Don Nickles

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran) is absent because of a death in the family.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, for the information of our colleagues, the majority leader will soon be coming over to make a unanimous consent request concerning the vote on a resolution dealing with Kosovo. I have been involved in the negotiations of the resolution. I might read it for my colleagues, for the information of my colleagues, and then I am going to state my opposition to it. But for the information of all of our colleagues, it is our hope and our expectation we would have a vote on this resolution in the not too distant future, possibly as early as 6 or 6:30 or 7 o'clock. So I wanted my colleagues to be aware of that. Mr. President, this resolution authorizes the President of the United States to conduct military air operations and missile strikes against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Serbia, and Montenegro. The resolution reads, Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America and Congress assembled, That the President of the United States is authorized to conduct military air operations and missile strikes in cooperation with our NATO allies against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Serbia and Montenegro. It is very simple. It is very short. There are not a long list of ``whereases,'' not a lot of confusion. It says we authorize the President of the United States to conduct airstrikes against Serbia. I oppose this resolution. I will take a couple of minutes to explain my opposition. I understand and I have great respect for many of our colleagues who are supportive. I have joined with colleagues who went to the White House on Friday and also earlier today to talk to the President and hear his side of the issue. He tried to make a very strong case for airstrikes and for military intervention. He didn't convince me. I respect his opinion. I just happen to disagree with him. Time and time again I ask, If we are going to war, why are we going to war? Make no mistake, if we conduct airstrikes against Serbia, we are going to war. I don't think we should do that lightly. I tell my colleagues, the resolution that we are voting on, in my opinion, is a very important resolution. It is probably one of the most important votes we will conduct, certainly this session of Congress. Maybe Members will look back over their Senate career and it may be one of the most important votes Members will cast in their Senate career. I urge my colleagues to vote no on this resolution. That means I think that we are making a mistake by conducting a bombing campaign in Serbia. A bombing campaign will also lead to ground campaigns. A lot of people have the false assumption that if we have airstrikes, that is it. Many times there has been a tendency by this administration--and maybe previous administrations as well--that we can do things by air and that will do it. We had an air campaign, we had military strikes in the air against Iraq in December--I believe December 18, 19, and 20. It was a significant military operation. Why? Because we wanted to get the arms control inspectors back into Iraq. We bombed them like crazy. Guess what. We don't have any arms control inspectors in Iraq today, so air didn't do it. Saddam Hussein is now able to build weapons of mass destruction. The air campaign didn't change his policies one iota. What about in Serbia? The whole purpose of this--I will read from yesterday's New York Times, an interview with Madeleine Albright, Secretary of State, Two days after President Clinton warned that the Serbs had gone beyond ``the threshold'' of violence in their southern province, Secretary of State Madeleine K. Albright said she was sending Mr. Holbrooke to present Mr. Milosevic with a ``stark choice.'' That choice, she said, was for him to agree to the settlement signed in Paris last week by the ethnic Albanians . . . or face NATO air strikes. In other words, if the Serbs don't sign on to the agreement that was negotiated in France, they are going to face airstrikes. In other words, we are going to be attacking a foreign country because they refused to allow an international force to be stationed in their country. That is what the Paris agreement is. Some of our colleagues say they will vote for airstrikes but they won't vote for ground forces. The Secretary of State says we are going to bomb them until they agree to sign up to a peace agreement, a peace agreement that calls for stationing 28,000 international troops into Kosovo. I just disagree. I don't think you can bomb a country into submitting to a peace agreement. That is more than coercion, and I don't think you get real peace by coercing somebody. Maybe cajoling people, maybe a little leverage here and there, but to say we will bomb your country until you sign a peace agreement is probably very shortsighted and not real peace, and to station the 28,000 troops into hostile territory I think would be a very serious mistake. I have heard the President's arguments. I haven't made the argument this is not in our national interest, but I will say there is--I started to say a civil war is going on in Kosovo, but it is not even to the point of a civil war. There is certainly an armed conflict. There is guerrilla warfare going on. There has been sniping going on. There have been people killed on both sides. I think that is unfortunate, but it has been happening. But this is not the only civil conflict that is going on around the world. Yet in this conflict, we will take sides. Maybe if you declare it is a civil war going on, a total civil war going on in Kosovo--why should we be taking sides? Should we be the air force for the KLA, the Kosovo Liberation Army? Should we be trying to help them fulfill their goals? Their goal is not autonomy; their goal is independence. They were somewhat reluctant to sign on to the France so-called peace agreement because they didn't want autonomy; they wanted independence. They will never be satisfied until they have independence. The French peace accords say we will insert this peacekeeping force of 28,000 troops for 3 years, we will have autonomy at that time, and then we are somewhat silent on what happens at the end of 3 years. If anyone has talked to the KLA, they know that the KLA wants independence. Should we be intervening to the extent of taking that side? Some of my colleagues say if Serbia is really massing and having military actions against the KLA, instead of us just bombing, why don't we just give them some support? Why don't we give them some munitions and help them defend themselves? It is similar to the argument many of us made in Bosnia: Instead of sending troops, we wanted to take the arms embargo off and allow them to defend themselves. Senator Dole stood on the floor many times and said let's allow them to defend themselves. Some people made that same argument today, dealing with the Kosovars. The problem is, the peace agreement that has been negotiated says we will disarm the KLA. I think the chances of that happening are slim, if nonexistent. They will hide the arms. We will not be successful in disarming, nor do I really think that we should. We will be very much involved in a civil war. We are taking the side of the Kosovars. Many of the Kosovars are great people and I love them and some are very peace loving, but there are some people on the other side, on the KLA side, who have assassinated and murdered as well. I have serious, serious reservations about getting involved in a civil war. I have very strong reservations about the ability to be able to bomb somebody to the peace table and making them agree to a peace agreement that they were not a signatory to. I am reminded by some of our friends and colleagues that this is a continuation of President Bush's policy. As a matter of fact, in December of 1992 President Bush--and he was a lame duck President at the time--issued a very stern warning to Mr. Milosevic: If he made a military move in Kosovo, there would be significant and serious consequences. Mr. Milosevic rightfully respected President Bush, and he didn't make that move. I supported President Bush in making that statement. I think he was right in doing so. However, there is a big difference between that statement and saying we will move militarily if he moves aggressively against the Kosovars. There is a big difference between that and saying we will bomb you until you agree to a peace agreement, and part of that peace agreement is stationing 28,000 troops in Kosovo. There is a big difference. I hope our colleagues will understand that difference. That is one of the reasons I am vigorously opposed to this resolution. I don't think you can bomb a sovereign nation into submission of a peace agreement. Let me mention a couple of other reservations that I have. Somebody said, What about the credibility