Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. So we are waiting on Senator Brown.

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, it is my understanding, after visiting with the managers, that the only amendments left are habeas corpus amendments. I want to thank the managers on both sides of the aisle for their hard work and cooperation for the last 6 hours, and also the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle, for his cooperation. So we are down now to the habeas corpus amendments. We disposed of virtually everything, 80, 90 amendments. We are down to about six, five on the Democratic side and one on the Republican side. I think we have agreed that we come in at 9:30, have 15 minutes of morning business, and at 9:45 we are on the bill. And Senator Biden will bring up the habeas corpus Federal prisoners, No. 1217, with 30 minutes of debate equally divided. Then there would be a vote at 10:15 which would accommodate two Senators who are going to the Base Closure Commission, and one Senator who has someone in the hospital. Then we would try to reach time agreements on the remaining amendments, and if possible stack all of those votes so we can complete action probably sometime like 1 o'clock. We would have votes on those, plus final passage, unless there is a motion to reconsider a vote, or something like that. I think that is satisfactory. I wish to check with Senators. So we will proceed on that basis.

Mr. DOLE. Have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I would ask unanimous consent that when the Senate convenes tomorrow, it convene at the hour of 9:30 a.m., with 15 minutes of morning business, 10 minutes to the Senator from Louisiana, Senator Breaux; that at 9:45 we return to the consideration of S. 735, and that the amendment No. 1217, habeas corpus Federal prisons, be in order, 30 minutes equally, controlled by the managers on each side.

Mr. DOLE. And then we will try to work out the order and times on the following amendments. I think we will pretty much stick to the times we have pointed out here. I would also ask, since we have completed action on every amendment that has been affected by cloture, that the cloture motion filed yesterday be vitiated.

Mr. DOLE. As I indicated earlier, there is no reason for a cloture vote because we have taken care of all the amendments that might have been affected by invoking cloture with the exception of five so-called gun or gun-related amendments which have been or will be withdrawn.

Mr. DOLE. Right. That would be Biden No. 1224, Biden No. 1216, Biden No. 1217, Levin No. 1245, Gaham of Florida No. 1242, Kyl No. 1211, and then there is the managers' amendment.

Mr. DOLE. I assume under the previous agreement that only second- degree amendments would be in order after a failed motion to table.

Mr. DOLE. Again, let me thank the managers and the Democratic leader, Senator Biden and Senator Hatch, Senator Daschle, and also thank the President and Pat Griffin at the White House, who has been helpful throughout the day.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I suggest that we hope to finish this bill tonight. I urge my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle that there are a number of Republican amendments pending, and they are not rushing to the floor to discuss those amendments with the manager and the chairman of the committee, Senator Hatch. Now, if we are going to suggest that the Democrats ought to cooperate, then we will suggest that Republicans ought to cooperate, too. So I ask my colleagues on this side of the aisle, or anybody who may be listening in their offices, if you have amendments, please let us know before noon. We would like to find out by noon on this side of the aisle how many amendments we have, serious amendments, and how many are going to be called up. Then we can go to the distinguished Senator from Delaware and say we have x number of amendments that will take x amount of hours. We hope to get time agreements so we can complete action on the bill later today. I yield the floor. Amendment No. 1214

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, as part of the ongoing debate, not on the amendment, I wanted to make a brief statement on habeas corpus because on May 25, President Clinton wrote me urging habeas corpus reform be excluded, that means excluded from the antiterrorism bill pending before the Senate. The President wrote, and I quote: While I do not believe that habeas corpus reform should be addressed in the context of the counterterrorism bill, I look forward to working with the Senate in the future on a bill that would accomplish this objective. The President apparently had a change of heart. Last night on the Larry King Show, the President reversed his position, endorsing the inclusion of habeas reform in the antiterrorism bill. The President said: We need to cut the time delay on appeals dramatically, and . . . it ought to be done in the context of this terrorism legislation so that it would apply to any prosecutions brought against anyone indicted in Oklahoma. And I think it ought to be done. I welcome the President's remarks. And I am delighted that he has finally come around to our position that, of all the antiterrorism initiatives now before the Senate, the one that bears most directly on the Oklahoma City tragedy is habeas corpus reform. Yesterday, the families of some of the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing traveled all the way to Washington to tell their elected representatives that habeas reform is an essential ingredient of any serious antiterrorism plan. The families understand, as we do, that if we really want justice that is ``swift, certain and severe,'' then we must put an end to the endless appeals and delays that have done so much to weaken public confidence in our criminal justice system. We must have habeas corpus reform now. It is great news that President has switched his position and now supports the inclusion of habeas reform in the antiterrorism bill. Hopefully, the President's support will help speed up the process here in the Senate and enable us to pass this legislation later tonight. I ask unanimous consent that the President's quote on the Larry King Show and his letter of a couple of weeks ago--and they state different positions--be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. If the Senator will yield. If the managers continue to work as they have, and we only had one vote left, I would put that off until tomorrow. But I am not certain when we are going to be able to tell people that. If we have two, three, or four, I would like to complete the votes tonight. That will save us a couple of hours in the morning. I think if the managers will continue to be flexible on these amendments, and we will avoid a lot of votes.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, as I understand it, on the Democratic side there are four nonhabeas corpus amendments remaining including the one that is pending. So that would be three. On Senator Kennedy's amendment there is an effort to try to reconcile that. Also, Senator Lieberman is to be voted on. Simon, immigration; Kennedy, immigration; Lieberman; and the others are all habeas. On the Republican side, how many amendments? Senator Abraham; Senator Brown; Senator Kyl; Senator Smith has been resolved; and two Specter amendments. But I understand that one of those may have been drafted and is the pending amendment, and the other one may not be offered.

