Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Why can you not take any of our amendments and we are taking your amendments? Because we are Republicans?

Mr. DOLE. We would like to take a number of back-to-back votes if we are going to do that.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. One vote has been ordered.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me say to my colleagues that we hope to complete action on this bill very quickly, and I am asking my colleagues on each side--I think there are 67 amendments on the Democratic side, 30-some on the Republican side--to see if we cannot limit the number of amendments. We will also file cloture today and try to get consent to vote on that cloture motion tomorrow in an effort to expedite this bill. Immediately after the tragic events in Oklahoma City, I wrote to President Clinton expressing my hope that we could put aside partisanship and develop an antiterrorism plan all Americans could support. Just as partisan [[Page S7657]] politics stopped at the water's edge during World War II, it has always been my view that partisan politics should stop at ``evil's edge'' in our war against terrorism. During the past several weeks, I have had the opportunity to discuss this issue directly with the President. Our staffs have shared ideas. We have introduced our own legislative plans. And Senator Hatch, chairman of the Judiciary Committee, has had several important hearings. The proposal now before the Senate is a culmination of all these efforts: Democrats, Republicans, the President, staff input. This is a bipartisan plan. It reflects many Republican ideas, and it contains many of the initiatives endorsed and sought by President Clinton himself--prohibitions on fundraising for foreign terrorist organizations; the Alien Terrorist Removal Act, which is designed to deport alien terrorists in a prompt manner without disclosing vital national security information; and increased funding for the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other law enforcement agencies. Now, last week we brought this up before the recess first, I think, for the record. So we had this almost filibuster on the budget with tons of amendments that took, I do not know how many, 10, 20 hours to vote on the amendments. That lost us 24 hours in the process. By design? I do not know, but it happened and we wasted a lot of time. I told the President I wanted to pass this bill on the Senate side before the Memorial Day recess, and we did bring it up. And then we were flooded with amendments, again maybe by design and maybe not. But the President is the leader of the Democratic Party. He said last week, ``There are too many amendments (to the Senate bill) that threaten too much delay.'' I happen to agree with the President on that, but I have not seen any evidence of any active engagement by the White House in the legislative process on the other side of the aisle. The last count was, as I said, 67, 69. The bottom line is that words of complaint will not be enough. Complaining about delay may make for good politics, but what we need from the President is not words but leadership. I want to fulfill the President's request. I want to pass the antiterrorism bill promptly, without delay. But if we are going to accomplish this goal, the President will have to move off the sidelines and get into the game, as we need his help. It is not enough to make the speeches, not enough to make the radio addresses, not enough to say whatever. We ought to pass it. But particularly in the U.S. Senate, where any group of Senators can slow things down--and we have had almost a record performance this year by my colleagues on the other side--this happens to be a bill that is not partisan. It is bipartisan. It is something that the President claims credit for. It seems to me it would be in his interest to have somebody up here trying to make certain that we pass the bill. If we do not complete action by the close of business tomorrow, I will have no other choice but to withdraw the antiterrorism bill and move on to other legislative business. If we can get consent to vote on cloture tomorrow, we will find out how many people really want this bill, or whether this bill will become a Christmas tree where everybody has a political agenda and they want to put it on the antiterrorism bill. I believe that would be a grave mistake. We have a full plate here in the Senate. We have telecommunications, and I promised both Senators Pressler and Hollings for the last 2 or 3 weeks that we would like to finish that this week. We have welfare reform and regulatory reform, just to name a few. All of these will take some time. We do not have time to get bogged down for 3 weeks on a very important bill with amendments that are not important at all, for the most part, and just making statements or having votes when the amendments could be accepted. I have heard that many of the amendments will be accepted. Let us not waste 20 or 30 minutes on rollcall votes on 15 or 20 amendments that can be accepted. It seems to me that if our colleagues want to pass this bill, accepting it is just as good as having a vote, and we can save a lot of time. We will be in late tonight, and votes will start at 5 o'clock. It is not in the interests of the American people to delay. We can always return to the antiterrorism bill, and this might be something to do during the August recess if we cannot get it done now. We are going to be here for part of August, no doubt about it. Maybe this will be a priority during the first 2 or 3 weeks during what might have been the August recess. Mr. President, of all the antiterrorist proposals under consideration, habeas corpus bears perhaps most directly on the tragic events in Oklahoma City. If we really want justice that is ``swift, certain, and severe,'' as President Clinton urged, then we must stop the endless appeals and endless delays that have done so much to weaken public confidence of our system of criminal justice. According to Princeton Prof. John Diiulio, more than 330,000 Americans were murdered during the 16 years between 1977 and 1993. Yet, during the same period, only 2,716 people were placed on death row and only 226 convicted killers have actually been executed. In America, today there is clearly a big disconnect between crime and punish. Our habeas corpus reform proposal seeks to bridge this gap by imposing a 1-year filing deadline on all death row inmates, State or Federal. It limits convicted killers in State or Federal court to one habeas petition. That is one bite at the apple. In contrast, under current law, there is virtually no limit to the number of petitions a convicted killer may file. It requires the Federal courts, once a petition is filed, to complete judicial action within a specified period of time. In fact, 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 little as 1 year if these reforms are enacted into law. Otherwise, it might take 5, 10, 15 years. It seems to me it is a step that ought to be taken, a step the President talked about on ``60 Minutes.'' Somebody said he wanted habeas corpus reform. Habeas corpus reform is an essential component of any serious antiterrorism plan. The relatives of some of the victims of the Oklahoma City bombing have traveled all the way to Washington today to make this very point. In fact, I think there is a press conference going on as I speak. They want Congress to act on these reforms and act now. That is the view also shared by a bipartisan group of State attorneys general, including Drew Edmondson, the Democratic attorney general of Oklahoma. In a recent letter to President Clinton, these attorneys general write: Expedited consideration of [habeas corpus reform] legislation in the context of the antiterrorism bill is entirely appropriate. Unless habeas corpus reform is enacted, capital sentences for such acts of senseless violence will face endless legal obstacles. This will undermine the credibility of the sanctions and the expression of our level of opprobrium as a Nation for acts of terrorism. Despite his positive comments about habeas reform in a ``60 Minutes'' interview, President Clinton has written me urging me to exclude habeas corpus reform. One day he is for it, and the next day he says exclude it. Do not bring it in now because it might upset some of the liberals on the other side of the aisle. The President has publicly chided Members of the Senate for refusing to endorse his ``emergency wiretap'' proposal; yet, strangely enough, the President himself refuses to endorse the one proposal that will bear most directly on the Oklahoma City tragedy--and that is habeas corpus reform. Finally, Mr. President, the American people deserve the straight story, and the straight story is that America is not an impregnable fortress. No legislation, no matter how well-intentioned, no matter how well-conceived, can guarantee absolute security. We can take every possible precaution. We can pass tough laws. But in a free society there will always be risks--a fact of life vividly demonstrated by the recent breaches of White House security. I want to thank my distinguished colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, for his leadership in developing an antiterrorism plan. During the past several weeks, he has provided the intellectual glue that has kept this effort together. I also thank my distinguished colleagues from Oklahoma, their role in developing this antiterrorism plan. We all know this has been a very difficult time for them and their constituents. So we are especially appreciative of their invaluable help. I had a conversation with Senator Biden from Delaware before we went out for the recess. I believe he wants to complete action on this bill as quickly as possible. I think with his cooperation, and with some help from the White House and with help on this side on Republican amendments, we can wrap this bill up. There is no reason we could not finish it today, or certainly by tomorrow. I ask unanimous consent that a letter I sent to President Clinton last Thursday be printed in the Record immediately after my remarks.

