure to reform this system when they were in control?

Mr. FEINGOLD. Will the Senator from Arizona yield for a question?

Mr. FEINGOLD. We all had campaigns that people watched. Do you know why? Because we were not supposed to win, because of big money. Even though we happen to be sitting here and it is a wonderful thing to have this opportunity, there are thousands and thousands of Americans as well qualified as any one of us who decided not to get into the fray because of the money, because of the absolutely daunting nature of the amount of money that is required to run for the U.S. Senate.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Yes.

Mr. FEINGOLD. May I intervene here to say to the Senator from Minnesota, if he will yield for a moment, the Senator from Arizona has some additional time which he has indicated he will be willing to yield to the Senator from Minnesota, if the Senator wants more time.

Mr. FEINGOLD

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

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for just a moment?

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, my comments are about support of this resolution concerning the arms embargo. I know the hour is late, but this is a very, very important subject that has concerned me, as it has concerned so many Members of the Senate, for several years. I am hoping that we come to some resolution of this matter on this occasion. I understand the majority leader's desire to consider the President's request. I look forward to the results of that discussion and the decisions that come from it. But I do rise tonight in support of the Dole-Lieberman resolution. Let me begin by mentioning three reservations I have about taking this position. First of all, I think the truest words of the day were those of Senator Cohen of Maine who said, ``No one can predict with complete confidence whether our action in this case or inaction in this case will turn out the way we want.'' This is a situation that requires the greatest humility on the part of a Senator because we cannot know for sure and because it does involve what is obviously life or death for many, many thousands of people in the former Yugoslavia. The facts are about as complex as they can get in a foreign policy situation. My second reservation in supporting the resolution is that basically I think the President should be our leader in conducting foreign policy, with the assistance of Congress in certain cases; in some cases only with congressional approval. I happen to believe, under the War Powers Act, and article I of the Constitution, that we have a preeminent role in making sure that we do not commit troops without congressional approval. But, generally speaking, I prefer to defer to the President, especially Democratic Presidents, on this kind of an issue. Third, although I have tremendous respect for the majority leader, I have generally preferred the foreign policy approach of our current President. This President has kept American youth out of wars. He has resisted the temptation to send us into adventures and to take every opportunity to police the world as, unfortunately, other Presidents have failed to do. The President has shown a steady hand and does not believe that we can afford or want to shed the blood to be the policemen of the world. But, despite these reservations, and while I think the majority leader is a great Senator and I hope he continues in that capacity for many, many years, I have long supported his view that we should lift the arms embargo on Bosnia and we should do so unilaterally, if necessary. I do think it is necessary, and I do think the time is now. In fact, my hope has been and continues to be that this will truly be a strong bipartisan vote. In fact, when I first got here, Mr. President, long before I realized the majority leader's position, before he was the majority leader, my first resolution as a United States Senator made one simple request: That the arms embargo be lifted for the Bosnian people. That was in March 1993. Even prior to the election in 1992, before I was a Member of this body, I followed the work of the Senator from Delaware, Senator Biden, who had already, before almost anyone else, understood that the key to this situation was not talking about certain American air raids or sending American troops to Bosnia, but giving them the ability to defend themselves. One of the most stimulating comments of the day, and I listened to a lot of the debate, was that of the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kerry, who spoke of lifting the arms embargo, and indicated, as I have heard him say on many occasions, that he supports lifting the arms embargo if we can. But the Senator from Massachusetts indicated that lifting the arms embargo is not a policy. I am not so sure. In fact, after scores of conversations with people, experts in foreign policy, and the military, my constituents, and especially the leaders of Bosnia itself, I feel, with all due respect, that all signs point to the conclusion that lifting the arms embargo unilaterally is not only morally right, but a very sensible policy, both for the United States and for Bosnia. I am sure the opposition to lifting is in good faith. But after 2\1/ 2\ years I almost stopped asking questions on the committee where we serve together, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I grew weary at the committee meetings and the briefings of the constantly shifting series of excuses for not doing what is right in Bosnia. The opposition to lifting the arms embargo has been done in a very clever way. It is opposition by question, hundreds of questions, hundreds of scenarios, always the worst-case scenario. It is the most amazing variety of