Mr. DOLE. Let me indicate to Senator Brown, wherever he may be, that we would very much appreciate his coming to the floor and offering his amendment. Senator Nunn is here so maybe we can negotiate, if he is willing to negotiate that amendment, or if not have a debate on that amendment. I understand Senator Specter and Senator Simon will be ready momentarily to offer their amendment.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. We are ready to take it.

Mr. DOLE. There is not any pending business. We are in morning business.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, well, we had hearings on wiretap authority, and we had general hearings before the FBI Director Freeh. We have had numerous hearings on habeas corpus reform. We have had hearings on alien terrorist removal and posse comitatus. We have had a lot of hearings. But, again, I remind the Democratic leader that the President of the United States, who happens to be a Democrat, wants to get this bill passed. Does he want 16 amendments or 26 amendments or 36 amendments? He wants the bill passed. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot criticize Members on weekends for not passing a bill, saying there are too many amendments, and saying he wants to cooperate and have 16 amendments. Members do not need 16. They probably do not need six. They probably do not need five amendments. This happens to be your administration, your President, who is taking credit for the antiterrorism bill, and the Democrats will not let it pass because they have to have all of their amendments. They have to have 16 amendments. Why do they need 16 amendments? This is an antiterrorism bill, not a gun bill and not any other kind of bill. We ought to pass it. We ought to pass it in the next couple of hours. We probably will not. We probably will not pass it at all. We will have a cloture vote tomorrow. If the Democrats vote against cloture, that is fine. Then they will have spoken. They will have made a statement on how they feel about antiterrorism legislation. If the President were on their side saying, ``Gentleman, we have to have all these amendments,'' I can understand. But he is on our side. He is on our side. He said he was last night on Larry King. He wants habeas corpus reform. He wants what is in this bill. He wants the terrorism bill. ``The majority leader is right saying there are too many amendments.'' We have gone back to our people and said they cannot offer these amendments. Offer them some other time. We will be in session for a long, long time. I was told we should have stayed here during the week. Do not give me that stuff. Sixty- seven amendments offered by the Democrats, and I was told by the manager on the other side they would work all these things out over the recess. In fact, I asked the question. Let Members not come back on Monday and say we just got back from recess, we have not made any headway. It is very frustrating. I know the Senate is a different place. I know one Senator can delay as long as they can, and two or three Senators can delay for days and days. This is something that the President of the United States wants very badly. It is something I assume that the Democrats want badly. If they want it [[Page S7747]] badly, they will stop offering amendments. These amendments have nothing to do with terrorism. They were not in the President's bill. Why not get on with it and pass the bill? We have a terrorism bill. We can take care of habeas corpus and go to final passage or agree on two or three amendments on a side and get it done. We have taken the taggants, that amendment that the President was concerned about. We worked it out. Worked it out on both sides. We accepted that amendment and another amendment that we thought had merit, extending the statute of limitations from 3 to 5 years. We have done that. We will not continue this game. I do not care whether they offer it on telecommunications or not. That is a right they have. The time is running out. The time is running out for this bill to be on the floor. Make no mistake about it. If they want to do business, we will do business. If not, it is fine with this Senator.

