Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I know all Senators join with me in paying tribute to Andrew Chase, who will soon be retiring from the Senate. Andrew began his Senate career July 28, 1975, as an employee of the Sergeant at Arms' custodial service operation. In 1981, Andrew was promoted to assistant supervisor of Custodial Services and served in that position until 1988, when he accepted the position of night shift foreman for the environmental service operation. Now, after more than 20 years of service to the Senate, Andrew is retiring to spend time with his wife, Brenda, and his remarkable family--14 children, 25 grandchildren, and 3 great grandchildren. Andrew is also very involved in his community of Brandywine, MD, serving as president of the usher board at the Asbury United Methodist Church, and as a volunteer with the Kidney Foundation, where he visits and educates dialysis patients on kidney transplants. On behalf of the Senate, I extend our thanks to Andrew Chase, and our best wishes for a long and happy retirement.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Well, let me say to the chairman of the Budget Committee, as I have indicated earlier, I am very disappointed because I understood the President--we have had a lot of talks the last few days on a number of issues--he indicated to me he was serious about this, because I asked him on the telephone, ``If you're not serious and we're not serious, why are we doing this? Why don't we do something else and go home?'' He indicated he was serious. I know that was not the final offer. Neither was ours the final offer. But we actually did things in our offer, real things in our offer that made a difference: Put money back into Medicare and Medicaid, more money for discretionary spending, whether it is education, environment, whatever. We thought we were in good faith. So I say to the Senator from New Mexico, I am disappointed. It seems to me we had an opportunity. This is now the 15th of December. This year is going to be over before long, and we are probably going to be right here to be able to see it leave. The question is whether or not we are serious about getting down to business. We ought to be meeting right now. The meeting ought to be going on right now. We ought to be talking about the 82 areas where we have a difference--82 areas, according to White House sources, major areas--plus probably dozens and dozens of others. So it would take all the energy we could muster between now and the 22d of December to even put together a framework of agreement, which I assume we would have to come back a couple days in January to pass under some expedited procedure. So I know it is not easy. It is not easy making tough decisions. It is easy doing, as I said, things Darman had not even thought of when he was around. Smoke and mirrors, they used to say in those days. Just save $54 billion there, but baseline----

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I think there is a phone on the plane.

Mr. DOLE. I do not make the request, then, because the Democratic leader has obviously not been able to give me the consent, so there is no need doing that. In the meantime, we will try to see if we cannot find some consensus, some agreement here, where we could have back-to-back votes at some reasonable hour. We have how many speakers left now?

Mr. DOLE. Certainly this Senator does not have any problem with back to back--anything that would expedite the process. I think most people have spoken with reference to one or two of the amendments. I do not know how many more speakers are on this side. Some have spoken a number of times. I think if we limit our speeches to one per Member, or at least two per Member, that would help some. Maybe we can have a back-to-back vote at some time. How much more time do you think it will take on your side?

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, what I want to do, if we can--I know there are some people who still want to talk. I know the Senator from Texas would like to have a vote on her amendment. I would like to have that vote, if we can, at 4 o'clock. I have just been on the phone with the President. He would like to have the vote as early as possible. I know the House is involved in debating resolutions over there. I know some of our colleagues have yet to speak, but there will still be one additional resolution; that is the Dole-McCain-Nunn-Lieberman, and others, resolution. So people could still speak in general debate. It seems to me there is no reason not to vote on the amendment by the Senator from Texas. There is no use making a request if it will be objected to. Does the Democratic leader think we can proceed on that basis and still have plenty of time for debate?

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate resume consideration of Senate Concurrent Resolution 35 and it be in order for this Senator to offer my Senate joint resolution and that no amendments or motions to commit be in order to either vehicle.