reasons I have ever seen. There are too many reasons being given, too many shifting back and forth, and sometimes contradicting each other. It does not seem credible. We even heard in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at a hearing the claim that lifting the arms embargo would lead to an Islamic jihad. Some of these arguments are just way beyond the pale. We are subjected to an astonishing parade of ``horribles.'' But, Mr. President, what is actually happening--not what is projected--is what is horrible and actual unending inhuman horror. We are urged on the floor today to try one last time. We are told that lifting the arms embargo is just like giving up. But to many Americans, it just makes sense. It looks like to many Americans that we never even got started helping the Bosnians if we could not do the most simple thing, which is to lift the arms embargo. We have never taken the first step and the most important step. We have never lifted the arms embargo so that we have the opportunity not to work with a captive and defeated Bosnia, but with an increasingly viable country, an increasingly viable military, working to defend itself and working perhaps to push back the Serbians to the lines where they were before. In fact, Mr. President, the comments that I have heard most from all of my constituents is, ``Why in the world don't we simply let these folks try and defend themselves?'' Mr. President, other Members of this body did a very good job today answering some of these objections. But I think we ought to reiterate it a little bit. I want to give again the scope of all of the excuses being given for not lifting the arms embargo. Naturally, we have a tendency to want to defer to those who have military expertise. But in some of these cases the answer is very easy and obvious. For example, there is the claim that lifting the arms embargo will mean that the United Nations will be put in a position where none of its resolutions will be respected; the claim that this is, in effect, thumbing our nose at the United Nations and the Security Council. But the Senator from New York has made the point well that no other situation, no other resolution is in this status. This one involves the violation of article 51 of the U.N. Charter which calls for the right of self-defense for all countries. That is legally superior [[Page S 10326]] under the U.N. charter to any particular resolution of this kind. In other cases, such as Rwanda or Angola or the Sudan, there are arms embargoes but those involve civil wars, internal strife. They do not involve a clear situation of one sovereign entity being involved in attacking another. Mr. President, that argument does not hold water. Another argument that I have heard and the question that is constantly asked is, ``Well, if they get the arms, how are they going to get trained? How are they going to know how to use the guns?'' I sat in a private briefing a couple of weeks ago with a number of Senators and with the majority leader. And the majority leader asked that question of Haris Silajdzic, the Prime Minister of Bosnia. He said, ``We know how to use these arms. We are trained. We are not asking for the most sophisticated aircraft.'' They are simply asking for the normal weaponry of a ground war. I have here a list of what has actually been requested--certain kinds of defense arms, means of communication, electric power, health, satellite links, various types of vehicles, generators, clothing, surgical equipment. These are the kinds of things that are being requested. The notion that somehow massive special training is necessary is not valid. Another argument that comes up: ``How are the arms going to get there in this difficult situation?'' Well, it is a difficult situation. But arms are already getting there despite the embargo to some extent. How do people think the Bosnian Muslims are fighting? Some have gotten through, and particularly with the alliance between Croatia and Bosnia, that sealane. The necessary access to the sea through Croatia would be available to provide the arms. Another argument made: ``We will have to pay for all these arms. It is going to be expensive.'' It is true. If we want to supply the arms, it will cost something. Senator Biden's amendment a few years ago provided for 50 million American dollars. But there is nothing in this resolution that says we have to supply the arms. Other countries are ready do it. I think it is a good idea if we participate. It is not a choice that it is an open checkoff. It simply says they are permitted to obtain arms. There is nothing in this resolution that requires that. Mr. President, in addition to these examples of sort of legal or tactical questions, there has been very heavy emphasis today on two other arguments. One is, ``This is not the right time.'' And the other is, ``This action will `Americanize' the war.'' To me, these are probably the two most troubling arguments I have heard lately. They remind me of double talk, or maybe worse. They remind me, in George Orwell's words, of ``double speak.'' First of all, this notion that it is not the right time--I was told the first time I mentioned this issue in early 1993 that if we would just hang on, ``The change is right around the corner; we are going to work this out; we should not lift the arms embargo; it will cause a terrible problem.'' But after each tragedy we get the same excuse, the same flutter of activity. Things die down for a while, and we are told again that we should wait. It is also troubling to me that we learn the names of these little towns in Bosnia and witness the tragedy, and then a few days later we do not even remember where the last tragedy occurred. But we are still told, ``Wait a little longer; wait