Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. If the Senator will yield, I had just sort of passed through the Chamber and I did not see anything happening, but there is a lot of precedent for that. As I understand, the next amendment would be the Senator from Michigan, Senator Levin, and there would be 50 minutes, 25 minutes on a side. Is that satisfactory?

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I make that request.

Mr. DOLE. Does the Senator from Wisconsin have an amendment?

Mr. DOLE. If I understand, after the disposition of the pending amendment--if we work it out--fine; then the amendment of the Senator from Michigan; there would be two amendments remaining, one by the Presiding Officer and one by the Senator from Delaware.

Mr. DOLE. And as I understand, one would have a 60 minute time agreement, the other 90 minutes.

Mr. DOLE. The point is, we would like to complete action. We said no votes before 1 o'clock. I think it will be probably be before 2 o'clock, would be my guess. there will probably not be any vote before 2 o'clock, but we had hoped to complete action on this bill by 3 o'clock so we could start on telecommunications. We are probably going into the evening tonight on that bill. I am told by the managers on that bill that it is a bipartisan effort, and may be able to complete that more quickly than we may have thought at the outset. The bottom line is we need to finish this bill, and I know the managers are making progress. I appreciate it very much.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, what is the pending business? Are we on the final amendment?

Mr. DOLE. Is there a time agreement on the Biden amendment?

Mr. DOLE. How much time is the Biden amendment?

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, then it would appear to me that we are not going to finish this bill until after 5 o'clock. But we will take up the telecommunications bill. We will be here late because we have frittered away the afternoon here. We hoped to conclude action on this bill by 1 o'clock. It is now 3:30, and it is going to be 5 or 6 o'clock. So we do not have any recourse because Senator Pressler and Senator Hollings have been waiting all day long to take up the telecommunications bill, and there will be votes and there will be amendments probably until 10 or 11 o'clock tonight. So if we can finish, whenever we finish this bill, we will be on the telecommunications bill. I understand the Senator from Delaware is now prepared to offer his amendment, which will be the final amendment.

Mr. DOLE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DOLE. Let me announce for my colleagues, we are going to move to the telecommunications bill after this vote, and I understand Senator Hollings and Senator Pressler are ready to do that. We will have opening statements. I have an amendment that I will offer. I think the distinguished Democratic leader has an amendment he may offer. These amendments may be accepted. But we are trying to find a couple of bona fide amendments that can be offered tonight and voted on in the morning. If that is the case, if we have a couple, we can debate those amendments tonight and not have any more votes tonight and have those votes in the morning. I will assume we can find one additional amendment so this will be the last vote tonight. Any votes that are ordered tonight will occur probably fairly early in the morning, around 9 o'clock.

