Frank Lautenberg

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, we are opposed to this amendment. It says that if the current balance results in better than expected economic growth that we ought to go back to the lopsided approach advocated by the majority. I, frankly, think it is illogical. Tax cuts and deficit reductions are not the only policies that can benefit the Nation. And unexpected tax revenue may well be put to good use funding essential Government programs. I don't think that we ought to get locked in at this juncture to insist that any excess revenues would go to tax cuts or deficit reduction. I think we ought to make our judgment at the time that these things occur. Economic Growth Dividend Protection Act of 1997

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Madam President, we are talking now about a whole different program outside the budget resolution. Vouchers --vouchers do not deserve to be debated in this context. We ought to absolutely oppose it. I hope we will find some of our friends on the Republican side who will also oppose the notion of transferring these funds into school vouchers.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay it on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 314

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, I would like to engage in a colloquy with Senator Domenici regarding the investment in transportation that is included in this budget agreement. Mr. President, as most of my colleagues know, I am a strong believer in increasing investment in transportation, whether for roads, bridges, rail systems, aviation, or mass transit. All modes of transportation are important, and all need to be supported. We have been working hard in the negotiations to increase total investment in transportation, and we have had some success. We have increased total transportation outlays over the President's request by more than $8 billion over the next 5 years. That is not as much as I would like, but it is a start. I would like to clarify one element of the budget agreement as it relates to spending the estimated revenues of the highway trust fund over the next 5 years. That is a goal with which I agree. In an ideal world, I would support even higher spending levels from the highway trust fund. However, it is important to clarify that, while this agreement includes an assumption that we will spend from the highway trust fund the amounts equivalent to receipts currently estimated to come into the trust fund, the possibility that receipts will grow beyond the levels currently estimated could endanger our ability to comply with other equally important assumptions in this agreement including increased spending for mass transit and Amtrak. In the end, the Appropriations Committee will have to set ceilings for individual subcommittees and funding levels for specific transportation programs, and I want to clarify that increases in highway trust fund spending will not negatively impact other modes of transportation, especially mass transit and Amtrak. I therefore would ask my good friend, the chairman of the Budget Committee, do you agree that nothing in this agreement, nor in the budget resolution, requires the Senate to spend all gas tax revenues without regard for the potentially negative impact on other modes of transportation?

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I do agree with the Senator from Michigan.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Again, the Senator is correct.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I agree with the Senator.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I do agree.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. The Senator from Michigan is correct.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. [Applause.]

Mr. LAUTENBERG. If I may, Mr. President, I too, want to say that my work with Pete Domenici was illuminating, a learning experience at times. His smile sometimes was beguiling, but the steel nerves always showed through. It was a good experience. I noted with one of our colleagues over there, Senator Nickles--and I am sure that he does not mind my quoting him here--he said that this markup in the budget was the least acrimonious that he had seen in his 17 years on the Budget Committee. I, too, in the 14 years I have been on the Budget Committee. We had plenty of differences. Do not let anybody think it was smooth going all the way. But there was a determination to get the job done. It was largely Pete's leadership and our willingness to just put aside some differences. My leader, Tom Daschle, was always there to encourage me and the team. Senator Lott, too, you know how to push at times and how to pull at other times. You still got us going in the same direction. I don't get it. But it was a pleasure working with the majority leader. My team, John Cahill, Bruce King, Sander Lurie, Marty Morris, Sue Nelson, Mitch Warren, and the others whom I was fortunate enough to inherit from the experienced days of Senator Exon and Senator Sasser, Amy Abraham, Matt Greenwald, Phil Karsting, Jim Klumpner, Nell Mays, and Jon Rosenwasser, everybody helped enormously. I want to say Bill Hoagland and the majority leader's team were cooperative. They tried to always make sure we understood exactly what was going to be in there. There was no attempt to deceive or fool. Thus, we have an agreement that we can all be proud of. The American people should be proud of it. They saw us cooperating, as the majority leader said. And here we saw a vote of 78 to 22. That is pretty darn good. Thank you very much. I yield the floor.