of NATO? NATO, for 50 years, has helped sustain peace and stability throughout Europe. It has been a great alliance. That is true. NATO has been a great alliance. It has been a defensive alliance. NATO has never taken military action against a non-NATO member when other NATO countries weren't threatened. Now we are breaking new ground and we are moving into areas which I believe greatly expand NATO's mission far beyond the defensive alliance that it was created under. Another reservation I have: The Constitution says that Congress shall declare war; it doesn't say the President can initiate war. The President started at least consulting Congress on Friday. He also consulted with Congress today, Tuesday. We understand that war is imminent. I don't consider that consultation. I remember about 4 weeks ago when Secretary of State Albright and Secretary of Defense Cohen briefed a few of us on the Paris negotiations, or the negotiations in France. They basically said: We are trying to get both sides to sign; we think maybe the Kosovars will sign, but the Serbs and Mr. Milosevic are not inclined to. But if we can get the Kosovars to sign, we will bomb the Serbs until they do sign. I left there thinking, you have to be kidding. That is their policy? I want peace. I want peace as much as President Clinton. I want peace as much as Secretary Albright, throughout Yugoslavia, but I don't think by initiating bombing we will bring about peace. I am afraid, instead of increasing stability, it might increase violence. There might be adverse reactions that this administration hasn't thought about. Instead of bringing about stability, it may well be that the Serbian forces are going to move more aggressively. In the last 24 hours, it looks like that may be the case. So instead of convincing Mr. Milosevic to take the Serbs out of Kosovo, they may be moving in more aggressively. It looks as if that is happening now. Instead of dissuading him from oppression on the Kosovars, he may be more oppressive, more aggressive, and he may run more people away from their homes and burn more villages. Instead of bringing stability, it may be bringing instability, and it may be forcing, as a result of this bombing, Mr. Milosevic--instead of his response being to move back into greater Serbia and away from Kosovo, he may be more assertive and aggressive and he may want to strike out against the United States. If airplanes are flying, he might find that is unsuccessful. I hope he has no success against our pilots and our planes, but if he is not successful against our planes, what can he be successful against? Maybe the KLA, or maybe he would be more aggressive in striking out where he can have results on the ground. So by initiating the bombing, instead of bringing stability, we may be bringing instability. We may be igniting a tinderbox that has been very, very explosive for a long time. I hope that doesn't happen, but I can easily see how it could happen. I have heard my colleague, Senator Inhofe, allude to the fact that former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger alluded to that. I will read this one sentence: `` The threatening escalation sketched by the President to Macedonia, Greece and Turkey are, in the long run, more likely to result from the emergence of a Kosovo State.'' Well, the President, in this so-called peace accord, is supporting autonomy for Kosovo. I have already stated that the Kosovo Liberation Army doesn't want autonomy, they want independence. If they are an independent state, many people see that usually aligned with Albania and may be including the Albanians in Macedonia. So you have a greater Albania which would be very destabilizing, certainly, toward the Greeks and maybe other European allies. So the peace accord says we don't want independence for Kosovo, we just want autonomy. Former Secretary of State Kissinger says maybe that makes it more dangerous and maybe violence would be escalated in that process. Instead of being a stabilizing factor, it may be an escalating factor. That is not just me saying that. That is Henry Kissinger and other people I respect a great deal saying that, also. I am glad we are going to be voting on this resolution. We are going to have this vote--at least that is our expectation. I know the leader is going to propound a request before too long. It is important that we vote on this. It would be easy for this Senator, or any other Senator, to say we are never going to vote on this; we can stop this, and frankly, if you stop it long enough, maybe the President will be bombing and then you can say, hey, it doesn't make any difference, he already started bombing. I think that would be a mistake. We ought to have an up-or-down vote. Is this the right thing to do or not? So I urge my colleagues to support the leader in his efforts to come to an agreement on a vote on this resolution. I, for one --I say ``for one'' because even though I am assistant majority leader, I have not asked one colleague to vote one way or another on this resolution. Some issues are too important to play partisan politics on. I am not playing partisan politics. I refuse to do so. These are tough votes. I remember the vote we had on the Persian Gulf war in 1991, authorizing the use of force. We already had 550,000 troops stationed in the Persian Gulf ready to fulfill our obligations as outlined by President Bush to remove Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis from Kuwait. We had a good debate on the floor. It wasn't easy. It was a close debate and a close vote--52-47. I thought it was a good vote the way it turned out. I am going to vote against this resolution because I think it is a mistake. Maybe I am wrong, and if bombing commences, I hope and pray that every single pilot will be returned safely, and that there will be peace and harmony and stability throughout Kosovo. But I am concerned that we are making a mistake. I don't believe you can bomb a country into submission and force them into a peace agreement that they determine is against their interest. I don't think you can bomb a country and say we are going to bomb you until you agree to have stationed 28,000 troops in your homeland. And this is Serbian homeland, and if you go back centuries, fighting has been going on in this country for centuries. One other comment. Somebody said, ``What about the atrocities?'' I am concerned about the atrocities, but we have to look at what is in our national interest. There were 96 people killed in Borneo last weekend. In Turkey, something like 37,000 Kurds have lost their lives. They want independence. The Kurds in Iraq want independence; they want their own homeland. What about in Sudan where there have been over a million lives lost? What about Burundi, where 200,000 lives have been lost. Or Rwanda, where 700,000 lives have been lost? We have to be very careful. We had a Civil War in this country 130- some years ago, and 600,000 Americans lost their lives. I am glad we didn't have foreign powers intervene in our Civil War. I think that would have been a mistake. I am afraid that we are making a mistake by intervening in the war now going on in Kosovo. I hope this resolution that we are getting ready to vote on is not agreed to. I urge colleagues to vote no on the resolution. I yield the floor. Mr. GORTON addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, in 1995, the Department of Defense agreed to evaluate a British missile, the Starstreak, for use as a helicopter borne air-to-air missile as an inducement to the British Ministry of Defence to choose the U.S. Army Apache Longbow helicopter as its own attack helicopter over a competing European candidate. The British did indeed agree to buy the Apache. Increasingly, military helicopters are being outfitted with air-to- air missiles that increase their lethality, a development that began with the Russian HIND helicopter. According to the Army Air to Air Mission Need Statement, the proliferation of technology available on the open market will make it likely that U.S. forces will encounter threat helicopters, fixed-wing aircraft, lethal unmanned aerial vehicles and cruise missiles. The Army believes the probability is increasing that Army helicopters will encounter an airborne threat and recognizes that Army helicopters need an improved air-to-air capability to counter that threat. This is why the Congress has been directing the Army to fulfill its commitment to the British Ministry of Defence and its own air-to-air needs by conducting an operational test and evaluation of the Starstreak through a live fire side-by-side shoot-off of the Starsteak and the Army's preferred alternative, the air-to-air Stinger. Mr. President, at this time I would like to engage the chairman and ranking member of the Appropriations Committee in a colloquy along with my colleague from Oklahoma and the distinguished senior Senator from Vermont.

