John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I thank the distinguished chairman of the VA-HUD Subcommittee for his remarks and I look forward to working with him on the preservation program in the Banking Committee in the coming year.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the other day when we completed the unanimous-consent agreements, I took the time to thank each of the staff. I would simply thank the distinguished chairman for his comments right now and for his expression of gratitude to my staff, and he knows I have reciprocated, joined with him in thanking all of them for a job well done. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from Maryland.

Mr. KERRY. With the amendment pending, once accepted, the order of business will be to pass the bill and immediately subsequent to the bill being passed we will proceed to the Ambassadors, is that correct?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me just clarify with the Senator, it is my understanding the amendment is pending.

Mr. KERRY. How much time remains on both sides?

Mr. KERRY. It is my understanding that the Foreign Claims Settlement Commission determines the validity of all claims submitted to it regardless of past litigation.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the chairman.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, section 141 of the bill deals with end strengths for the Foreign Service and the Senior Foreign Service in the State Department, USIA, and AID. We had similar language in the Foreign Relations Authorization Act for fiscal year 1994-95. However, the end strengths in section 141 of this bill are based on the original consolidation language which would have abolished AID, USIA, and ACDA, rather than the new language we have agreed upon. We addressed this problem in part in the managers amendment by deleting subsections (c) and (d) of section 141. However, to be consistent with the new consolidation approach, we need to revise the end strengths in subsections (a) and (b). Mr. President, I would ask the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee if he is willing to work with me to correct this problem in conference?

Mr. KERRY. First of all, I thank the Senator from Maryland for his kind comments about the difficult task with respect to this. He has been there before many times on a number of pieces of legislation. There is nobody more skilled than the Senator from Maryland at dealing with that. I think the comments from the Senator from Maryland and the Senator from Delaware are extremely important. As manager for this side, I in no way dismiss or diminish the concerns that they have expressed. Those concerns underscore the difficulties that not only we faced in getting here, but they also make very, very clear the limitations on where we can travel in the course of the conference. I want to underscore that to my colleagues. If this legislation moves in any way in the direction that the Senator from Maryland and Delaware have described, then this Senator is going to be disposed to find great difficulty in not only passing a conference report but, if a conference report comes to the Senate, in seeing this legislation pass the Senate. That is a very large hurdle indeed which it yet faces. So it is my hope we will work to continue the process of improving it. I have that assurance from the Senator from North Carolina. It is with that understanding and hope--``hope springs eternal,'' for at least this Senator--it is my hope we will be able to continue improving this legislation as we go forward from here, and I look forward to doing that. Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I know the Senator from Wyoming is waiting, and I will just take a couple of quick moments, if I may.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank my distinguished colleague. I was not here when he made some very generous comments about my participation in this, and I am appreciative of what I have been told that he said. As I said the other night, for myself I want to thank the Senator from North Carolina for his patience and for his forbearance in this process. It has been a difficult process, as many have said, but I will say that in all of the dealings that he and I have had, there was never any rancor or any raising of voices. We argued and debated and pressed and pushed, both of us, for positions that we believed in. In the end, what we have here is a compromise, as it ought to be, and I think it is a fair compromise. I think it is a sensible compromise. It is a compromise that recognizes the changes that are sweeping over all of Government and Washington. It recognizes the imperative of that change, which no agency or entity of Government ought to be exempt from unless they can prove, beyond all doubt, that they ought to be. Mr. President, I am pleased that Senator Helms and I have reached agreement on a manager's amendment and that the months-long impasse over this bill and the nominees and other issues linked to movement on this bill has come to an end. The process has been long and at times trying. In the eyes of many it was about politics, not policy, but that is not the case. From the very beginning there have been real substantive disagreements over the consolidation language in this bill and over many other policy provisions, such as those mentioned by the distinguished ranking minority member, Senator Pell. This managers' amendment is a compromise in every sense of the word. On the key issue of consolidation, Senator Helms and his Republican colleagues on the committee agreed to accept my proposal which preserves the President's prerogative to determine how the foreign affairs agencies--that is the State Department, AID, USIA, and ACDA-- will be reorganized. This proposal provides the President with flexibility. It does not abolish any agencies, unless the President fails to send a plan to Congress, but it does require the President to save $1.7 billion over 5 years through reorganization and consolidation. Recognizing that programmatic reductions are a byproduct of consolidation, it allows him to achieve up to 30 percent of that savings from programmatic reductions. I believe that this proposal will result in some serious and beneficial streamlining and consolidation of our foreign affairs apparatus. In my view this is necessary in light of the cuts that are being imposed on the budget in all areas including foreign affairs. I share the concern of many of my Democratic colleagues about these cuts. The international affairs budget is only 1 percent of the Federal budget, and it is 1 percent well spent when one considers our needs and interests abroad. But like it or not, funding for foreign affairs programs has been declining over the last decade and will continue to decline under whatever agreement is reached for balancing the budget in the