Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I have two committee resolutions which I send to the desk and ask they be considered en bloc.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me suggest to my colleagues that we will try to wrap up business because I think the streets are getting a little icy out there, and it may be that we need to get home.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, 2 days ago I introduced legislation together with the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, to terminate the United States arms embargo on Bosnia-Herzegovina as of May 1, 1995. As I mentioned in my remarks at the that time, I believed that this legislation was not only consistent with international law in upholding Bosnia's inherent right to self-defense, but that it would also serve to provide some badly needed leverage for the Bosnians on the diplomatic side. I understand that today, Adm. Leighton Smith, commander of NATO Forces in Southern Europe told reporters that he opposed this legislation. I am not surprised that a four-star admiral would not oppose his Commander in Chief, nor that a NATO commander would not choose to contradict the NATO-Secretary General. I would note, however, that in addition to candidate Bill Clinton, the following former high-level Government officials, including Cabinet members, have publicly supported lifting the arms embargo on Bosnia: Zbigniew Brzezinski; Frank Carlucci; George and Max Kampelman--quite an impressive list. Moreover, I would emphasize that the late Manfred Woerner, the previous Secretary General, advocated helping the victims of aggression, especially when the international community does not have the resolve to take action on behalf of that victim. That is surely the case in Bosnia. It seems to me however, that the views that should be given the most weight, are those of the Bosnians. It is their country and their future we are talking about. And so, I would like to share two letters with my colleagues which I received from the President of Bosnia, Alija Izetbegovic, and from the Bosnian Ambassador to the United Nations, Muhamed Sacirbey. Both letters strongly support the Dole/Lieberman bill. First I would like to quote from President Izetbegovic's letter to me: The leadership of the United States of America is essential in the search for peace in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. The legislation that you and Senator Lieberman have offered is entirely supportive of peace efforts and the continuing leadership of your country in this matter. We wholeheartedly concur that the arms embargo should be terminated ``de facto'' no later than May 1, 1995. By such date the preliminary agreement on the cessation of hostilities would have expired and by then the Serbians would have opted to accept the contract group peace plan or to continue the war. We believe that this legislation would be most pivotal not only in confronting international aggression and acts of genocide against our Republic, but also in encouraging the Serbians to opt for peace. The letter from Ambassador Sacirbey states the following, and I quote, We wish to reiterate our full support for congressional efforts, in particular S. 21, to terminate the application of the U.S. arms embargo on the Government of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina * * * The elements of your proposed legislation are in complete convergence with our views. We are also of the opinion that this legislation is entirely consistent with the search for peace in our country * * * We need to keep things in perspective. The strains within NATO have not been caused by congressional efforts to lift the embargo, but the present policy itself. The credibility of the alliance has been damaged because NATO has allowed itself to become a subcontractor to the United Nations. The only way to reverse this situation is for the United States to reassert its leadership in support of a better policy. The Clinton administration was on the right track in May 1993, it is now time to get back on that track. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letters I referred to be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee for authority to meet on Friday, January 6 for a markup on S. 1, unfunded mandates.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Friday, January 6, 1995, to conduct a hearing to examine issures involving municipal, corporate and individual investors in derivative products and the use of highly leveraged investment strategies.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period for morning business, with Members entitled to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. DOLE

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

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. My pleasure would be not to do that. Mr. DOMENICI addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE. Next week means next Monday. Probably votes will occur after 3 o'clock. In any event, I know the distinguished minority leader, Senator Daschle, will be meeting at 1 o'clock to see how many amendments will be remaining on that side. We are perfectly prepared to reach agreement so that those who have amendments can stay and debate them but not vote. But we would like to vote on this one today.

Mr. DOLE. I would rather not make that request now. I know some Members have other plans this afternoon--not this Member, but other Members on both sides of the aisle--who would like to not only complete this amendment but a couple of others and maybe get an agreement. As I understand it, there will be a meeting at 1 o'clock on the other side to see if we can reach some agreement so those who had amendments could stay and debate them. Those who did not have amendments could keep their commitments, in some cases far away from here. We are trying to accommodate all Senators. So I would not want to wait until 4 o'clock. Why do we not just say we will revisit it in 30 or 45 minutes?

Mr. DOLE. I do not want to vote at 4 o'clock. But we are going to do a lot of work here today. We are not going to have one or two votes today, because we are trying to finish this bill by Monday evening. I do not see any way that is going to happen. I do not have any quarrel with the Senator from Nebraska taking all the time he wishes, up to some reasonable point. At that point, we would move to table. But because he has not had much time for debate----

Mr. DOLE. There is no rush, but I can move to table right now and we can vote at 12:55. We can always do that. We do not have to wait until 1:05. I am trying to accommodate the Senators on each side, including this Senator, but we will vote at 4 o'clock then. Would that be all right?