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Mississippi (Mr. Cochran) is absent because of a death in the family.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to compliment Senator Stevens for the statement he just made. I think he is exactly right. I want to follow those comments and read from the paper what the purpose of this proposed bombing strike is. This is the front page of the New York Times quoting Secretary Albright. She says: Mr. Milosevic has a stark choice. That choice was for him to agree to the settlement signed in Paris last week by the ethnic Albanians who make up most of Kosovo's population or face NATO air strikes. In other words, Mr. Milosevic has to agree to the peace settlement, and he never has agreed to it, but if he doesn't agree to it, he is going to be bombed. Bombing is an act of war. So our Secretary of State and our President on Friday have said they support this agreement. The Serbs agree to this settlement that NATO has negotiated and that the Kosovars have now signed, or else they are going to be bombed. I made the comment Sunday, I said that is a crummy way to start a war. I look at that as us starting the war. Are the Serbians right now at war against Kosovo? No, Kosovo is actually part of Serbia. It has been for hundreds of years. Is there a lot of fighting, a lot of tension? Yes. The Kosovo Liberation Army, for a little over a year, has been attacking Serbian forces for the purpose of independence for Kosovo. As a matter of fact, there was a celebration in one of the towns that was attacked in the last 2 days, a celebration recognizing the fact that about a year ago in February was the first martyr for the KLA, the Kosovo Liberation Army. The goal of the Kosovo Liberation Army isn't autonomy. The goal of the Kosovo Liberation Army is independence. They have been fighting for independence. They have been attacking Serbian police in the process, and they have been killing some. Then Serbia usually responds with a lot more force. They have a lot more force. They have a bigger army. They have tanks, and they have killed a lot of people. I am not saying any of this is right. I am just saying this shouldn't be a purpose for the United States to go to war, to initiate bombing, because Serbia has not yet signed on to a peace accord that we think is the right thing to do. I, for one, have serious reservations about it. What is the peace agreement that we have decided they have to accept? It is autonomy for Kosovo, and the second part of it is stationing 28,000 foreign troops in Kosovo. Again, Kosovo is part of Serbia. We are telling them, you must agree to this or you are going to be bombed. I think that is using NATO's air force as a bargaining tool to try to bomb them into submission to a peace accord that they do not want to sign. Most sovereign nations wouldn't want to sign onto a deal that would put 28,000 foreign troops on its soil. I think the administration is wrong in this area. Don't get me wrong. I think Milosevic is a tyrant. I think he is guilty of a lot of bad things. That still doesn't mean that I think we should go to war with Serbia. If we start a massive bombing campaign, we are going to war. I think Senator Stevens is right. The Constitution says Congress shall declare war. Our forefathers showed great wisdom. They did not want to get involved in a lot of wars. They knew that the elected representatives--the Congress, House Members and Senate Members--would be very reluctant to do so because we would be sending our constituents that we represent into war, so we wouldn't do it lightly. Granted, we also say in the Constitution the President is Commander in Chief, and he has the authority, and we give him that authority, to respond if U.S. lives, U.S. interests are at stake, but that is not the case. And something has to happen before Congress has a chance to convene and pass a declaration of war. We have all kind of assumed that. Frankly, this President has tried to expand that power and I think even abused that power in saying he has the right to agree to an international force that is going to conduct a war. NATO has never done that. Senator Stevens is exactly right. NATO is a defensive alliance, and it has been successful. It was formed to make sure that if Soviet aggression against our European allies would happen, that we would all work together to repel that aggression. The very fact that we had significant forces in training and integrated training, demonstrates it has been a successful alliance. Never has NATO gone in to say we are going to go into another country that is not threatening neighboring countries, not threatening part of the alliance, and conduct military affairs to quell a civil war. If we conduct bombing, if NATO conducts bombing into Serbia, we are going to be on the side of the KLA, the Kosovo Liberation Army. I said before, their goal is not autonomy; their goal is independence. I will tell my colleagues, there are some of our allies who have very serious problems about that happening. The Greeks primarily have serious reservations about the wisdom of that. I just wonder how well thought out this has been, or if we conduct the bombing, what happens? I have heard President Clinton say we want to restore stability in the Balkans. It may be just the opposite result. We may start bombing and the Serbs may really escalate their attacks. I will read a comment from an article in today's New York Times: The Yugoslav foreign minister told CNN, ``We are not looking for confrontation,'' but his country considers any NATO force dispatched to Kosovo to be an aggression against sovereign territory, Yugoslavia. Other reports were that if the NATO forces would strike into Serbia, they would use that as an excuse to be more aggressive against the KLA. They might try to strike against the United States, but they hopefully won't have very much success against our airplanes. U.S. planes are going to be too high and too fast, too sophisticated to attack. They will see the United States is now taking sides with the Kosovars and so instead of attacking the United States, where they can't really be successful, they will be attacking the Kosovars. Instead of stopping violence and bringing stability and peace to the region, we might be escalating the war. We might be starting the war. I mentioned that to President Clinton. I do not want to see us start the war, but if we start bombing we may turn a guerrilla effort, that is going on right now between the KLA and Serbs, into a full-fledged war between the Serbs and Kosovo and see the loss of life greatly escalate, yet still not be successful. Just because we bomb does not mean that Serbia is going to say, OK, fine, you can bring the 28,000 troops in and station them in Kosovo. They may not agree with that. They may escalate their warfare. You may have a greater loss of life. Then we are going to have another decision. Are we going to go after that 40,000 Serbian military force that is in Kosovo? Are we going to be attacking those tanks? Are we going to be attacking the platoons? Are we going to be going after those people? You can do only so much, as we all know, with airpower. How deeply engaged in this civil war are we going to become? Again, if our purpose was to bring about peace and stability, can that really happen, if we ignite that type of warfare throughout Kosovo and into Serbia? I am afraid we may be starting something we can't get out of; I am afraid we might be there for years and years and years. I have heard some of my colleagues say, wait a minute, President Bush was for this. I haven't heard President Bush say that he was for this. In December of 1992, President Bush issued a warning to Mr. Milosevic: Don't you dare go in and start genocide against the Kosovars or there will be a price to be paid. Frankly, I supported that. It worked. It worked for one reason-- because I think Mr. Milosevic respected President Bush, which is more than what I can say at the present time on U.S. leadership, or even NATO leadership. That is regrettable. But also I didn't hear President Bush, in December of 1992, saying he wanted to have a multinational peacekeeping force stationed in Kosovo, occupying Kosovo. He didn't say that. He just let him know that if he started a very significant genocide in Kosovo, there would be a price to be paid. I do not mind if this President lets Mr. Milosevic know that. If he started slaughtering a large number of people, yes, there would be a military action against him. It does not mean we are going to be occupying Kosovo with 28,000 troops. I think that signal can be sent. That is not what I am reading in the paper. Today I read in the paper that Mr. Milosevic must agree to the settlement signed in Paris last week by ethnic Albanians that make up most of Kosovo's population or face NATO airstrikes. In other words, we are going to be striking if they do not agree to a peace agreement, and that calls for autonomy for Kosovo and calls for stationing 28,000 troops in their country. I believe that is unrealistic. I do not think that is the right negotiation. I do not think you can bomb another country into submitting to a peace plan. If they did, we would be putting 28,000 troops, in my opinion, into very hostile territory. They would be vulnerable to sniper fire, and that is not a very good situation either. I have very, very strong reservations about deploying U.S. ground forces into Kosovo. I have told that to the President. I think that is a serious mistake. I hope we will not do it. That is part of the peace plan. A lot of people are not aware of it. They seem to think we are trying to bring Milosevic to the peace table. I want him to come to the peace table. I want him to sign a peace agreement. I want him to have peace in Kosovo. But what this administration is saying is, unless he agrees to the plan that has already been agreed to by NATO and the Kosovars, including the deployment of 28,000 troops, we are going to begin bombing him. Are we going to keep on bombing him until he agrees to the stationing of 28,000 troops in Kosovo? I do not think that is realistic. Then if we station 28,000 troops there, one, they are vulnerable to attack because it is a hostile area and, two, they will have to be there for a long, long time. This area does have a history of fighting that goes back for many, many centuries. The Ottoman Empire, the Hapsburg Empire, 1389, the war in Kosovo--they have been fighting for centuries. There is real ethnic violence there. There are real problems, and I understand that. I do not think you can station U.S. peacekeeping forces everywhere in the world where there is violence. There are reports that 80-some-odd people were killed in the last few days in Borneo; 50-some were