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to create stronger incentives for the parties to the Dayton Peace Agreement to arrest indicted war criminals and transfer them to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia [ICTY]. I am pleased that Senators Leahy, Lugar, Feinstein, Mikulski, Murray, Lieberman, D'Amato, and Moynihan are original cosponsors of this bill, which we believe will foster reconciliation in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the long run. As a result of the horrifying extent of war crimes committed before and during the war in Bosnia, the U.N. Security Council, in May 1993, created the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia [ICTY]. One of only four international war crimes tribunals ever established, its mandate is to prosecute ``genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, and violations of the laws and customs of war'' committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia from January 1, 1991, until ``a date to be determined after restoration of peace.'' When the parties to the conflict in the former Yugoslavia signed the Dayton Peace Agreement, they recognized that reconciliation could not occur unless war criminals were brought to justice. As such, they agreed to cooperate fully with ``the investigation and prosecution of war crimes and other violations of international humanitarian law.'' All members of the international community are required by the tribunal statute to cooperate in ``the identification and location of persons,'' ``the arrest or detention of persons,'' and ``the surrender or the transfer of the accused'' to the tribunal. With the exception of the Bosnian Muslims, however, the parties to the Dayton Peace Agreement have failed to arrest and transfer to the tribunal the vast majority of indicted war criminals in territory within their control. Though 74 persons have been indicted by the 4- year-old tribunal, 66 of them remain at large. Let me repeat that. Of the 74 persons indicted for the most heinous crimes against humanity on European soil since World War II, 66 remain at large. Among these are the notorious Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic and Bosnian Serb Army commander Ratko Mladic, both accused of genocide and crimes against humanity. Where are these and other war criminals finding sanctuary? Many of the indicted war criminals have been sighted living openly and freely in Croatia, the Croat-controlled areas of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republika Srpska, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia-Montenegro). Last fall, one nongovernmental organization, the Coalition for International Justice, compiled a list of all public sightings of war criminals. For example, according to the coalition's research, Dario Kordic, one of the most widely recognized war criminals in the former Yugoslavia for his role in killings in Lasva Valley, was seen visiting his parents' apartment in Zagreb, Croatia. About the same time, Ivica Rajic, another highly sought after war criminal, was reportedly seen in a hotel in Split, Croatia. The list of public sightings of indicted war criminals goes on and on. Associated Press correspondent Liam McDowall reportedly located six Bosnian Croats indicted for war crimes living and working in the Bosnian Croat town of Vitez. And in perhaps the most egregious case to date, Boston Globe reporter Elizabeth Neuffer reportedly found Zeljko Mejakic--indicted for crimes committed as commander of Omarska camp where some 4,000 people were tortured to death and women were brutally raped--working as the deputy commander of the Prijedor police station in Republika Srpska. This list may not be entirely up to date now, but it illustrates graphically that many of the indicted war criminals could have been arrested easily if the authorities in control of the territory where they were located had chosen to do so. I believe that is still the case today. I ask unanimous consent that a list of sightings of indicted war criminals who remain at large be included in the Record at the end of my remarks. I know, Mr. President, that the act of apprehending and transferring indicted war criminals to the Hague presents a thorny problem for the United States. While some argue that American and NATO military personnel should do the job, the prevailing wisdom is that using our troops to arrest these indicted war criminals would be fraught with difficulties that could put our troops in danger. Others have raised the possibility that some type of international strike force could get the job done. Discussions about these options have been underway since NATO troops landed in the region 1\1/2\ years ago, but no action has been taken. Meanwhile war criminals continue to roam the region with impunity, and the clock ticks ever closer to the June 1998 withdrawal date for SFOR. If the international community concludes that it cannot use force to apprehend indicted war criminals, it must try another approach. Make no mistake about it: if indicted war criminals remain at large when the SFOR's mission ends, our prestige and credibility will be severely undermined. America may be able to protect NATO troops by not involving them in a mission to arrest indicted war criminals, but we cannot protect our reputation and that of NATO as a defender of democracy and human rights if indicted war criminals roam the region with impunity when our troops withdraw. Mr. President, since NATO is unwilling to arrest the indicted, my colleagues and I are recommending an approach which reinforces the obligation of the parties to the Dayton Agreement to arrest and transfer those indicted for genocide, rape, and other crimes against humanity to the Hague. To secure their cooperation, it imposes conditions on America's portion of the $5.1 billion in economic reconstruction funding to Bosnia and Herzegovina. Because parties to the Dayton Agreement sorely want Western assistance and the international acceptance it implies, this assistance provides us with a powerful lever. We ought to use it. Under our legislation, until the President certifies that a majority of war criminals have been arrested and transferred to the tribunal, no assistance--with