John Kerry

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. I wonder why the Senator does not feel that--recognizing the fact that the United Nations and the United States signed off on the location, and the location issue is sort of behind us--why the Senator would not feel that having an American presence there which, on a daily basis, raised the issue of Harry Wu before the conference, which required the conference to deal with Harry Wu's detention, which used this platform as a means of underscoring, would not be stronger than simply denying ourselves our own presence. It will not stop the conference. The conference will go on. Everyone else will be there. And they will not raise this issue necessarily as vociferously and as passionately as we might. So why would we not be better off directing our delegation to raise it on a daily basis and pass a resolution from this conference with respect to Harry Wu?

Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield for a question?

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

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, my question to the Senator again is, when the United States takes a step unilaterally, we tend to confuse our capacity to send a message. And I ask the Senator, would she not think that if this were, indeed--this Senator would agree that if a conference as a whole were not held there or were moved, that would, indeed, be of significant implication, that that would have an impact. Would we not be better off passing a resolution which sought a multilateral response rather than one that simply denies ourself our own voice? I ask the Senator, would she not then think it a better idea to find a stronger way to try to send a message? My point is merely that this really deprives us of something and does not have the full impact. I would join the Senator if she wanted to try to change the whole location or if she suggested we should engage in a multilateral effort to see that the conference did it. That would be a slap in the face of China.

Mr. KERRY. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield further?

Mr. KERRY. I was in the midst, I thought, Mr. President, of asking a question. I ask the Senator if she does not realize from the writings of Harry Wu and the risks that Mr. Wu has been willing to take that he would probably prefer that this conference took place and that it raised the issues with the United States there to raise them? And I wonder if she has thought about whether or not Harry Wu would rather have the delegation be present.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, The Ryan White CARE Act is about people. It is about community and caring and, fundamentally, it is about our response to a public health crisis, and the fairness with which we deal with such crises. It is about community and what we stand for as a nation. It is about adequate education and the prevention of a deadly disease. It is about Government's rightful role in protecting the health of Americans. And it is about life and hope, health and caring. It is the function of this body to debate issues on principle, and there will always be issues that will philosophically divide us, but illness and human suffering is not a wedge issue; and it should not be debated based on our fears and our anxieties. I sincerely hope that, in discussing AIDS education, prevention, and funding we do not engage in a debate about cultural differences or lifestyles, but about illness, disease, and the devastating impact of the HIV virus on our fellow citizens. I would hope that the fight against AIDS, like the fight against cancer or heart disease would unite us, and strengthen our resolve as a community, because HIV knows no cultural bounds, and spares no gender, color, creed, or national origin. I wish that this Senate could unanimously support legislation--without divisive amendments--that addresses, a devastating disease with tragic consequences that has torn families and friends apart. Mr. President, in this debate let us not drift too far afield from what this legislation would do. We are simply talking about outpatient medical care to those who suffer the HIV virus. We are talking about supporting services to families and individuals living with the HIV virus and AIDS. We are talking about education and prevention. We are talking about altering funding formulas to reflect the geographic and demographic reality of where the problem is and who needs the help. We are simply talking about fairness, about doing all we can to help victims and families who have struggled with HIV. We should not divert our attention from intolerance of the suffering HIV causes to intolerance of those who suffer. In conclusion, beyond the specifics of this important legislation, I see the Ryan White CARE Act as a test of our leadership in the U.S. Senate, and as a symbol of our commitment to the fundamental concept of community that holds us together as a diverse nation, strengthened by our differences. I yield the floor.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, the final question that comes out of that is since Bihac is already under attack and Gorazde is already under attack, if we were to put into law the notion that all we are going to do is lift the embargo, why would the Serbs then not accelerate the pace of the attack in order to guarantee that during the interim, before heavy weapons can get there, they would finish the job?

Mr. KERRY. Would that not be a policy that might not in fact leverage the negotiated settlement that would be everybody's desire?

Mr. KERRY. I appreciate the Senator taking the time. I would like to ask again a couple more questions, if I may. Mr. President, I ask the majority leader, would the majority leader prefer a policy that went further than what was achieved in London, where each of the safe areas was in fact given a guarantee of being safe? Would NATO be capable of enforcing that with American air support reinforcing French and British troops on the ground and with sufficient troops to make real the notion that the international community will make a difference? Would the Senator prefer that policy?

Mr. KERRY. Assuming we would override it and it became the law of the land, apparently this British Prime Minister, as recently as yesterday, said to the President if this passes the Senate, they will begin the process of withdrawal.