killed in Russia by 1 bomb. I heard my colleague from Delaware say in 1 village, 40-some people were assassinated, murdered, or they were killed. I do not know that we have seen the autopsy reports. We do not know whether they were carrying guns or not. They were shot point blank. We heard that. I do not know that to be the case. There are lots of atrocities when you start fighting, and we know that. I know we had a civil war in this country 130 years ago, and we had hundreds of thousands of Americans who were killed. I am glad we did not have other countries intervening in our Civil War. I just think that would have been a mistake. I know both sides were trying to get the French and the British involved, but I am glad they did not get involved. I seriously question the wisdom of us getting involved in this war, or if we are going to get involved in this one, why we are not getting involved on behalf of some of the Kurds in Turkey, where the loss of life has been some 37,000 in the last several years. Or what about in Sudan, where there have been over a million people massacred in the last 10 years? What about in Burundi, where 200,000 people have been murdered? I could go on and on. We have to be very, very cautious when we start deploying U.S. forces around the world. In some cases, we have done it with very noble intentions, but it has not worked. It did not work in the early eighties in Lebanon. It did not work in Somalia. We had to bring our troops back and, unfortunately, we brought back a lot of our troops in body bags. Again, I urge my colleagues to think seriously about what we are doing. For crying out loud, let's not be threatening bombing because the Serbs have not signed on to a peace accord that we somewhat arrogantly say, ``This is what you have to do, and if you don't agree, you're going to be bombed.'' I do not think you can bomb a country into submission to sign a peace agreement, especially one that also says they have to agree to foreign troops stationed on their soil for an indefinite period of time. That is a mistake. I compliment my friend from Alaska for his statement. Also, Mr. President, I reiterate that Congress needs to assert its constitutional prerogative, and that is that Congress has the right under article I, section 8, of the Constitution to declare war. Our forefathers did not want to make it easy for us to be involved in foreign entanglements, and they wanted Congress, i.e., the support of the American people, to be involved before we would ever do so. I think they were exactly right. If President Clinton wants to initiate this effort, he should be asking Congress for a declaration of war. I think we, as leaders in Congress, should cooperate to bring that resolution to the floor and have a debate, a discussion, and have a vote. Right now we have been talking about an amendment: No funds will be used for this combat or airstrikes or stationing troops until or unless Congress authorizes it. That may be the most expedient way of getting this up for a vote. I personally would like to see a straight resolution, just like we had in the Persian Gulf war, which we voted on in January of 1991, which authorized the use of force in the Persian Gulf. We had a very significant debate. Most of my colleagues who were here at the time said that probably was the most important vote they ever cast. I would like for us to have that. That resolution, I say to my colleagues, passed by a vote of 52 to 47, but it was significant, it was intense. We knew what we were talking about. We had significant debate on it. It was a healthy debate, and Congress supported the resolution. Airstrikes, I tell my friends and colleagues, started shortly after that resolution. I do not think we are ready for that in this case in Kosovo today. The administration needs to make their case. They then should request a resolution of authorization--we should prepare one or they should prepare one--and we would vote on it. I hope we will do that before hostilities are initiated by NATO; i.e., the United States. Mr. President, I thank my friend and colleague from Alaska for his indulgence, and I yield the floor. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I annouce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today I introduce S. 606 for Senator Mack, Senator Feinstein, Senator Hatch, and myself. This bill is intended to resolve litigation between the federal government and Kerr- McGee Corporation and Kerr-McGee Chemical, LLC (successor to Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation) and Global Exploration and Development Corporation. This legislation embodies an agreement that has been reviewed and accepted by the Hearing Officer and a three judge reviewing panel. The Department of Justice has no objection to this legislation. In addition, this legislation would also make it a criminal act to distribute certain information relating to explosives, destructive devices, and weapons of mass destruction. This bill was reported by the Committee on the Judiciary in this form during the 105th Congress. As background to this relief for Kerr-McGee and Global Exploration, in 1964, they first filed applications for phosphate prospecting permits in Osceola National Forest. Under Sec. 211(a) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act, the Secretary can only grant prospecting permit applications following a determination that the public interest will be served by doing so. The U.S. Forest Service must also consent to the issuance of the prospecting permits. The permits were granted, and the plaintiffs subsequently discovered phosphate deposits. The plaintiffs then filed applications with the Department of Interior for leases to mine the deposits in January of 1969. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to leases is governed by the Mineral Lands Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. sec. 181 et. seq.) which requires the Secretary of Interior to issue leases to a permittee that has discovered a ``valuable deposit'' of mineral. The U.S. Geological Survey, the Bureau of Mines and the Office of Minerals Policy Department all confirmed that valuable deposits had in fact been discovered (valued at $100 to $300 million in 1970's dollars). Kerr-McGee filed suit in 1973 and Global filed suit in 1978 seeking the immediate issuance of the leases. In 1981, the U.S. Forest Service began setting out the requirements for reclamation. The Department of Interior concluded the reclamation technology did not exist based on an Environmental Assessment (``EA'') prepared by Interior and issued in January of 1983. Based on that conclusion, the plaintiffs' applications for leases to mine the deposits were rejected. Agency personnel had told plaintiffs that they would be able to comment on the EA findings before their final issuance. By law, the government was required to permit the applicants to participate in the EA process by submitting comments and expert analysis on the feasibility of reclamation. Plaintiffs were never given a chance to participate in the EA process, to show feasibility of reclamation, or to comment on the draft EA. In 1984, the Florida Wilderness Act (Pub. L. 98-430, 98 Stat. 1665) was enacted which prevented the issuance of phosphate mining leases in Osceola, effectively foreclosing a legal remedy since plaintiffs could no longer ask for reversal of the prior decision or for relief for damages incurred. The House Committee Report accompanying the Act stated that ``in the event the courts ultimately determined that applicants have established lease rights, [the Act] provides that leases will not be issued. The applicants would instead be compensated as required in accordance with constitutional principles.'' H. Rpt. 98- 102 Part I, 97th Cong., 1st Sess., at 7. The plaintiffs pursued their case in federal district court and the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The Court of Appeals vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the suit as moot in light of Florida Wilderness Act. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims then questioned whether or not it had jurisdiction to hear the case, leaving plaintiffs without a forum to be heard. Under 28 U.S.C. 2509, a congressional reference empowers a judge of the Court of Federal Claims to sit as a Hearing Officer, hold a hearing and determine the facts of the case. The Hearing Officer's findings and conclusions are then reviewed by a three-judge panel. The panel then adopts or modifies the findings and conclusions and submits its report to the Chief Judge who then transmits the recommendations to the house of Congress which referred the case. On Jan. 10, 1991, H. Res. 29 and H.R. 477 were introduced during the 102nd Congress to refer the case to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in order to compensate plaintiffs for any damages incurred on account of the failure of the Secretary of the Interior to grant and permit mining operations pursuant to phosphate leases in the Osceola National Forest. On July 10, 1991, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Government Relations held hearings on H.R. 477 and H. Res. 29. On October 3, 1991, the Subcommittee reported the resolution, with a technical amendment, to full Committee. On July 21, 1992, the House of Representatives passed H. Res. 29, referring H.R. 477 to Court of Claims. The formal Congressional reference confirmed jurisdiction for the plaintiffs' suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. In the Court of Federal Claims, the Government moved for summary judgement. The Court ruled that plaintiffs did not have a legal claim but did have an equitable claim since the government failed to comply with the legal requirement of the EA. The court ruled that the Secretary of Interior had made an error in denying phosphate mining leases on the basis of an EA without allowing plaintiffs the opportunity to comment. The court concluded that the error was not harmless. Remaining was the question of fact whether reclamation was feasible, according to Forest Service standards as of January of 1983. A 6 week evidentiary hearing was held on that issue from October 13 to December 14, 1995. Plaintiffs presented leading experts in reclamation who showed they could have successfully reclaimed the land, that the analysis in the EA was scientifically incorrect, and that EA members who concluded successful reclamation had their conclusions omitted. Before the court issued its opinion, the parties agreed to a joint stipulation of settlement and submitted this stipulation to the Court: Global is to received $9.5 million; Kerr-McGee is to receive $10 million, which it will return to the government as partial payment for a Superfund cleanup site in