Christopher Dodd

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. If my colleague will yield, I appreciate that, and I realize that we will at times have disagreements. I also made the observation--I ask my chairman and friend --that this administration has been extremely forthcoming with witnesses and documents the committee has wanted. Would not my colleague agree that is the case?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, let me begin by addressing some of the issues that have been raised by my colleague from Alabama. Clearly, anytime there is a confrontation between the executive branch and the legislative branch, which oftentimes happens, people are going to make similar arguments. We should not be surprised if some statements sound similar. But comparing Watergate and Whitewater is just ridiculous in the mind of this Senator--there is just no comparison whatsoever. When someone tries to make that sort of comparison they are just creating some sort of sideshow. The comparison is spurious. First, no one ever sought to invade the attorney-client privilege of President Nixon. President Nixon raised the issue of executive privilege. The appropriate committees during that period respected the attorney-client privilege when it was raised. Now, Executive privilege was another matter, but attorney-client privilege, even in Watergate, was never breached. Second, when the executive privilege claims of President Nixon were overcome, it was only through a grand jury subpoena issued by Special Prosecutor Cox. As I mentioned earlier, the independent counsel in our case has reached an agreement with the White House concerning the notes that are at issue in the subpoena. So the situation is completely different. Also, during the Watergate matter, the Senate's attempt to get the material obtained by Special Prosecutor Cox was rebuffed by the courts. Finally, the Special Prosecutor's efforts to get materials in the Watergate matter occurred in the context of overwhelming evidence of criminal conduct--obstruction, misuse of the CIA, FBI, and IRS, the payment of hush money, clemency for burglars. By contrast, in the Whitewater matter, after months of hearings by the special committee, there is no evidence of impropriety much less illegality by the Clinton administration. In fact, my colleagues may have seen buried away in the newspaper articles in the last couple of days, that Pillsbury Madison & Sutro, an independent law firm, just completed a report examining whether there should be any additional civil proceedings against the Clintons with regard to Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan and the Whitewater Development Corp. The report was commissioned by the RTC and it took 2 years and $4 million for it to be completed. Mr. President, this report, which I am going to ask unanimous consent be printed in this Record--it was made a part of our committee record the other day--goes into great detail, and concludes that no further action should be taken against the Clintons. It exonerates the Clintons. So, when we compare the obstruction of justice and the great criminality that a special prosecutor saw in Watergate and compare that with this particular case, it just goes to confirm what many people, unfortunately, are feeling here. This is becoming a political sideshow, and it should not. Every Member has the right to raise whatever issues they want, but I do not think it does us any good as an institution, nor the committee, when we start drawing comparisons that have no relevancy whatsoever when it comes to the particular matter that we are being asked to address. Mr. President, let me also address one of the comments that was made by my friend and colleague from Utah, Senator Bennett. He said, in effect, that we need this kind of pressure to get evidence from the witnesses. Again, I just remind my colleagues here, this year alone we have had 32 days of hearings and meetings on this matter. Last year we had extensive hearings on this matter. We have spent now a total, if you take congressional committees and you take the independent counsel's activities, over the last year or so, we have spent in excess of $25 million. Let me repeat that, the taxpayers have paid over $25 million on these investigations. To date, there has been no substantial evidence of any illegalities or unethical behavior. That has been the conclusion of witness after witness. The White House has submitted to the committee over 15,000 pages of official records without a single court order being necessary, not one. The President's personal attorney has produced 28,000 pages of documents. Every witness that has appeared, last year and this year, has come at the urging of the White House. So when my colleague from Utah says without the pressure of having a subpoena filed, or the Senate as a body taking an action--that is not borne out by the facts. We can disagree with what witnesses say. We may have problems, as the chairman has had, with the testimony of a number of witnesses. I respect that. I am not suggesting that we have all agreed with all the testimony. But there is a significant difference between what has happened in this matter, and what has happened in the past. We are all familiar with previous administrations that fought congressional committees tooth and nail. That has not been the case here. It is very important, I think, for our colleagues and the public at large to understand that significant difference. This White House has been extremely forthcoming, extremely forthcoming when it comes to documents and when it comes to witnesses appearing before our committee. So the notion that it would be impossible to get any kind of negotiated result on the issue now before us, based on what has happened previous to this, is not borne out by the facts. To the contrary, we have been able to reach agreement on virtually every other issue that has come before us without having to go to the courts. So, for those of us who stand here today and urge this body and urge our colleagues here to try a little bit harder to resolve this issue without getting to the courts, that is based on the fact that we have not had to do that yet. We have completed an awful lot of work without any problems. The committee has taken over 150 depositions and over 70 witnesses have appeared before the committee. As the chairman pointed out the other day in committee, we are basically through with the first two phases, other than some witnesses that need to be brought back. But we are prepared now to move to the last phase. So here we have gone through all of this without having to resort to the courts. We are down to a legitimate issue here. The White House is not being obstructionist, this is not Watergate. As our colleague from Maryland pointed out, there are significant legal scholars who believe that the executive branch assertion of attorney-client privilege here has merit. In fact, they go to some length and cite the case law and so forth that upholds their point. I know there are others who have a