Mr. DOLE. We will do our best. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me indicate that we now have had our first vote. We would like to complete action on the concurrent resolution authored by Senators Hutchison, Nickles, and others and then have that vote very quickly if we can. I know a lot of people want to talk, but I think it is general debate. We would also like to have the vote on my joint resolution, the Dole-McCain joint resolution, sometime, hopefully by 6 o'clock this evening. So that gives us about 5 hours of debate. We have already had a number of Members, I would say about 20 Members, each requesting from 10 minutes to 15 minutes to 90 minutes. Now, we are not going to be able to accommodate everybody, or I hope they can accommodate us, and I hope we can, as much as we can, keep our remarks limited to 5 or 7 or 8 minutes, because if I just add up these requests, this will take us beyond 6 o'clock, probably 7 or 8 o'clock. And I would say as the Republican leader, we are trying to accommodate the President of the United States. So, hopefully, we will have cooperation on both sides. I think the Senator from Texas would like to have a vote about what, midafternoon, on her concurrent resolution?

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send my resolution to the desk.

Mr. DOLE. That resolution will be the second vote. The first vote will be on the Hutchison resolution. Mr. President, let me indicate at 10:05 p.m. our time, and 4:05 in the morning in Bosnia, where many Americans are now and where hundreds and thousands more will be on the way, I think we have to understand what we are about to vote on here. We are not voting on a decision to send American troops to Bosnia. That decision has been made. It was made 2 years ago by the President of the United States. Without consulting Congress, the President of the United States made that decision. So we say to those soldiers who may be on early duty there at 4 a.m. in the morning, in the bitter cold--from those of us in the warmth of the U.S. Senate, free from any danger--we are about to cast a vote. We are about to cast a vote, Sergeant Jones or Private Smith, whoever it is, to indicate that we support your efforts there. They may have some misgivings about why they are there, and we may have some doubts. I listened to the eloquent statement of Senator McCain, and I listened last evening to the final speaker of the evening, Senator Cohen from Maine, but this is not about politics. This is not about a Democratic President and a Republican majority in the U.S. Senate. This is about a lot of frightened young Americans who are in Bosnia, or on their way to Bosnia. I assume they may not have thought of it directly, but I believe they will think of it one of these days; they are going to be looking back to see if they had the support of those who represented them in the Congress of the United States. They may not be thinking of that at 4:10 a.m. So this is a very difficult debate for Members of Congress. It is a difficult debate because Congress was not part of the decisionmaking with respect to sending troops. Congress was not consulted. Congress was told of the President's commitment to send troops after the commitment was made. And then we were faced with the dilemma of undermining that commitment or acquiescing in a military mission with serious flaws. And make no mistake about it, the President has said he made this decision and he takes responsibility. It was his decision to send troops and his decision alone. A lot of Members of Congress, some on both sides of the aisle--in fact, 69 of us voted the last time to lift the arms embargo to give the Bosnians an opportunity to defend themselves--which is precisely the reason we are here tonight--so that we would not be sending American troops or making that decision. But the President rejected that. That was bipartisan in the House and in the Senate. We opposed the arms embargo. As I said, we repeatedly voted to lift it. Some of my colleagues were concerned about that. We have two resolutions before us tonight. I understand that a number of Senators support the resolution offered by the Senator from Texas; the Senators from Oklahoma, Senator Inhofe and Senator Nickles; and a number of others. That resolution emphasizes very clearly that we oppose the decision to deploy troops. No doubt about it. We disagree, we oppose. It is his decision, and he said as much as recently as, I think, Sunday on ``60 Minutes.'' However, a vote on this resolution does not provide our