Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, was leader's time reserved?

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, today I take great pride in recognizing Boy Scout Troop 7 from Topeka, KS, for 75 years of honorable Scouting service. If ever a troop has exemplified the high ideals of Scouting, Troop 7 has. These young men have not only been of great service to their community since 1920, but 147 of them have risen to a rank few achieve, that of Eagle Scout. The young men of Troop 7 have dedicated themselves to becoming conscientious and responsible citizens with the help of their adult volunteers. The Scout oath and law instill moral uprightness and the precious selflessness of duty to others, while the motto, ``Be Prepared,'' entreats them to never rest on their laurels. This untiring endeavor to personal fulfillment and service to others is a standard of excellence that will challenge them throughout their lives. Mr. President, it is only fitting that we honor the young men and the adult leaders of Troop 7 on the occasion of their diamond anniversary. After all, Scouting has only been in the United States for 85 years, which makes Troop 7 one of the oldest in the country. With their record of excellence, I am confident that Troop 7 will continue to embody the spirit of Scouting for many years to come.

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 7:15 p.m.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I send a second-degree amendment to the Smith amendment to the desk.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, we now return to important legislation to ban a reprehensible procedure that has no place in a civilized society. The ban on the so-called partial-birth abortions passed the House by a vote of 288 to 139 on November 1. The Senate called for a hearing on the legislation before the Committee on the Judiciary which was held on November 17. The testimony before the Judiciary Committee reinforced what we already knew--this is a straightforward and narrowly crafted bill that bears no similarity to the caricature offered by those who oppose the bill. Thus, for example, the hearing highlighted what medical authorities have already made clear--there is no situation where the life of a mother is at risk that calls for a partial-birth abortion. After all, this is a procedure that takes place over several days. In short, arguments about protecting the life of the mother are merely an attempt to scare people and avoid defending the indefensible. Nonetheless, since there is no situation where the life of the mother calls for a partial-birth abortion, there is no reason not to make clear with explicit language that this legislation would not apply in any situation where the life of the mother is endangered. I therefore support the Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Smith, in taking this issue off the table. Mr. President, this is a bill that deserves overwhelming bipartisan support. This is our opportunity to show the American people that we can rise above the argument that says that compassion must give way to a rigid ideology that refuses to recognize any constraints of decency. I therefore urge my colleagues to support Senator Smith's amendment and to support the bill on final passage. I now understand the Senator from Arkansas is going to set these amendments aside and offer a different amendment.

Mr. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent that further reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, finally Saturday night another of our colleagues announced his retirement. Mr. President, 40 years ago, then-Senator John Kennedy wrote a best- selling book called ``Profiles in Courage.'' It consisted of biographies of a number of U.S. Senators who took courageous positions in their time. If a similar book was written today, I have no doubt that it would include a biography of our colleague, Senator Alan Simpson. As my colleagues know, Senator Simpson returned to his home town of Cody, WY, this weekend to announce that he would not be a candidate for a fourth term in the U.S. Senate. Again, I had the pleasure of watching about 45 minutes of his retirement speech to the Cody Chamber of Commerce on C-SPAN. In his announcement, however, Senator Simpson left no doubt that his final year in the Senate would be no different from the first 17--from immigration to entitlement reform, he will continue to courageously tackle the toughest and most controversial of issues, calling them as he sees them, and letting the cards fall where they may. Al Simpson is a man of strong opinions, but he also is someone who knows [[Page S 18014]] how to count votes and how to get things done. As Republican whip for 10 years, Al was a trusted member of our leadership team. He made being Republican leader a much easier job--and all Senators will attest to the fact that with his unique sense of humor, Al has made serving in the Senate much more enjoyable. Senator Simpson has served in Washington for 17 years, and although he and his wife, Ann, have devoted themselves to many cultural and charitable causes here in the Nation's capital. Al Simpson never forgot that Wyoming was home. The great Alf Landon once said that ``there are some intelligent people in Washington. But there are more of them in Kansas.'' Al Simpson never forgot that there are also more of them in Wyoming, and he has never tired of fighting for returning power to where it belongs--to the people of Wyoming and our other 49 States. I have long thought that Al embodies the ``American spirit'' that many Americans associate with Wyoming and with the American cowboy. He is honest, independent, and judges people not by money or position--but by character. Al's father also represented Wyoming here in this Chamber. And when Milward Simpson passed away