different point of view. I am not arguing there are others who have a different point of view. To the chairman's credit and to his counsel's credit, there has been an effort here now to narrow this and get it done. As I said to my colleague from Utah a few minutes ago, the independent counsel now has agreed to conditions with the White House. He is satisfied with an agreement that will protect the White House from a waiver of the attorney-client privilege. Our chairman in our committee would be satisfied with a similar agreement. The one missing link in all of this is our colleagues in the other body, to get them to agree to what the independent counsel has agreed to, what the chairman has agreed to, and what the White House has agreed to; that is, to turn over these documents with the understanding there has not been a general waiver of the attorney-client privilege. Clearly, it is not unreasonable for the White House to pursue these agreements. As has been pointed out by legal experts, there have been a number of cases where, if you waive the privilege in one instance, it is seen as subject matter waiver. So there is a legitimate interest in trying to make sure that, in order to comply with committee's request to look at the notes from this meeting, that the President has not waived his attorney-client privilege. Understandably, the President wants to avoid a fishing expedition that goes off in a number of directions. All of my colleagues can appreciate that concern. We have to remember that we are setting a precedent with our actions today. And that precedent could also affect Members of this body. Like the President, we are public officials who have both public and private roles. Some of my colleagues on one side of the issue today may change their minds when, in the future, someone argues that they have waived their attorney-client privilege in similar circumstances. We can all understand the President's argument, that he needed both his private attorneys and counsel for the Presidency in that meeting in order to properly address all of the issues that might arise. As has been noted, legal scholar after legal scholar after legal scholar has said that is an appropriate invocation of that privilege. So it seems to me we ought to try to avoid going to court on this issue. That is why we make the strong case we do here. It is not because someone is trying to hide documents. If that were the case, then I suspect the executive branch might rely on the advice of legal experts and say let us just take it to court. But they have said they will turn over these documents, but do not ask us to waive, on the entire subject matter, the attorney-client privilege. We do not want to do that. And I do not blame them for not wanting to do that. I do not think anyone would, given the dangers associated with that particular approach. So, I am still hopeful that, given the history of this White House, when you go back and look over the last 2 years, the dozens and dozens of witnesses, the thousands of pages of documents, an agreement can be worked out. I hope future administrations will look at how this administration has responded, again, never requiring the committee to go to court, never requiring the committee to drag witnesses in, never requiring the committee to fight for documents. So, with all due respect to my colleague from Utah, because of that cooperation, there is an opportunity to resolve this issue short of a vote by the full Senate. And the fact that the independent counsel has reached an agreement, the fact that the committee could settle for a similar agreement, suggests that we ought to try to meet with our colleagues in the House and resolve this matter quickly and efficiently. Lets get the notes and move on so this committee can complete its work. My hope would be in these coming hours here that will be the result. Some may say, well, if we can vote on it here, we will put more pressure on them. There will then be the vote of the U.S. Senate, issuing subpoenas where attorney-client privilege has been invoked. I think that is a wrong approach to take on this matter. I point out, Mr. President, I have referred to the Pillsbury Madison & Sutro report on the RTC issues. Again, I urge my colleagues to obtain a copy of this report and to review this report and to examine the results. The Wall Street Journal reported the results the other day. Let me quote, if I can, the Wall Street Journal story on this report: President Clinton and Hillary Rodham Clinton had little knowledge and no control over the Whitewater project in which they invested, and they weren't aware that any funds that went to Whitewater may have been taken from Madison. . . . Accordingly, there is no basis to sue them. Mr. President, let me emphasize that: ``There is no basis to sue the President or the First Lady.'' That is not Democrats and Republicans sitting there squabbling about this; that is an independent investigation, which took 2 years, without the glare of hearings and cameras, and on the central issue they say that no further civil proceedings should take place. That is a very important piece conclusion. So, again, I hope in the next few hours that our colleagues would adhere to the advice of our colleague from Maryland and others, and take care of this matter without going to the courts. Let us avoid a dangerous precedent. I know what is happening here. Some of my colleagues are thinking, ``Well, you know, we have them on the ropes now. What are you trying to hide?'' Obviously, that is just politics. We all know that. You can cause some damage with just the photograph of witnesses huddling with lawyers. That is titillating. That is exciting stuff. ``Now they are bleeding. Now we have them.'' That is what we really have going on here now. We ought to try to avoid that. Our role, fundamentally, is legislative. We conduct investigations, of course, but that is primarily to help develop legislation. And it seems to me that, where you have a White House that is cooperating, you ought to avoid a confrontation with the executive branch. After all, it is not clear what the third branch of government, the judiciary, will do. In similar cases, the courts have thrown the matter right back to us and have said, ``Look, you people sort this out your own way. We are not going to make the decision for you.'' So we may end up, after months of squabbling, in no better position than we are in today. So I urge my colleagues, let us adopt a resolution, if you will, or language which would urge us all to stay at that table and resolve this over the next few days. I believe we can. As I say, we are down to one last entity here. We are down to our colleagues in the other body being satisfied that this is an acceptable agreement. The independent counsel agrees, we agree, and the White House agrees. This is not a time to provoke an unwarranted and unwise confrontation that would create problems for us in the years to come. Mr. FAIRCLOTH addressed the Chair.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague.