Louisiana; and Kerr-McGee Chemical LLC is to receive $0. Global, Kerr-McGee and the Department of Justice accepted the report of the Hearing Officer, dated November 18, 1996, and the Review Panel endorsed the decision. On November 18, 1996, the court published its recommendations to Congress that the disputes be settled for the amounts set forth in the joint stipulation of settlement. The court's recommendation was based on a finding that the settlement was fair, just, equitable and supported by the evidence. As noted in the Hearing Officer's report, ``if the case were to proceed to final disposition and plaintiffs to prevail, then the Government would face a potential liability substantially in excess of the proposed settlement amounts. Conversely, however, a victory for the Government would not assure it of protection against all future liability.'' This legislation would implement this settlement, and we urge its prompt consideration and approval by the Senate. For the information of all Senators, I have included the House Committee Report from the 105th Congress which provides a very clear background and the need for this provision. In addition, the bill includes language related to the prohibition of distribution of information related to destructive devices, explosives, and weapons of mass destruction in furtherance of a violent crime. This language was added to this legislation during markup of H.R. 1211 during the 105th Congress in the Senate Judiciary Committee by Senator Feinstein and is a reasonable resolution of an issue pushed by Senator Feinstein for several years. I urge quick consideration and passage of this overdue and important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, today I introduce S. 606 for Senator Mack, Senator Feinstein, Senator Hatch, and myself. This bill is intended to resolve litigation between the federal government and Kerr- McGee Corporation and Kerr-McGee Chemical, LLC (successor to Kerr-McGee Chemical Corporation) and Global Exploration and Development Corporation. This legislation embodies an agreement that has been reviewed and accepted by the Hearing Officer and a three judge reviewing panel. The Department of Justice has no objection to this legislation. In addition, this legislation would also make it a criminal act to distribute certain information relating to explosives, destructive devices, and weapons of mass destruction. This bill was reported by the Committee on the Judiciary in this form during the 105th Congress. As background to this relief for Kerr-McGee and Global Exploration, in 1964, they first filed applications for phosphate prospecting permits in Osceola National Forest. Under Sec. 211(a) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act, the Secretary can only grant prospecting permit applications following a determination that the public interest will be served by doing so. The U.S. Forest Service must also consent to the issuance of the prospecting permits. The permits were granted, and the plaintiffs subsequently discovered phosphate deposits. The plaintiffs then filed applications with the Department of Interior for leases to mine the deposits in January of 1969. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to leases is governed by the Mineral Lands Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. sec. 181 et. seq.) which requires the Secretary of Interior to issue leases to a permittee that has discovered a ``valuable deposit'' of mineral. The U.S. Geological Survey, the Bureau of Mines and the Office of Minerals Policy Department all confirmed that valuable deposits had in fact been discovered (valued at $100 to $300 million in 1970's dollars). Kerr-McGee filed suit in 1973 and Global filed suit in 1978 seeking the immediate issuance of the leases. In 1981, the U.S. Forest Service began setting out the requirements for reclamation. The Department of Interior concluded the reclamation technology did not exist based on an Environmental Assessment (``EA'') prepared by Interior and issued in January of 1983. Based on that conclusion, the plaintiffs' applications for leases to mine the deposits were rejected. Agency personnel had told plaintiffs that they would be able to comment on the EA findings before their final issuance. By law, the government was required to permit the applicants to participate in the EA process by submitting comments and expert analysis on the feasibility of reclamation. Plaintiffs were never given a chance to participate in the EA process, to show feasibility of reclamation, or to comment on the draft EA. In 1984, the Florida Wilderness Act (Pub. L. 98-430, 98 Stat. 1665) was enacted which prevented the issuance of phosphate mining leases in Osceola, effectively foreclosing a legal remedy since plaintiffs could no longer ask for reversal of the prior decision or for relief for damages incurred. The House Committee Report accompanying the Act stated that ``in the event the courts ultimately determined that applicants have established lease rights, [the Act] provides that leases will not be issued. The applicants would instead be compensated as required in accordance with constitutional principles.'' H. Rpt. 98- 102 Part I, 97th Cong., 1st Sess., at 7. The plaintiffs pursued their case in federal district court and the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. The Court of Appeals vacated the district court's judgment and remanded the case with instructions to dismiss the suit as moot in light of Florida Wilderness Act. The U.S. Court of Federal Claims then questioned whether or not it had jurisdiction to hear the case, leaving plaintiffs without a forum to be heard. Under 28 U.S.C. 2509, a congressional reference empowers a judge of the Court of Federal Claims to sit as a Hearing Officer, hold a hearing and determine the facts of the case. The Hearing Officer's findings and conclusions are then reviewed by a three-judge panel. The panel then adopts or modifies the findings and conclusions and submits its report to the Chief Judge who then transmits the recommendations to the house of Congress which referred the case. On Jan. 10, 1991, H. Res. 29 and H.R. 477 were introduced during the 102nd Congress to refer the case to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in order to compensate plaintiffs for any damages incurred on account of the failure of the Secretary of the Interior to grant and permit mining operations pursuant to phosphate leases in the Osceola National Forest. On July 10, 1991, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Law and Government Relations held hearings on H.R. 477 and H. Res. 29. On October 3, 1991, the Subcommittee reported the resolution, with a technical amendment, to full Committee. On July 21, 1992, the House of Representatives passed H. Res. 29, referring H.R. 477 to Court of Claims. The formal Congressional reference confirmed jurisdiction for the plaintiffs' suit in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. In the Court of Federal Claims, the Government moved for summary judgement. The Court ruled that plaintiffs did not have a legal claim but did have an equitable claim since the government failed to comply with the legal requirement of the EA. The court ruled that the Secretary of Interior had made an error in denying phosphate mining leases on the basis of an EA without allowing plaintiffs the opportunity to comment. The court concluded that the error was not harmless. Remaining was the question of fact whether reclamation was feasible, according to Forest Service standards as of January of 1983. A 6 week evidentiary hearing was held on that issue from October 13 to December 14, 1995. Plaintiffs presented leading experts in reclamation who showed they could have successfully reclaimed the land, that the analysis in the EA was scientifically incorrect, and that EA members who concluded successful reclamation had their conclusions omitted. Before the court issued its opinion, the parties agreed to a joint stipulation of settlement and submitted this stipulation to the Court: Global is to received $9.5 million; Kerr-McGee is to receive $10 million, which it will return to the government as partial payment for a Superfund cleanup site in Louisiana; and Kerr-McGee Chemical LLC is to receive $0. Global, Kerr-McGee and the Department of Justice accepted the report of the Hearing Officer, dated November 18, 1996, and the Review Panel endorsed the decision. On November 18, 1996, the court published its recommendations to Congress that the disputes be settled for the amounts set forth in the joint stipulation of settlement. The court's recommendation was based on a finding that the settlement was fair, just, equitable and supported by the evidence. As noted in the Hearing Officer's report, ``if the case were to proceed to final disposition and plaintiffs to prevail, then the Government would face a potential liability substantially in excess of the proposed settlement amounts. Conversely, however, a victory for the Government would not assure it of protection against all future liability.'' This legislation would implement this settlement, and we urge its prompt consideration and approval by the Senate. For the information of all Senators, I have included the House Committee Report from the 105th Congress which provides a very clear background and the need for this provision. In addition, the bill includes language related to the prohibition of distribution of information related to destructive devices, explosives, and weapons of mass destruction in furtherance of a violent crime. This language was added to this legislation during markup of H.R. 1211 during the 105th Congress in the Senate Judiciary Committee by Senator Feinstein and is a reasonable resolution of an issue pushed by Senator Feinstein for several years. I urge quick consideration and passage of this overdue and important legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. NICKLES

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

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I thank my colleague.

Mr. NICKLES. One, I compliment Senator Jeffords for his management on this bill. I am delighted we have an agreement and we will get it completed. I compliment him for his leadership in the Labor Committee in putting this bill together. I somewhat regret the fact that the Democrats failed to show up at his markup. They want to amend the bill on the floor. They did not want to amend the bill in committee. With the chairman's indulgence, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the table showing the number of departments, programs, and funding for the various education programs throughout the Federal Government.

Mr. NICKLES. If the Senator will yield for just a second?