in 1993, Al delivered a very moving eulogy on the Senate floor. I re-read that eulogy the other day, and it struck me that the words spoken about a father, could also be applied to the son. Al Simpson said: My father was a man who did not just take little philosophies and paste them on the wall and then ignore them and yet say, ``I live by that.'' No, he did live by those things that he told us . . . . and one of those things he told us was ``I cannot tell you how to succeed, but I can sure tell you how to fail--and that is to try and please everybody.'' Mr. President, Al Simpson is retiring from the Senate, but he is not retiring from life. He will continue to make a difference. He will continue to live by his philosophies. And he will continue to succeed, because no matter what, Al Simpson won't try to please everybody--and Wyoming and America would want it no other way.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, it will be the majority leader's intention to move to proceed to House Joint Resolution 79, the constitutional amendment regarding flag desecration, at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, December 6. I hope between now and then we will have consent to go to that. We would like to complete action on this bill on December 7. I know there has been an objection raised as to consideration. I hope we do not have to file cloture to proceed to this very important piece of legislation and that my colleagues may cooperate with us. If it takes that, we will proceed on that basis. I know we have at least 60 votes to proceed and I hope we have 60 votes if cloture is needed on the amendment itself. We can expect votes to occur possibly on the constitutional amendment and can expect amendments to the partial-birth abortions bill. Also, for the information of all my colleagues, the schedule for the next few days is as follows: As I said, tomorrow we will start at 10 a.m. on flag burning, or debate a motion to proceed to that measure; at 5 p.m., resume the partial-birth abortions bill. Therefore, late sessions can be anticipated. On Thursday and Friday, complete action on partial-birth abortions if not previously disposed of; resume and, hopefully, complete action on the constitutional amendment regarding flag desecration. Also, the Senate could be asked to consider any available appropriations conference reports once received from the House. We expect to receive State, Justice, Commerce from the House on Wednesday afternoon. And then the following week, the State Department reorganization bill, S. 1441, if agreement cannot be reached to activate the original consent agreement of September 29, 1995, we will start on that bill on Monday. Other items next week: Available appropriations conference reports; H.R. 660, fair housing exemption bill, hopefully under a time agreement of 1 hour. It may be that we can dispose of that this week. There will be a Bosnia resolution next week. We are still in the process of drafting that resolution. We have had meetings today, and we hope to have additional discussions tomorrow and the next day. It is my hope that we can have some resolution that can be supported by a majority of our colleagues. I am not certain what day next week that will come up. It is very likely next week there will also be a conference report on welfare reform. I think we have about concluded the conference. I just ask my colleagues, the original bill passed in the Senate by a vote of 87 to 12. We believe we have retained most of the Senate provisions in the conference, and I ask my colleagues on both sides--this bill had strong bipartisan support--to take a close look. Eighty-eight percent of the American people want welfare reform. We will have it on the floor, we hope, next week. We hope the President of the United States will sign it. In my view, it is a good resolution of differences between the House and the Senate. We still have one or two minor--well not minor--issues in disagreement we hope to resolve tomorrow, and then we hope to bring it up by midweek next week.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the following military nominations reported out of the Armed Services Committee today: Thomas Schwartz and Paul Funk. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirm, en bloc; that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, en bloc; that any statements relating to the nominations appear at the appropriate place in the Record; that the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; and that the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, 45 years ago a young political science professor went to Silverton, OR, to announce his candidacy for the Oregon State House of Representatives. In the years that followed, Mark Hatfield would return to Silverton to announce his candidacy for the Oregon State Senate, for secretary of state, for Governor, and for U.S. Senator. And each and every time Mark Hatfield put his name on the ballot, Oregonians responded by voting for him in overwhelming numbers. Not only did Mark Hatfield never lose an election, he never lost the total trust and respect or Oregonians. Last Friday, Senator Hatfield returned again to Silverton. Only this time, he did not announce his candidacy for a sixth term in this Chamber--even though he would easily have been reelected. Instead, Senator Hatfield announced that he will retire from the Senate at the end of the 104th Congress so that he can return to Oregon. And I might say, I had the pleasure of watching much of his retirement speech on C-SPAN. And when Senator Hatfield leaves this Chamber for the final time, he will leave behind an enduring legacy of statesmanship, leadership, dignity, and integrity. No matter if any Senator agreed or disagreed with Mark Hatfield, no one could ever doubt that he was standing up for what