Mr. KERRY. I accept that. I understand that. But my next question would then be if the Senate went the full measure and Congress passed this, at that point in time does the Senator accept the French and British pronouncements that they will withdraw completely?

Mr. KERRY. If I could say to the Senator, the Senator talked about forcefulness and the need to stand up and be a leader. My question is this: Is the only leadership that we are offering a leadership that effectively says not only will we not give you weapons, not only will we not strike, but we will simply lift an arms embargo and you fight it out?

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I ask the Senator, the majority leader, if he will engage, perhaps, in a brief colloquy? I would like to take the opportunity to ask a few questions, if possible. I would like to ask the majority leader--first of all I would like to say I think every U.S. Senator shares the anguish and frustration expressed by the Senator and by others on the floor. The question here is what is the consequence of one step or another? I would like to ask the Senator if we could perhaps have a little dialog. I think it would be helpful to elucidate this a bit. I would ask the Senator if this is the Senator's preferred policy. I heard the majority leader talk about American leadership and inaction, and being hamstrung by the U.N. I presume there is a policy that is growing out of frustration. I would ask him if this is his preferred policy, and if it is not, whether or not the Senator would articulate what he would prefer to see us doing now that would make a difference.

Mr. KERRY. I say to my friend, in a sense it does that. In an emotional kind of litmus test, a written sense, it does that. The reality is that it does a lot more than that. It does a lot more than that. It is not just us making this decision. [[Page S 10627]] For better or worse, we engaged with the United Nations; for better or worse, NATO involved itself with the United Nations; for better or worse, our allies are involved; and mostly for the better, it is they that are on the ground, not we. They are saying this is not the preferred way to go. It is a Frenchman who was buried yesterday. Mr. President, 42 or so Frenchmen have died. Now, I suggest that we cannot just come here in a vacuum and be insensitive to the implications that are far more complicated than this resolution permits for. What bothers me so much about this resolution is it is so attractive on its face. It is so easy. We basically say it will not happen unless the President of Bosnia asks it to happen, and it will not happen unless the troops are coming out. Everyone understands there is a different message in it, really. We should not be debating on the floor how we withdraw. We should be debating on the floor how we summon the will and the capacity to put together a structure that can win for the Western world the capacity to leverage a settlement. Now, that may be long in the doing. One of our greatest problems is that for 20 years nobody believes any longer in our staying power. Most countries have come to believe through Somalia, through all of our debate, that all they have to do is put us to the test. I rather suspect that is one of the reasons why Saddam Hussein went the distance that he did. It seems to me that at some point, if we are going to put an end to that legacy, we will have to be prepared to assume or define, at least, a certain amount of risk. I am willing to understand that this is fraught with pitfalls. There is no guarantee that we may set a certain limit of the risk we are willing to assume and may not be able to get beyond that. Boy, I would rather do that, Mr. President, than turn around and ratify our helplessness, which is effectively what we are doing today. I say, there is no certainty at all that weapons will get through Croatia. None whatever. There is a certainty to the fact that 25,000 American troops are going to go in to get everybody out. That, there is a certainty of. So when people say this is not a way to Americanize the war, let me say, if you are the British and you are already apprehensive about this policy, or you are the French and you think you have been abandoned by an ally who wants to unilaterally do something, there is no finer excuse than to be able to turn around and say, ``OK, you guys have your own program; you go in and help us get out, and it is your ball game.'' Then what happens if, while we are getting out, a lot of helpless women and children come running up to Americans because there are people killing them and chasing them in the background; are we going to stand and watch as we get out? What are the rules of engagement going to be for the young soldiers? What will happen if someone wants to lure them into some kind of a fire fight? And then when we lose people, we feel we have to retaliate against one side or the other? I think it is a hell of a lot better, I say respectfully, to be there with the defined purpose of delivering humanitarian assistance and helping to protect a safe haven than worrying about how we are getting 25,000 of our troops back out. I think for history's sake, we would be better off taking that position than the road we are about to go down. I am in favor of trying to lift the embargo on a multilateral basis. I wish we were changing this in a way that set up a structure for a multilateral process and for some diplomatic leverage with an attempt at a cease-fire and an ability to enforce and reinforce this kind of effort. My belief is that the administration understands the difference in this equation today. My belief is that we must put this London meeting to the test. For the U.S. Senate to not even have the patience to allow the next few days to play out before we step in with an arrogant club is to somehow ignore both our relationships as well as common sense. Other colleagues are on the floor. They want to speak, Mr. President. I have other comments, but I did not expect to go on at this point in time.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, let me say to my friend, that is because we have basically been searching for 3 years or more for a no-risk policy. And every balancing act that we have made in each equation that we have come up with has been sort of the minimalist, the minimalist of what we can achieve on the ground without upsetting Yeltsin, the minimalist of what we do without getting Croatia at a point where they move too much, the minimalist of what we do with respect to Milosevic in Serbia, the minimalist of what we can get out of the French, and the minimalist of what we give ourselves. That is the history, all of which from our point of view has been geared essentially to be no risk. Now, I do not think there is such a thing. And I do not think the Senator from Virginia believes there is either. Nobody knows it better than he as a former Secretary of the Navy and as a former marine. There is a reason young Americans put on the uniform. There is a reason we have a standing military. And we make judgments, or we are supposed to, about the different tiers of interest that we have as a nation. Sometimes that interest rises to vital national security, a challenge to our way of life, and we go all out. Sometimes it arises just to ease security interests. Sometimes it is only a national interest. Sometimes it is only an interest. I respectfully suggest that with each of those different tiers, you may or may not be willing to risk a patrol plane, you may be willing to put a bomber wing on the line, you may put a squadron, company, or division. You make those decisions. We have essentially tried to avoid all of those. I do not think you can resolve this problem in any way that is satisfactory to the NATO commitment, to the civilized notion of who we are as a country and where we should be going, and certainly, to the history of Europe, without assuming some risk.

