Ted Stevens

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. I further ask unanimous consent that the time between 10 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. be equally divided between the leaders, or their designees, for debate on the Lott second-degree amendment relating to Kosovo.

Mr. STEVENS. I further ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess from 12:30 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. on Tuesday to allow for the weekly caucuses to meet.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I give my thanks to Dr. Ogilvie, our Senate Chaplain, for arranging the visit of my good friend, Father Norm Elliott. He was the pastor of the All Saints Episcopal Church in Anchorage and has been a close personal friend since the 1950s. We were both, at that time, residents of Fairbanks, AK. In 1980, our guest chaplain officiated at my marriage when Catherine and I were married. He has also officiated at the wedding of my daughter Susan, my son Ted and my son Ben. In addition to that, he has christened my daughter Lilly and my granddaughters and my grandson John. He has been more than a close friend. He also performed the memorial service for my first wife Ann and assisted at the dedication of the Ann Stevens Red Cross Building in Anchorage. Father Elliott was born in England and came to Detroit as a child. He came to Alaska in 1951 at a time when our church considered service in Alaska as overseas duty. For half a century, he has ministered to the people of our State. He has spent time in many small towns and villages in Alaska, such as Nenana, Eagle, Venetie, Beaver and Point Hope, just to name a few. In 1980, at my request, he was appointed to serve on the Commission of Alaska Natives. Members of that Commission were appointed by President Bush and Alaska's Gov. Wally Hickel. Father Elliott and members of that Commission spent 3 years traveling through Alaska to help our native people identify solutions to unique problems they face. Norm is also chaplain of the Port of Anchorage, and he is the Civilian Episcopalian Chaplain for our Armed Forces in Alaska. He is truly a dedicated man, dedicated to the word of God and to helping others. I know that some, such as our distinguished President pro tempore, would recall that Father Elliott visited us once before when he gave the opening prayer in 1981. I am delighted that a cherished personal friend and advisor has been able to visit us today. Again, I thank my good friend, the Chaplain of the Senate, for arranging that. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 22, which is S. 364.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I finally ask consent that S. 364 be placed back on the Calendar.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Small Business Committee be discharged from further consideration of H.R. 68, and that the Senate proceed to its consideration. I further ask unanimous consent that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 364 be inserted in lieu thereof; that the bill then be read for the third time and passed; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to this legislation appear at appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Special Committee on Aging be permitted to meet on March 22, 1999 at 1 p.m. in Hart 216 for the purpose of conducting a hearing.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a joint hearing, before the subcommittees on Youth Violence and Criminal Justice Oversight of the Senate Judiciary Committee, be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, March 22, 1999 at 1 p.m. to hold a hearing in room 226 of the Senate Dirksen Office building on: ``Review of DOJ Firearm Prosecutions.''

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the strategic subcommittee of Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet on Monday, March 22, 1999, at 9 a.m. in open session, to receive testimony on National Security Space Programs and Policies, in review of the defense authorization request for fiscal year 2000 and the future years defense program.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee on Armed Services Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities be authorized to meet at 2 p.m. on Monday, March 22, 1999, in closed/open session to receive testimony on Department of Defense Policies and programs to combat terrorism.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Governmental Affairs Committee to meet on Monday, March 22, 1999, at 1:30 p.m. for a hearing on the topic of ``Securities Fraud On The Internet.''

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. The amendment to the Hutchison amendment?

Mr. STEVENS. The Kosovo question is the pending issue.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have listened with interest at the statements made by the distinguished Senator from Delaware. And he has some very good points. My memory of the conversations that were held at the time President Bush made the statement that the Senator from Delaware referred to was that the President was talking about racial cleansing, or genocide, on the part of the Serbs versus the Kosovo population--not just a military incident, but an act of genocide, but an act of racial cleansing in the magnitude of a national aspect. There is no question that there is a dispute here. And the Senator from Delaware has heard my comments that I made to the President. I believe that article V of the NATO agreement does not authorize bombing in Serbia. I was very interested over the weekend to listen to people talk on the radio and television about Yugoslavia. It seems that we are slipping back now, that it is a Yugoslav question, not just a Serb- Kosovo question, that is being raised now by the media. But in any event, I think this would be the first time in the history of NATO that NATO has taken offensive action against a nation that has a dispute within its borders. I think it is a horrendous proposition that the Serbs are presenting to Kosovo. ``Either leave, or be exterminated.'' But the question really is, What is the proper justification for this action at the present time? If it is genocide, then I think we have really ample cause to be involved. If it is a matter of relocation of people within a nation, based upon whatever power the nation claims to relocate people within their boundaries, it is a different issue. I must admit to being torn, as one who has attended the NATO meetings many, many times in the past, of what will be the future of NATO, if this action is taken. I think the threat that President Bush made is the threat that all Americans would support; that is, that we would use military force to retaliate against a nation that instituted a process of racial cleansing, racial extermination within its borders, to the extent that it was contemplated at the time. But I have to also raise the question: Where were we in Cambodia? Where were we in Ethiopia? Where are we going to be as this type of process continues in Africa? And we are reading more and more about that. Even this last weekend, juxtaposed to the story about Kosovo, is the story about the new racial cleansing commencing once again in Ethiopia. It is not an easy issue. And I think it is one that we ought to pursue, because, from the point of view of this Senator, I do not like to set the precedent that an administration informs a foreign nation to sign an agreement, or, if you do not sign the agreement, we are going to bomb until you do. That to me is a precedent of which I don't want to be a part. If we make a statement, as President Bush made, that if you engage in a process that is really against a whole concept of humanity, we are going to be first in line to punish you for doing it. Somehow or other, there is a place here where we can find a common position and support taking action as a nation. But, for myself, I just revolt at the concept that we are going to send people out to negotiate peace agreements, or whatever other kind of agreement it is, and authorize them to say, ``Unless you agree with us, we are going to bomb you, and we are going to bomb you until you change your mind, and, if you do not change your mind, within our period of time, we are going to bomb you again.'' In this instance, the process would require taking down the air defenses of another nation in order that we might attack the forces that are on the ground. I assume that most Members of the Senate have been there now and know what they are talking about. This is the most mountainous country of Europe. It is a place where, as I recall, some 20-odd divisions under the command of Adolf Hitler got just absolutely tied down by the actions of the people there on the ground. Of course, they didn't have the precision bombing we have now. They didn't have the automated systems that we have now and unmanned systems that can wreck havoc on any nation. The question, really, to me is, ``Are we to offer the use of military power to carry out a threat of a negotiating team based upon their interpretation of the reasons behind a foreign nation's unwillingness to enter into an agreement that we sponsor?'' Or, are we going to take action, as I said, on behalf of humanity to prevent the extermination of a race? To me, there is a great gulf between those two positions. I intend to continue to raise the question with the President and his representatives about the constitutional power to make these threats, and then carry them out as threats as opposed to making a national statement--as President Bush did, as I understand it--that if there is a process of extermination going on, or racial cleansing going on, we will not stand idly by and watch that process, and we will use our military power. I don't know whether the Senator from Delaware sees the difference in the two circumstances. But, as far as I am concerned, we are still on the first base. And that is we are asked to support the concept of using force--our force, mainly unmanned--to coerce the Serbs into signing an agreement. They have refused to sign that. As a sovereign nation, they have that right. If they take the action that is contemplated, and that many people feel they are going to take--that is, to enter into a process of racial extermination--then it is an entirely different question. I do hope that the Senate will remember that as we are considering the majority leader's amendment tomorrow. It does seem to me that we are still on the question of should we use force to coerce the Serbs into signing the agreement that they do not want to sign. It is perhaps a distinction without a difference to some people. But it is a great difference to me.