the exception of assistance for humanitarian programs, democracy programs, and certain physical infrastructure projects that cross borders--could be provided to a sanctioned country or constituent entity. Similarly, U.S. executive directors of international financial institutions could not vote for assistance until the President makes the required certification. The President would have up to 6 months to make this certification. Once the certification is made, assistance could be provided for up to 6 months. At the end of the 6-month waiver period, no assistance could be provided unless all indicted war criminals have been arrested and turned over to the ICTY. If a country or entity arrests and transfers to the Hague a majority of the indicted war criminals in territory under its effective control immediately, and the rest of them within 6 months, assistance to that country or entity will not be affected. In other words, this legislation recognizes that even the parties to the Dayton Agreement may find it difficult to apprehend all indicted war criminals immediately, and therefore does not require them to complete the process all at once. Once a majority of the war criminals have been arrested and turned over, they are given up to 6 months to finish the job. Because our goal is to promote greater cooperation, democratic and humanitarian assistance will still be provided even in sanctioned countries or entities. Humanitarian assistance is defined to include food and disaster assistance and assistance for demining, refugees, education, health care, social services, and housing. Democratization assistance includes electoral assistance and assistance used in establishing the institutions of a democratic and civil society, including police training. However, assistance for projects in communities in which local authorities are harboring criminals or preventing refugees from returning home will be strictly limited to emergency food and medical assistance and demining assistance. And absolutely no assistance-- humanitarian or otherwise--can be provided to projects or organizations in which an indicted war criminal is affiliated or has a financial interest. These provisions are important to ensure that our assistance is not being used to prop up war criminals and that only communities that allow refugees to return are rewarded with assistance. This legislation recognizes that the realities of government control in the former Yugoslavia do not always conform to the arrangements in the Dayton Agreement. Recognizing that a constituent entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina may not control all areas within its border, and that Croatia or Serbia may have effective control of territory that reaches beyond their borders, the legislation holds a government or constituent entity responsible for indicted war criminals ``in territory that is under their effective control.'' As such, the legislation is not meant to impose sanctions on the Muslim-Croat Federation as a whole if an indicted war criminal remains in a Croat-controlled area of the Federation. Likewise, it would allow sanctions to be imposed against a country, such as Croatia, for failing to secure the apprehension of war criminals in areas of the Federation which it effectively controls. Mr. President, these measures are not intended to be punitive. I have made every effort to ensure that humanitarian assistance to the people in all parts of the former Yugoslavia will not be affected. I do not oppose reconstruction funding, and recognize that it is in our national interest to help rebuild this war-torn region. But I believe there is value in using bilateral and multilateral assistance as a carrot, to provide an incentive to the parties to arrest and turn war criminals over to the tribunal. Unless war criminals are brought to justice, reconciliation in Bosnia and Herzegovnia will remain an elusive goal and refugees and displaced persons will be unable to return to their homes. Though reconstruction assistance will help to rebuild ravaged economies, reconstruction without reconciliation will not be effective in ensuring long-term stability. Until the perpetrators of genocide are held accountable, victimized communities will continue to assign collective guilt and the cycle of hatred will be perpetuated. No infusion of money can wipe away the crimes of the past 6 years. Money alone is not enough. What is required is a genuine process of reconciliation, which can never occur unless war criminals are brought to justice. The Washington Post, in a February 1997 editorial, said it well: U.S. forces [cannot] fulfill their mission--bringing peace to Bosnia--as long as war criminals remain at large. Lately, it has become popular to focus on economic reconstruction as the answer to Bosnia's troubles. But war didn't break out for economic reasons, and economic aid alone can't secure the peace. As long as alleged war criminal Radovan Karadzic and his henchmen run things from behind the scenes, economic aid actually will flow to the criminals. . . . Mr. President, we know that the threat of sanctions can work to effect cooperation with the War Crimes Tribunal. In the last year and a half, the administration has successfully leveraged assistance to Croatia to secure the transfer of two indicted war criminals to The Hague. But the process has been too long and drawn out. One of the war criminals voluntarily agreed to be sent to The Hague, and the other was in custody for more than 10 months before the Croatian Government transferred him to the tribunal. At this rate, it would take us some 66 years to bring all the indicted war criminals to The Hague. That's just too long. Stronger action must be taken. The World Bank is pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into Croatia and sending assessment teams to Republika Srpska. In fiscal year 1997, the Agency for International Development has set aside