Mr. DOLE. I do not know if those are gun amendments or not. I have not looked at the amendments. I want to stick to terrorism. I want to see what the end result is, when we would finish the bill. But I underscore what the Senator from Utah said. I attended the White House meeting. Everybody was saying ``They are going to make this a big gun fight.'' We said ``No, we are not going to do that. We are not going to offer any of the so-called gun amendments.'' And then we have them all offered on the other side, or many offered on the other side. We say no. We accommodate the President. He wants to get the bill passed. The President was at the Air Force Academy and blasted Congress for not passing a bill. Mr. President, 67 amendments were filed by Democrats. We only saw seven of those amendments before Monday. We did not know where they were. We did not know what the other 60 were. I just suggest we are going to either complete this bill or we are going to have a cloture vote in the morning. If we do not get cloture it is out of here. It is gone.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period for the transaction of morning business until the hour of 4:30, with Members permitted to speak therein for 5 minutes each.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, it had been my hope following the policy luncheon that we would have a major shortening of the list of amendments on the other side of the aisle. As I understand, there has been really no effort to limit the amendments, except they picked out five or six amendments which are not germane and suggested time agreements on the nongermane amendments. I do not know the merits of this amendment. It may be a very good amendment. I do not debate the Senator from Massachusetts. I do not believe it was suggested in the President's bill--in any of the President's bills. Again, the President sent me a letter on May 25 outlining his objectives for an antiterrorism bill. There is nothing with reference to this amendment in it. The President did change. We had a vote on the taggants amendment yesterday. We accepted another gun amendment. I think what this has become is the Democrats are bringing up all the gun amendments they have been keeping in their closet. Mr. President, we are not going to play that game. I made the best effort I could to work with the White House in an effort to pass antiterrorism legislation, but the Democrats just insist they do not want to do that. They do not want to pass antiterrorism legislation. They have already forgotten what happened in Oklahoma City. They want to have a big debate out here, a big political debate to try to score a few political points, and that is not going to happen. If we want an antiterrorism bill, we will vote for cloture tomorrow morning. If we do not, that is it, we will go on to telecommunications. The majority is not going to play this game for the benefit of a few Democrats who want to continue to try to make political points. It is almost impossible to work with this White House when you have Democrats in the Senate not willing to work with the White House. How do they expect Republicans in the Senate to work with the White House? We are not going to play these games. We were told we were going to get a big list of amendments that were going to be eliminated. None has been eliminated. So I am going to suggest that we have a period for the transaction of morning business for the next 45 minutes, and we are going to try to determine what is going to happen. If nothing is going to happen, then we will just recess for the day, have a cloture vote tomorrow, and if the Democrats vote against cloture, that is fine. I want all of them to explain to the President why they did not support an antiterrorism bill, a bipartisan antiterrorism bill. We began this bill on Thursday. We were delayed 1 day because the Democrats had 60-some votes on the budget bill. We have had filibuster by amendment around here all year long, bill after bill after bill. ``Oh, do not file cloture, we will just propose 50 or 60 amendments.'' We had a record 32 votes in 1 day on amendments on everything they could think of. So we began on Thursday, and we were on it on Friday and Monday, and now it is Tuesday. Now I understand they do not want to do anything tomorrow. They want to wait and get all these time agreements on habeas corpus. Tomorrow is Wednesday. We are just eating into the August recess day by day, and if nobody cares, it does not make any difference to this Senator, because I assume we will probably be here in any event. Either we are going to get cooperation on the other side of the aisle or we are going to pull the bill down. I think the best thing to do is wait and have a cloture vote. Stop playing the game. Let us have a cloture vote tomorrow morning, and if Members on that side want to support their President with an antiterrorism bill, they will vote for cloture. If they do not want to support their President, they will vote against cloture. It is all right with this Senator, but we will have kept our word with the President of the United States to deliver him an antiterrorism bill, not a bill with a lot of amendments on it to make a political point for somebody on the other side. So I have just reached the limit of my patience on this particular measure.