until a few more towns go down the tubes.'' It has been 30 months. How can someone talking in any way that would be considered straight say that we have to wait longer? How many times must U.S. Senators speak until the message gets through? I just had my staff tally up how many speeches have been given on this subject since 1993. Just in the U.S. Senate alone, there were 210 speeches by Senators. Almost, I say, the vast majority of them were in favor of lifting the arms embargo. Mr. President, what are we waiting for? Are we waiting for perfect weather conditions? This is not a moon shot. This is an ongoing, horrible tragedy. And anyone can construct a reason why we should wait. But you cannot wait any longer when you witness every day on the television what can only be described as genocide. What about this second argument, this mantra, ``This is going to Americanize the war''? This one really bothers me. It is a slogan. People say we are committed, we are obligated to send 25,000 ground troops into Bosnia if we lift the arms embargo. When do we vote on that? When did Congress authorize 25,000 troops going into Bosnia? Under my view of the law and the Constitution, the Chair and I should have had a chance to vote on that. We did not do it. We did not make that commitment. And again, it is the ultimate in double speak to suggest that giving people the right to defend themselves is the thing that will cause us to have to go and defend them. That is what we are being told, that somehow giving them some guns or making sure they can buy some guns is the way to guarantee that all the rest of us would have to go over there and get involved. That is just nonsense. It is the opposite. Lifting the arms embargo is the best way to ensure that American men and women will not have to spill their blood. This is a lesson that the State of Israel has understood very well since 1948. The one thing that Israel always said is, ``We want help in terms of arms, logistical help, but we do not want American men and women to come here and fight on our soil.'' We always appreciated that sentiment, but it is not just to be nice. It is because the Israelis know that if we send troops onto Israeli soil and American men and women die, the obvious result will be probably a reduction in American support for that effort. That it will turn people off. They will say, ``Why help Israel?'' All you have to do is reference Somalia. It is exactly what happened in Somalia. People had compassion. They cared about the people in Somalia. They wanted to help them eat. But when it came to American men and women dying, they really had to question whether we could police the entire world. Well, the Bosnians understand this. And that is why they are sincere when they say that they did not want our troops. They want some help or at least not have us prevent them from getting the arms to defend themselves. Why can we as a nation say in some instances, ``This we can do. We can do no more. But we will do this.''? We do not want to police this situation. The American people will not support this as the absolute core of our national security. We probably are not ready to say in the case of Bosnia that we will bear any burden. But we are ready to do something as a people. We do want the Bosnians to be free. We do want them to be able to turn back Serbian aggression. So, Mr. President, this is the opposite of the Americanization of the war. This is how Bosnia determines its own destiny. Mr. President, maybe what has bothered me even more than these more convenient arguments is my problem with the position that the administration has taken when it says over and over again, ``We support lifting the arms embargo, but only multilaterally.'' But they are against unilateral lifting. And time and time again there have been statements from the administration indicating support, not for unilateral but for multilateral lifting of the arms embargo. A relatively recent example was March 20, 1995, where Mr. Richard Holbrooke stated: Only a negotiated settlement has any chance of lasting. This administration is committed to pursuing that goal. What we must not do is worsen the situation by unilaterally lifting the arms embargo. We have always believed the embargo is unfair and worked to end it multilaterally. This has consistently been the statement of the administration. They oppose unilateral, but they are for the multilateral lifting of the arms embargo. But usually when you look at the actual reasons why they are against the unilateral lift, they are just as true of the multilateral lift. Again, it is halfhearted arguments to justify a policy. And I know why the administration wants to do this. It is not a bad reason. They do not want to break faith with their allies, the British and the French, in particular, and even our relationship with the Russians, who do not want us [[Page S 10327]] to lift the arms embargo. That is the real reason. What they say is they are for lifting the arms embargo if only they could get the French and the British to go along. Well, Mr. President, it does not hold up. For example, they say if you lift the arms embargo unilaterally, the allied troops will be in danger. Well, what is going on right now? Multilateral action there. And my figures indicate May 28, 377 peacekeepers taken hostage. Just last week at Srebrenica, the attack on the Dutch peacekeepers. The fact is that under either scenario, unilateral or multilateral, these folks are in danger. They are in danger now, and they would be then. At least if the Bosnians were properly armed, maybe those Serbians who like to go into the safe havens and attack peacekeepers and civilians would think twice if they knew there was a force to oppose them, not just a bunch of