Mr. DOLE. The letter suggests that the President should help us out on this bill. He could call his Democratic colleagues, maybe have a White House meeting, and see if we cannot complete action on this bill. The House has not acted. But that does not mean we cannot act. We can act first for a change. I say to my colleagues, let us expect a number of votes. I do not see the managers here, but I think they are in a press conference with some family members of the victims of the Oklahoma City tragedy. I say, again, if the amendments can be accepted and if there is no problem with the amendments, let us not have votes like that at 7, or 8, or 9 o'clock tonight. With all the good will I can muster, I believe this is an important bill, important for the American people, important for the victims' families and those involved in Oklahoma City. Also, it is important that we get it done. I am certainly willing to work with the President in an effort to do that by the close of business tomorrow. Exhibit 1 U.S. Senate, Office of the Republican Leader, Washington, DC, June 1, 1995. The President, The White House, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. President: As you may know, the Senate is currently scheduled to resume consideration of the anti- terrorism bill when we return on Monday, June 5. Under a unanimous consent agreement adopted last Friday, a total of 99 amendments to the bill are in order (32 Republican amendments and 67 Democratic amendments). I am now in the process of urging my Republican colleagues not to offer any unnecessary or unrelated amendments. Hopefully, these efforts will pay off and we will be able to reduce the number of Republican amendments to a manageable level. During the remainder of this week, it is my hope that you will exert similar pressure on the Democrats in the Senate, particularly in light of your complaint yesterday that ``there are too many amendments that threaten too much delay.'' Mr. President, if you really want Congress to pass the anti-terrorism bill as promptly as possible, words will not be enough. Your active involvement in discouraging Democratic Senators from offering unnecessary and unrelated amendments is absolutely essential. I hope you would also call upon Congress to pass meaningful habeas corpus reform as part of the anti-terrorism proposal now pending before the Senate. Of all the anti-terrorism initiatives under consideration, it is perhaps habeas corpus reform that bears most directly on the tragic events in Oklahoma City. In fact, 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 little as one year if the reforms in the pending legislation are enacted into law. Not surprisingly, a bipartisan group of State Attorneys General, including Drew Edmondson, the Democratic Attorney General of Oklahoma, has written that ``expedited consideration of [habeas corpus reform] legislation in the context of the anti-terrorism bill is entirely appropriate. Unless habeas corpus reform is enacted, capital sentences for such acts of senseless violence will face endless legal obstacles. This will undermine the credibility of the sanctions, and the expression of our level of opprobrium as a nation for acts of terrorism.'' Finally, I was struck by how your radio address last Saturday characterized the anti-terrorism legislation now pending before the Senate. The address described the legislation in very personal terms, as ``my proposal,'' ``my anti-terrorism bill,'' ``the legislation I proposed.'' With all due respect, Mr. President, this legislation is a bipartisan product, incorporating many initiatives proposed by Republicans and Democrats alike. The simple fact is that the anti-terrorism plan now before the Senate does not belong to any one party or any one political figure. It belongs to the American people. Sincerely, Bob Dole.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. What is the pending business?