Mr. DODD. I appreciate going into these matters. As I understand it, we are debating the issue of subpoenas. We are kind of revisiting what we went over in the committee. My colleague has a right to do it. I am not suggesting he does not. I would like to debate the issue of subpoenas--that is what draws us to the floor today--instead of rehashing billing questions. At some point, are we going to get to the issue of subpoenas?

Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield on that point?

Mr. DODD. I will seek recognition later in my own right. I thank my colleague.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague for the time he has given.

Mr. DODD. My colleague from Utah is probably correct. As I understand it, the independent counsel has already reached an agreement with the White House. It occurs to me that if the independent counsel, which has a prosecutorial function, can reach an agreement, than the congressional committees, whose fundamental function is legislative, should also be able to reach an agreement. If the independent counsel is satisfied with the agreement, then we should also be able to reach an agreement. I am just curious as to why it would not be in our interest to take some time to have the conversation with our colleagues in the other body who are apparently resisting this to see if we can work out an agreement and put this issue behind us. Is there some compelling reason why we ought not try to do that? If the independent counsel said this is totally unacceptable, I need the subpoenas, I can almost understand at that point why we would have to go through this process. But that is not the case. I ask my colleague if he would not agree with that. (Mr. KYL assumed the chair.)

Mr. DODD. Let me further inquire. I appreciate my colleague's generosity in allowing me to inquire. As I understand this particular point, we are down to basically one problem that stands in the way of an agreement--we need the House to agree that the release of the notes by the White House will not constitute a general waiver of the attorney-client privilege. That seems like a small problem to work out. Clearly, we would all like to avoid having to take this matter to the courts. After all, precedent suggests they may just throw it back in our lap and say ``resolve it.'' So we spend 2 months on this issue and we are back where we started.

Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague from Utah, Mr. President. I just ask my colleague if he could enlighten us on whether the media have ever taken a position, on any matter where access to documents was the issue, they should not have total access to everything they want? Going back over time, when the issue was attorney-client privilege or executive privilege, can the Senator cite to me an editorial from the New York Times or the Washington Post or any other paper where the paper did not think they ought to have unfettered access to documents? My point is that the media always want all of the documents. So we should expect to see the editorials my colleague cites. Does my colleague disagree with me that, unlike legal scholars who look at constitutional issues, the press always takes the position that materials should be turned over?

Mr. DODD. Will my colleague yield?

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, point of order. This Senator was standing, and I have been here for some time to speak. Also, are we not going back and forth on either side of this matter?