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. It is my understanding that maybe after the policy lunches that we have every Tuesday that maybe there will be an announcement on the other side that a number of the amendments have been dropped. It seems to me, and I have not seen the list that may be remaining, a number of these amendments are not directly related to antiterrorism or what happened in Oklahoma City or anywhere else. If there will be a pattern of amendments offered just for the purpose of making points which we believe can be made at another time--I do not suggest people should not have a right to make whatever point they want to make--this is legislation that the President has asked for. It is nonpartisan. It is bipartisan. We have worked together on it. It is part of Senator Hatch's efforts, part of my efforts, part of the President's efforts, part of the efforts of my colleague on the other side. We want to pass it. The President complains about delay in the Senate. Much of the delay is because of a number of amendments on the other side. It may be the only way we can finish this bill is A, to start tabling amendments that are not directly related to this bill, and I will let the chairman of the committee, Senator Hatch make that decision. That would amendments which can be offered at a later time, or, B, to invoke cloture. A cloture petition has been filed, and the cloture vote will occur if for some reason we do not finish the bill late this evening, early in the morning. By 8:30 or 9 o'clock, we will have a cloture vote. Hopefully, that would eliminate a lot of the nongermane amendments. I urge my colleagues on both sides, not just one side, both sides of the aisle, if there are amendments that are somewhat related or Members would like some political point or some other point, let Members pass this legislation. The other bill is up this year and those amendments can be offered. This legislation is important. We would like to dispose of it today. I hope we can have the cooperation of Members on both sides of the aisle. I ask that the Senate stand in recess according to the previous order.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I will just take a moment. I want to get an update on where we are on the pending legislation. We hope to finish this today. I appreciate the President's efforts, along with the Democrat leader and the manager on the other side, to reduce the number of amendments on that side of the aisle. We have been making the same effort here. I wonder if the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, might be in a position to indicate how many amendments are remaining on this side or on both sides, if he knows.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I move we stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, at this moment, several thousand United States troops and their equipment are headed for Europe to positions near Bosnia and Herzegovina. Tomorrow the Armed Services Committee will hold hearings on this deployment and U.S. policy. On Thursday the Senate Foreign Relations Committee will also conduct hearings to learn about current United States policy toward Bosnia. These hearings are of critical importance--not only because of the seriousness of sending American ground forces into harm's way, but because of the continued confusion over U.S. policy. Last Wednesday, at the Air Force Academy, the President stated, and I quote: I believe we should be prepared to assist NATO if it decides to meet a request from the United Nations troops for help in a withdrawal or a reconfiguration and a strengthening of its forces. But, a few days later, in his weekly radio address, the President stated that in addition to assisting in the withdrawal of UNPROFOR, the United States may send ground troops in the ``highly unlikely event'' that part of the U.N. force became ``stranded and could not get out of a particular place in Bosnia'' and need ``emergency extraction.'' The President added that such an emergency operation would be ``limited and temporary.'' The first question each of the committees must ask is what is U.S. policy today. Is it to help strengthen and reconfigure U.N. forces, or is it to assist in ``emergency extraction''? Furthermore, what is the difference between reconfiguring forces and emergency extraction? What is the relationship between emergency extraction and total U.N. withdrawal? Would such an extraction be a prelude to full withdrawal? In other words, what is the mission of U.S. ground forces if they are deployed for contingencies other than participating in a complete withdrawal of U.N. forces. Then the committees will need to turn to basic operational questions: What is the NATO-U.N. relationship? When does NATO command begin? How far does it extend--to all air and ground forces in Bosnia? What is the command structure and its relationship with U.N. commanders? What are the rules of engagement? Are they robust? What are the threats to our forces? How will they be addressed? What is the estimated duration of the operation? Last August during DOD authorization conference former U.S. Envoy Chuck Redman told conferees that Pentagon estimates were that a withdrawal operation would take 3 months--to include equipment. If the current plan anticipates a longer duration, why is that the case? If the duration is lengthy, is this because of demands by UNPROFOR contributors to take all of their equipment--not just lethal equipment? And will U.S. lives be risked to save equipment? With respect to emergency extraction operations, how are the terms ``limited'' and ``temporary'' defined? What will the United States role be in U.N. decisions which could lead to such emergencies, for example if Bosnian Serbs retaliate for an UNPROFOR action by overrunning Gorazde? In addition, the committees will need to pursue the administration's decision to provide close air support to the quick reaction force. Reportedly, Secretary Perry has agreed to make helicopter gunships part of potential close air support operations for the quick reaction force. AC-130's, unlike our F-16's, fly slow and close to the ground-- therefore they are more vulnerable. What actions will NATO take to suppress the threats posed by surface to air missiles [SAM's]? When will such action be taken? An American pilot was shot down by a SAM and