next 7 years. Against this reality, we must find a more efficient and cost-effective way to make and implement policy while still preserving critical programs. I think the approach we have in this bill will enable us to do that. I recognize that some are concerned that the Senate position on consolidation, as reflected by this managers' amendment, will be reversed or changed in conference. Senator Helms and I have agreed that the Senate conferees will operate under consensus with respect to the main elements of my consolidation proposal, that is mandatory cost savings, abolition of the agencies and the limitations as to where cost savings may be achieved. It is imperative that any changes in the Senate position on consolidation reflect agreement among all the Senate conferees because this issue is at the heart of the bill. Senator Helms and I have also agreed that we will work in conference to increase the authorization levels for the operating accounts of the agencies affected by this bill. We must ensure that the authorizations for these accounts are in concert with the savings we are seeking through reorganization and consolidation and that we do not undermine the President's ability to reorganize by decimating the operations of these agencies through the authorization process. As we are all aware disagreements over this bill resulted for many months in inaction by the committee on 18 ambassadorial nominations, 4 FSO promotion lists, and the START II treaty. On Tuesday the Foreign Relations Committee favorably reported these items to the Senate. Once we act upon this bill, the nominees will be approved by the Senate en bloc pursuant to a unanimous-consent agreement reached last Thursday. When the START II report is filed, the Senate, pursuant to another unanimous-consent agreed to last Thursday, will begin consideration of the treaty. I believe there is overwhelming support in the Senate for this treaty and I hope that we will be able to complete action before the Senate recesses. If we do not, however, the majority leader has given his commitment that we will finish action on START II at the beginning of the next session. I think these are positive developments, as is the procedure we have worked out for committee consideration and action on the Chemical Weapons Convention. I am hopeful that with these positive steps, we can begin to restore the bipartisanship traditionally characteristic of the operations of the Foreign Relations Committee. The chairman has assured us that the committee will resume normal activities including scheduling of hearings and action on all currently pending nominees and other committee business. I believe all of us on the committee, Democrat and Republican alike, agree that this is in our joint interest and that of the country. Mr. President, I think most of us approached the issue of how to deliver our foreign policy and how to implement the various missions of the various agencies that do deliver that foreign policy. Most of us approached this with a sense that we can do it more efficiently, that we have not patented perfection with respect to it. There are areas of waste. There are areas of duplication. There are areas where we can do some consolidating, possibly even some merging. But we also recognized that within that framework it is important to acknowledge and honor the prerogatives of a separate branch of Government, the executive branch. So, some of us pressed very hard for the Presidential prerogative of being able to line up their own ducks, of being able to make a decision as to which agencies to conceivably consolidate, or what the order ought to be. I think most people feel, particularly in the arena of foreign policy, that is the fair prerogative of the President of the United States. We have preserved that prerogative in this compromise. So the principle of consolidation, the principle of merger, the principle of efficiency is embraced in the compromise, but the principle of the separation of powers and the Presidential prerogative in foreign policy is also embraced in this compromise. In addition to that, I believe the level of savings represents a realistic beginning. I think the Senator is perfectly correct in saying the ultimate goal here is for all of us to respect the desires of the American people to have the most efficient expenditure of their tax dollar. This is their dollar and this is their Government, not ours. We represent them here. So, there are many in this country who have second thoughts about some of those expenditures in the foreign field, but there are also many people who have enormous commitment to much of what we are trying to do abroad--for very little. I always ask audiences when I am asked a question about foreign policy when I go home and talk to people in Massachusetts how much money they think we spend in foreign policy. It is fascinating to listen to the response. Many people have a quick response, 20 percent, 20 percent of our budget. More often than not, it is in the low sort of double digits: 12 percent, 11 percent, or the high single digits. Almost invariably, I would say 75 percent and higher of the number of hands that go up in an audience, will pick 4 percent, 5 percent, rarely less than 3. I was at a teachers convention not long ago and only one teacher out of about 200 correctly picked the amount of money that we put into foreign policy in this country: 1 percent. Less than 1 percent of the total budget of the United States of America leverages our global interests. That is not a totally fair assessment because obviously we invest in the Defense Department. That is a very big investment and that is a serious component of our projection of force abroad and our interests. But in terms of assistance to other governments, in terms of population, environment, the kinds of things we try to do with respect to international narcotics through the State Department and a host of those efforts, we are talking about 1 percent and less of the entire Federal budget. Many of us on our side of the aisle are deeply concerned that in a world that is more global, in a world that is less centralized in its conflicts, where we no longer have the kind of bipolar, easily definable East-West tension that defined most of the history of this country since 1945, in that world there may well be more need to think about increasing things like the Foreign Commercial Service officers in various developing countries. When I was in Hong Kong over a year ago, I was struck by the fact that in the Foreign Commercial Service in Hong Kong, the several people that we have there said to me, ``Senator, we are missing billions of dollars of contracts for our companies in America.'' Those billions of dollars of contracts translate into thousands of jobs. For every $1 billion of exports, there are 20,000 jobs created in the United States of America. They said