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, first I wish to compliment my colleague and friend, Senator Jeffords, for his leadership on this bill. I am confident that tomorrow we will pass this bill. Also, I wish to compliment Senator Frist and others on the Labor Committee who have worked very, very hard to put together a good package, a responsible package, to allow the States to have more flexibility in dealing with Federal education programs so they can deliver a better product, and that is basically improving the education of our kids. That is a very noble goal. By doing so, they are saying we want to set up a program, which we have already done in a pilot program in a few States, and make it available to all States. All State Governors, Democrats and Republicans, say we want to have that flexibility, give us the ability to ask the Federal Government for a waiver from a lot of the rules and regulations in managing these programs so we can do a better job. Frankly, they are telling us they can do a better job, without Uncle Sam's rules and regulations, in trying to manage their schools. They did not need so much Federal help. It is really what the States were telling us. Democrats as well as Republicans were saying that. I think they are exactly right in doing so. I compliment the sponsors of this legislation, and I am going to be pleased tomorrow when we pass it. Unfortunately, there are a few amendments that are circulating around that I think would be very detrimental to this bill. As a matter of fact, I believe if they are adopted, we shouldn't pass this bill. The main amendment I am going to address is the one that maybe has received more attention than others--the so-called 100,000 teachers that Senator Kennedy, Senator Murray and others have been so laudatory about, saying, ``This is exactly what we need to improve the quality of education.'' A couple of comments: One, I think if schools need more teachers, the schools should be able to make that decision. That decision should not be made in Washington, DC. When I say ``the schools,'' I am talking about the school board administrators, the parents, the teachers, the local officials, the school board officials, the Governor. They should be making that decision. I do not think that is Senator Kennedy's decision to make. I do not think that is the U.S. Senate's decision to make. Nor do I think it should be made by President Clinton. That is not our responsibility. That is a State responsibility. That is a local responsibility. Frankly, the local government knows best what they can do to improve education, not Washington, DC. It may be a school in the Northeast needs more insulation because of the cold or maybe they need more computers, maybe they need a new building, maybe they need building repair, maybe they need more teachers. I don't know. I wouldn't think that we have the guts or the gall to say we know best, the government knows best, but when I look at Senator Kennedy's amendment, that is exactly what it says. Here we have a national program. We are going to have 100,000 teachers. It is going to be paid for by the Federal Government. Keep in mind, almost all teachers, K through 12, are paid for by State and local governments, yet now we have an amendment on the floor of the Senate that says, We want 100,000 teachers at a cost of over $11 billion, to be paid for by the Federal Government--100 percent paid for by the Federal Government. In some of the districts, the teachers will be paid for 65 percent by the Federal Government and 35 percent by the State government. It is interesting. I have asked, What is the impact? Somebody said that we did part of this last year. We passed a bill last year that cost $1.2 billion, and we increased the number of teachers 30,000. Boy, that has really done a wonderful job. I looked at my State. As part of the bill that we passed last year, part of this 30,000 teachers, Oklahoma is going to get 348. Big deal. For the life of me, I do not think that is a Federal responsibility. Oklahoma is going to get $13 million to help pay for 348 teachers. Big deal. Is that really what the Federal Government is supposed to do? Is that our responsibility? I don't think so. At least Republican amendments are saying, ``Instead of teachers, let's at least allow the States to have the option. If we are going to have Federal money, let's have the money go to give the schools the option for teachers or for meeting our responsibility with kids that have special needs, giving States the flexibility to use the money either for schools or students with special needs,'' which we already have a Federal law stating the obligation for the States to do it, an unfunded mandate. So at least we give the States some flexibility. That is not in Senator Kennedy and Senator Murray's amendment. I am looking at this amendment. There are lots of things in here that deal with regulations and how the money is going to be used, basically telling the States here is how to do it; we know best. The Federal Government knows best. Senate Democrats know best. President Clinton knows best. For the life of me, I just think that is a serious mistake--the Federal Government passing a bill last year that says Oklahoma gets 348 more teachers paid for for 1 year. I might mention, if we don't pay for it next year, what happens to that Federal teacher? I hate to say it, but we have 1,800 schools in the State of Oklahoma. We are going to get 348 teachers. That is about one-fifth or one-sixth of a teacher for each school, not each class, each school. Does that really make sense? I don't think it makes any sense. Which school is going to get a teacher? Which school is not going to get a teacher? I know my colleagues on the Democrat side have an amendment that says we are going to have a Federal school building program, and the President proposed billions of dollars, I guess $11 billion, for more teachers and several billion dollars for more school buildings. Which school buildings are going to be replaced? Which school building is going to be repaired? We are going to be making those decisions in Washington, DC? Is that the proper use for incremental dollars? Do they get more bang in educational value out of buildings or in teachers? We are saying we don't know. We are saying why don't we free up some of the resources that we are now spending from the Federal Government to the States and let the States make the decision? Let the local school boards make the decision. Let the teachers make the decision. Let the parents make the decision. Instead, my colleagues that are offering the amendment are saying, no, no, we will decide; the Federal Government is going to decide we need 100,000 teachers. I disagree. It is interesting. Somebody said, well, we really need lower class size. For a little bit of history, most States have already been reducing the average sizes of their classes. That trend is expected to continue. My guess is that President Clinton feels, since he has promoted this, class size has really declined. In 1955, the average public school class size in the United States was 27 students. In 1975, it dropped to 21. Today it is down to 17.3. If you are talking about only elementary schools, the numbers are slightly higher, but they still show a decline, from 30.2 in 1955 to 18.5 today, 18.5. ``Well, it ought to go to 18.'' Well, it looks to me like demographically we are going to 18 anyway. That will happen whether the Federal Governments gets involved in hiring 100,000 teachers or not. We have spent $1.2 billion last year to hire 30,000 teachers. That money is only good for 1 year. Then under this bill, it says, well, let's spend more than that. Let's just spend billions every year. It has amounts allocated: $1.4 billion for the year 2000; $1.5 billion for 2001; $1.7 billion for 2002, and on; I see $2.8 billion for the year 2005. This says here is a recipe where we can have the Federal Government spending more money, and it stops at the year 2005. We are going to pay for these Federal teachers only up to the year 2005 and then stop? Sorry, States, now it is your responsibility. I just think that is a serious mistake. In my State of Oklahoma, I don't know exactly the number of teachers that we have, but 348 teachers, when we have 1,800 schools and lots and lots of teachers in each school. I just fail to find the wisdom in doing it. There is a difference in philosophy between the Democrats and Republicans on this issue. We have basically said the States and local school districts should make a better decision. Senator Kennedy and some of my colleagues on the Democrat side seem to think that they have the answer. They are going to dictate 100,000 teachers. They are going to dictate billions of dollars of the Federal Government building school buildings. I think that is a mistake. I had my staff--this is almost 2 years old, a year; it was done May 15, 1997, so it is a little obsolete--I asked them, How many Federal programs are involved in education right now? I know there are a lot, but I don't know them all. I haven't served on the Labor and Education Committee for a long time--I was on it for several years--but I know there are a lot. As a matter of fact, there are a lot more than I imagined. I will put this in the Record and maybe somebody can update it for me. According to this, in May of 1997, there were 788 Federal education programs, 788 Federal education programs that were spending at that point $968 billion. That is a lot of money. That is about one- seventeenth of all the Federal spending that we are spending today. Someone can't say we do not have any emphasis in education. What we have is a lot of Federal programs, probably 700-some, too many Federal programs, and we are spending billions of dollars, almost $100 billion, probably if this is updated it is over $100 billion, because I know we had significant increases in the last couple of years in education. Just in the Department of Education alone, there were 307 education programs, totaling $59 billion. Again, this is 1997. So it shows you there is a lot of Federal input. I personally think we need to consolidate most of those programs, get rid of them, and give the money and the power back to the States and to the local school boards. What I think is, we do not need to have another program. ``Here are 100,000 teachers. Let's make this, instead of 788 programs, 789.'' I think President Clinton has proposed 8 or 9 new education programs alone. We do not need more education programs. What we need to do is free the States and local school boards to where they can do a better job with the resources they now have without all the strings and redtape and bureaucracy they now have to comply with. So I hope that will be what we will do. I hope that tomorrow when we are voting on this series of amendments, when we have amendments that are trying to micromanage how States spend money, run their schools, that we will table those amendments, that we will defeat those amendments, and we will pass the Ed-Flex bill which will give more flexibility to States and local school boards in actually administering Federal programs. They can do a better job in educating our kids, to improve the quality of education for the children of America. So I encourage my colleagues to vote against these amendments that try to micromanage education from Washington, DC, and pass the Ed-Flex bill to give the flexibility to the States and to the local school boards to do a better job for our kids. I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Inhofe), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain), the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions), and the Senator from Wyoming (Mr. Thomas) are necessarily absent. I further announce that if present and voting, the Senator from Kentucky (Mr. Bunning), the Senator from Montana (Mr. Burns), the Senator from Arizona (Mr. Kyl), the Senator from Arkansas (Mr. Hutchinson), and the Senator from Alabama (Mr. Sessions) would each vote ``no.''