the he believed was right for Oregon and for America. And just as Oregonians have grown to count on Senator Hatfield's leadership, many Senators have also grown to count on his friendship. Many of us will never forget the day when our late colleague Senator Stennis was shot in a burglary attempt, and how Senator Hatfield raced to the hospital to be with Senator Stennis, and how he personally manned the telephone lines, responding to inquiries about the condition of Senator Stennis. Senator Hatfield also served his country during World War II, where he saw battle at Iwo Jima and Okinawa, and was among the first U.S. servicemen to enter Hiroshima following the atomic explosion. With Senator Hatfield's retirement, the Senate will also be losing one of the Nation's leading scholars of the life of Abraham Lincoln. And those colleagues who have not seen Senator Hatfield's Lincoln collection are now on notice that they have about a year to do so. In one of the last letters that Lincoln wrote, he said that his goal was not just that America be a Union of States, but also a ``Union of hearts and hands.'' That goal has also been the life's work of Mark Hatfield, and the Senate, Oregon, and America, are all better because of him.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I am pleased that we are able to consider the conference report to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act today. I want to commend my colleagues, the chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator D'Amato, and the chairman of [[Page S 17983]] the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, for their leadership in working out the necessary compromise allowing us to bring this bill to the floor. I also want to commend my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, whose involvement in this issue is proof that there is nothing partisan about securities litigation reform. Our securities markets provide the fuel that drives our economy. When these markets run efficiently, allocating capital to established companies and to newer, emerging businesses, we all win with more economic growth, more jobs, and a stronger economy. Unfortunately, a handful of lawyers today devote their professional lives to gaming the system by filing strike suits alleging violations of the Federal securities laws--all in the hope that the defendant will quickly settle in order to avoid the expense of prolonged litigation. The lawyers who file these suits often rely on professional plaintiffs, shareholders with only a small stake in the company, but who are nonetheless willing to stand on the sidelines ready to lend their names to the litigation. Needless to say, these strike suits are often baseless. If a stock price falls, these lawyers will file a class action suit claiming that the company was too optimistic in their projections. If the stock price soars, these same lawyers will file suit saying that the company withheld information that caused shareholders to sell too early. In effect, the lawsuits act as a litigation tax that raises the cost of capital and chills disclosure of important corporate information to shareholders. High-tech, high-growth companies are particularly vulnerable to these baseless strike suits because of the volatility of their stock prices. This bill will reduce the number of meritless securities fraud cases, while protecting investors, by proposing several commonsense reforms: First, it diminishes the likelihood that these cases will be driven by lawyers, instead of real plaintiffs by allowing the most adequate plaintiff to be the party with the greatest financial interest. Second, it clamps down on skyrocketing attorney's fees by requiring that fees be awarded as a percentage of the actual recovery based on the efforts of the attorney. Third, it retains joint and several liability for those who knowingly commit fraud, but establishes a system of proportionate liability for other, less culpable defendants. Fourth, it adopts the second circuit's pleading standard. This requires plaintiffs to point out specific statements that are supposed to be misleading, and removes the ``sue them all and let the judge sort it out'' mentality. Fifth, it encourages companies to disclose information to their shareholders by granting limited protection to predictive statements made in good faith. Statements that are knowingly false, however, are not protected by this safe harbor. Mr. President, with this bill the Republican-led Congress sends a clear message. We have fulfilled our responsibility to provide companies and investors protection from frivolous lawsuits, ensuring that America will be able to compete in the global marketplace. President Clinton has not indicated whether or not he will support this bill. But the choice is clear. In my view, if he supports this bill, he supports creating jobs for Americans. If he opposes it, he only supports enriching the pockets of wealthy trial lawyers at the expense of consumers and investors. In closing, I again commend Chairmen D'Amato and Domenici, and Senator Dodd for their work on this critical legislation and I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be deemed read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table and any statements relating to the bill be placed at the appropriate place in the Record. [[Page S 18036]]