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, expectations and reality are rarely one and the same. So when our colleague from the State of Kansas, Senator Kassebaum, says she never expected to be here in the U.S. Senate, it is not surprising that this is where she ended up. But very true to all expectations, Madam President, Senator Kassebaum has distinguished herself as one of this institution's best and brightest. So it is with reluctance that I rise to bid farewell to my dear friend and respected colleague. Senator Kassebaum has graced the Halls of the U.S. Senate every single day of the almost 18 years she has spent here. Never partisan and always fair, her leadership of the Committee on Labor and Human Resources is exemplary, and it is a joy to serve with her on that body as well as on the Committee on Foreign Relations. Indeed, she has helped to keep the Senate's spirit of civility alive. A leader, independent thinker, and mediator, Senator Kassebaum's record of accomplishment is lengthy and impressive. Aside from being the first female chair of a major committee in 40 years, she has managed to write a health insurance reform bill that has drawn Labor and Human Resources Committee consensus around this difficult and often controversial issue. She has been indispensable in reauthorizing the Ryan White Care Act, a program of great importance to the State of Connecticut, and has been a valuable supporter of the Head Start Program. But Senator Kassebaum's accomplishments have improved the lives of those well beyond United States shores. As a member of the Committee on Foreign Relations, she was invaluable in facilitating Central American peace initiatives and in finding political solutions to the conflict in El Salvador. And as chairwoman of the Subcommittee on African Affairs, she fought to bring an end to South African apartheid by supporting sanctions against that nation; she then facilitated their repeal upon the election of President Nelson Mandela. And at home in Kansas, Madam President, Senator Kassebaum's constituents love her just as much as her Senate colleagues. Her overwhelming support at the polls--76 percent in 1984, and 74 percent in 1990--reflects Kansans' deep appreciation of her commitment to them. She has never wavered from the value her father instilled in her: that her roots were always in Kansas. Madam President, both Senator Kassebaum and I are the children of public servants whose interest in politics and government service was nourished throughout our childhoods. To walk alongside Senator Kassebaum as both of us follow in our fathers' footsteps has fostered a special bond between us. We have served together on two committees, and have worked as trusted partners on many important issues. And I realize how fulfilling it must be for her, as she leaves this body, to know that she has made her father proud. Senator Kassebaum is a noble servant of Kansans and all Americans, a cherished friend, and a beloved colleague whom I greatly admire. I will be sorry to see her leave the Senate, but I am confident that her spirit will endure. I wish her the very best as she approaches her retirement, and look forward to serving this last year with her.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, Senator Hatfield's recent announcement that he would be leaving the U.S. Senate left me disappointed, for his departure from this body will mean the loss of yet another of the Senate's most honorable Members. For five terms, Senator Hatfield has elevated the caliber of this Chamber's debate, frequently taking lonely stands in the process. Voting one's conscience often requires courage. Senator Hatfield has never wavered in his devotion to what he believes is just, and he has always done right by the good people of Oregon. Madam President, no one in this body has been a greater crusader for peace than Mark Hatfield. A devout pacifist since the beginning of his political career, Senator Hatfield opposed President Johnson's Vietnam policy, and more than 20 years later was one of only two Republicans to vote against United States military involvement in the Persian Gulf. He opposes nuclear testing and an extensive military buildup, and authored the 1992 nuclear test ban law that is now regarded as an important standard for U.S. conduct on nuclear issues. More recently, Senator Hatfield was the sole Republican to vote against the balanced budget amendment, and he would have paid dearly for that stand had the concept of respect for one's conscience not prevailed. Senator Hatfield's constituents respect his principles just as much as his colleagues, which is perhaps why Governor Kitzhaber said Senator Hatfield has achieved ``what may be the single greatest public career in Oregon's history.'' Senator Hatfield has never lost an election. Oregonians have continually returned their Senator to office not only because of his righteousness, but also because of his commitment to them and their values. As chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Hatfield has seen to it that Oregon's pristine parks and clean coastlines have the means to stay that way, while other public projects such as hospitals, research centers, and roads help to ensure health of the State's citizens and the vibrancy of the State's economy. And as one of this body's true moderates, Senator Hatfield has also supported gun control and motor-voter initiatives, while opposing President Reagan's unwise tax cuts. Madam President, Senator Hatfield is an outstanding Member of this body whose sincerity and strength of character should be emulated by all Americans. Widely respected for his independence and well-liked for his loyal friendship, Senator Hatfield will be sorely missed. I wish him all the best in his retirement.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Madam President, amidst a very busy, occasionally frantic session, as we struggle for sometimes small, perhaps fleeting victories, it is important that we not ignore those losses that are permanent and personal. A close friend and a fine legislator announced last month that he will be leaving us at the end of this Congress, and I would like to take this opportunity to pay him part of the tribute that he deserves. Madam President, I know something about following in the footsteps of one's own father in this Chamber. The U.S. Congress held not only a set of expectations for Senator Simpson, but also a legacy. It was a legacy that came not just from former Senator Milward Simpson, but from a long lineage of Simpsons dating back to the 19th century. Senator Simpson's ancestors were among the pioneers of the State of Wyoming, and were part of the effort that turned a beautiful stretch of American frontier into a great American State. This spirit--one of perseverance, integrity, and hard work--was the legacy that was left to Senator Simpson. It was a legacy that he embraced and nurtured, while simultaneously carving for himself an identity and a presence in the Senate all his own. It is easy to stand up here and honor a colleague by listing a litany of legislative achievements. It is much harder to try to pay tribute by attempting to evoke the humor and the wit that were the hallmark of Senator Simpson's career. I am afraid I am not up to the task, Madam President. But those who know the Senator remember the humor that he brought to a too often humorless