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Kentucky Mr. Bunning and the Senator from Oklahoma Mr. Inhofe are necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. I announce that the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) is necessarily absent.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I wish to speak on a couple of issues that concern me greatly in the arena of foreign policy. First, a couple of comments concerning the administration's recent policies in Kosovo. I am very, very concerned that the administration, in the negotiations in France, is making a mistake. I hope that is not the case. I wish that is not the case. Maybe I don't have all the information the administration has. But I have been to Kosovo. I have been in Pristina. I have met with Mr. Milosevic. I do happen to think he is a tyrant. I think he has conducted a lot of atrocities in Bosnia and Kosovo against people--right now the Albanians in Kosovo. I think he is a bad guy. I think the international community needs to stand up to him. But I am very, very concerned about the administration's policy, or objective, where they are talking about committing 4,000 U.S. troops out of a contingency of 28,000, where they are sending our military in without a militarily achievable objective and without an exit strategy. I am really concerned because I think we are going to be there for a long, long time. It seems like we are duplicating what happened in Bosnia, which the administration calls an outstanding success. But it looks to me like we are stuck in Bosnia. We are spending billions and billions of dollars there. Nobody seems to know exactly how much money we have spent in Bosnia. I heard some people say we have already spent $12 billion in Bosnia. Some people say the real figure is closer to $20 billion or $22 billion. But we are spending billions of dollars. I remember in 1995 the President, when he committed the troops, said they would only be there for a year. As a matter of fact, the year would expire right around election time in 1996. He thought he was going to get them out before election time. But he didn't. Then he said he would extend them another year. And now they are on 3 years plus, and they are still in Bosnia, and we know they will be in Bosnia for a long, long time. I visited our troops there. They are very dedicated and very committed. They are also very, very expensive peacekeepers. I have urged the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State, that if we are going to get involved in Kosovo let s not repeat what we have done in Bosnia. It is not the same amount of cost and consternation for European troops, who live in Poland or live in Germany or live in Italy, to spend a little time in Bosnia or Kosovo as it is for somebody in the United States. They are able to go home at various points. We are not able to do that. We are awfully expensive. So I just make the point that I am very concerned about the administration's strategy. I am concerned about this idea that if we just get the Kosovars to agree, then we can bomb Mr. Milosevic and he will now be a compliant partner for peace. That has not proven to be the case. I don't think it will be the case. I think we will be stuck there for a long time. That is the main point I wish to bring as far as my objective. I don't see an exit strategy. I am afraid that we will be there for tens of years instead of 1 year or a very short period of time. Mr. President, I make those comments on Kosovo.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, the primary reason I came to the floor this afternoon is to speak about the administration's failed policy on Iraq. I say it is a failed policy. I wish that weren't the case, but it is. It is a failed policy. The administration, this administration, President Clinton, inherited a situation where President Bush and the Secretary of State had won the war with Iraq. We achieved our military objective, which was to get Iraq out of Kuwait. We stated that was our objective. We accomplished that objective. We came home. We implemented sanctions against Iraq for its invasion of Kuwait in the summer of 1990. We had a total embargo on Iraqi products, including oil. Oil was the No. 1 product, or commodity, that Iraq exported. It provided 95 percent, I believe, of its foreign currencies. We put that embargo on because they invaded a neighbor. And, frankly, they probably intended to invade other neighbors--maybe Saudi Arabia-- and really became the dominating power in the Persian Gulf. We didn't think that was right. We sent 550,000 troops. We stopped them. We kicked them out of Kuwait, and we imposed sanctions to make sure that we would get rid of their weapons of mass destruction, because we knew they were building chemical and biological weapons and possibly nuclear weapons. And so we set up an international regime called UNSCOM to inspect to make sure they wouldn't be doing this again, that they wouldn't be building these weapons of mass destruction to cause more problems for their neighbors and surrounding countries in the foreseeable future. The entire world community supported us, applauded us in that effort. I think we had 30 countries that were involved in the coalition aligned against Iraq in 1990, 1991, 1992. That is what President Clinton inherited. Well, what has happened since? Let me walk you through what has happened since. Saddam Hussein and the Iraqis and the Iraqi Government have really baffled the Clinton administration and, in my opinion, they have beaten the Clinton administration if you look at their objectives. I will show you. The war was in 1991. They were producing over 2 million barrels of oil per day in 1990. After the embargo, they averaged--in 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, about 4- or 500,000- barrels per day. We really curtailed their production. Basically, we had the implied reward that said, if you will allow arms control inspectors--if we know that you are not building weapons of mass destruction, we will allow you to produce more oil, there won't be an embargo, but we have to know that you are not building weapons to export throughout the world. What did this administration do? Well, we had a conflict. Actually it happened in 1994 and 1995; Iraq amassed about 80,000 troops near the Kuwaiti border. We started activating troops. We said, well, we wouldn't let this stand; we will respond militarily, if necessary, and then the problem went away. How did they go away? In April of 1995, the United Nations approved Resolution 986, and this resolution allowed Iraq to sell $2 billion worth of oil every 6 months, $4 billion of oil per year. Well, you might notice, all right, this happened in April of 1995. Their oil infrastructure took awhile to be rebuilt, but, as a result of the U.N. resolution, a couple of years later they doubled their oil production. And this was supposedly to get their cooperation. We didn't have to go to war at the time. We were able to, supposedly, have arms control inspectors, and so they had a little cooperation. In March of 1996, Iraq blocked inspections. In June of 1996, we passed U.N. Resolution 1060 that deplores the refusal of Iraqi authorities to allow access to sites designated by UNSCOM. In August, Iraq launched a campaign against the Kurds. The United States launched a few cruise missiles. The crisis continues. Our arms control inspectors are continually denied access. In June of 1997, Iraq demands that UNSCOM finish their business. In June, the United Nations passed a resolution that demands--demands-- Iraq comply fully with UNSCOM. In October of 1997, Iraq bars American inspectors totally. In October, the United Nations passed Resolution 1134 which condemned Iraq's refusal to allow UNSCOM access to certain sites. Boy, the United Nations is standing tough. In November of 1997, we passed another resolution, Resolution 1137. We, again, condemned Iraq because they wouldn't allow these arms control inspectors to have access. We are getting close to finding their weapons of mass destruction. Now, this is only a year ago. A year ago in January this administration was sending 35,000 troops to the Persian Gulf. We are getting ready to go to war again. We are going to have a significant strike. We had significant debate in this body: Is this the right thing to do? Will this bring about compliance? The administration is getting close to going to war. And then what happened? The standoff continues. The inspectors are not allowed access to any of these sites. And then you might remember, the Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, well, he flies to Baghdad and they come to an agreement. Peace is at hand. Arms control inspectors will be allowed back in. Well, guess what. There was a little deal made that not too many people were aware of. I venture to say there weren't two colleagues in the Senate who were aware the administration already cut a deal with Iraq and on U.N. Resolution 1153, they allowed Iraq to sell $5.2 billion worth of oil every 6 months; in other words, allowed Iraq to more than double its oil sales. This is in February of last year. One year ago, February of 1998, the administration signed a deal. We are getting ready to go to war with Iraq because they wouldn't let us have our arms control inspectors in, and all of a sudden we delegate the authority to the Secretary General. He runs to Baghdad. They signed a deal. Everybody is shaking hands. War is avoided. Everybody can be at ease--no real problems now. We have