roughly $70 million for Republika Srpska, and it intends to do the same in fiscal year 1998. This bill requires the Administration to use these assistance programs to secure the speedy apprehension of war criminals, which is just as essential for reconciliation and long-term stability as reconstruction efforts--if not more so. No one has articulated the need for this legislation as well as Justice Goldstone, Former Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda when he spoke at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in January of 1997: Where there have been egregious human rights violations that have been unaccounted for, where there has been no justice, where the victims have not received any acknowledgment, where they have been forgotten, where there's been a national amnesia, the effect is a cancer in the society. It's the reason that explains . . . spirals of violence that the world has seen in the former Yugoslavia for centuries . . . Justice Goldstone was right. What is required is a genuine process of reconciliation, which can never occur unless war criminals are brought to justice. Without reconciliation, the spiral of violence will only continue, and the military mission on which the American taxpayers have literally spent billions will be for naught. Secretary of State Albright will be traveling to Bosnia next week. She has assured me that the issue of war criminals will be raised at every opportunity, and I am confident that she will take a very tough stand, urging the parties to the Dayton Agreement to meet their commitments. But the U.S. Government has been urging compliance for over a year now with little success, and it's clear that we need to put more teeth into our position. Our bill does just that. It clearly states that the apprehension of war criminals is critical for reconciliation. It links U.S. assistance to progress on this issue, and it provides clear deadlines for progress in arresting and transferring indicted war criminals to The Hague. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation, which has been endorsed by the Coalition for International Justice, Human Rights Watch, Physicians for Human Rights, Action Council for Peace in the Balkans, and the International Human Rights Law Group. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation and a letter of endorsement from those organizations appear in the Record. America stands for justice and reconciliation throughout the world. We must stand up for those principles by ensuring that the war criminals of Bosnia are apprehended and the victims are heard.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I am introducing legislation to create stronger incentives for the parties to the Dayton Peace Agreement to arrest indicted war criminals and transfer them to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia [ICTY]. I am pleased that Senators Leahy, Lugar, Feinstein, Mikulski, Murray, Lieberman, D'Amato, and Moynihan are original cosponsors of this bill, which we believe will foster reconciliation in Bosnia and Herzegovina in the long run. As a result of the horrifying extent of war crimes committed before and during the war in Bosnia, the U.N. Security Council, in May 1993, created the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia [ICTY]. One of only four international war crimes tribunals ever established, its mandate is to prosecute ``genocide, crimes against humanity, grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, and violations of the laws and customs of war'' committed in the territory of the former Yugoslavia from January 1, 1991, until ``a date to be determined after restoration of peace.'' When the parties to the conflict in the former Yugoslavia signed the Dayton Peace Agreement, they recognized that reconciliation could not occur unless war criminals were brought to justice. As such, they agreed to cooperate fully with ``the investigation and prosecution of war crimes and other violations of international humanitarian law.'' All members of the international community are required by the tribunal statute to cooperate in ``the identification and location of persons,'' ``the arrest or detention of persons,'' and ``the surrender or the transfer of the accused'' to the tribunal. With the exception of the Bosnian Muslims, however, the parties to the Dayton Peace Agreement have failed to arrest and transfer to the tribunal the vast majority of indicted war criminals in territory within their control. Though 74 persons have been indicted by the 4- year-old tribunal, 66 of them remain at large. Let me repeat that. Of the 74 persons indicted for the most heinous crimes against humanity on European soil since World War II, 66 remain at large. Among these are the notorious Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic and Bosnian Serb Army commander Ratko Mladic, both accused of genocide and crimes against humanity. Where are these and other war criminals finding sanctuary? Many of the indicted war criminals have been sighted living openly and freely in Croatia, the Croat-controlled areas of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republika Srpska, and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia-Montenegro). Last fall, one nongovernmental organization, the Coalition for International Justice, compiled a list of all public sightings of war criminals. For example, according to the coalition's research, Dario Kordic, one of the most widely recognized war criminals in the former Yugoslavia for his role in killings in Lasva Valley, was seen visiting his parents' apartment in Zagreb, Croatia. About the same time, Ivica Rajic, another highly sought after war criminal, was reportedly seen in a hotel in Split, Croatia. The list of public sightings of indicted war criminals goes on and on. Associated Press correspondent Liam McDowall reportedly located six Bosnian Croats indicted for war crimes living and