to me, ``Because we only have,'' I think--I cannot remember the exact number, it was in the single digits-- ``Because we only have this few number of people here in Hong Kong, we cannot keep up with the requests for proposals. We cannot keep up with the meetings that we could be putting together for people to be able to be married to a deal.'' ``If you people''--meaning us--he said, ``were to have enough foresight to just give us 10 more people, we would pay their salaries within 1 month.'' That seems to me to be a reasonable return on investment. That seems to make sense, but that is not necessarily--and I underscore necessarily--what will happen with this budget. Could it happen? The answer is yes. Under the consolidation, if the Secretary of State and the President were to decide that is an imperative and we ought to put more people into that than have some people on some other desk, we can make that happen. But I think most people feel many of those other desks are also competing with things ranging from international environmental accords to international questions of refugees to international questions of immigration to international questions of crime to international questions of terrorism, all of which in this less bipolar world present us with a whole different set of choices. Mr. President, I do not want to go on at great length. I think our effort is to try to expedite this this afternoon. There is no reason at this point to speak at great length, but I do want to simply say, many people on our side of the aisle were deeply concerned about the level of reductions, and that is why we are starting out at the $1.7 billion. It may well prove that in the consolidation program that, hopefully, we will set up within the timeframe within this bill--I am confident that we may find there is rationale for doing more. And we may also find there is a clash of reality that is impossible and that this is, in fact, too significant. Let me say also that Senator Helms and I have agreed that we will work in the conference committee to increase the authorized levels for the operating accounts of the agencies that are affected by this bill. We have to ensure that the authorizations for these accounts are in concert with the savings that we are seeking through the reorganization and consolidation, and we do not want to undermine the President's ability to reorganize by decimating the operations of these agencies through the authorization process itself. We are also gratified that part of this agreement now sees the ambassadors about to be eminently improved and the START II treaty to come to the floor, hopefully, within the next day or so, certainly within the next days. I am particularly grateful for the commitment of the chairman to guarantee that the committee will act on the Chemical Weapons Convention, and it is obviously our hope that we will be able to either improve it or change it, if it needs improvement, but ultimately the full Senate will be able to act. I share with my colleague from North Carolina concerns about it in its current form. There are issues of verification. There are legitimate reasons for the committee to want to do its business over the course of the next months. Moving at this point in time, Mr. President, to a consideration of the START II agreement, for which I think there is extraordinarily small opposition within the Senate, if any, is very, very important in the context of events in Russia, the elections, and also our own interests in reducing some 4,000 strategic nuclear weapons from the arsenals of both ourselves and the former Soviet Union, including the SS-18, which was always the most imposing weapon that was pointed at the United States of America. I think that moving forward on that treaty is enormously important, and it is one of the reasons why this compromise is so welcome. I want to say, finally, that I think all of these steps are important, positive steps, which I believe, in the spirit that the chairman has described, can help to bring us back to a bipartisan, joint effort to try to utilize this committee to help address the major questions that we have in the country with respect to foreign policy, and I am confident that with all of our good efforts it can, in fact, do that. Mr. President, it is my pleasure to yield to the distinguished former chairman, the ranking member of the committee, for his comments at this time.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today I am voting against the conference report on the Interior appropriations bill and I would urge the President to veto this bill should it reach his desk. This conference agreement is the third attempt by the conferees who have been meeting on this bill since September. Despite their difficult challenge and tremendous effort, regrettably, it is far from an acceptable compromise. I have particular problems with the funding level for the Department of Energy's energy conservation programs, the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities and numerous objectionable legislative riders. Energy conservation, like pollution prevention, makes good business and economic sense. It saves production costs and conserves resources and it is clearly the best of all energy options. Unfortunately, the conferees have funded this important work at a level well below that which the President and others have requested, and which is $187 million below the 1995 enacted level. The $536 million budget is a 26- percent reduction from the 1995 enacted level and a 38-percent cut from the President's request. The conference committee added numerous legislative riders to the bill that have serious policy implications, yet these were added without the benefit of congressional hearings or public input. One of the most egregious riders would set in stone the current Tongass Forest management plan for an additional 2 years, thus prohibiting an update to the unsustainable timber sale levels it mandates. Additional riders would prove harmful to the environment by placing a moratorium on future listings and critical habitat designations under the Endangered Species Act. Another provision would require wasting energy by preventing the Department of Energy's implementation of new energy efficiency standards for an additional year. The ideological fervor of the Republicans who now control the Congress has manifest itself in heavy cuts to the National Endowment for the Arts and the National endowment for the Humanities. It is my hope that the President will veto this bill so that the conferees can work toward a package that provides sufficient funding for environmentally beneficial programs and strips the environmentally harmful legislative riders. We can and must do better than this. We must not and the President will not capitulate to the tactic of the Republicans who now control the Congress to hold hostage the funding for our national parks and public lands until they are permitted to abolish or emasculate vital environmental protections that have withstood previous head-on challenges. I hope, after this bill is vetoed, the Congress will get down to serious, good faith negotiations to develop a reasonable interior appropriations bill which can be passed with broad support and signed into law. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join with Senator Kennedy in introducing legislation to establish the Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area. Our bill is the companion legislation to H.R. 2763, introduced yesterday by Congressman Gerry Studds and Peter Torkildsen. I especially want to acknowledge the enormous leadership efforts of Congressman Studds in preparing this initiative and I look forward to working with him and others in the months ahead to enact this legislation. Thirty-one islands sprinkled throughout Boston Harbor and the surrounding waterway would comprise the national recreational area. Our legislation is based upon a special resource study completed by the National Park Service in 1994 which found that the Boston Harbor Islands and surrounding area meet the Service's criteria for inclusion in the National Park System. However, trying to balance the need for fiscal restraint with the importance of protecting our national heritage, our bill is a much-scaled-down version of the one envisioned in the study. Our bill would fully utilize a unique partnership among the Federal, State, and local governments and the private sector and would require that at least 75 percent of the operational expenses for the park will come from non-Federal funding. Boston has a rich and diverse history and has been and remains the economic and cultural center of New England. Today, Boston is nationally and internationally renowned in fields such as higher education, health care, technology, transportation, and trade. Beginning centuries ago, Boston Harbor has played a significant role in shaping the city's and the region's direction and growth, and the harbor area contains some of the oldest and most significant historic sites in the Nation, dating from precolonial times. The islands themselves are rich in historical diversity, containing numerous military and maritime sites. In addition, there are important archaeological sites which chronicle the use and settlement of the harbor by native Americans from at least 9,000 years ago through the 17th century. With its proximity to the city, the park would provide an excellent opportunity to thousands of people to enjoy its outstanding natural, historic, scenic, recreational, and educational values. As a National Recreation Area, the Boston Harbor Island and surrounding area would enhance the National Park System by promoting this nationally significant history while providing leisure attractions to the public. The park is projected to attract to the area an additional 500,000 visitors annually, create 700 new jobs, and bring an additional $200 million into the region's economy. In 1970, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts began to acquire the islands of Boston Harbor for the benefit of the public. Since that time, a significant effort has been made to clean up the waters of Boston Bay to again make it attractive to boating, fishing, and other recreational and commercial activities. During the 1980's, the citizens of the Greater Boston area have undertaken what may prove to be the largest water infrastructure project in North America which is intended to guarantee that the Boston Bay's ecological health will be good for the foreseeable future. The bill we are introducing would establish the Boston Harbor Islands partnership to coordinate the activities of Federal, State, and local authorities and the private sector in developing and implementing an integrated management plan for the islands. In addition, an advisory council would be established to provide representation for interested groups and organizations. This council would make recommendations to the partnership on issues including tourism, transportation, natural resources, cultural and historic resources, and fundraising. Finally, our legislation would require a ratio of at least three non- Federal dollars for every Federal dollar spent on the park. Using limited Federal resources to leverage a significant local effort is a concept that merits support. By creating a national recreation area, we will preserve an important piece of our American heritage, give it the prominence and honor it richly deserves, accomplish all this with the Federal Government covering only a fraction of its cost, and facilitate the efforts of the Boston area to preserve its history and enhance recreational opportunities for its citizens and visitors. I am sure Senator Kennedy and I will be joined by the Massachusetts delegation and others as we work for passage of this important legislation. I am hopeful that the Congress will look favorably upon this initiative which would bring an important, historically significant addition to our National Park System without imposing great new financial burdens on it. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, today, I am pleased to join with Senator Kennedy in introducing legislation to establish the Boston Harbor Islands National Recreation Area. Our bill is the companion legislation to H.R. 2763, introduced yesterday by Congressman Gerry Studds and Peter Torkildsen. I especially want to acknowledge the enormous leadership efforts of Congressman Studds in preparing this initiative and I look forward to working with him and others in the months ahead to enact this legislation. Thirty-one islands sprinkled throughout Boston Harbor and the surrounding waterway would comprise the national recreational area. Our legislation is based upon a special resource study completed by the National Park Service in 1994 which found that the Boston Harbor Islands and surrounding area meet the Service's criteria for inclusion in the National Park System. However, trying to balance the need for fiscal restraint with the importance of protecting our national heritage, our bill is a much-scaled-down version of the one envisioned in the study. Our bill would fully utilize a unique partnership among the Federal, State, and local governments and the private sector and would require that at least 75 percent of the operational expenses for the park will come from non-Federal funding. Boston has a rich and diverse history and has been and remains the economic and cultural center of New England. Today, Boston is nationally and internationally renowned in fields such as higher education, health care, technology, transportation, and trade. Beginning centuries ago, Boston Harbor has played a significant role in shaping the city's and the region's direction and growth, and the harbor