Mr. DOLE. Madam President, immediately after the Oklahoma City tragedy, President Clinton was right on target when he said that the perpetrators of this vicious crime should face justice that was ``swift, certain, and severe.'' I am pleased to report to the American people and to the President that, with today's passage of the antiterrorism bill, we are one giant step closer to achieving this important goal. The most critical element of this bill, and the one that bears most directly on the tragic events in Oklahoma City, is the provision reforming the so-called habeas corpus rules. By imposing filing deadlines on all death row inmates, and by limiting condemned killers convicted in State or Federal court to one Federal habeas petition--one bite of the apple--these landmark reforms will go a long, long way to streamline the lengthy appeals process and bridge the gap between crime and punishment in America. It is dead wrong that we must wait 8, or 9, or even 10 years before a capital sentence is actually carried out. And, of course, it is terribly unjust to the innocent victims of violent crime and their families. As I said yesterday, if the Federal Government prosecutes the Oklahoma City case and the death penalty is sought and imposed, the execution of the sentence could take as a little as 1 year once these reforms are enacted into law. I want to thank President Clinton for his efforts this past week in discrouraging Democratic amendments. No doubt about it, the President's involvement has helped speed up the process here in the Senate. I particularly commend the President for finally coming around to the view that habeas reform is an essential ingredient of any serious anti- terrorism plan. I want to thank the two managers, Senator Hatch and Senator Biden, for their persistence in guiding this legislation through the Senate. On this side of aisle, Senator Hatch has provided the intellectual glue that has kept this effort together. And, of course, I want to thank my two colleagues from Oklahoma, Senator Nickles and Senator Inhofee, whose help in this process has also been invaluable. Finally, I commend the good people of Oklahoma City, who self- sacrifice and resiliency during this very difficult time has been an inspiration for us all. The families of some of the bombing victims travelled all the way to Washington this past Monday to let us know that we must take action now to put an end to the endless delays and appeals that have done so much to weaken public confidence in our system of criminal justice. It is gratifying to see that their efforts have had such a profound impact here in the Senate.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Madam President, it is indeed ironic that the Clinton administration--whose policy on Bosnia needs to be checked hourly--is on the attack against those in Congress like myself who have consistently argued for a policy that candidate Clinton advocated. Maybe administration officials are tired of attacking each other in the press and have decided to take their frustration out on the Congress. The administration's arguments against withdrawing the U.N. protection forces and lifting the arms embargo are neither based on fact nor on American experience. First we have a statement from the Secretary of Defense today that withdrawing U.N. forces would lead to a humanitarian disaster. I do not know if the Pentagon has been keeping up with the news over the last few months, but the situation in Bosnia is and has been a humanitarian disaster for the last couple of years, despite the presence of 22,000 U.N. troops. The U.N. mission in Bosnia has failed. Bandages like the quick reaction force will not change that fact. Secretary Perry also told the Armed Services Committee today that the casualty rate in Bosnia dramatically dropped, which he attributed to the presence of U.N. forces. As the recent hostage taking has painfully demonstrated, the U.N. forces cannot even protect themselves let alone the Bosnians. And I say this understanding the bravery of each of the individuals who are there. They are in a very, very difficult situation. They cannot protect themselves. They are placed there by their governments. Furthermore, the heaviest Bosnian casualties were in areas where U.N. forces were either not deployed or deployed too late--in northern and eastern Bosnia. So it seems to me that the real reason casualties dropped is because the Bosnians, over time, have acquired more weapons and have been able to better defend themselves. That is why the casualty rate has gone down. The second argument made by the administration is that the lifting of the arms embargo would Americanize the war and make the United States responsible for events in Bosnia. Let us not fool ourselves--America is responsible now. We already have a responsibility. America is responsible because it has not been a leader, rather it has meekly followed the Europeans' failed approach. As for the accusation that lifting the arms embargo would ``Americanize'' the conflict, it seems to me that the United States has plenty of experience from Central America to Afghanistan in providing military assistance without being drawn into a quagmire with American troops on the ground. The real recipe for getting bogged down is to send United States ground troops into Bosnia without a mission, which is why the resolution I intend to submit would authorize, with strict conditions, the use of United States ground forces for the clearly stated purpose of withdrawing U.N. protection forces from Bosnia--not for peacekeeping, not for reconfiguration, not for strengthening, or any other proposed deployments supported by the Clinton administration. Furthermore, Bosnian officials have repeated time and time again that they do not want United States ground troops. Just a couple days ago, in response to news that a European quick reaction force would be created, Bosnian Prime Minister Haris Silajdzic said ``Please untie our hands, arm the Bosnians. We do not want your boys to die for us''-- British boys, French boys, or American boys. Finally, when those of us who advocate lifting the arms embargo--and I am talking about Republicans and Democrats; this has never been a partisan issue on this floor, it has been supported by many Democrats and a great number of Republicans--point out that other countries would also participate in arming the Bosnians, we are told this would allow Iran to arm the Bosnians. The fact is the arms embargo has guaranteed that Iran is a key supplier of arms to Bosnia and administration officials have actually used that fact to argue that there is no need to lift the arms embargo. What other choices do the Bosnians have? They are going to find weapons where they can find weapons. From statements made by State Department officials to the press, one gets the impression that Iran is the Clinton administration's preferred provider of weapons to the Bosnians. If the administration has a problem with Iran arming Bosnia, it should be prepared to do something about it. We can do something about it. It would not take very long. If the arms embargo is lifted, America would not be the only country to provide assistance. Countries like Turkey, Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Pakistan would offer financial and military assistance. In addition, former Warsaw Pact countries would be free to sell their vast arsenal of Soviet-style weapons that have been designated for export pursuant to the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty. Since the Bosnians presently use Soviet-style equipment, acquiring former Soviet bloc equipment would minimize the amount of training they would require. Furthermore, any training, whether by United States military advisers or other country military advisers, could [[Page S7881]] be conducted outside of Bosnia--in Croatia or Slovenia, for example. Madam President, administration officials should quit fighting amongst themselves and begin real consultations with the Congress, consultations based on the facts and not on wild accusations or unrealistic scenarios. It is time to take sides--with the victims of this aggression. It is also high time for America to exercise leadership and end its participation in this international failure.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send my amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent further reading be dispensed with.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be laid aside.

Mr. DOLE. I think the managers may be ready to accept it by tomorrow morning.

Mr. DOLE. I have obviously no problem with that. In fact, I can give the Senator from Nebraska a summary of it, too. I thank my colleague.

Mr. DOLE. If it is acceptable, I do not need a vote. I do not want to penalize anybody.

Mr. DOLE. Not on this amendment. I will wait until the Senator from Nebraska indicates he has had a chance to look at it.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I will just say that on the rescissions veto by the President today, it is highly regrettable President Clinton chose a bill cutting spending for the first veto. The $16.4 billion rescissions bill would have provided for $9 billion--$9 billion, a lot of money in real savings--an important downpayment in getting our country's financial house in order. The President made a serious mistake in judgment in vetoing this measure. It would have provided funding to the Federal Emergency Management Agency for disaster relief, to Oklahoma for reconstruction, and debt relief for Jordan to support the peace process, money for California. Speaker Gingrich and I have previously said we met the administration more than halfway. The President asked for Jordan debt relief, we met his request. The President asked for FEMA funds for disaster relief in 40 States, and we met his request. The President threatened to veto if striker replacement language was included in the bill, we took it out. We left AIDS funding, breast cancer screening, childhood immunization, Head Start, and other programs untouched, and still we came up with $9 billion in net real savings. We, in the Congress, held up our end of the bargain, but President Clinton missed a valuable opportunity--a golden opportunity--to join us cutting spending. Now, with three-quarters of the fiscal year almost gone, we are losing the opportunity to enact real savings this year. In the face of the budget deficit that mortgages our children's future, we in the Congress will proceed to pass a budget that puts us on the path to balance by the year 2002. We owe it to our children, and we owe it to our grandchildren. For the sake of generations to come, it is time for the President to stop being an obstacle in the road and join us in our responsibility to secure our Nation's economic future.

Mr. DOLE

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

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the Lieberman amendment numbered 1215.

Mr. DOLE. I have not discussed that with the Democrat leader. That would be my intention. They would be germane, in any event. No need to have a cloture vote. So, if we can complete action on all except habeas corpus, we would like to start fairly early in the morning on the habeas corpus amendments. So is there anybody who has amendments? I guess Senator Brown is the only one on this side?