working in the Bosnian Croat town of Vitez. And in perhaps the most egregious case to date, Boston Globe reporter Elizabeth Neuffer reportedly found Zeljko Mejakic--indicted for crimes committed as commander of Omarska camp where some 4,000 people were tortured to death and women were brutally raped--working as the deputy commander of the Prijedor police station in Republika Srpska. This list may not be entirely up to date now, but it illustrates graphically that many of the indicted war criminals could have been arrested easily if the authorities in control of the territory where they were located had chosen to do so. I believe that is still the case today. I ask unanimous consent that a list of sightings of indicted war criminals who remain at large be included in the Record at the end of my remarks. I know, Mr. President, that the act of apprehending and transferring indicted war criminals to the Hague presents a thorny problem for the United States. While some argue that American and NATO military personnel should do the job, the prevailing wisdom is that using our troops to arrest these indicted war criminals would be fraught with difficulties that could put our troops in danger. Others have raised the possibility that some type of international strike force could get the job done. Discussions about these options have been underway since NATO troops landed in the region 1\1/2\ years ago, but no action has been taken. Meanwhile war criminals continue to roam the region with impunity, and the clock ticks ever closer to the June 1998 withdrawal date for SFOR. If the international community concludes that it cannot use force to apprehend indicted war criminals, it must try another approach. Make no mistake about it: if indicted war criminals remain at large when the SFOR's mission ends, our prestige and credibility will be severely undermined. America may be able to protect NATO troops by not involving them in a mission to arrest indicted war criminals, but we cannot protect our reputation and that of NATO as a defender of democracy and human rights if indicted war criminals roam the region with impunity when our troops withdraw. Mr. President, since NATO is unwilling to arrest the indicted, my colleagues and I are recommending an approach which reinforces the obligation of the parties to the Dayton Agreement to arrest and transfer those indicted for genocide, rape, and other crimes against humanity to the Hague. To secure their cooperation, it imposes conditions on America's portion of the $5.1 billion in economic reconstruction funding to Bosnia and Herzegovina. Because parties to the Dayton Agreement sorely want Western assistance and the international acceptance it implies, this assistance provides us with a powerful lever. We ought to use it. Under our legislation, until the President certifies that a majority of war criminals have been arrested and transferred to the tribunal, no assistance--with the exception of assistance for humanitarian programs, democracy programs, and certain physical infrastructure projects that cross borders--could be provided to a sanctioned country or constituent entity. Similarly, U.S. executive directors of international financial institutions could not vote for assistance until the President makes the required certification. The President would have up to 6 months to make this certification. Once the certification is made, assistance could be provided for up to 6 months. At the end of the 6-month waiver period, no assistance could be provided unless all indicted war criminals have been arrested and turned over to the ICTY. If a country or entity arrests and transfers to the Hague a majority of the indicted war criminals in territory under its effective control immediately, and the rest of them within 6 months, assistance to that country or entity will not be affected. In other words, this legislation recognizes that even the parties to the Dayton Agreement may find it difficult to apprehend all indicted war criminals immediately, and therefore does not require them to complete the process all at once. Once a majority of the war criminals have been arrested and turned over, they are given up to 6 months to finish the job. Because our goal is to promote greater cooperation, democratic and humanitarian assistance will still be provided even in sanctioned countries or entities. Humanitarian assistance is defined to include food and disaster assistance and assistance for demining, refugees, education, health care, social services, and housing. Democratization assistance includes electoral assistance and assistance used in establishing the institutions of a democratic and civil society, including police training. However, assistance for projects in communities in which local authorities are harboring criminals or preventing refugees from returning home will be strictly limited to emergency food and medical assistance and demining assistance. And absolutely no assistance-- humanitarian or otherwise--can be provided to projects or organizations in which an indicted war criminal is affiliated or has a financial interest. These provisions are important to ensure that our assistance is not being used to prop up war criminals and that only communities that allow refugees to return are rewarded with assistance. This legislation recognizes that the realities of government control in the former Yugoslavia do not always conform to the arrangements in the Dayton Agreement. Recognizing that a constituent entity of Bosnia and Herzegovina may not control all areas within its border, and that Croatia or Serbia may have effective control of territory that reaches beyond their borders, the legislation holds a government or constituent entity responsible for indicted war criminals ``in territory that is under their effective control.'' As such, the legislation is not meant to impose sanctions on the Muslim-Croat Federation as a whole if an indicted war