area contains some of the oldest and most significant historic sites in the Nation, dating from precolonial times. The islands themselves are rich in historical diversity, containing numerous military and maritime sites. In addition, there are important archaeological sites which chronicle the use and settlement of the harbor by native Americans from at least 9,000 years ago through the 17th century. With its proximity to the city, the park would provide an excellent opportunity to thousands of people to enjoy its outstanding natural, historic, scenic, recreational, and educational values. As a National Recreation Area, the Boston Harbor Island and surrounding area would enhance the National Park System by promoting this nationally significant history while providing leisure attractions to the public. The park is projected to attract to the area an additional 500,000 visitors annually, create 700 new jobs, and bring an additional $200 million into the region's economy. In 1970, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts began to acquire the islands of Boston Harbor for the benefit of the public. Since that time, a significant effort has been made to clean up the waters of Boston Bay to again make it attractive to boating, fishing, and other recreational and commercial activities. During the 1980's, the citizens of the Greater Boston area have undertaken what may prove to be the largest water infrastructure project in North America which is intended to guarantee that the Boston Bay's ecological health will be good for the foreseeable future. The bill we are introducing would establish the Boston Harbor Islands partnership to coordinate the activities of Federal, State, and local authorities and the private sector in developing and implementing an integrated management plan for the islands. In addition, an advisory council would be established to provide representation for interested groups and organizations. This council would make recommendations to the partnership on issues including tourism, transportation, natural resources, cultural and historic resources, and fundraising. Finally, our legislation would require a ratio of at least three non- Federal dollars for every Federal dollar spent on the park. Using limited Federal resources to leverage a significant local effort is a concept that merits support. By creating a national recreation area, we will preserve an important piece of our American heritage, give it the prominence and honor it richly deserves, accomplish all this with the Federal Government covering only a fraction of its cost, and facilitate the efforts of the Boston area to preserve its history and enhance recreational opportunities for its citizens and visitors. I am sure Senator Kennedy and I will be joined by the Massachusetts delegation and others as we work for passage of this important legislation. I am hopeful that the Congress will look favorably upon this initiative which would bring an important, historically significant addition to our National Park System without imposing great new financial burdens on it. I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, it is for these reasons that I believe we must support the President, but let me say that with caution. This must be limited, limited, limited. It must have a clear strategy that does exit us at the end of the year, and we must define success in the context not of the civilian political success but only in the military separation of the forces and the giving of them the opportunity to make a peace. I thank the Chair.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, none of us in the U.S. Senate, as is clear from the quality of this debate, takes lightly the responsibility of sending American troops into the potential of harm's way. But as each of us decides whether or not to support the President's decision to deploy American troops in Bosnia, I think we need to keep two essential points in mind. The first is--and it must be reiterated again and again and again-- the President is not sending American troops, nor are we ratifying the sending of American troops to Bosnia for the purpose of fighting a war. On the face of it, that may seem like an obvious point. But as I talk to citizens in my home State and listen to people across the country, many Americans do not yet understand what the mission is about or how it may be performed. We are not sending--nor do I intend to send or want to send--American forces to Bosnia to fight a war. We are not sending American forces to Bosnia to crush enemy forces the way we did in World War II. We are not sending American soldiers to Bosnia to roll back communism the way we tried to in Vietnam, nor are we sending them there to repeal aggression as we did in the Persian Gulf. The President is asking us to approve sending American troops to Bosnia at the request of parties to a peace agreement, at the request of parties to a conflict who are asking us and other nations to join together to help them to implement a peace that they have stated they want. To be sure, war has raged in Bosnia for 4 years, but it is not raging now. A cease-fire has been in place since October, and the parties to the conflict have exhausted themselves. And, for the first time in 4 years, they have opted for peace over war. This Senator contemplates only keeping troops in Bosnia for so long as the parties continue to opt for peace over war. It is their challenge now, not ours, to ensure that all of the elements under their control, under the control of each of them individually, are prepared to accept the peace. Recent events, such as the destruction by Bosnia and Croat troops of towns to be turned over to the Bosnian Serbs and the stated opposition of Bosnian Serbs in Sarajevo to the peace accords, suggest that even after 4 years of fighting it will indeed take some time to convince those on the ground that this peace agreement is in their interest and that the risks for doing that are real. But that is precisely why this NATO force is needed and is so critical. And it is precisely why we must participate in that force, only if we are to try to give them the chance to make the peace they say they want. In no way should we contemplate making that peace ourselves. The second critical point we need to keep in mind, Mr. President, is, as I listen to the debate, some Members assert that there is no vital national interest in Bosnia, and I have heard throughout this debate sort of a standard of vital strategic interest, vital national interest. Mr. President, that is the wrong test to apply to Bosnia. Our vital national interests are our territorial integrity, our political system and ideology, our economic security, and our way of life. We have gone to war four times in this century with the belief that we were protecting them. But let us say clearly up front, in this conflict, in this effort, in