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, anyone who has been to the Kansas City and Johnson County area during any of the last 6 election years could not go far without seeing campaign signs that said ``Jan Can.'' The signs were referring to Jan Meyers, who, since 1985, has represented the Third District of Kansas in the U.S. House of Representatives with great ability. Congresswoman Meyers announced this week in Overland Park that this will be her final term in Congress, and I wanted to take a moment to pay tribute to my friend and colleague. Jan Meyers' dedication to public service extends nearly 30 years. Before her election to Congress, she served 5 years as an Overland Park City councilwoman, and 12 years as a Kansas State senator. Throughout her years in the political arena, Jan Meyers has earned a reputation as a public servant of great competence, compassion, and common sense. During her years here in Washington, she has devoted a great deal of time to fighting the scourge of illegal drugs. She successfully fought to ensure that operators of common carriers involved in accidents that cause death and injury while under the influence of drugs and alcohol would face tough criminal penalties. Congresswoman Meyers also spoke out on the need to reform welfare and to return power to the States well before those causes gained favor here in Washington. But perhaps Congresswoman Meyers' greatest sphere of influence involved issues affecting small business. Kansas is a small business State, and as ranking member, and now chairman of the House Small Business Committee, Jan Meyers never stopped fighting to reduce the regulatory and tax burdens on America's small businessmen and women. I look forward to working with Congresswoman Meyers in the year ahead, and wish her, her husband Dutch, and their family many years of health and happiness.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate passed two important bills impacting the charitable community--H.R. 2525 and H.R. 2519. Enactment of these bills was urgently needed to put a stop to unwarranted litigation and ensure that charities can continue to accept gift annuities from generous donors across the country. For these reasons it was important for me to clear the way to immediate passage of the bills. Charities are critical to the Nation and to communities across the country. And charitable gift annuities are an important method for them to raise much-needed funds. This legislation will allow universities, hospitals, and other important local and national charities to continue their significant contributions to communities and the needy. I commend my colleagues in the House and Senate for working quickly to craft this legislation. Almost 2,000 charities across the country have been defendants in unnecessary and unwarranted litigation. This congressional act will end the litigation, freeing charities to continue their important work.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move that the Senate stand in recess until 11 a.m.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me just take a moment to thank my colleague from Arizona. He knows as well as I do what the public opinion polls are showing; 80 percent, in some cases higher, ``Do not send the troops.'' As we have tried to point out, that is not the option anymore. The option is to have an exit strategy and to make certain that in that exit strategy we train the Bosnians so they can be an independent force to defend themselves so we can come home; second, to take every step we can to ensure the casualties will be as low as possible. The Senator from Arizona is not unaccustomed to courage and making courageous stands--this is another example--in the face of public opinion. But that is what leadership is all about. I have to believe, once the Americans are there starting next week and once the images on television are of Americans and the children and the families and the security they have, the attitude of Americans will change. The Senator from Arizona made a point that I think deserves repeating. That is, NATO--NATO has been very important. It has preserved freedom for a half century. We have given our word. In effect, we are NATO, as far as I am concerned, the United States. Without the United States as a partner in NATO, you would not have NATO. But, in addition, the President of the United States, without consulting Congress, but it was the President of the United States in 1993 who, in effect, gave his word that the United States, if there were peace to keep, would send 20,000 Americans as part of a 60,000- member force. Then we invited all the parties to come to Ohio, to Dayton, OH, where they stayed for about 3 weeks. The implication was clear. The Americans had taken over the negotiations. The peace talks had broken down. I talked with the Prime Minister of Bosnia less than 3 hours ago. They were all packed, ready to go home; then Mr. Milosevic, the President of Serbia, made some concessions. But the implication throughout was that the United States would be the principal player. You cannot have peace, according to him, unless the United States is present. Not that they do not have great respect for the Europeans who have been there and the U.N. Protection Forces for the past several years, who lost about 200 lives total. So, it seems to me that our responsibility now is not to say we are going to pass some resolution here that says--it is only two lines long: ``The Senate is opposed to deploying U.S. forces.'' Let me repeat. They are going to be there next week, about 3,000. They are already deployed and the others will follow. We do have some responsibility, when the President of the United States, whoever that may be, gives his word to the international community that this is what will happen and this is a responsibility we will assume. So, I hope we have a good debate. We hope to start it next Wednesday, if we can. It is not going to be easy. It is not politically popular. But it is the right thing to do, and sometimes it takes a while for people to understand when you do the right thing. So I commend my friend from Arizona, Senator McCain. I know he understands, probably better than anyone on this floor, what loss of freedom and loss of liberty might be like--what it was like for him for several years. So