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me indicate I will be speaking with the Democratic leader to see if we cannot have a vote on this tomorrow. I did not file the motion on the Friday before we went out because I thought at that point there would be a lot of progress made during the recess. I am not certain what progress has been made, but this is just the final attempt on the part of the majority leader to try to pass this bill. We will find out how many people really want to pass the antiterrorism bill when it comes to a cloture vote. There will be other bills this year to offer amendments on. This is not the last train to come through the Senate. I hope we can pass a good bill, and I hope the House follows suit very quickly and that we get it to the President in the next week or so. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the managers have been accepting some of these amendments. I would like to get some idea of how many are left. We started off this morning with 99, and I do not know whether we are down to 90, 85, 25, or 10. There will be a cloture vote. If we cannot get consent to vote tomorrow, it will be early on Wednesday morning. One way or the other, we are going to dispose of this bill. If people are not willing to offer their amendments, we cannot work them out--it is only 6:30 and we thought we would be here late tonight. Obviously, no one wants to stay. The President says he wants the bill passed. But this is all he says, ``I want the bill passed.'' We need some action. Tomorrow we will have a full day. We are not going to dispose of the 99 amendments tomorrow or 85 or 75 amendments. We would be prepared to exchange lists. We have been able to eliminate many of ours. If the Democrats are willing to give what they have, we will know if we have a chance of completing this tomorrow. If not, I would like to move to the telecommunications bill. We have accepted four or five minor amendments. That is about all we have gotten today. I am glad we accepted those rather than have 95-0 votes. Some of our colleagues returned today thinking there would be multiple votes. I obviously cannot manufacture votes, unless we just have Sergeant-at-Arms votes. I am not trying to punish anybody. We need to finish this bill, the President says so. Everybody says so. How many amendments do we have left: 80? 50? 60? 100?

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

Mr. DOLE. Is there anything else to do this evening? Any other amendments that can be dealt with?

Mr. DOLE. Is that possible?

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I thank the Democratic leader. I hope that is an accurate assessment. We would like to finish the bill tomorrow night and start on telecommunications on [[Page S7696]] Wednesday. I made promises, in effect, to Senators Pressler and Hollings that we would take it up. I am not certain we will even have five amendments offered. This is a bill the President wants very much. It would seem to me, on the other side, if they have 20 amendments, maybe they would be willing to forgo offering all those on this bill unless they relate to this bill or toughen this bill or somehow strengthen this bill. It is important legislation, there is no question about it. Nobody knows how important it is any more than the Presiding Officer, Senator Inhofe, and Senator Nickles, from Oklahoma. We want to look back on it a year from now and say we did the right thing, we just did not do something in the emotion of the moment that might infringe on somebody's constitutional rights a year from now or 10 years from now. But I think there is basic agreement. As I just listen to the two managers here it seems to me Senator Biden and Senator Hatch have a pretty good grip on what they would like to accomplish. Hopefully we will work together tomorrow. Maybe we can get it done tomorrow night, late. We did not quite get it done on Memorial Day but at least we made the effort. There is no way you can complete it with 97 amendments out there, 67 on that side and 30-some on this side. So we have it down to a total of 20. Maybe some of those are not--I do not say they are not serious amendments--maybe what we call around here, place holders. It seems to me if we start fairly early tomorrow morning we can complete action on the bill tomorrow night.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me just reply. We understand we have maybe five amendments. The Senator is saying he has, still, 20 on that side?