criminal remains in a Croat-controlled area of the Federation. Likewise, it would allow sanctions to be imposed against a country, such as Croatia, for failing to secure the apprehension of war criminals in areas of the Federation which it effectively controls. Mr. President, these measures are not intended to be punitive. I have made every effort to ensure that humanitarian assistance to the people in all parts of the former Yugoslavia will not be affected. I do not oppose reconstruction funding, and recognize that it is in our national interest to help rebuild this war-torn region. But I believe there is value in using bilateral and multilateral assistance as a carrot, to provide an incentive to the parties to arrest and turn war criminals over to the tribunal. Unless war criminals are brought to justice, reconciliation in Bosnia and Herzegovnia will remain an elusive goal and refugees and displaced persons will be unable to return to their homes. Though reconstruction assistance will help to rebuild ravaged economies, reconstruction without reconciliation will not be effective in ensuring long-term stability. Until the perpetrators of genocide are held accountable, victimized communities will continue to assign collective guilt and the cycle of hatred will be perpetuated. No infusion of money can wipe away the crimes of the past 6 years. Money alone is not enough. What is required is a genuine process of reconciliation, which can never occur unless war criminals are brought to justice. The Washington Post, in a February 1997 editorial, said it well: U.S. forces [cannot] fulfill their mission--bringing peace to Bosnia--as long as war criminals remain at large. Lately, it has become popular to focus on economic reconstruction as the answer to Bosnia's troubles. But war didn't break out for economic reasons, and economic aid alone can't secure the peace. As long as alleged war criminal Radovan Karadzic and his henchmen run things from behind the scenes, economic aid actually will flow to the criminals. . . . Mr. President, we know that the threat of sanctions can work to effect cooperation with the War Crimes Tribunal. In the last year and a half, the administration has successfully leveraged assistance to Croatia to secure the transfer of two indicted war criminals to The Hague. But the process has been too long and drawn out. One of the war criminals voluntarily agreed to be sent to The Hague, and the other was in custody for more than 10 months before the Croatian Government transferred him to the tribunal. At this rate, it would take us some 66 years to bring all the indicted war criminals to The Hague. That's just too long. Stronger action must be taken. The World Bank is pumping hundreds of millions of dollars into Croatia and sending assessment teams to Republika Srpska. In fiscal year 1997, the Agency for International Development has set aside roughly $70 million for Republika Srpska, and it intends to do the same in fiscal year 1998. This bill requires the Administration to use these assistance programs to secure the speedy apprehension of war criminals, which is just as essential for reconciliation and long-term stability as reconstruction efforts--if not more so. No one has articulated the need for this legislation as well as Justice Goldstone, Former Chief Prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda when he spoke at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum in January of 1997: Where there have been egregious human rights violations that have been unaccounted for, where there has been no justice, where the victims have not received any acknowledgment, where they have been forgotten, where there's been a national amnesia, the effect is a cancer in the society. It's the reason that explains . . . spirals of violence that the world has seen in the former Yugoslavia for centuries . . . Justice Goldstone was right. What is required is a genuine process of reconciliation, which can never occur unless war criminals are brought to justice. Without reconciliation, the spiral of violence will only continue, and the military mission on which the American taxpayers have literally spent billions will be for naught. Secretary of State Albright will be traveling to Bosnia next week. She has assured me that the issue of war criminals will be raised at every opportunity, and I am confident that she will take a very tough stand, urging the parties to the Dayton Agreement to meet their commitments. But the U.S. Government has been urging compliance for over a year now with little success, and it's clear that we need to put more teeth into our position. Our bill does just that. It clearly states that the apprehension of war criminals is critical for reconciliation. It links U.S. assistance to progress on this issue, and it provides clear deadlines for progress in arresting and transferring indicted war criminals to The Hague. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to cosponsor this legislation, which has been endorsed by the Coalition for International Justice, Human Rights Watch, Physicians for Human Rights, Action Council for Peace in the Balkans, and the International Human Rights Law Group. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the legislation and a letter of endorsement from those organizations appear in the Record. America stands for justice and reconciliation throughout the world. We must stand up for those principles by ensuring that the war criminals of Bosnia are apprehended and the victims are heard.