this is about America. This is about American forces. This is about our responsibility as Congress--not about Republicans and Democrats. It is about the Congress. As the Senator said, we could cut off funds. That would be vetoed. I do not think anybody wants to cut off funds. And I do not suggest everybody who has a different view is posturing. But there will be some of that. There always is. So, this is a very important time in American history. It is a very important commitment that the President has made. We wish he would have listened to us--this Senator, the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Connecticut--about lifting the arms embargo a year ago. We would not be talking about sending American troops now. But that did not happen. So here we are. I believe the Congress will do the right thing. We will end up supporting U.S. forces. We will attempt to do everything we can to reduce casualties, and we will have an exit strategy in the resolution. We believe it will be bipartisan. We hope that we can have the same spirit of bipartisanship in the House and that we can send a resolution to the President for his signature --if not next week, the first part of the following week. I yield the floor. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, for the information of all of my colleagues, we have morning business until 2 p.m. today with Senators to speak for up to 5 minutes each, except for the following: Senator Daschle, or his designee, 60 minutes; and Senator Thomas for 60 minutes. It is possible that the VA-HUD conference report will arrive from the House today. If that should happen, we will take that up today. Therefore, rollcall votes are possible during today's session. As my colleagues know, the budget negotiations are underway. They start at 11 o'clock in the morning, and they meet again in the afternoon. So that will be an ongoing process, and I assume for the next 8 to 10 days. If we can complete action on VA-HUD and send that to the White House, that would still leave five appropriations bills that have not been acted upon. I am hoping the President will sign the Defense appropriations bill today. If not, it will become law, which will occur at 12 midnight today. It is a very important bill, and particularly important in view of the President's plan to deploy 20,000 American troops in Bosnia because it contains money for that purpose. It is my hope that the President will sign the bill. (Mr. FRIST assumed the chair)

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the entire Nation has its attention on the deployment of United States Forces to Bosnia. Congressional hearings on the peace agreement began this week. The President received a NATO troop deployment plan for the implementation force today. Many of my colleagues have made statements on the issue. I have long urged that we lift the arms embargo in Bosnia and let the Bosnians defend themselves. This would have been the best option for Bosnia and the United States. It would have been the legally, morally, and strategically correct approach. Lifting the arms embargo would have also been the best way to avoid sending United States troops to Bosnia. In fact, had we done that, lifted the arms embargo, we would not be talking today about deployment of U.S. Forces. The record should be clear. We are where we are today because the President repeatedly--and let me repeat, repeatedly--rejected Congress' bipartisan effort to lift the embargo. We should also be clear at this end of Pennsylvania Avenue. It is time for a reality check in the Congress. The fact is that President Clinton has decided to send United States Forces to Bosnia. The fact is that these troops will be sent--and indeed some are already there. The fact is by next week, there will be a couple thousand American soldiers on the ground in Bosnia. The President has the constitutional power as Commander in Chief to send these forces. The Congress cannot stop this troop deployment from happening. The President and senior advisers have repeatedly said they will proceed with the deployment, whatever the Congress does. If we would try to cut off funds we would harm the men and women in the military who have already begun to arrive in Bosnia. So we should find a way, if possible, to support the American men and women in uniform on their way to Bosnia and who will be in Bosnia--I assume a full 20,000, they say, by February. Like all Americans, I have real concerns about this operation. First, I am concerned about the possibility of American casualties. The men and women of our Armed Forces are volunteers. But that does not make their lives any less valuable than those of draftees or any other category. They know the risks. We have an obligation to do all we can to reduce those risks. We can reduce the risk to American Forces by limiting their mission to enforcing only military provisions of the peace agreement: That means no Somalia-like nation-building. We can also reduce the threat to U.S. Forces by making it crystal clear that any attack on our troops will be met with an overwhelming, rapid, and decisive response. No more cumbersome command arrangements limiting ability to retaliate--no more U.N. second-guessing or dual key veto authority. The United Nations will not be involved. This is a NATO operation. It will be an American general making these decisions. The second major concern is that American Forces will be drawn into a quagmire with no way out. Many people are concerned about that because the administration has not articulated an exit strategy; and setting an arbitrary date is not an exit strategy. Bring them out in a year--what does that mean? That is not a strategy. Who knows what the strategy is? The President has a plan to get us into Bosnia but no realistic plan to get us out. Keeping Bosnia defenseless is