troops, who are now in Bosnia at 4:08 in the morning, and the other thousands who will be there tomorrow, or next week, or next month--I think it makes a point, but it does not make a policy. It does not effect a policy. It does not make the job our forces have to do any safer or any easier, nor does it provide a plan to achieve a military balance in Bosnia or increase the chances for successful completion of our mission. I assume most of our colleagues will vote for that resolution. If they do, I wish they would follow up their signal to President Clinton by voting ``yes'' on the Dole-McCain-Nunn resolution. I want to be clear about what that resolution does and does not do. This resolution does not endorse the President's decision. It does not endorse the agreement reached in Dayton. It does support our men and women in uniform. It does limit the mission to military tasks only and requires a realistic exit strategy based on the goal of Bosnian self-reliance. To put it simply, President Clinton has a plan to get us into Bosnia; this resolution shows us a way out. It sets three conditions on the deployment of American forces: No. 1, it limits the mission to implementing military provisions of the accord. No Somalia-style nation building, for example. It insists on an exit strategy linked to military balance so Bosnia can defend itself. Somebody said that is bad policy because if they are armed and trained we may have to stay longer. I do not understand that argument. We have been debating on this floor for 2 years that we ought to arm and train the Bosnians and lift the arms embargo so they can defend themselves. That is precisely what we wish to do here. No. 3 also provides U.S. leadership on an immediate effort to provide Bosnia that means to defend itself. I think if these conditions are met they will help enhance the safety of our forces and assure that they can withdraw in a timely manner and without triggering a resumption of hostilities. Let us be clear, setting a date is not an exit strategy. In fact, many will argue that if we set a date nothing will happen until that date expires, and then hostilities will recur. I suggest that I think we have been able to perform a valuable service here for our colleagues regardless of their feelings about the decision. I did not agree with it. You do not agree with it--maybe some do agree with the decision. The decision has been made. The deployment started. Our goal should be a Bosnia that is self-reliant, able to defend itself without depending on the United States or any outside force. I want to emphasize just a few points on this critical issue. First, the word ``lead'' is essential. Without U.S. leadership, this will not happen. Leading does not mean going it alone but it does mean acting like the sole remaining superpower. Second, our language makes it clear that the efforts to arm and train will take place separate and apart from NATO, IFOR; no United States military forces in NATO operation will be involved enabling Bosnia to defend itself. Finally, this resolution states that the Bosnians should be provided with assistance of the highest possible quality--American where necessary--and that of other countries when sufficient. I also point out this resolution requires the President report extensively on his plan to enable Bosnia to provide for its own defense and on all aspects of the military and civilian aspects of the operation. I want to say a few words about Senator McCain and his leadership on national security issues. From his sacrifice during Vietnam--and I know I was not standing here; I was not in leadership, I was standing back there somewhere. I was wearing a John McCain bracelet, proudly--a POW bracelet--and arguing with my Democratic colleagues on the other side not to cut off funding in the Vietnam war. I led debate on this floor for 7 weeks in an effort to derail those who would cut off funding while John McCain was in a little box over there in prison and there were thousands like him and thousands and thousands of Americans. The theory was just cut off funding. The war will end. That is not the way it works. So John McCain came back, others came back, and others did not come back as Senator McCain said earlier. Then he became a freshman Congressman and opposed the deployment in Lebanon in 1983. It seems to me, not that I have any more insight than anybody else in this body, but there is something about a relationship that you build up in the service and you understand one thing: How important support is from America--whether it is