Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I am happy to yield.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, there will be a period for morning business until 10 a.m., with Senator Leahy to speak for up to 10 minutes, Senator Gramm for up to 20 minutes, and Senator Grams for up to 10 minutes. Following morning business, the Senate will resume consideration of the terrorism prevention conference report. Under the order, motions to recommit are in order and limited to 30 minutes of debate each. Senators can expect rollcall votes on or in relation to those motions prior to a vote on adoption of the conference report. Following adoption of the conference report, there will be 60 minutes of debate prior to the vote on cloture on the motion to proceed to the Whitewater resolution. It is still possible we might consider the immigration bill today if we can get an understanding about relevant amendments. It is very important legislation and broadly supported by the American people. We would like to complete action on that and then move to the Kassebaum-Kennedy health care measure yet this week and complete action on that. That may or may not be possible, but we will do our best.

Mr. DOLE

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

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I understand Senator D'Amato and Senator Sarbanes may want to speak briefly. Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send a resolution to the desk, and I ask unanimous consent that the Senate turn to its immediate consideration.

Mr. DOLE. The Senator has correctly stated the understandings on both sides of the aisle as I see it at this time. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, is leader time reserved?

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, since the report surfaced in the Los Angeles Times that President Clinton decided to allow Iran to provide arms to the Bosnians, there has been little, if any, response from the other side of the aisle. Had there been a Republican in the White House, no doubt, the Democrats would have been all over the President. But, that is not the real issue. I am not here to be all over the President. This is not about the conduct of partisan politics, but the conduct of our foreign policy. This is about American leadership, American credibility, and Congressional oversight. That is why I met today with the chairmen of the Foreign Relations, Intelligence, Armed Services, and Judiciary Committees to discuss this serious foreign policy matter. For nearly 3 years, this administration opposed congressional efforts to lift the unjust and illegal arms embargo on Bosnia and Herzegovina. We were told, and the American people were told, that the United States was bound by the U.N. embargo on the former Yugoslavia. We were told that if America violated this embargo, we would lose support from our allies for other embargoes, such as the one against Iraq. Finally, we were told that lifting the embargo and allowing the Bosnians to have arms while U.N. forces were deployed in Bosnia, would endanger the troops of our allies. Some people are saying, well, you knew that Iran was providing arms to the Bosnians. I would like to respond to that. While we read and heard reports that Iran was smuggling arms to the Bosnians, we did not know the President and his advisers made a conscious decision to give a green light for Iran to provide arms. Indeed, those of us who advocated lifting the arms embargo--Republicans and Democrats--argued that if America did not provide Bosnia with assistance, Iran would be Bosnia's only option. In my view, the role of the President and administration officials in this matter need to be examined--even if we do not receive cooperation from the White House and the Intelligence Oversight Board-- which has been the case to date. In the meeting I held with the four committee chairmen today, we decided on the approach we would take. The Intelligence Committee will investigate the matter of whether any administration officials were engaged in covert action. The Foreign Relations Committee will review administration policy as stated and as executed, as well as the ramifications of these revelations. Let me tell you why I believe this examination is important. In short, this duplicitous policy has seriously damaged our credibility with our allies. It has also produced one of the most serious threats to our military forces in Bosnia and, according to the administration, the main obstacle to the arm and train program for the Bosnians--I am talking about the presence of Iranian military forces and intelligence officials in Bosnia. As I have said many, many times on this floor, along with many of my colleagues on the other side, had we lifted the arms embargo and had we provided the weapons, the Bosnians could have defended themselves and chances are there would not have been any American troops there now, and we would have had a peace agreement sooner and on better terms for the Bosnians. And most likely, as I said, we would not have 20,000 Americans in Bosnia at this moment. And finally, had we lifted the arms embargo on Bosnia, the United States would have done the right thing for the right reason. We would have done it openly, and we would have done it honestly. That is what this examination and these hearings will be about, because I think we owe it to the American people and we owe it to Members of Congress. As far as I know, no one knew about what was happening. We were told we just could not lift the arms embargo because of all the problems that would create with our allies and our credibility at the same time. Apparently some knew it was happening through the back door. I yield back the remainder of my leader time. Mr. HOLLINGS addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote with respect to the Special Committee to Investigate Whitewater be vitiated.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be allowed to meet during the Tuesday, April 16, 1996 session of the Senate for the purpose of conducting a hearing on the Reauthorization of the National Transportation Safety Board and the Pipeline Safety Act.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, April 16, 1996, in open session, to receive testimony on the Department of Energy's atomic energy defense activities and the fiscal year 1997 budget request and Future Years Defense Program.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Energy Research and Development of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 16, 1996, for purposes of conducting a subcommittee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 2 p.m. The purpose of the hearing is to consider S. 1646, a bill to authorize and facilitate a program to enhance safety, training; research and development, and safety education in the propane gas industry for the benefit of propane consumers and the public, and for other purposes.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian Affairs of the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Tuesday, April 16, 1996, at 10 a.m.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I hope that the Chair may lay before the Senate the conference report to accompany the terrorism bill, and I will ask that the conference report be considered as having been read, and then we can make whatever statements we want.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the Senator from Massachusetts is correct. Senator Hatch is prepared, and he will start on the conference report. We are not going to debate the immigration bill. It is being held hostage now because of the demands on the other side. If we do not want to do anything about illegal immigration, I guess the Democrats can make that happen. Most Americans, by 80 percent, think we should deal with this issue. But now we are going to be held hostage by Social Security amendments and minimum wage amendments. They have five or six others. Then they have the gall to stand up and say, ``We want to move ahead on illegal immigration.'' We know what is happening. If we can work out a time agreement on relevant amendments, we will pursue illegal immigration or the immigration bill. It passed the committee, as I understand, by a vote of 13 to 4. But if we are going to have extraneous amendments and nonrelevant amendments to help protect some of those who voted wrong on the balanced budget amendment, we could be having this every day--and every day and every day. I just hope the six on the other side who voted for a balanced budget amendment 2 years ago would now, when we have the vote sometime this month or probably next month, vote for the balanced budget amendment-- we are just a couple of votes short--and send it to the States for ratification. If three-fourths of the States ratify it, it becomes part of the Constitution. But we are now prepared to proceed on the antiterrorism conference report. Obviously, not every provision the Senate passed survived the conference. But as I think, as the Senator from Utah outlined to us in our policy luncheon, nearly every important feature in the Senate bill survived the conference, and we believe that it is a good bill that should be passed as quickly as possible so the House might act. If we can work out some agreement on immigration, we will go back to immigration. If not, we may go to something else. It does not have to proceed here one day at a time. I know some would like to frustrate any efforts on this side of the aisle. But we do have the majority, and we will try to do our best to move legislation that the American people have an interest in. Illegal immigration--wherever you go illegal immigration is a big, big issue. If we are going to be frustrated by efforts on the other side to hold the bill hostage, that is up to them. They can make it happen. Then they can explain that to the voters in November. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I object.