Mr. KERRY. I will be delighted to yield for a question.

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank the distinguished majority leader for taking the time. I would like to respond a little bit to some of the answers and some of the notions, if I may, because I accept what the Senator has said. This is not due to him. He has consistently been critical of the lack of adequate response, and he has been for a stronger response. I think what is really noteworthy is that in his answers, he acknowledged that his preference would be to have a stronger allied response, a stronger response without dual key, a stronger response with a NATO that is capable of immediately impacting events, and a stronger capacity on the ground. What we have watched is a steady process where the Bosnian Muslims have systematically and methodically had the entire fabric of their community and life stripped away. But what we are doing is debating a resolution that will effectively ratify our own hesitation, our own confusion, our own weakness, and even the cowardice of the Western world. And what will happen with this resolution is that because it effectively says here is what we will do when we can do nothing else-- that is what this amendment says: Here is what we will do because in our ineptness, in our frustration, we cannot find another policy. So we are basically saying, ``We are going to feel good about your dying.'' It is interesting that the President of Bosnia keeps saying, ``Give us the weapons.'' But he does not say, ``UNPROFOR, get out of here.'' He wants the best of both worlds. And there is a reason for that obviously, which is precisely why the British and the French have been reluctant to go along with lifting the embargo, because they understand how they could get trapped in a worse war if the weapons are coming in on both sides and they are there supposedly trying to keep peace. Now, the Senator is absolutely correct. The reason this equation has been so crazy on balance is that there has been a gutless process wherein the civilian leadership of the U.N. itself has been unwilling to guarantee what it originally gave as a guarantee. So we disarmed people. We gave them the notion of an enclave that was safe. We promised humanitarian assistance. And we pretended that their presence would act as the leverage to try to get a peace agreement when in fact we, never being willing to respond, annihilated our own leverage and, in fact, invited more and more aggression by the Serbs. So we have a lot of blame to make here. But the question we ought to be asking ourselves today is are we going to come here now and codify that blame, codify our own guilt into a policy that effectively says we are prepared to wash our hands of this? In effect, this amendment will stand for all of history to say that not only were we so craven as to not find a policy but we were ready to codify our own helplessness. The majority leader has acknowledged it. He said his preferred policy is to be tough. His preferred policy is to guarantee that we can make them pay the price of violating the safe zones, of shooting against innocent civilians who go out to get water at a fountain or cross a street. Are we so helpless in the front of that that all we can do is turn around and say, ``We are going to give people the capacity,'' not even the weapons, not even the training? That is not in here. There is no strike in here. There is no long-term aid program like Afghanistan in here. This is the abandonment amendment. But it is cleverly written. It is cleverly written to only take place if the President of Bosnia goes to the United Nations and says, ``Leave, UNPROFOR.'' Or if UNPROFOR is out after a period of time. So in effect the proponents can stand there and say to everybody, well, we are really not doing anything except if the President wants us to or if UNPROFOR has already left, and then what are we doing? Is this really our response to what is happening in Bosnia, to come up with an amendment that has two condition precedents, two triggers, both of which effectively wind up saying a message, neither of which does a darned thing to change the situation and meet the needs of people today? But we are going to pretend that this somehow meets needs. Those who favor this approach somehow suggest that someone--we do not even say who--just putting arms into the Bosnian Moslem hands is going to affirmatively change the equation on the ground, and it is going to make us feel better simultaneously. The truth is that it promises to do neither. Let us be very clear, Mr. President. Lifting the embargo, as the Senator from Kansas said, will not stop the killing. It will probably increase the killing. And it is everybody's guess as to how much and how fast. I wonder what America is going to do if this becomes law. And we ought to act responsibly on what we pass around here with a notion that it might be law and not just pass it on for others to deal with by veto so a minority can kill it and people can walk around and feel good. Because if this does become law, we will have unilaterally breached an international agreement. I am not suggesting we should keep the embargo, incidentally. I voted to lift it last year for the simple reason that I thought it might change the equation at that time and we were sending a message. It did not and we have not. But now we are talking real. Now we are talking a very different situation. It is clear that just lifting it at some point in time in the future is not going to meet the needs of now. It does