not an exit strategy. Relying on Utopian arms control schemes is no exit strategy. Relying on unnamed third parties is not an exit strategy. The United States must have its own exit strategy to control its own destiny. We should not be dependent on the good will or actions of other nations. The only way to make certain that United States Forces will be able to leave in a timely and honorable way is to ensure that the Bosnians are provided the means to defend themselves when we leave. What is needed is a concrete effort, led by the United States, to arm and train the Bosnians. This effort should not be contingent on so- called builddown provisions in the Dayton agreement. I understand administration officials said this morning that the United States or NATO would not be involved in enabling Bosnia to defend itself. In my view, it is an abdication of responsibility to rely on unspecified third countries to create the conditions that allow withdrawal of American forces. The sooner we start to enable Bosnians to defend themselves the sooner United States Forces can come home. In my view, the definition of success of this deployment must include a real end to the war--that is only possible with the creation of a stable military balance which enables Bosnia to defend itself. Anything less simply exposes American Forces to great risks in order to monitor a temporary interlude in the fighting. In other words, I guess if they all came home next year there might be a temporary interlude to get us through the November activities of 1996, and I am not certain it would last very long. Over the coming days--in fact, we have been working on it a couple of days--we will be working on a resolution that I hope the majority of my colleagues can support. We have not yet seen the final NATO implementation plan. In fact, as I said earlier, the President just received it today. I do not want to make a snap judgment. I hope we can fashion a resolution that offers support to our military forces, that helps reduce the risk they face, and that ensures American Forces come home as soon as possible with a successful mission accomplished. I urge my colleagues to not make this a partisan issue. I have been debating issues like this in the Senate floor for 20-some years. I was debating cut off of funds in the Vietnam war, and my colleague, Senator McCain was a prisoner of war. We stood on this floor day after day after day beating off efforts to shut off funding which I thought would have a direct impact on men in the service like John McCain and others who were in that part of the world. We had some success. Let me suggest that the overwhelming votes to lift the arms embargo were bipartisan. They were Democrats, Republicans, and they were bipartisan with bipartisan leadership. I believe the best foreign policy is conducted with bipartisan support. I know that the Senate votes on Lebanon and the gulf war were much more partisan in my view than they should have been. Indeed, I was dismayed, as I have said before, in the gulf crisis there was not a single member of the Democratic leadership in either the House or the Senate, when we already had troops on the ground, that would support President Bush's decision to protect American interests in the operation Desert Storm. I have had a long feeling that once the troops were deployed--which is going to happen; it is already happening--that we have some obligation to ensure their safe and honorable return. I have often and long felt it is too important for partisan posture. I know the easy vote on this is ``no, no.'' I hope that some of my colleagues will look at it very carefully. We are talking about troops that have been committed. They are on their way. They will be there next week. We are going to be debating this next week on the Senate floor. Someone will say no troops should be deployed. It will be a little late for that, so it is probably not a difficult vote. Others of us, hopefully on both sides of the aisle, want to make certain, as I have said, that we have a way to get out. It is not hard to get in, but we need a way to get out. We need an exit strategy. We need to make certain that the Bosnians are armed and trained. We need to take on that responsibility. I know the Bosnians tried to secure that assurance in Dayton, OH, without success. If we do not have that, how do we leave? When do we leave? How long will it take? I just hope we can all work together in the coming days to fashion a resolution which supports our military forces, reduces the risk they face, and brings them home as soon as possible. Some would say, ``Well, if you do this, you are supporting the President of the United States.'' I say that is all right with me. We have one President at a time. He is the Commander in Chief. He has made this decision. I do not agree with it. I think it is a mistake. We had a better option, many better options. But as I said, he repeatedly rejected those options. Now it is up to high noon. The troops are on the way. They are from Kansas, from Arizona, from Tennessee, they are from Ohio, they are from all over America. They are looking to us for support. They are looking for us to make their job just as safe and just as secure as possible. I believe we do that. The bottom line, the President intends to send these troops one way or the other. He has made it very clear. He has told us that. It has been in the paper. I think we have the responsibility, as I said, in the Congress, to try to ensure to our best ability, that as this deployment goes forward, that we create the conditions to end it quickly and successfully so that the U.S. Forces can return to their families. I am very happy to yield the floor. I know my colleague from Arizona wanted to make a statement.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, are we in morning business?