Mr. STEVENS. Yes.

Mr. STEVENS. No, Mr. President, this is the pending business. If the Senator is finished?

Mr. STEVENS. I will go on a little bit and let him know my fears, as I expressed to the President, if we go after those air defenses. I hope Serbia knows if we go after them we will get them. There is no question in my mind we have absolute capability to totally destroy the air defenses of Serbia. After having done so, though, I wonder how are we going to get him to sign the agreement. If he doesn't sign the agreement, then I assume we are going to carry out the threat, and we are going to bomb his tanks. And we can do that, too. And then, if he doesn't sign the agreement, we can start bombing his people. And we can do that, too. All without involving our airmen yet. We can do all that without involving our airmen. But the time is going to come when we are going to have to use manpower in the air or on the ground, and that is war. We ought to make up our mind. What the President is deciding is to commit an act of war. It is not covered by article V. I do not think there would be any hesitancy in President Bush, that he was threatening war. If you are threatening war in this country, that means you get a resolution, you get approval of the Congress. Only Congress can declare war.

Mr. STEVENS. I hope you do. But what is more, as I see it, once you do that, once you lay down the air defenses of a country, once you cripple their military--remember who is around them, a bunch of people who would like to find them crippled. Pretty soon you are going to have other people coming in there. We will be protecting the Serbs, before this is over. People just do not understand. We are finally going to have to put people on the ground and when we get people on the ground--how long have they been in Germany since we conquered Germany? We still have men and women in uniform in Germany pursuant to a peace agreement that was entered into 50 or more years ago. That is what I told the President. Mr. President, these people are going to be there 50 years if you do this. If you are going to do it, you better have the support of the American people before you do it. And the way you get the support of the American people is to have their Representatives here in Congress stand up and say yes, I am ready to vote for a declaration of war. I told the President, if he can show me that there is a concept of inhumanity, of absolutely racial cleansing, ethnic extermination, I will introduce his resolution of war. I told him that. But short of that, I do not see we should authorize a negotiator to go over to a foreign conference and say: Tell them if they don't agree with what you tell them to do, we will bomb them. If they do not agree after that, we will bomb them again. That is using our Armed Forces as a process of negotiation, not for the purpose that we maintain our military. We maintain our military to defend this Nation and to carry out our national interests abroad, not as an arm of negotiators and not to give the Presidency a feeling that all they have to do is enter into a series of negotiations, and if they fail, then use the military and bomb away. There is more to it than just bombing. There is more to it than just using Tomahawks or unmanned weapons. There is the concept of what is the followup. I say if we do that, if we take out their air defenses, we will be involved in trying to manage the Serbian military for the rest of my lifetime. I think I am going to live a little while, Mr. President. It does seem to me that it is wrong the way we are approaching this. We ought to look at what is in our national interest. If our national interest requires us to use military power, Congress should authorize them to use it. But the Presidency should not use our military power to carry out negotiations. That is wrong. I still maintain that the way it is being approached this time is wrong. I yield the floor. Mr. NICKLES addressed the Chair.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be removed from the list at the desk: Senator Durbin's Medicaid recoupment amendment, Senator Kohl's bankruptcy technical correction amendment, and Senator Lott's rules amendment.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the pending amendment be set aside so that we may consider other amendments that are in order under the previous order.

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I know Senator Feingold wishes to make a statement, and I wish to accord him that privilege.

Mr. STEVENS

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

Mr. STEVENS

Mr. STEVENS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. STEVENS. I urge the Senator to quote.

Mr. STEVENS. Is that the quote from President Bush's statement?