this mission, they are not at stake. That is not what is at issue here, and no one pretends that is why we should be involved. That is not what we are doing. We are not going to war to protect a vital national security interest. We are not even sending troops for a vital national security interest. Whether vital national security interests are at stake is the right question to ask, Mr. President, if you are deciding whether or not to send troops to war, it is not the right question to ask when you are being asked to participate in a multilateral, internationally sanctioned effort to help keep a peace which parties have said they want. And we should remember that we are not being asked to do this alone. We are doing this in conjunction with perhaps 30 other countries. In many ways, Mr. President, Bosnia is the prototype of the kind of conflict the international community will face in the years ahead as forces, once held in check by superpower politics, are unleashed and, with them, the potential for conflicts all across the globe. I think it is vital for us to understand that the test is really whether or not there are interests, whether or not there are important interests, that outweigh the risks of our participation. Mr. President, I have heard colleagues talk about the issue of credibility. Some are going to suggest that the only reason they are prepared to vote to send these troops is to uphold the credibility of the country or the credibility of the President. Let me say, Mr. President, with searing memories of Vietnam, that is not a reason to send our young military people into harm's way. I remember the phrase, ``I will not be the first President to lose a war,'' and we lost tens of thousands of young people over the issue of pride, over the issue of unwillingness to do anything except to sustain somebody's credibility as people saw it. Credibility has to have an underlying notion. It is not an abstract concept which merits the taking of the life of a young American or the giving of a life of a young American. Credibility has to be based on some underlying interest which puts your credibility at stake. I believe, Mr. President, that that vote--the credibility--is a hedge against a willingness to commit to this President's vision of what credibility might be at stake here. I believe there are legitimate interests for taking the risk of trying to uphold the peace--not to fight a war, but to try to uphold a peace. First, how could we as a nation avoid the moral interest in ending the worst atrocities in Europe since World War II? Whoever thought that after World War II Europe would again be the site of human beings being raped as a policy of war, tortured, murdered, separated from families, or thrown out of their homes simply because of ethnic background? Who will forget quickly the stories recently that drove us to feel compelled to simply leave them to fight for themselves--headlines such as ``Bosnia's Orphans of Rape; Innocent Legacy of Hatred,'' ``Mass Graves Probed in Northwest Bosnia,'' ``Anybody Who Moved or Screamed Was Killed: Thousands Massacred on Bosnia Trek in July,'' ``Srebrenica: The Days of Slaughter''? Who can forget the imperative of the words that we memorialize in Washington and elsewhere in this country, ``Never again''? That is an interest, Mr. President. Twice in this century Europe was engulfed by war, and the United States fought to save it. We have already invested our blood in the stability and in the prospect of democracy and the future of Europe. That is an interest, Mr. President. The conflict in Bosnia has the potential for spillover--and could become a wider war--to areas where ethnic tensions are high: Kosovo, Albania, Macedonia, Greece, and Turkey. That is an interest, Mr. President. So we have an interest in ensuring that those things do not happen. We also have an interest in the risks to American forces and to NATO, and the cost of ensuring a peace in Bosnia now will inevitably be less than if we would have to respond to a wider conflict in the future. Finally, we do have an important interest in demonstrating leadership on an international community level that we have the capacity and the will to lead in the post-cold war world. For far too long American policy toward Bosnia was vague, vacillating and ineffective. Now, to the credit of this administration, to our country, we have changed that. And now we are trying to join together with our European allies in an effort to provide the strong response that stopped the Bosnian Serb attacks, that did try to provide a humanitarian corridor, that upheld the notion of international law, and that was willing to try to enforce the concept of safe areas. Having led the effort--an extraordinary effort by the President, Secretary Christopher, and Assistant Secretary Holbrooke--having led that effort, Mr. President, how do we not have an interest that goes beyond mere credibility in trying now to implement the settlement which we ourselves have instigated and helped put together? As President Clinton has said, if we do not participate in this operation, there will be no NATO force and the war in Bosnia will begin again. Our moral and political interests in Bosnia and our sense of responsibility demand that we not let that happen--and that we not be ultimately dragged in. So Mr. President, it is because credibility is based on real interests that I support the President's decision to send our forces to Bosnia but I believe just as firmly the President owes it to the American people and Congress to ensure that the operation is limited in terms of the mission, limited in terms of the goals we set for success, and limited in duration. As defined by the Dayton peace agreement, the mission of our troops and others participating in IFOR, the Bosnia Peace Implementation Force, is to monitor and enforce compliance with the military aspects of the peace agreement--that is, enforcing the cease-fire, supervising the withdrawal of forces to agreed lines, establishing a zone of separation between them, and returning troops and weapons to cantonments. Recognizing that they may need some help in making the transition from war to peace, the parties asked for a strong, NATO-led force. That is what they are getting and that is what they agreed to in the Dayton peace agreement. Our troops will take their orders only from the American general who commands NATO and they will have the authority to meet any threat to their safety or any violation of the peace agreement with immediate, decisive force. When American peacekeepers in Somalia embarked upon what turned out to be an ill-fated mission to apprehend warlord Mohammed Aideed, they lacked the equipment and other elements necessary to ensure success. From what our military officials have told us, this scenario will not be repeated in Bosnia. Our forces are going in well-trained, well- equipped, heavily