your family, whether it is your little hometown, whether it is your State, whether it is the Congress of the United States. I say to Senator McCain and many others who were prisoners of war in Vietnam, no one works any harder on the issues of war and peace. I did not agree with Senator McCain on normalizing relations with Vietnam, but he was there and I was not. No one takes his responsibility more seriously. We could not have reached this agreement without his almost minute-by-minute involvement. Let me say one other thing about leadership: It is not easy. The easiest vote is no, no, no. I recall being on the floor in this position in January 1991, the 10th, 11th, and 12th, when we had troops in the gulf. President Bush had decided to come to Congress and ask for support. I remember at the time we had a very good debate--3 days of it--Democrats and Republicans, and I do not question anybody's motives. The thing that struck me as I looked at it at the time and as I look back at it now, not a single member of the Democratic leadership in the House or the Senate would stand up on this floor or the House floor and support President Bush. They did not have to agree with President Bush. I do not agree with President Clinton. But the troops were there. I thought that was a tragic mistake. You pay a price for leadership. Some will have short-term political gain and some just truly feel we should not be doing anything and that the only vote is no. I ask my colleagues, it is now 17 after 4 o'clock a.m. in Bosnia, and Americans are there, so if we cut off funding this morning, I do not know what would have happened. If we pass the Hutchison resolution, I do not know what will happen. I hope if we pass the Dole-McCain-Nunn, et al., resolution that we will have provided an exit strategy, a way to extricate Americans by arming and training Bosnians, so that they can be an independent force and so we can go home, so that those Americans who are there today at 18 after 4 o'clock a.m. in the morning will not be there next Christmas. That is what this debate is all about. It is not easy. I have had a lot of mail, a lot of phone calls, from a lot of people, who I do not think understand the issue. The issue we are voting on tonight is not a decision to send American troops. Let me conclude with that. We can posture and complain about the President's decision. I do not like it. He knows I do not like it. I told him I do not like it. I said publicly I do not like it. If we had our way, we would have lifted the embargo and we would not be talking about sending troops. That is our argument. I think it would have been correct. I guess our decision is whether we are going to send a message to all the families in America, to all the troops who are on the way to Bosnia, plus all the other American forces who someday may be engaged in some conflict, because we do have a responsibility from time to time. They will ask themselves, do we have the support of the American people, of our families and of our representatives? I think that is what this debate is all about. I hope that is how it is received by the people who watch or listen or read the Record or listen to each other. I ask my colleagues to think very carefully. We are going to be debating this. I assume this is just the first debate. A month from now, 2 months from now, 3 months from now, 4 months from now, something happens, there will be other debates and other efforts made. But this is the important, this is the first step. This is a signal to the American forces that we support you. We support you, as we should. Finally, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record an exchange I have had with the President on his assurances that the Bosnians will be provided with arms and the training they need. I think the letters are very important. It is part of the legislative history, because the President has given his word that that training will be provided and arms will be furnished. And, again, that is very important. It may be lost on someone now, but it is going to be very important not a year from now, as the Senator from Maine said last night, 9 months from now, 9 months from now is when it starts. If they are not trained, and if we have to wait 6 months, it may be lost. So, it is up to us. If not now, when? This is the time to support American forces.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I do not have a problem with that, unless somebody has already made plans on voting at 12:30 and then doing something else off the Hill on either side.