U.N. peacekeepers who are not allowed to do anything about them. Second, it is said that a unilateral lift would upset the Russians. My feeling about that is that that is a completely disingenuous argument because everyone knows the Russians can veto a multilateral lifting request. So the administration knows that is not going to happen. And certainly the Russians did not pay any attention to our feelings about this type of issue when they did their actions in Chechnya. A third argument is, if you lift the arms embargo, the Serbians will get arms too. Well, they may. But the fact is, they are already very well armed. They were the beneficiaries of the fifth largest stockpile of arms in all of Europe because of this foolish arms embargo. How would this be different with a multilateral lift? Surely, if there is a multilateral lift and the Serbians want to get more arms, they will get it that way just as they will with the unilateral lifting of the arms embargo. Finally, the incredible claim that under the unilateral lifting, the war will spread, and to somehow suggest that the war will not spread if we have a multi-lifting of the arms embargo. Why? Why is that the case? Surely it would spread either way to some extent. So I do not understand how the administration can claim that there is a difference between unilateral and multilateral. And that is deeply troubling to me. I think the administration simply opposes lifting the arms embargo and should be straightforward about it so that the Bosnian people and the Members of Congress could know where they really stand. So, Mr. President, why? Why have we been subjected to this avalanche of arguments, this manufacturing of arguments to stop lifting the arms embargo? It is to block the lifting of the arms embargo, obviously. But I think it is a symptom of what I like to call the all-or-nothing attitude about the military role of the United States in this world. Either we have to do everything, that our credibility says that if we do one thing we have to send in troops later on or our credibility is shot. I do not buy that. In some cases that may be true. In an alliance with NATO, you bet. That is the pledge. But America cannot and certainly has not signed on to the notion that every time we help somebody do something to defend themselves, we therefore have to commit the entire force of our country. That is not the case. And I do not think it is what the Bosnian people expect. What is our end game? Are we going to just defend Bosnia and somehow broker a peace agreement and then leave this morsel of a country with no defense, to do what? Are we going to have a permanent U.N. force there? Are we just going to leave someday and hope the Serbians are nice to them? There is a better scenario, and that scenario is, let these folks continue to learn to defend themselves, to actually defend themselves, to have the pride of having protected their nation. You know, that is how we got started. That is how Israel got started in 1948, and it made all the difference that they won their own freedom. Yes, maybe with other people's arms but with their own strength and courage--and, of course, sacrifice. What is our plan? To make Bosnia one big safe-haven forever? A country that is going to be free has to be able to defend itself and it has to know how to defend itself. And you need arms in order to do that. Mr. President, I think lifting the arms embargo is the key to the permanent freedom of Bosnia. Finally, Mr. President, the question for me more than anything else is, where did anyone get the idea that we have the right to stand in the way of a self-defense of a free people that we have recognized as an independent country? What did we do in 1776? We were not even free. We were supposedly pledged in loyalty to the King of England. We decided we wanted to make our own self-determination. Somebody helped us get some help and some arms because we were standing for our own freedom. Mr. President, what is the second amendment all about, the U.S. Constitution? I happen to be a believer that that second amendment of the U.S. Constitution is important. I think we do have a right in this country or a reasonable opportunity to defend ourselves. And the reason for that amendment more than anything else was that the right of a people to keep and bear arms is necessary for a free people. That is what this is about, too. It is not just Americans who feel this way about self-defense. It is people in every country, including Bosnia. Mr. President, do we not remember appeasement in Europe? Do we not remember the constant embarrassment that we were taken in by the Nazis, that we actually believed--speaking here more of Britain than ourselves, of course--but we actually believed they were going to take this much space, just the Sudetenland, just Czechoslovakia, just Poland. What we are dealing with here are people who--apparently the leaders of Serbia--who want a greater Serbia. They will not stop if we continue to appease them. Mr. President, do we not remember the Warsaw ghetto? We acknowledged the 50th anniversary of the uprising of the Warsaw ghetto against the Nazis. Did we say, would it not be better if they had not resisted? There would be less bloodshed if they had not taken up arms against the Nazis. That is not what we said. We commemorated the heroism and the courage of people in a concentration camp who, knowing they were going to die, decided to die with dignity. Mr. President, when I was a teenager I was given a book called ``While Six Million Died.'' The book told a tough story for a young kid who was a Democrat, and still believes that Franklin Roosevelt was the greatest President in this country. It told of how that administration knew of some of the things