Mr. DOLE. As I understand it, the Senator had a modification to mine?

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, what I am going to propound when Senator Daschle arrives is consent that consideration of the immigration bill be limited to relevant amendments only. Either we will finish this bill or we will move to something else. It is my hope we can complete action on the immigration bill by tomorrow evening and then go to the Kassebaum-Kennedy health care bill. In the interim, we need to take care of the conference report on terrorism. The original bill passed the Senate last May. We are prepared, if we cannot do business on the immigration bill, to move to the conference report on terrorism. We would like to finish that so that the House might complete action on it by Thursday. I now ask unanimous consent that during the consideration of the pending immigration bill, the bill be limited to relevant amendments only.

Mr. DOLE. Maybe regulatory reform. We have over a majority. We have 58 votes; we need 60. My colleagues on the other side will not let us bring that to a vote. That costs the average family about $6,000 per year because of excessive regulations. We think it is a reasonable nonpartisan bipartisan approach to regulatory reform. Maybe that is an amendment we could look at. What I will tell the Democratic leader, I am happy to consider that, but I assume if he objects to this request, we will go on to the terrorism conference report, after a statement by the distinguished Senator from Wyoming, Senator Simpson. Maybe while we are resolving that bill, we could see if we can resolve this one. I said we passed this bill last May. It was June 7 that the terrorism bill passed by a vote of 91 to 8. We have pretty much the same bill. I hope we would not spend a great deal of time on the conference report. Then we can go back to the immigration bill if we can work out an agreement. If not----

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move we stand in recess until 2:15.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the debate on House Joint Resolution 170, further that debate on the joint resolution be limited to the following, Senator Harkin 15 minutes; Senator Byrd 15 minutes; Senator Hatfield 15 minutes. I further ask unanimous consent that no amendments be in order, and that immediately following the expiration or yielding back of time, the joint resolution be read a third time, and that the Senate proceed to vote on passage of the joint resolution, with no intervening action, provided the following Senators be recognized to speak following the vote: Senator Graham of Florida, this Senator, and Senator Kennedy of Massachusetts.

Mr. DOLE. Further, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that that agreement be in effect notwithstanding the receipt of the papers from the House.

Mr. DOLE. Let me indicate, I hope this can all be done by voice vote. I know there is one request on the other side for a rollcall vote. I think it is a simple extension. The appropriators worked all through the night. It is no one's fault they did not finish everything, because they have been working with the White House. I hope that we do not punish our colleagues who had to leave earlier in the day. So perhaps after the debate we could have a voice vote. But if necessary, I guess we will have a rollcall vote. Mr. HATFIELD addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the plaintiff in Barrett versus United States Senate is a Federal prisoner in Michigan. He has brought a civil action in Federal district court in the District of Columbia, seeking, among other things, a declaration from the court that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is unable to adjudicate his claims impartially because of its bias against prisoners. The plaintiff has named the U.S. Senate, among others, as a defendant in his lawsuit. The Senate is not, however, a proper party to this suit. In fact, the plaintiff asserts no claim against the Senate. This resolution authorizes the Senate Legal Counsel to represent the Senate in this action. S. Res. 240 Whereas, in the case of United States v. Byron C. Dale, et al., Civil No. 95-1023, in the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota, Northern Division, the defendants have named Senator Robert J. Dole as a codefendant in a counterclaim against the United States; Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(1) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 288b(a) and 288c(a)(1)(1994), the Senate may direct its counsel to defend its Members in civil actions relating to their official responsibilities: Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent Senator Dole in the case of United States v. Byron C. Dale, et al.

Mr. DOLE

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