Mr. DOLE. The vote is for 20 minutes.

Mr. DOLE. There are no time limits. We will just get a sequence. The only time limit is that the President would like to have us complete action on these by 6 or 7 o'clock so they can go to the House and they can be addressed there, if not tonight, tomorrow, shortly after they sign the peace treaty in Paris. So we are trying to accommodate the administration here.

Mr. DOLE. Yes, it will.

Mr. DOLE. Senators Specter, Frist, and Domenici.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DOLE. Absolutely.

Mr. DOLE. So we have the Senator from Connecticut, the Senator from Nebraska, the Senator from South Dakota, we will be accepting cosponsors throughout the day. I will proceed for 2 or 3 minutes before the vote on this bill. I will speak later on the Hutchison amendment and on my own amendment. Let me speak to the Hefley resolution because I think it is important. Just for the record, I went back and had the Congressional Research Service check my votes and the debates I was participating in between 1969 and 1973 when it came to cutting off funds in Vietnam. We had one debate that lasted 7 weeks, and I was the leader of the effort not to cut off funds because we had people like John McCain who were in prison, and we had other young men and women who were on the ground in Vietnam. I thought it would have been a tragedy. We had long, rancorous, heated debates, on the so-called Cooper-Church amendments-- Senator Cooper from Kentucky and Senator Church from Idaho. So let me say on the so-called resolution before us now, and having a lot of experience in efforts to try to avoid cutting off funds once we have our young men and women committed somewhere around the world, we have a couple of choices. We can cut off funds for this operation and our forces who are already underway; second, we can loudly protest the President's decision and express our opposition; third, we can require the President to take measures that will enhance the safety of our troops and ensure that they will return quickly--without their withdrawal leading to resumption of hostilities. I have given this matter a lot of thought, and I have been engaged in a lot of these debates on the Senate floor. I have thought about my own personal experience during World War II and deliberations I have had since that time. I have thought about the American troops spending a Christmas overseas in the mountains of Europe. I have also thought about the experience of our brave war heroes like Senator John McCain and Bob Kerrey. John McCain was in a Vietnamese prison while tens of thousands of Americans were marching to protest the war, and Congress regularly debated cutting off funds for United States military operations in Southeast Asia. As some may remember, the Congress spent weeks--even months--on debating Cooper-Church, McGovern-Hatfield, and other measures to cut funding for the war in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. I recall that in the spring of 1970, I led a filibuster against the Cooper-Church amendment cutting off funds for military operations in Cambodia and Laos. In that debate, I offered an amendment that would have allowed the President to waive the funding restrictions if he determined United States citizens were being held as prisoners of war in Cambodia by North Vietnam or the Viet Cong. This amendment failed. Believe it or not, the amendment failed by 36 to 54, and Cooper-Church passed, but only after troop withdrawal had begun. Mr. President, while I understand opposition to and disagreement with the President's decision to send American ground forces to Bosnia, I believe that action to cut off funds for this deployment is wrong. It is wrong because it makes our brave young men and women bear the brunt of a decision not made by them, but by the Commander in Chief. I will vote against H.R. 2606, sponsored by Representative Hefley, which was passed by the House last month. H.R. 2606 prohibits any use of Department of Defense funds for deployment of United States Armed Forces on the ground in Bosnia participating in the NATO implementation force--unless such funds have been specifically appropriated by subsequent law. There has been no appropriation for this operation, so the effect would be to cut off funds to our troops who are on the way or already on the ground in Bosnia. I do not believe we should limit the funds for food, supplies, and ammunition for our troops. It was wrong during Vietnam, and it is wrong now. I believe that passing the Hefley resolution would undermine our troops, as well as our credibility. I believe that even at this late date, the Congress can play a constructive role--supporting the troops by enhancing their prospects for a timely and safe withdrawal, and ensuring that there is a military balance upon the departure of our forces. President Clinton does not have an exit strategy for our troops. Let us be clear: A date is not an exit strategy. In my view, it would be irresponsible to send thousands of American forces in without a concrete plan to bring them out. We will be debating that at a later time. Furthermore, we need to do what we can to make certain that the sacrifices being made now--by our men and women in uniform, by the U.S. taxpayer--are not for nought. It would be inexcusable to undertake this immense endeavor, only to leave Bosnia, a year later, in the same situation it is in now--virtually defenseless and at the mercy of its bigger and stronger neighbors. Later today, we will have an opportunity to vote on the Hutchison- Inhofe and Dole-McCain resolutions. Now, we should speak decisively in support of our troops and defeat H.R. 2606. This is not the way to go--cutting off funds. As I have said, in all the debates that I have engaged in, these are the records of my votes between 1969 and 1973. It never seemed appropriate for me, when you had young men like John McCain, a prisoner of war, that we would cut off funds in the U.S. Congress, and I still have that same attitude today.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senator Warner be inserted into the Republican spot there, following the Senator from Nebraska, Senator Kerrey.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on H.R. 2606.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me thank all of my colleagues, as I have indicated before. On tomorrow, we will take up the Interior conference report, with 6 hours of debate. We will start that at 10:30 a.m. From 9:30 to 10:30, we will have a period for the transaction of morning business.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I am pleased to introduce the Senior Citizens' Freedom to Work Act with my colleagues, Senators McCain and Roth. This bill would provide long overdue relief for our senior citizens. It would remove a significant impediment that deters seniors from continuing to work. Under the bill, seniors could earn up to $30,000 by the year 2002 without affecting their Social Security benefits. I intend to work for enactment of the legislation this year to begin immediately lifting the unreasonably low earnings limit. We will phase in the increase over the next 7 years from the current level of $11,280 to $30,000. This legislation is important for the economy. Continuation of the current policy, which does not utilize the experience and productivity of our seniors, is wasteful and short-sighted. This legislation is also important for the protection of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. The bill clarifies that the Secretary of the Treasury is not authorized to under invest and/or disinvest Social Security and Medicare trust fund monies in Federal securities or obligations in order to avoid the limitations on the public debt. I urge my colleagues in the Senate to support this effort. Specifically, I urge my colleagues on the Finance Committee to join with me to report the bill out of committee tomorrow.