is missing. Last December, Adm. Leighton Smith, our NATO Commander in Naples wanted to take out Bosnian Serb SAM sites because of the threat they posed to pilots patrolling the no-fly zone. But, NATO did not take out those SAMS because the U.N. commanders said ``no.'' Had NATO acted 6 months ago, our pilot may not have been shot down. So the question now is, are we going to send more Americans into harm's way without taking measures to reduce the risk? On the diplomatic front, there are also many questions. What is the diplomatic strategy with respect to Serbian President Milosevic? Are we sure there is a split between Milosevic and Radovan Karadzic, or is Milosevic playing good cop and Karadzic bad cop? If there is a split how do we explain Milosevic's role in releasing some of the U.N. hostages? Has Milosevic been promised anything in return for his assistance in securing the release of hostages? I understand this afternoon there way be another 50 or so released. Are we going to agree to lift most sanctions on Serbia in return for recognition of Bosnia and what does recognition mean--really closing the borders and cutting off supplies and military contact with the Bosnian Serbs? If we lift sanctions on Serbia now, how do we maintain any leverage over Serbian actions against the Alabanians in Kosova and Serbian support for militant separatists in Croatia? Mr. President, I have not listed all of the questions that need to be asked at the hearings this week. Furthermore, these matters need to be placed in a larger context--namely, what is the objective of these actions: Is it to remove U.N. forces or to keep them there? Are we serious about withdrawal or not? If not, why not? This bigger picture should be the focus of administration consultations with the Congress. We should not only be informed about NATO planning and operations. We should be engaging in a dialog about where we are going. Are we at last going to lift the unjust and illegal arms embargo on Bosnia? I believe that the United States has interests in Bosnia and Herzegovina. As George Will said this week in Newsweek in response to the charge made by some that the United States has no ``dogs in this fight,'' that, and I quote, But those in the fight are not dogs and by the embargo we have helped make the fight grotesquely unfair. What would be the consequences on our national self-respect--our Nation's soul--of a preventable Serbian victory followed by ``cleansing'' massacres? Bosnian Serbs have seized 70 percent of Bosnia but they are not a mighty military force and will become even less so if the Serbian Government in Belgrade can be pressured into leaving Bosnia's separatist Serbs isolated in combat with a Bosnian army equipped at last with tanks and artillery. The Serbs fighting in Bosnia are bullies led by war criminals collaborating with a dictator. If we don't have an interest in this fight, what are we? Mr. President, I believe that we need to assist our NATO allies in the event of U.N. withdrawal. However, I also believe that we need to recognize that U.N. efforts in Bosnia have failed--failed to stop aggression, failed to bring peace, and failed to protect the Bosnians. The New Republic in its June 19 editorial states that, and I quote, There is another Bosnian crisis this week. Not in Bosnia, of course. In Bosnia things are the same, only more so. A greater Serbia is slowly and steadily emerging by means of a genocidal war. No, the crisis is taking place in the capitals of the Western powers, which are finding it harder and harder to escape the consequences of their policy of appeasement. The European decision to create a quick reaction force [QRF] is in itself an admission of failure. The QRF is intended to protect UNPROFOR, not the Bosnians. And the very tasks the QRF envisions being engaged in, such as securing the Sarajevo Airport, are tasks that were originally given to UNPROFOR by the U.N. Security Council. Therefore, there is a real question of whether or not sending more forces--even with more equipment--will do anything more than supply the Bosnian Serbs with more potential hostages. The bottom line is that keeping UNPROFOR on the ground indefinitely will not bring us to a solution in Bosnia. Indeed it will prevent a solution by reinforcing the failed status quo. As the New Republic points out, and I quote, It cannot have escaped the notice of our policymakers that the U.N. is providing cover for the Serbs, except that the U.N. is providing cover for our policymakers, too. It saves them from the prospect of action. Mr. President, withdrawing the U.N. force is the first step away from failure and toward a solution. I support United States participation, to include ground troops, in a NATO operation to withdraw U.N. forces from Bosnia provided certain conditions are met. Therefore, sometime over the next few days I intend to introduce a resolution to authorize the President to use United States ground forces to assist in the complete withdrawal of U.N. forces from Bosnia under the following conditions: First, NATO command, from start to finish, no U.N.-NATO dual-key arrangement; Second, robust rules of engagement which provide for massive response to any provocation or attack on U.S. forces; Third, no risking U.S. lives to rescue equipment; and Fourth, prior agreement on next steps, to include lifting the arms embargo on Bosnia and Herzegovina. Mr. President, we need to support our allies. But we must make sure that in so doing, we are neither prolonging a failed policy or leaping into a quagmire. I believe that this resolution will provide the President with essential support of the Congress and will help put us on the right policy track. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the complete article by George Will and the article in the New Republic be printed in the Record.