nothing to provide for the immediate needs of any of those enclaves that the Senator listed as being under siege or being next to be under siege. But it will result to an absolute certainty, if it becomes law, in the withdrawal of humanitarian assistance, the withdrawal of the U.N. effort, and the shifting to the United States for having made this choice a future responsibility for whatever it is that flows. Now, I cannot predict what it is that will flow, but I think most people here have a pretty good sense that there is going to be a lot more killing. If the people think that the CNN images of refugees were bad in the last few weeks, wait until all of the U.N. effort is out and the population is left to the whim and will and fancy of people running around with guns desperate, all of them, to stay alive. Then what will the U.S. response be? Will the Senator come back to the floor and say, ``Well, at least they are dying with a gun in their hands?'' Will the Western world response be, ``Well, this is OK because they are able to make a choice?'' I do not think so. I think, on the contrary, the probability is that Moslem countries will not tolerate what might be going on and maybe they will become more deeply involved. And perhaps it will then spread across another border. Perhaps all the unthinkable things that we never stopped to think about before World War I and World War II take place. Who knows? Will it spread to Macedonia? I do not know. I do not have the answers to that. But I know wise people exercising good judgment with respect to foreign policy should not just take a step and throw their hands up in the air and say we should not try to think those things out and measure what the consequences are. It is hard for me to believe that a Senate that is so filled with people who want to be tough about what is happening with respect to Serb behavior and who understand that we should be responding more forcefully would come to the floor with anything but a resolution seeking that kind of a response. This is not a policy for the now. This is a policy that is an epitaph for Bosnia, and it basically says, ``We ignored you for a few years. Then we lifted the embargo after we did you damage. And we wished you good luck. Have a nice war.'' That is the impact of this. At the very moment that our allies that we have spent, what, 45, 50 years building an alliance with to make a NATO work [[Page S 10625]] are saying ``do not do this,'' we are prepared to unilaterally pull the rug out from under them. It does not make sense. We are prepared to deal a major blow to a NATO that has already dealt itself a blow, obviously. But Tuzla still stands. Gorazde still stands. Sarajevo still stands. And all of those people in those cities are safer today for that fact and for the presence of the United Nations than they would be without it. Who will come to the floor in a few months and explain away those people who are lost when we claim responsibility that the world will quickly give us for having pulled the rug out from under this international effort? And what happens when one of our allies comes to us and says, ``Hey, you know, we don't really like that embargo on Iran. We are tired of the embargo on Iraq. We really don't agree with you on what we are doing to Qadhafi, and, by the way, North Korea is your problem; you people figure out what to do with the nuclear weapons.'' All of those things can flow as a consequence of the unilateralness of what we are doing. I would love to see the embargo lifted.

Mr. KERRY. I yield for a question.

Mr. KERRY. I will say to my friend, I do not think it is the responsibility of an American to be on the ground in Bosnia without a peace agreement. I accept the notion we should be part of legitimate peacekeeping if there is an agreement. But this is, after all, not World War I or II. And it is Europe's backyard. And I have no guilt nor shame, no restraint whatsoever in suggesting that the majority of the responsibility on the ground belongs with Europeans. And if they are willing to carry that, I am willing to support the notion that a young American should go in harm's way in air support and logistical support. And I think that is the appropriate balance. Now, absent a British or French willingness to do that, then maybe we are left with nothing more but to do this epitaph resolution. I do not believe we have exercised that full measure of diplomacy yet. I do not think we have come to that point yet. And if we have, it is a sorry state of affairs. As Pope John Paul said, this represents a defeat for civilization. But it has not happened yet, notwithstanding the horror, notwithstanding all that has gone on. Now, I am not suggesting that we can make peace. I am suggesting we can guarantee the most minimalist notion that we have carved out, which is the delivery of humanitarian assistance and the protection of a few safe havens. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. KERRY. No. Because not one U.S. Senator, myself included, I think, will put American troops on the ground. And the British and the French were not prepared to put additional troops in at the time. Now I think that equation has changed. But the truth is, and the Senator from Virginia knows this well, the safe zones were designed to protect civilians. That was the concept. In fact, we said to people, give us your weapons. We disarmed them in order to protect them, and then never followed through with sufficient capacity to do that. But the concept was that they would be safe in a safe zone.