place. Indeed, many of us were the victims of his good-natured joshing on numerous occasions. He was disarming with his charm, and his quick wit won him many small battles, while averting many larger ones. Suffice it to say, on the subject of Senator Simpson's humor, that many of us, before we came to Washington and encountered the acerbic tongue of the 6'7" Senator from Wyoming, had no idea what or where a gazoo was. It must have been that pioneering spirit that made Senator Simpson gravitate toward some of the toughest legislative assignments in this body. He quickly took on one of our Nation's thorniest policy areas, immigration reform, and, through dogged perseverance, determination, and a keen sense of when and how to compromise, he pushed through the legislation that has become the foundation of our Nation's immigration policy ever since. The bill that eventually passed was a tribute to our policymaking process here in Congress. It marked a strengthening of U.S. immigration policy, but also showed sensitivity to the serious concerns of some very thoughtful people. It tempered a toughening of border patrols with amnesty for illegal aliens who arrived in this country through the early 1980's. It balanced sanctions against employers who hired illegal aliens with provisions to protect legal aliens and citizens from unfair discrimination. It took him 6 years to do it, and I know that it was at times a frustrating march. It was an effort that other legislators might have given up, and left to another leader, or another time. But he persisted, and the bill that was passed in 1986, after 6 years of hard work and compromise, stands as a heartening example of how a political system too often accused of gridlock and obstruction can succeed when the right leader tempers determination with cooperation. He hardly slowed down from there, however, continuing to take on some of the most sensitive issues, impressing even his opponents with his honesty and courage. He spoke to a group of Vietnam veterans, and frankly told them of his reservations about compensation for veterans who claimed to have been injured due to their exposure to chemicals during the war. He simply had not seen adequate proof that their injuries were caused by their wartime experiences, he explained. The audience disagreed with him, but they respected his honesty and forthrightness in explaining his views. At the conclusion of his speech, he received a standing ovation. In announcing his retirement, Senator Simpson said that, when he began his work in the Senate, he promised the voters two things, and two things only. First, that he would work very hard, and second, that he would try to make them very proud. Madam President, it takes honesty and courage to be so frank in what one promises, and it takes hard work and perseverance to make good on those promises. Senator Simpson exhibited all of those qualities, and he will be long remembered for them. Senator Simpson also told us that he is leaving this Chamber because he no longer feels the same ``fire in the belly.'' I am disappointed to hear that, but I have very little doubt that whatever he chooses to do upon leaving us, the fire in his belly will soon be rekindled, and the flames will fuel his passion, and we will all be touched by his energy. I thank him, and I wish him the best of luck.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, yesterday I did not speak on the pending Bosnia resolutions in order to permit the Senate to finish its consideration of this important matter prior to the formal signing of the Dayton Agreement in Paris early this morning. However, I wanted to take this opportunity to express my thoughts on what transpired yesterday. Yesterday, Mr. President, the Senate went on record as to whether this institution supports the President's decision to participate in the Bosnian peace initiative. In fact, I believe that we went on record on matters much broader and more significant than that. We went on record as to whether we in the United States Senate support peace in Bosnia or war? Whether we support the continuation of American leadership in the world or the abdication of that leadership? Whether we support a post-cold-war international order that is governed by the rule of law or the force of arms? To some, this may seem a rather simplistic summary of what the debate over the last several days was all about. But, I would say to my colleagues, when you boil it all down, that is what we were really talking about. The war that has raged in Bosnia for nearly 4 years has been one of unspeakable atrocities; of torture, internment, rape, execution, of ethnic cleansing and genocide. More than a quarter of a million people have lost their lives. Millions more have been made refugees--many within the borders of their own country. Once stable multiethnic towns and villages have become flaming infernos as opposing Moslem, Serb, and Bosnian forces have sought revenge against one other. Regardless of one's views on the various resolutions we will vote on, I know that our shared hopes and prayers are that the Dayton peace accord--brokered by the United States, and agreed to by all the warring factions--will once and for all bring to a close this bloody chapter of Bosnia's history. I believe that the Dayton peace agreement contains the essential ingredients to facilitate the writing of a new, hopefully brighter chapter for the people of Bosnia. These elements include: Bosnia preserved as a single State, within its present internationally recognized borders; the country subdivided into two juridical entities--the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina and the Republic of Srpska; an agreed cease-fire line, the separation of opposing forces on either side of this line, and the establishment of a demilitarization zone; the creation of a 60,000-person peace implementation force, under NATO command, to monitor and enforce the military aspects of the agreement; internationally supervised democratic elections for President and Parliament to be conducted within a year; freedom of movement of all Bosnian citizens; independent monitoring of human rights of all Bosnians; the establishment of an internationally trained civilian police force; and a commitment by all parties to cooperate with the activities of the War Crimes Tribunal. Clearly the implementation of the military aspects of this agreement are critical to the success or failure of the other elements of the peace plan. And, U.S. participation in the implementation force is pivotal in that regard. But, it is important to keep in mind that while U.S. participation is essential, we will not be alone in the effort to implement the agreement--more than 25 countries have pledged to participate as well and will provide two-thirds of the 60,000-person implementing force. While the Dayton Agreement has been well crafted, it is by no means 100-percent guaranteed to be successful--no agreement of this kind falls into that category. However, every effort has been made to minimize the chance of failure. Each and every American soldier who goes to Bosnia will be well trained and well armed to face any eventuality. The leaders of Bosnia, Croatia, and Serbia have also pledged to ensure the safety and security of the implementing force. However, Mr. President, I think it would be unrealistic to promise the American people that there will be no