armed, and with robust rules of engagement. I still remain concerned about the potential for so-called mission creep. Under the terms of the peace agreement, I-For has the authority to ``help create secure conditions for the conduct by others of other tasks associated with the peace settlement, including free and fair elections;'' to ``assist the movement of organizations in the accomplishment of humanitarian missions;'' ``to assist the UNHCR and other international organizations in their humanitarian missions;'' to ``observe and prevent interference with the movement of civilian populations, refugees, and displaced persons, and to respond appropriately to deliberate violence to life and person;'' and to ``monitor the clearing of minefields and obstacles.'' True, these are authorities not obligations as Secretary Christopher has pointed out. True, the mission is defined by the NATO plan and these elements are not in the NATO plan, as Secretary Perry told the Foreign Relations Committee. Nevertheless, these authorities create the potential for expansion of the mission beyond the military tasks cited by administration officials and for increased risk to our troops and those of other nations participating in the operation. They also create an expectation on the part of the local populations and civilian organizations on the ground that I-For will protect and assist them. If refugees are being attacked, can our troops really stand by and watch? Would we want them to? If UNHCR ask I-For to help resettle refugees in a given area, will I-For feel compelled to assist? If Catholic Relief Services asks French troops in Sarajevo to protect a convoy of humanitarian aid going into the city, are they bound to assist? The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe [OSCE] is responsible for organizing elections in Bosnia in the next year. What expectations does OSCE, or the parties for that matter, have about IFOR's role in this process? I remain concerned that IFOR's role in assisting the civilian operations that are to occur in the next year is still somewhat ambiguous. I understand that NATO military planners wanted IFOR to have these authorities to avoid the situation U.N. peacekeepers often found themselves in in Bosnia--that is, standing by and watching as terrible atrocities were committed against innocent civilians. I agree that our soldiers must act if civilians are under attack or directly threatened. However, the operative word in responding to any of these situations must be ``limited.'' IFOR commanders from General Joulwan on down must understand that the American people and Congress will not support a broadened definition of the mission that has American forces serving as the constant protectors of civilian populations. That is not our job; the parties to the agreement must do this by fulfilling the commitments made in the agreement. Much concern has been expressed in this debate about the exit strategy for American troops. Any exit strategy must be composed of more than a date; it must include criteria to determine whether or not the mission has been successful. I believe that that criteria must be limited solely to the military tasks that IFOR has set out to accomplish. The civilian tasks that must be undertaken in the next year such as refugee repatriation and resettlement, elections, establishing governmental structures, monitoring human rights, apprehending alleged war criminals, are daunting. They must not become the criteria by which we determine success of the IFOR mission. The President has stated that the mission which we are asking our troops to undertake will be limited to a year. Undoubtedly during this year, there will be violations of the Dayton agreement. However, if there is a pattern of violations which indicates that the parties are not truly committed to this agreement, then American forces should be withdrawn. Our soldiers are there to keep the peace, not to fight a war or to prevent a war if the parties want to return once again to being combatants. If it becomes clear as the end of the year approaches, that the duration of the IFOR mission needs to be extended because success is within reach but not yet achieved, the burden of that mission must be shifted away from the United States and more to our European allies. We must make it clear that we do not intend to stay in Bosnia indefinitely. Bosnia is first and foremost a European problem. If the peace implementation operation must be extended beyond a year, the countries of Europe must be prepared to share more of the responsibility and to replace our forces with theirs as we transition out. In other words, our troops must be out within the limited timeframe the President has set out. The peace agreement provides for a build-down of the parties' military forces with the goal of achieving military parity by the end of the year, when IFOR is to withdraw. Administration officials have indicated that build-down may not be enough to ensured stability and that the United States will ensure that the Armed Forces of Bosnia and Herzegovina are equipped and trained. While I agree that military imbalance at the end of a year could be a serious threat to peace, I am concerned about the risk that this process could pose for American forces on the ground. Even though American participants in I-For will not be arming or training Federation forces, they could be targets for Bosnian Serbs who object to the lack of neutrality on the part of the United States. Beyond the risk factor, it is not at all clear to me, at least, when and where build down ends and build up begins and who is going to do the building up. Notwithstanding these concerns, I believe our overall interests in Bosnia warrant the sending of American troops to help keep the peace. Certainly there are risks associated with this operation, but every effort has been made to minimize those risks by ensuring that our forces are well-trained and well-equipped, and that the rules of engagement are robust in order that they may defend themselves against any life-threatening situation. I recognize that many Americans and indeed some in this body do not believe that we should participate in this mission. As a Vietnam veteran, I know the pain and the difficulty of fighting without the political support of the American people and their representatives. We are not sending our soldiers to Bosnia to fight a war, but we are asking them to undertake a military mission in the name of peace that is not without risk. No matter what concerns we may have about this endeavor, we owe them our full support. We should demonstrate that support by endorsing the President's decision to send them to Bosnia.