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, as I understand it, the Senator from Arkansas would like to speak on the amendment, and the Senator from Pennsylvania would like to speak for 3 minutes. I ask unanimous consent that we vote on the motion to waive at 1:05.

Mr. DOLE. I would say that from the majority leader's standpoint, I would like to vote on the Exon amendment very quickly. We are supposed to be meeting from 12 to 2 with the Governors. Half of that time has already elapsed and I have yet to show up at the meeting. From a personal standpoint--if we can vote on the Exon amendment, I would be happy to yield whatever time the Senator from California may need or however long the Senator from Arkansas may wish to speak following that.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I think we have had considerable debate on this issue and I do not, certainly, want to cut off anybody on the other side. But we have a problem that some of us are going to attend a dinner tonight in honor of the two leaders. Some may not be going there. But I would like to move to table the pending amendment and have the vote begin at 7:15, if that would accommodate the minority leader and the Senator from Montana. Then I need just about 1 minute. Would that be enough?

Mr. DOLE. I am going to do it habitually, but I think some may want to vote right now and leave. I have already made the motion to table the underlying amendment, the Levin amendment. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DOLE. I would be happy to add 2 minutes at the end.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the point I want to make was made before last night. After 25 minutes of debate the House passed this measure by a vote of 429 to zero. If we want to take 2 days, or 3 days I guess we can. But I want to pass the coverage proposal as advanced by the Senator from Iowa and the Senator from Connecticut. It is bipartisan. It seems to me that the sooner we can do that the sooner we can move on to other legislation. I indicated to my Republican colleagues earlier today that we intend to not only take this matter up but lobby reform, and other matters that we believe should be addressed which were addressed last year. I certainly commend the Senator from Michigan, Senator Levin, for his leadership. But we believe there are some changes that can be made even in the gift ban. This amendment would not be effective in any event until the end of May 1995. It would be my hope that by that time we will have even a better package. I hope that we can table this amendment and move to any other amendments which my colleagues may offer. But we are going to finish this bill either tonight or tomorrow or on Monday unless there is an agreement, a reasonable agreement. I should not say that we will finish it. I know that I have been in the Senate longer than that. We will try to finish the bill by tomorrow or Monday. I know Senators can prevent that from happening. So I urge my colleagues, including some of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who had misgivings about lobbying reform and the gift ban late last year, to join me in tabling this motion so we can move ahead and pass this bill without amendment. I think there is a good potential that the House may take our bill because it is a bit stronger and pass the Senate bill unless we clutter it up with amendments that require us to spend a considerable time in conference. If anybody else wishes 2 minutes on either side, I would be happy to yield. If not, is there any objection to starting the vote?

Mr. DOLE. I just need 3 minutes.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. There will be votes tomorrow, yes. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I have indicated there will be no more votes this evening. This will be the pending amendment. We will be back on the bill at 9:30 tomorrow morning, and we will be on it throughout the day tomorrow and Monday, unless we can reach some agreement. I would be prepared to entertain an agreement that would let us proceed with the amendments and postpone votes until Tuesday a.m. and then move to the unfunded mandates legislation at 2:30 p.m. on Tuesday. So we will be working on it. If we cannot reach an agreement, we will just finish this bill and proceed as we can on unfunded mandates.

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

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period for morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for not more than 5 minutes each.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, during yesterday's debate, my distinguished colleague from Iowa, Senator Harkin, incorrectly compared his current filibuster proposal with a proposal that I endorsed in 1971. I would like to take a few moments now to set the record straight. In 1971, rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate required the affirmative vote of two-thirds of those Senators present in order for cloture to be invoked. As my colleagues know, the current rule XXII requires the affirmative vote of just three-fifths of the Members duly chosen and sworn in order to invoke cloture. With this in mind, the rules change that I endorsed in 1971 is far different from the rules change proposed today by my colleague from Iowa. My proposal in 1971 would have reduced by one the number of votes required to limit debate each time a cloture petition was voted upon. On the first vote, an affirmative two-thirds of the Senators present and voting would have been required to invoke cloture; on the second vote, two-thirds less one of the Senators present and voting would have been required; on the third vote, two-thirds less two, and so on until the point of three-fifths of those present and voting was reached. In other words, under the terms of my 1971 proposal, at no time would the number of votes needed, to invoke cloture have fallen below three- fifths of those Senators present and voting. The amendment offered by my colleague from Iowa, on the other hand, contemplates that the number of votes needed to invoke cloture would decline to 51, a simple majority, after a series of attempts to invoke cloture have failed. So, Mr. President, there should be no misconceptions about where I stand. I oppose the amendment, offered by my distinguished colleague from Iowa. And Thank you for giving me the opportunity to make this clarification.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send an unrelated resolution to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. It has to do with committee assignments. I think it has been cleared on both sides.