casualties incurred during Operation Joint Endeavor. That is a promise that is not, unfortunately, totally within our power to fulfill. Ultimately the success or failure of the Bosnian peace agreement will depend upon the willingness of the governments of Bosnia, Croatia, and Serbia to live up to their commitments to each other and to the international community. Without question, U.S. involvement will heighten the prospects for compliance by all parties and lessen the possibility that the Balkans will once again become engulfed in war. On the other hand, if the United States stands on the sidelines at this crucial moment, the renewal of armed conflict is all but assured. Many of my colleagues have mentioned in the course of this debate that public opinion polls suggest that the American people do not currently support the deployment of United States troops to Bosnia. To them I would say, there is nothing novel about that. The public was initially quite negative about U.S. participation in the Persian Gulf war and only when Operation Desert Storm was up and running did the public mood shift. It is no secret that the American people have always cared more about what happens at home than abroad and have sometimes been slow to appreciate the ramifications of international events on their own domestic security and prosperity. It is the responsibility of the President and other political leaders to explain to our citizens why a particular course of action is ultimately in the interest of this country. President Clinton has endeavored to explain the various United States interests at stake in the Bosnian peace process. I believe he has done a very credible job of making the case for the difficult decision he has made. On November 27, President Clinton went directly to the American people to explain why he is prepared to participate in the quest for peace in Bosnia. During that address he put the matter very succinctly: In Bosnia, a terrible war has challenged our interests and troubled our souls. Our interests are plain. The cause is right. Our mission will be clear, limited and achievable. The people of Bosnia, our NATO allies and people around the world are looking to America for leadership. Let us lead. That is our responsibility as Americans. I agree with the President that the rest of the world looks to the United States for leadership. We cannot and should not answer every call for U.S. assistance. It is up to us, of course, to decide whether it is in our national interest to assume a leadership role in any particular situation. In the case of Bosnia, the situation is clear-- United States leadership is essential. I commend this body for taking the action that it did yesterday, in voting in support of the Dole/McCain resolution. We did what was critical--we sent a clear signal to the world that we are united as a nation in our resolve to support peace in Bosnia, and that we stand full square behind the men and women of our Armed Forces as they commence their mission of peace in the coming days. With that affirmative vote we did not simply give peace a chance in Bosnia. We did far more. We reaffirmed our position as a world leader and strengthened the rule of law in the post-cold-war era. I am proud of what the Senate accomplished last night.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I rise to speak in support of the confirmation of Senator James R. Sasser to be the next United States Ambassador to the People's Republic of China. In my opinion President Clinton could not have made a better choice. During the last few months, relations between the United States and China have stumbled along a very rocky road. With increased tensions and frustrations between our two governments, we have sorely missed the presence of a U.S. Ambassador in Beijing to represent our policy and to facilitate much-needed communications. Unfortunately, the nominations process was held up here in our own Chambers. However, recent developments have encouraged me to believe that Senator Sasser will soon be able to take his post in Beijing. I am anxious to reassure the Chinese Government that the delay here in the Senate is in no respect reflective of the sentiment of the Senate about the capabilities of Jim Sasser. In fact, I could not speak more highly of this nominee and his outstanding capacity to serve both of our countries well. The Chinese are very fortunate to receive a representative of the United States who is close to the President and can communicate directly with him on important issues. In addition to his valuable ties to the White House, Senator Sasser is a highly educated, articulate, and thoughtful man. He has approached this position with enthusiasm and a dedication to learning about his new host country. I have know Jim Sasser since I first arrived in this Senate body 15 years ago. Over the years, I have admired his outstanding commitment to public service and appreciate the efforts he has made to improve the lives of his constituents and the citizens of this country. I know that, in his new capacity as Ambassador to China, Jim Sasser will once again display this commitment with dignity and strength. The Clinton administration has chosen wisely by nominating Senator Sasser to the important post of Ambassador to China. The People's Republic of China is an increasingly significant player in the international arena and in United States foreign policy. While our economic, political, and security ties with China have multiplied over the last decade, we are still facing many areas of disagreement. We should move quickly to install our Ambassador in Beijing, to demonstrate our good intentions to the Chinese. Swift Senate approval of Jim Sasser will offer new opportunities for communication and cooperation between our two countries.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I was deeply saddened by the passing of Dr. Richard C. Halverson, our friend and our Chaplain who served the Senate with distinction for 14 years. Dr. Halverson was a shining example for us all--he embodied all that we seek to be in the eyes of our families, our friends, the Americans we serve, and of course, God. George Bernard Shaw once wrote: ``There is only one religion, though there are a hundred versions of it.'' Mr. President, I would say this is a fitting description of the community Dr. Halverson so gracefully ministered. There are as many different opinions in this Senate as there are Senators. Yet Dr. Halverson, in his kind and gentle manner, was always able to provide the individual counsel and insight that helped us reach decisions on issues both monumental and mundane. Amid the busy hustle and bustle of events here in the Senate, it is not difficult to lose grounding, and it becomes ever more important to remember our place in the universe. Dr. Halverson, through his daily prayers, helped us to keep our perspective. Of course, Dr. Halverson served all the Senate employees, and those who knew him loved him just as much as he loved them. He was always available to help and guide people in need, people in pain, or people who just needed to talk. But Dr. Halverson's work extended far beyond the United States Senate and the Capitol dome. He was minister to the Fourth Presbyterian Church in Bethesda, leader of the prayer breakfast movement and World Vision, and deeply involved in several other evangelical organizations. Dr. Halverson reached out to many, and he will be sorely missed. I want to extend to his family my condolences, and during this difficult time wish for them the hope and strength that Dr. Halverson inspired in all who knew him.