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I went to Vietnam because another Congress told me I had to go to protect freedom--including the first amendment-- and defeat communism. I went; and I am honored to have served, but, here I am--today--forced to come to the floor of the U.S. Senate to fight for freedom once again and engage my colleagues in a debate about a flag burning amendment. Those same colleagues--on one hand--want to amend the first amendment for the first time in 200 years and abridge our most basic freedom in the name of patriotism--and on the other--cut benefits for veterans which is--in my view--the most unpatriotic thing we can do. This is the ultimate irony. Over the last few months--they have come to this floor with endless speeches about preserving this democracy--their agenda does exactly the opposite. It dishonors veterans with the most destructive budget to veterans that I have ever seen in my years here. My Republican colleagues came to the floor with Medicaid cuts this year that would have eliminated coverage for 4,700 Massachusetts veterans--2,300 of them under the age of 65, disabled, and ineligible for Medicare coverage. The remaining 2,400 are over 65 and 1,200 of them are in nursing homes. Mr. President, if we vote to amend the Constitution and raise the symbols of this Nation to the level of freedom itself, and we chip away at the first amendment to protect the flag--then what next? What other symbol do we raise to constitutional status? We all have special symbols to us that represent America and democracy, but to give them constitutional status is, at best, an extraordinary overreaction to a virtually nonexistent problem. According to the Congressional Research Service there were three--count them--three--incidents of flag burning in the United States in 1993 and 1994. That is not exactly a major problem in our country. Even Roger Pilon of the Cato Institute, in a recent editorial, said that, and I quote: This issue is left-over from the dimmest days of the Bush administration, when a desperate grasp for symbols masked an abject want of ideas. And it was Ronald Reagan who said, as my colleague from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, pointed out in his editorial yesterday in the Washington Post, ``Don't be afraid of freedom; it is the best weapon we have.'' But here we are again--debating a constitutional amendment to abridge that freedom. Mr. President, I, like everyone in this Chamber, abhor seeing anyone burning the flag under any circumstances. It hurts me to see it. It has always hurt me. I thought it was wrong in the Vietnam era, just as I do now, but I never saw the act of flag burning--nor could I ever imagine seeing it--as unconstitutional. To burn the flag is exactly the opposite--it is the fundamental exercise of constitutional rights--and we cannot fear it, stop it, or set a precedent that abridges basic freedoms to show our outrage about it. What we must do is tolerate the right of individuals to act in an offensive, even stupid manner. Mr. President, as a former prosecutor I know that most flag burning incidents can be prosecuted under existing law. If a person burns a flag that belongs to the Federal Government--that constitutes destruction of Federal property, which is a crime. Mr. President, 54 years ago last week, was the day that Franklin Roosevelt said would ``live in infamy.'' And I ask: Do we honor those who have served their country so ably, so bravely--do we honor our veterans by changing the first amendment, by trimming out fundamental freedoms they fought for? In fact, I suggest that if we pass this constitutional amendment, this day will go down--once again--as a day that will live in infamy. For it will be the day when the greatest country on Earth limited the basic freedoms because of the stupid, incentive, hurtful acts of a very few people on the fringes. We are better than that, Mr. President. We are smarter than that. We are smart enough to honor our Nation, our liberty, and our veterans without sacrificing our freedom. In the final analysis, I think if Congress and the country want to do something serious to help our veterans, then we should focus on the quality of veterans benefits, the ability of veterans to have access to health care--on the POW/MIA issue and issues like agent orange. These are the serious bread-and-butter and health issues for those who sacrificed so much for America, and I'm working hard to make sure that America keeps its contract with our veterans. But I do not believe that keeping the faith with our veterans means changing the first amendment for the first time in 200 years. Mr. President, the Constitution is hardly a political tool to be pulled from the tool chest when someone needs to tighten a nut or a bolt that holds together one particular political agenda. This is not an easy vote for me. I've been told that there are veterans in my State--in Massachusetts--who feel so strongly about this issue that they will follow me all over the State if I vote against this amendment; but let me make it very clear that to me the flag is a symbol of this country, it is not the country itself. The Bill of Rights is not a symbol; it is the substance of our rights--and I will not yield on that fundamental belief and I will not yield in my deep and abiding commitment to the men and women who served this country and sacrificed so much for the freedoms symbolized by the Stars and Stripes. I thank my colleagues and I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. It is my understanding that there is a further unanimous- consent request with respect to the Chemical Weapons Convention if it is not reported by the close of business. Or is that accomplished?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. If I could further ask my friend a question, is it not also true that while some communities may decide they do not need nor want a cop, for that community that might make that decision, there are probably 10 or 15 or 20 or 100 other ones in the country that could use 2 or 3 or 4 cops but which cannot get them because even the 100,000 cops is not enough to do what we ought to be doing?

Mr. KERRY. Will my colleague yield for a question?

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Similarly, any discussion or consideration of the foreign aid provisions of the House bill will be by similar participation?

Mr. KERRY. With respect to the foreign aid provisions, the population provisions will be a Member issue in the conference. And there is agreement that foreign aid provisions of the U.S. Senate will be neither added nor dropped in conference without a mutual discussion, involvement by Senate conferees?

Mr. KERRY. If my colleague will yield before he closes, I join with him in thanking his staff, also--Steve Berry, particularly, and Randy Scheunemann have been extraordinarily helpful in working through the issues. We are grateful for their help.

Mr. KERRY. I thank the distinguished former chairman and now ranking member of the committee for his very generous comments.