an agreement. We have Kofi Annan's signature. We have the Iraqis saying they are going to comply; they are going to let in arms control people. And, yes, there was a little deal that they could double oil sales, the Iraqis could double their oil exports to as much as $5.2 billion of oil every 6 months. That was February, a year ago, 12 months from this time. What happened last August? Let's see. Last August, the Iraqis stopped inspectors again. Now, they have done this repeatedly. What happened in September and October? They announced they would no longer cooperate. We withdrew the inspectors because they weren't doing anything. They were sitting in hotel rooms. They weren't allowed to have any inspections. And so we started saying this is not satisfactory. President Clinton, again, he is talking tough--we are going to go to war. We are going to bomb them. We have the international community on our side now because they kicked the arms control inspectors out. We have the international community on our side. We are ready to go. Well, the administration wasn't ready to go to war so we will give peace a little more of a chance. And we gave peace a little more of a chance, but they still didn't cooperate. We negotiated more. And so in September the United Nations passed another resolution demanding Iraq cooperate. That was in September. In November, we passed another resolution, U.N. Resolution 1205. We demanded that Iraq cooperate. And then in December we had 3 days of bombing, December 17, 18, and 19. Iraq didn't cooperate. We had 3 days of bombing. Some people called them the impeachment bombings. They happened to be on the day of impeachment. Maybe that is coincidence; maybe it isn't. I don't know. So we had 3 days of bombing. Boy, that taught them a lesson because they weren't complying, and we are going to make sure they are going to comply. So we bombed them for 3 days. And then what happened? And I don't know if anybody can read this or not, but then on December 23 ``U.S. Offers To Raise Crude Sales Cap.'' Just days after the bombing, Clinton administration officials are negotiating to lift the oil sales cap. My point is that we have rewarded Iraq three times in the past for noncompliance with arms control inspectors by raising the oil sales cap. In April of 1995, we allowed them to go from a total embargo to where they could sell $2 billion of oil every 6 months. That was in April of 1995. Why? Because they weren't allowing the inspectors. Then in February of 1998--again, we are ready to go to war, Kofi Annan, negotiates this deal that will allow them to double it again. So, yes, we had a promise that the inspectors would be allowed to have access. Maybe they had access for a few months. The inspectors start getting close to finding something and Saddam Hussein kicks them out again. We threatened to go to war again. This time we actually did bomb them for 3 days and then, guess what. Days later, we can't wait; we run back and say, hey, we are going to reward you for your noncompliance. That has been the administration's policy dealing with Iraq. Let's reward their noncompliance with arms control inspectors. Let's reward them; we will let them sell more oil. And that is exactly what has happened. This was the administration's statement days after the bombing. But it is interesting. And this was made by Tom Pickering. Incidentally, I might mention, Mr. President, we are trying to get the administration to testify at a hearing, and they have been very reluctant to do so. But I think we have a commitment from Secretary of Energy Richardson, and I hope we will have Secretary Albright, or at least Under Secretary Pickering to testify, to explain this position. His statement is interesting. It says: Outlining U.S. policy in the wake of last week's airstrikes against Iraq, Undersecretary of State Thomas R. Pickering said the United States would be prepared to review the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq after the 1991 Persian Gulf War if Iraqi President Saddam Hussein gives guaranteed cooperation to U.N. weapons inspectors. If not, the sanctions will remain in place in perpetuity and the United States will use force as needed to block weapons development. In other words, if Iraq doesn't give cooperation, we are going to guarantee that those sanctions will remain in place forever. That was our administration's policy on December 23, just days after the bombing. Well, guess what. I am critical of this administration. Their policy here, 3 weeks later, on January 14--again in the Washington Post, it says, ``Gore Signals Flexibility on Iraq Sanctions; France Proposes Ending Oil Embargo, Changing Weapons Inspections.'' But guess what. Vice President Gore proposed eliminating weapons sanctions. That is our own Vice President who said that. Three weeks after we said we would never lift sanctions unless we had total cooperation, we had the Vice President of the United States talking about--I will just quote part of the article: A ceiling on how much oil Iraq can sell to provide humanitarian aid to its people should be lifted and the approval process streamlined, Vice President Gore said tonight. . . . ``The ceiling should be lifted.'' He didn't say in exchange for cooperation. He didn't say in exchange for having arms control inspectors in. He just said we should lift it. That is very inconsistent, totally overriding what the Under Secretary said 3 weeks before, but totally consistent with what this administration has done. What this administration has done--Saddam Hussein has tested them. He has pushed them up to the edge of going to war, defied arms control, defied the international community and the arms control community--by kicking the inspectors out. We would talk tough, and then at the last second we would say, ``Well, wait a minute, just give us a little inspection, let us have some inspections, let us do it, and you can sell more oil.'' So what has happened? The Iraqis have done just that. Their oil sales have gone way up. Guess what. They have no inspections--none--zero. They are selling as much oil today as they were prior to the war. That is 95 percent of their currency that they earn for all sorts of things. The administration will say this is only used for food or humanitarian reasons. Hogwash. Money is fungible. If they are ready to take care of humanitarian needs with this money, that means with the other money they have, they can use that to buy arms and weapons and anything else they desire--maybe more castles that they happen to have. So the administration's policy has been a total disaster. Here is just the oil production charts. It shows for years, 1996 and so on, they were only producing 550,000 barrels a day. Then the administration policy where they allow more and more changes--and you notice now we are up to over 2\1/2\ million barrels per day, exactly 2 million barrels a day more than it was in 1996. That has also had the consequence of glutting an already flooded market and is driving a lot of producers totally out of business--totally out of business. We have a depression going on right now in the oil industry. You have 111 oil rigs running today. Last year we had 372. You go from 370 rigs to 111 in 12 months, and part of the reason happens to be this administration's policy dealing with Iraq. So I have some concern on what is happening with the domestic oil industry. But my biggest concern is that the administration has had a habit of rewarding Iraqi noncompliance with more oil sales. Now the administration's policy, as stated by the Vice President of the United States, is we should not have a cap on oil sales. Incidentally, we do not need--or, they don't say this, but we do not have arms control inspectors in; so there is no connection. We are not saying, ``Hey, you can sell all the oil you want to; all you have to do is make sure we have access, have arms control inspection; then we'll take all the embargo off.'' That should be our policy. But until they do that, we should keep the embargo on. Let's put a little squeeze on. I said, ``What are we doing today?'' We are flying daily flights over the no-fly zones. They are shooting at our pilots. Thank goodness they haven't been successful yet. But how successful is our policy? We have already proven to Saddam Hussein, if he denies us, we will reward him. That is what we have done. This is what this administration has done throughout their policy. Our administration policy has been pretty poor in dealing with Iraq. We have continued to reward their noncompliance, going all the way back to April 1995, and I think it has made the world a lot more dangerous as a result. Saddam Hussein is able to produce all the oil he wants. He is able to generate the moneys he needs, able to build the weapons of mass destruction without anybody checking him whatsoever--not the United States, not the United Nations. As a result, the world is a much more dangerous place. The administration should be held accountable for their failed policies in Iraq. I also think it is important that we speak up now so we don't have failed policies in Kosovo. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the newspaper articles and tables to which I referred printed in the Record, and I yield the floor.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that morning business be extended, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. NICKLES

Mr. NICKLES. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have the cost estimate table printed in the Record.