Mr. KERRY. No.

Mr. KERRY. Let me say to my friend from Virginia, that is not in keeping with what safe havens were. We did guarantee safe havens.

Mr. KERRY

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, Bruce Percelay celebrated his 40th birthday yesterday, and I ask my colleagues to join me in extending him our deepest congratulations and our sincere best wishes for the future. Mr. President, Bruce Percelay is a special person. He is a man who has made a difference to Massachusetts. He is one of those rare individuals who has enjoyed personal success, but takes time to give something back. He is one of the most respected and appreciated civic leaders of greater Boston, and his charitable works are of enormous consequence to our community. Some in my State know Bruce Percelay because of his dedication and hard work to his profession. He is a recognized expert in real estate investment, renovation, and marketing, and, in fact, has written a book based on his real estate experience which made the list of Boston's top selling business books. He has appeared on television and has been quoted in magazines and newspapers around the country for his wit and wisdom. But, others know Bruce Percelay for something perhaps more important. They know him for the work he has done to give young people a chance. They know him for what he has done to make a difference in the lives of people, and in the life of our community. As President of the Boston chapter of the Make-A-Wish Foundation, Bruce has, through his creativity and hard work, made sure that the Foundation is strong enough to survive for years to come. He has increased the Foundation's financial reserves by 400 percent, and found it a permanent home in a new, prime, downtown office location. He has overseen the development of a permanent charter and a 5-year strategic plan, expanded the board of directors, improved the quality of the foundation's special events and was successful in recruiting another well-known Massachusetts native to serve as chairperson, Carly Simon. Mr. President, Bruce Percelay is a very special human being who cares deeply for his community and for people who need a helping hand. Let me tell Bruce's greatest achievement as president of Make-A-Wish, and a touching story that has affected all of us in Massachusetts. Bruce was single-handedly responsible for granting the largest of all wishes ever granted by Make-A-Wish worldwide. He arranged, Mr. President, for a family with two terminally ill children and no father to own there own home without a mortgage. The children have since died, and the mother is raising her two remaining children in the home. Bruce worked and worked and worked to grant the wish of the oldest child for his mother to have a place to live after he died; and he made it happen. Because of Bruce Percelay, Mr. President, the Boston chapter of Make- A-Wish is one of the fastest growing of the 80 chapters in the United States. And I would ask my colleagues to join me in recognizing the extraordinary contribution Bruce has made to Make-A-Wish, but that's not all he has done. A program near and dear to my heart, as you well know, Mr. President, has also benefitted from the community spirit of Bruce Percelay. Because of his efforts YouthBuild Boston is an extraordinarily successful inner-city youth development program that has helped hundreds of at-risk kids become self-sufficient through education and personal character development. Bruce first became involved with YouthBuild in February, 1993, just about 2\1/2\ years ago. Since then Bruce has been the driving force behind a critical fund-raising component that may ultimately provide 50 percent of YouthBuild's financial support reducing its dependence on Federal funding-though successful and proven programs like YouthBuild should never lose the support of this Congress. What Bruce did was not easy, and, in fact, it was it was an innovative and persuasive approach that assured community participation and a partnership for success. Through his persistence and his perseverance he brought YouthBuild together with Boston's banking community and established a board of advisors who agreed to become sponsors of the organization, and together they have raised $500,000 to buy and renovate a site that will be YouthBuild's permanent home. Because of Bruce's hands-on participation and commitment, a recent event for YouthBuild at the Kennedy Library in Boston had an unprecedented turnout of over 500 business people to launch this major fund-raising effort. Mr. President, Bruce Percelay knows what citizenship means. He values service and has a commitment to creating the kind of partnerships necessary to make community programs succeed and grow. He is a worker, a giver, a doer, and, perhaps, a little bit of a dreamer who has helped to rekindle the flame of hope and restore the spirit of community in each of us in Massachusetts. His good-will and good deeds should be an example for all of us, in every state, in every community who believe in giving something back and trying to make a difference in the lives of those who need a hand. Mr. President, on this, his 40th birthday, I think it is fitting for the United States Senate to recognize, congratulate, and honor Bruce Percelay, and to wish him continued personal success, good health, and many, many more years in which to enjoy them.