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, the Members of this body should not risk the desecration of our Constitution simply to express outrage against those who desecrate the flag. The issue before us today has absolutely nothing to do with condoning the behavior of those few who choose to defile one of our most cherished national symbols. Every Senator is troubled when someone burns, mutilates, or otherwise desecrates an American flag. There is no question about that. The issue is whether we tinker with the Bill of Rights in an attempt to silence a few extremists who openly express their contempt for our flag. I am very reluctant to amend our the Constitution. In over 200 years, we have only amended that fundamental text 27 times, and we have never amended the Bill of Rights. In my view, we should not risk undermining the freedoms in the Bill of Rights unless there is a compelling necessity. I do not believe that the actions of a few flag burners has created that necessity. Throughout our history we have recognized that the best remedy for offensive speech is more speech, and not a limitation on the freedom of speech. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes expressed this idea very eloquently in his opinion in Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919): [W]hen men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they may come to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas--that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely can be carried out. Clearly, flag burning has not fared well in the marketplace of ideas. Across this country, Americans are quick to express their disdain for those who desecrate the flag. The powerful symbolic value of our flag remains unscathed. In the past, I have supported Federal statutes designed to balance the need to protect the flag with the freedom of speech. In 1989, I joined with other Members of Congress to help pass the Flag Protection Act. In my view, that legislation was a measured response to this issue. Regrettably, the Supreme Court struck down that statute in United States versus Eichman. This year, Senator McConnell has offered a more narrowly crafted measure. I will support that amendment and I urge my colleagues to do the same. We should continue to try to address this issue statutorily, rather than through the more dramatic step of amending the Constitution. In closing, I urge my colleagues to oppose this effort to amend the Constitution. We should continue to speak out against those who would desecrate the American flag, but we should not weaken its power by undermining the freedoms for which it stands.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I had the privilege several days ago of meeting with the Foreign Minister of Spain, Javier Solana, who has recently been appointed the new Secretary General of NATO. I happen to believe, Mr. President, that this is a very fine choice, a superb choice, one that I think should strengthen NATO and the political leadership of NATO in the months to come, particularly at a critical time when the issue of Bosnia and NATO's role there is going to be so very, very important. I know that most Americans are probably not familiar with Mr. Solana as a foreign minister of Spain. There has been some criticism raised about this choice over Mr. Solana's opposition some 15 years ago to Spain's participation in NATO. As a result of his statements then, there have been those who have criticized his choice to head that organization. I thought it might be worthwhile to share something of Mr. Solana's background and involvement when Spain was making the decision about NATO membership. I also think it would be informative for people to know about the critical role he has played in the Spanish Government over many years. Finally, I believe my colleagues will be surprised to know of the deep sense of affection that Mr. Solana holds for our country, knowing it as well as he does. I say that because Mr. Solana is a physicist, by academic training. He, of course, received his undergraduate degree from the University of Madrid, and his Ph.D. from the University of Virginia, while a Fulbright scholar. He taught physics at the University of Chicago in this country before beginning any kind of a political career. He has published more than 30 books on the subject of physics. Having spent such a great deal of time in our country and receiving a good part of his education here, I know firsthand that he has a deep appreciation for our Nation, a great love for America and for Americans. The breadth of Mr. Solana's government experience is also broad and varied. He has served in one capacity or another in every Spanish Government since 1982, in addition to maintaining a strong involvement in his chosen profession of physics. We are talking about someone of deep, long experience. He first served as the Culture Minister and simultaneously held the portfolio of Government spokesman in the early 1980s. In 1988, he became the Government's Minister of Education and served in that capacity until he was named Foreign Minister in 1992. Mr. President, I am deeply disturbed that some of Mr. Solana's critics go back 15 or more years to talk about Mr. Solana's initial opposition to NATO, without bothering to discuss the historical context of Spain's participation in NATO. At that time, Spain was emerging from a military dictatorship that they had been under for many years. Mr. Solana felt participation in NATO at that particular moment was probably not the wisest course to follow. What is important is what happens after that. The critics fail to disclose--as appropriate as it is to point out Mr. Solana's initial opposition--that it was also through his efforts several years thereafter, that a convincing case was presented to the Spanish people, on the wisdom of Spain's participating in NATO. If Mr. Solana is going to be criticized for his opposition to Spain joining NATO in the first instance, I think it is also appropriate that his involvement in convincing the Spanish people about the wisdom of NATO membership be mentioned as well. Certainly, he played a pivotal role in that. He has been described by his colleagues in the foreign affairs field as an ``expert'' and a ``pragmatic negotiator,'' who has always adopted a very commonsense approach to diplomacy. Dr. Solana has remained untouched by recent allegations that have been lodged against certain Government officials, both with respect to corruption and to the so- called dirty war, alleged to have been conducted against the Basque rebels. I believe, Mr. President, we should be extending our appreciation for Dr. Solana's willingness to accept the challenge of assuming the position of the Secretary General of NATO at this very critical juncture in that organization's history. I, for one, think he is the right man for the job. I applaud NATO members for the decision to appoint him. Mr. President, at this point, I ask unanimous consent that a statement given by Secretary of State Warren Christopher in support of Dr. Solana's appointment and a brief biography be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks. [[Page S 18304]]