that were going on to the Jews and others in Europe. It told how we did not really do everything we could do. Mr. President, I recently toured the Holocaust Museum again, and they talked about the difficulty of President Roosevelt's decision not to, for example, bomb some of the concentration camps. Well, at least in that case Franklin Roosevelt knew what he was trying to do. He believed, for the greater good of this world, that he could win the war and defeat the Nazis. He had a plan. And with Winston Churchill and others the plan was effective. But, Mr. President, we cannot use that excuse here. We have no plan. We have no intention of actually stopping Serbian aggression. So it is not understandable why we sit back and wait. Finally, Mr. President, when all is said and done, should not we ask the Bosnians themselves what they want? Should we impose upon them the notion that we are going to just keep these U.N. forces there for their own good? I think it is condescending, humiliating, and patronizing to the Bosnian people to suggest that we know better, that it is for their own good that we not lift the arms embargo. Let me conclude by just reading three statements from the Prime Minister of Bosnia that I think symbolize this issue better than anything else and the need for lifting the arms embargo. The prime minister has said first that: If the Serbs' aggression continues, we prefer military help over food for dead people. The aggression, plus the arms embargo, plus the nondeliverance of aid means death to Bosnia. [[Page S 10328]] And he said in March 1993: We would prefer doing it ourselves, but for that we need arms. The arms embargo is what is humiliating. The humiliation is to be slaughtered like an animal and not be able to defend yourself like a man. Finally, Mr. President, very recently, May 28, 1995, Mr. Silajdzic just laid it on the line, as he has tried time and time again to do. He means it. He does not want American soldiers there. He does not want the Americanization of the war. This is what he wants and this is what he will do. He says: The Army of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina is perfectly willing and able to defend our country and our citizens. We do not now, nor have we ever, asked for any ground forces from any country in the world to do our fighting for us. We have the men. We have the courage. But we do not have the means. That is all they are asking, Mr. President, a chance to protect their own lives, their own women, their own children, and to do something about this heartless Serbian aggression. So, Mr. President, although I again am eager to hear the outcome of the talks between President Clinton and others in the Congress, I do believe we should move forward as soon as possible to pass this resolution to unilaterally lift the arms embargo. I thank the Chair and everyone for their patience. I yield the floor.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, let me take this opportunity to thank the Senator from Mississippi and the Democratic leader for their help on resolving the issue. I did not want to offer the sense-of-the-Senate resolution during the core of the debate on the substance of the bill. I do think it is relevant to this bill. I want to thank them for their cooperation.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will take just a moment to comment on the leader's remarks. I believe that the leader's remarks are totally appropriate with regard to the Bosnian situation, and I feel that this should not be a partisan issue. This is a moral issue that appeals to a strong feeling throughout the country, I think, that something has happened here in Bosnia that goes against the very nature of the way we believe countries should be treated. In my view, what the majority leader has said about the right to self defense is the key to this issue. There are a number of arguments that are going to come up that this will Americanize the war, to lift the arms embargo; that it is better to do it multilaterally versus unilaterally. But that all is to the side of the central issue, which the majority leader has pointed out, and that is: How in the world can we say that a country cannot defend itself? What would give us that right? A terrible mistake was made in putting an arms embargo in a situation where one side had all the armaments and the other side was very poorly armed. I think we have to do everything we can to have a debate that does not make this a partisan issue. And to reiterate what the majority leader has said, all the arguments that are made have been made time and time again to justify delaying lifting the arms embargo. But he correctly points out that there is never a good time. No matter [[Page S 10227]] what we do to try to lift the arms embargo, there is some excuse why it is not the right time to do it. I say this as a person who, in his first month or two as a U.S. Senator, offered the first resolution I ever offered in this body to lift the arms embargo on the Bosnian Moslems. That was 2\1/2\ years ago. The situation in Bosnia today would be very, very different had we lifted the arms embargo at that time. I have appreciated the fact that we have had, on many occasions, a good bipartisan effort to try to lift this arms embargo. If I can pick one issue since I have been here that really has not been partisan and should not be partisan, it would be this very issue. So I look forward to the debate when this comes up. Nothing could be more urgent. I hope very much that we have an overwhelming vote in favor of the proposal, as at least described by the leader in his remarks. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. FEINGOLD

Mr. FEINGOLD. I thank the Senator from Delaware, and I yield the floor.