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

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, briefly, I advise my colleagues that, as indicated, we will begin consideration of S. 1316, the Safe Drinking Water Act. It is also possible that during today's session the Senate will consider the VA-HUD appropriations conference report, if it is received from the House. I think it is fair to say that we will have rollcall votes. I understand that Senator Chafee will be indicating there are a number of amendments. Some will require rollcalls. We hope to complete action on the Safe Drinking Water Act, if not late today, by some time late afternoon tomorrow. At that time, I hope to announce the schedule for the remainder of the week. It may be that there may be a pro forma session only on Friday, or, if possible, we could take up additional conference reports if received from the House. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the Senate today is considering legislation that is of primary importance to every home in America. Every individual, every family, and every community is directly affected by the quality of their drinking water. Perhaps in no other area do we need to provide assurances of adequate protection to public health than in drinking water. This legislation enhances important public health priorities by using sound science and appropriate treatment and testing technologies. As a cosponsor of the legislation, I would like to commend Senator Kempthorne and Senator Chafee for what turned out to be a year-long debate over the specifics of this bill. It is, as others have pointed out, compromise legislation. I am disappointed that some sections of the bill are not stronger. However, this legislation sets important new directions for Federal policy by providing States and local governments with a much stronger say in dealing with their own particular drinking water issues. Specifically, the new variance section provided to small systems will be of significant assistance in addressing the economic constraints on many of these smaller communities. It is important to note that States decide the affordability criteria, making these decisions closer to home. I am pleased that the standard setting section of the bill includes a requirement that EPA conduct a cost benefit analysis of alternative standards. However, this legislation specifically states only that it allows EPA to consider cost and benefits to set new standards; EPA is not clearly required to use that analysis to ensure that benefits justify costs. During the regulatory reform debate, we heard from representatives of the administration that such reform was unnecessary. If there were problems with individual statutes--like the current safe drinking water law--they should be addressed individually, statute by statute. We were told that the President's executive order currently calls cost-benefit analysis and is used to make sure that benefits outweigh costs. Therefore, passage of this Safe Drinking Water Act sets forth an important test for EPA. Let's see how this bill is implemented. If the administration actually conducts cost-benefit analysis and uses the results, this will go a long way toward passing the test. This statute, by allowing EPA the flexibility to conduct a cost-benefit test, will determine how serious it is about meeting this goal. In this regard, I am disappointed that the cost benefit language is not available for use in the disinfection byproducts rule. I understand that this was a closely negotiated compromise among the various parties associated with this bill. While I respect the compromises that have been made, I do not believe that the unfortunate results of codifying this proposed rule should be overlooked. EPA has received letters of concern from many communities, including Kansas communities, who are worried about the impact of this rule. It is ironic that this legislation seeks [[Page S 17752]] to provide more flexibility for States by providing variances to small communities. Yet on this particular issue, EPA will continue to have the final say. I am concerned that the legislation before us essentially codifies a proposed rule which is extremely expensive and ignores sound science and the potentially adverse substitute risks that could result from overregulation of disinfection byproducts. Taking into consideration these concerns, I will support this bill. A strong bipartisan effort has been made and there is support of the compromises that were achieved in this bill. A great deal of work has gone into this legislation. I look forward to further discussions on this bill and how we can move forward to assure the quality of our Nation's drinking water.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, as the Chaplain mentioned in his opening prayer, the Senate today is mourning the passing of Dr. Richard Halverson. As all Senators know, Dr. Halverson served as our Chaplain from 1981 until his retirement earlier this year. Throughout his service as Chaplain, Dr. Halverson was a friend and counselor not only to Senators, but to the entire Senate family. As many of my colleagues said upon Dr. Halverson's retirement, from Senate staffers to elevator operators to police force members to electricians, it would be impossible to tell how many lives Dr. Halverson touched here on Capitol Hill. He came to the Senate after many years of service to churches in Missouri, California, and Maryland. He was recognized worldwide as a great humanitarian and traveled extensively through his leadership of World Vision, the Campus Crusade for Christ, Christian College Consortium, and the prayer breakfast movement. Mr. President, perhaps our colleague, Senator Nunn, said it best earlier this year when he called Dr. Halverson ``our friend, our colleague, our mentor, our adviser and, most of all, our example.'' Later today, Senator Daschle and I will be submitting a resolution of condolence to be delivered to the Halverson family. It is my intent to include all Members of the Senate as cosponsors of this resolution. At this time, I ask unanimous consent that the Record stay open for 15 days so that Senators may offer tributes to Dr. Halverson, and that these tributes be printed as a Senate document.