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

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

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Congressional Record remain open until 3:15 p.m. today.

Mr. DODD

Mr. DODD. Mr. President, a week or so ago, I had the distinct pleasure of traveling with our colleague from the State of Florida, Connie Mack, along with a bipartisan delegation of 16 Members of the House of Representatives, to Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland on the occasion of President Clinton's visit there. It was a historic visit, the first time that a sitting American President visited Northern Ireland. Allow me to say, first of all, that regardless of one's party, ideology or political persuasion, I think every American, those who were there, those who witnessed on CNN the President's historic visit to Ireland, were moved by the reception that our President received. On three different occasions, at speeches in Derry, in Belfast, and in Dublin, the estimates of the crowds greeting the President were approximately 250,000 people. That does not include the thousands of people who lined the various roadways to welcome the President to the North of Ireland and to the Republic. His reception was directly related to his efforts over the past 23 months to try and bring an end to the generational conflict in Northern Ireland. The last 15 of those months have been the first time in more than 25 years that there has been the absence of violence and the threat of violence that has stemmed from what the people in Ireland refer to as the Troubles. The President deserves enormous credit for setting the stage for that cessation of hostilities. His decision to extend a visa to Gerry Adams, the president of the Sinn Fein Party, early in 1994 was the bold move that ultimately resulted in the decision by the IRA to announce a unilateral cease-fire in the fall of 1994. For more than 15 months, the peoples of Northern Ireland and Ireland, as well as people in Great Britain, have enjoyed the first period of unprecedented peace in more than a generation. Still, the issues which are at the root cause of that violence remain to be addressed and resolved, Mr. President. Our former colleague, Senator George Mitchell of Maine, has been asked by the Governments of Great Britain and Ireland and the political parties in Northern Ireland to chair a commission, an international commission, to try and see if the issue of decommissioning of arms and related matters can be resolved as we proceed on a twin track, of commencing all-party talks by the end of February. It is through these twin tracks that the people of Northern Ireland can live in permanent peace, free from violence and discrimination. The remarkable change in the North is very apparent to all who go there. President Clinton's efforts have made that possible. I would say to my colleagues that there is a deep appreciation on the island of Ireland for that effort. There was a risk involved in it. As my colleague, the Presiding Officer, will recall or remember, that the President received a lot of advice and counsel about the wisdom of extending that first visa to Mr. Adams, given the history of Sinn Fein and the IRA. Some questioned whether or not there was a sincere commitment to seek a peaceful resolution of this conflict. Even after the IRA announced its cease-fire last year some continued to question whether it would hold. I know the President heard a lot of advice, the bulk of it, in fact, recommended against extending that visa. Our colleagues, Senator Moynihan of New York, Senator Kennedy, and others, urged the President to take the chance, to extend that visa and to test whether there was a true commitment to adopting the political track to resolve differences and whether a cease-fire might work. As a result of that, we have seen, as I described briefly, the events that unfolded over the past year or so. Again, Mr. President, Ambassador Jean Kennedy Smith and her staff, the Government of Prime Minister Bruton, Deputy Prime Minister Dick Spring, and other Irish officials, did a remarkable job, along with Sir Patrick Mayhew and the people of Northern Ireland. I mentioned earlier Gerry Adams. This is a man who has played a very courageous part in the quest for peace for his country men and women. There was a tremendous effort over many months that went into making this trip the tremendous success that it turned out to be. [[Page S 18303]] John Hume, of Derry, whom all of us have met at one time or another in the past 20 years, is the individual who really initiated the peace effort in Northern Ireland and in Derry. What a remarkable job he and others have done in Derry to bring the two traditions together, the nationalist and unionist traditions, to try and achieve economic opportunity for people. John Hume and others have worked tirelessly to attract business and promote job growth in that community. It was truly a heartwarming sight to see the American President received by John Hume in the square of Derry, while more than 50,000 people looked on. Some of these people had lined the street since 9 a.m. in the morning, and the President arrived late in the afternoon. In the Guild Hall the President got a the tremendous reception; when the song ``The Town I Love So Well'' was sung, the audience was literally moved to tears. That song describes the troubles in Derry over the past two and one half decades. In Belfast, at the Christmas tree lighting ceremony, 100,000 people gathered in the great square in Belfast--Protestants and Catholics alike--welcoming our President to their city. This is the same city, where a few months ago, you would not have thought of sending an American President because of the violence there, and where people were fearful of that when they walked into a department store or pub that place would be the subject of attack and violence. What was particularly historic was to see this crowd--again, presenting the great traditions of Northern Ireland--come together to express their appreciation to an American President, the American people, and to the United States Congress; it certainly was one of the great sights I have witnessed in my tenure here in the United States Senate. And then, Mr. President, the President was warmly received by the Parliament in the Republic of Ireland. The people of Dublin also came out en masse to express their appreciation. With over 100,000 people there as witnesses, President Clinton was awarded the ``Freedom of the City'' credentials that have only been awarded to a handful of people in Dublin. This was truly a high honor to receive. The President made very compelling remarks during his stay in Dublin. Certainly, the sight of those children that the President constantly referred to when he talked about the opportunities and the hopes for peace in Northern Ireland--particularly the two children at the Mackie Metal Plant in Belfast--who joined hands, one Catholic, one Protestant--representing by the clasping of hands their hopes for coming together and resolving differences so people can live in peace on the island of Ireland. As a person of Irish descent, for me it was more than just a foreign visit, but a visit by someone whose family, on both sides, has come from Ireland, going back well into the early part of the last century. I was deeply proud that an American President had taken the actions he has over the last couple of years and that this has made a difference in people's lives. We have seen this administration take steps in Haiti, now in Bosnia, there in Ireland, and in other places--steps that are certainly full of risks, but nonetheless I think risks worth taking, in the sense that we have been able to make a difference in people's lives. So it was a deeply moving time for those of us who were part of this trip to have been present at a historic visit by an American President to a foreign land. For all who witnessed the reception he received, I think it makes everyone--regardless of party, ideology, or political persuasion--very proud to be an American.

Mr. DODD

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