Mr. DOLE

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

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I should have said at the outset, this has been cleared by the Democratic leader.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. There will be no more votes today, and on Monday, June 5, I suggest, I hope there will be votes, but any votes ordered not occur prior to 5 p.m., so some Members coming from a distance will be able to be here if they leave their homes early Monday morning. At that point--and I will advise the Democratic leader hopefully this afternoon--maybe we will move to the telecommunications bill or stay on this bill, and much will depend on whether or not the managers believe we can finish this bill rather quickly, say, by Tuesday afternoon. Then we can still go on the telecommunications bill for the remainder of the week.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, it seems rather obvious we are not going to be able to complete action on the antiterrorism bill, S. 735. I have been notified that there are at least probably 60 or more amendments to a bill that we thought the President requested and that we wanted to cooperate with the President to try to get to him, as I indicated, before the Memorial Day recess. But, in view of the 50-some votes we had on the budget, we lost a day, and in view of the list of amendments, even though there may be a number of amendments which may not be offered, it is now very clear that we cannot complete action on this bill today. I think the next best thing is to try to get some agreement to at least limit the number of amendments. I do not know how you can have many more than 60, but I assume staff listening in could probably get it up to 90 in 20 minutes if they really tried. But I would just say to the President and particularly the people of Oklahoma, those who have suffered the tragedy, that we are serious about this legislation. I am not certain whether we can finish on the Monday we are back. I do not want to delay telecommunications. We have promised and promised both Senator Pressler and Senator Hollings we would address that very important issue. So I will have to decide what course of action to pursue. I know the House has not acted on this, so even if we did complete action today, we could not get the bill to the President until after the Memorial Day recess. And having discussed this with the Democratic leader, I think many of these amendments on both lists are just--there are some that say ``relevant.'' We do not have any idea what it is or even what it is relevant to. But it is relevant as far as not being able to finish the bill if everybody intends to offer their amendments. One Member has 10 amendments; another on our side has 7, or whatever. So I am going to ask consent that we enter into some agreement that we limit the number of amendments to those that have been identified, if that is satisfactory with the Democratic leader. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I hope we can obtain a consent agreement and the managers of the bill can stay here. There may be amendments on each side that can be taken, indicating we are making an effort to move forward, even though we have only had one vote [[Page S7609]] today and opening statements yesterday. That, I think, will be helpful if we can take a few minutes on each side. I ask unanimous consent that the following amendments be the only first-degree amendments in order; that they be subject to relevant second degrees after a failed motion to table, with the exception of the amendments described only as ``relevant,'' and they be subject to relevant second degrees prior to any motion to table; and that the amendments be limited to the following time agreements where designated, to be equally divided in the usual form. I just suggest, if there is no objection, I understand they are working on a final draft of amendments on that side. I think we have a final draft. I will not read each of the amendments and the sponsors, but I ask unanimous consent that the amendments on the Democratic list be printed in the Record, as well as those on the Republican list.

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

Mr. DOLE. I thank the Senator from Nebraska. I hope we will be able to do that indirectly, maybe working with the managers. I think many of these amendments will not be called up. Many are acceptable, many are improvements on the bill. Some are going to be debated. I do not see any partisan effort on this legislation. I think it is a question of trying to find how do we get a good bill, how do we protect constitutional rights down the road. I am hopeful we can do that rather quickly once we get all these in a net here. I can see they are growing as we speak, and as fast as they can write, amendments are being added to the list. So I hope quickly we can stop the bleeding. Mr. BIDEN addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me indicate, I think I count 89 or 90 amendments--they went up 30 as I was getting ready here. Obviously, they will not all be offered. If they will, I just will not bring the bill back up again. I further ask unanimous consent that no assault weapons amendments be in order to the terrorism bill, and that following the disposition of the above-listed amendments, the Hatch substitute be agreed to. That is as far as we can go, I think, at this point.

Mr. DOLE. I thank my friend, the Democratic leader, and the manager of the bill. I hope maybe in the course of the next hour or two, they may be able to dispose of 30 or 40 of these amendments.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I think we have just concluded that it would be a better procedure if we would give the managers, starting today, an opportunity to go through these amendments. Some they may be prepared to take, but they have not been fully reviewed; some have not been fully drafted, but they have the concept. We have to see the exact language. The leadership of both sides suggest that we start that process today and, in the meantime, I am going to suggest that we now have a period for the transaction of routine morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for not more than 5 minutes each.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that we now have a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for 5 minutes each.