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, today I rise to submit a resolution establishing July 2 of this year and the next as National Literacy Day. Mr. President, the ability to read is something most of us often take for granted. For most of us, it is difficult to imagine not being able to read a menu, street sign, magazine or phone book. But for many of our citizens, these seemingly simple activities are impossible. This is so because they are illiterate. I am submitting this resolution to draw attention to the issue of illiteracy by establishing July 2, 1997 and the following year as National Literacy Day. I hope my colleagues will cosponsor this resolution. All of us should be more aware of the problem of illiteracy. A recent study found that over 44 million adults cannot read. An additional 35 million read below the level needed to function successfully in society. These numbers alone are alarming and warrant our special attention. But even more disturbing are the personal hardships people must face each day due to their inability to read. The embarrassment parents face when they cannot read to their children. The discouragement able workers feel when they cannot fill out a basic job application. The disappointment we all endure as the ranks of the illiterate grow annually by over 2 million adults. Mr. President, the 18th Century writer, Joseph Addison, once wrote ``Reading is to the mind what exercise is to the body.'' I could not agree more. Reading enriches our lives in countless ways. But there are far too many of our citizens who cannot read the instructions on a doctor's prescription bottle, let alone share the experience of reading one of Addison's great poems. This needs to change. Therefore, we must focus our attention on the problem of illiteracy. All of us should make sure we do our part to ensure that citizens who need help know where services are available. We need to recognize the detrimental effects illiteracy has on our society. Most important, more of us need to enlist in the battle to close the book on illiteracy. Mr. President, for these reasons, I am submitting a resolution to designate July 2, 1997 and July, 2, 1998 as National Literacy Day. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.

Mr. LAUTENBERG

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Sure.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is correct.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. Mr. President, in response to the question, before the speech, I would say this--yes, I sponsored that legislation. My heart is in more funding for transportation, and no one here can say differently. The problem is that we are in a different point in time, and if you want to take it out of highways and say forget the children's health care bill, if you want to take it out of highways and forget the pledge we made to the senior citizens, or take it out of this bill and forget the pledge that we made to those who might be disabled, let's do it, let's talk about that. Let's talk about balancing the budget, because I know the distinguished Senator from Virginia has been a proponent of a balanced budget almost from the day the words were invented around here. So now we have a different occasion. We are not talking about transportation; we all agree that transportation is definitely underfunded. What we are talking about is at what price do we make this change, and the price is at, again, children's health or otherwise, because we are committed to balancing this budget. And this is strange talk for a fellow like me.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I move to lay it on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. I yield myself 2 minutes off the resolution. Mr. President, I don't like being put in the position that appears to be developing here, that I am against investment in infrastructure. I stand on my record of having fought as hard as anyone in this body to invest more money in highways, in mass transit, in rail and aviation, whatever was called for. I never met a transportation project I didn't like if it was a well-founded and well-thought-out project. But the insinuation by our distinguished friend from Virginia to caution us and to lay down the scare that we will be counted upon or we will be looked upon by the Record and by the voters, I want to say this: The Senator from Virginia took the liberty yesterday of voting against the funds for crumbling schools, against schools that are tattered and falling apart, where children can't possibly learn. That was OK to vote against. And the appeal wasn't made, and there was no threat that if you vote against this, you are committing those kids to an even more difficult assignment to try and lift themselves up. I have defended investments in transportation as chairman of the Subcommittee on Transportation of the Appropriations Committee. Without fail, I have defended investing more. But the onerous comparison is that we neglected our responsibility. It is almost as if you are unpatriotic. I don't really like everything in this budget resolution. But I am committed by my constitutional responsibilities. If I take the assignment, I have to work on it. We negotiated in good faith, and I don't like some of the tax concessions we have in there. But I think middle-class people in this country are entitled to some tax relief. I think those who want to send their kids to college are entitled to some help to get them the first step up on the economic ladder. No, I don't like it all. But I have my duty to do, and I did it. It wasn't pleasant. It wasn't pleasant when I went into the Army in World War II, either, but I did it. And the insinuation that somehow or other I have deserted my responsibility is one that really offends me. We did what we thought was best, each one of us, whatever the vote was. I yield the floor. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

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

Mr. LAUTENBERG. That is in the order. That is true.

Mr. LAUTENBERG. It is a commitment that was made, I say to the Senator from North Dakota. But the Senator from Massachusetts did have a priority and was on record as being next in line. If an accommodation can be made between the two--if not, the Senator from Massachusetts has an opportunity to offer an amendment.