Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, as I understand it, we have 40 minutes? There will be 40 minutes of debate beginning at 11 a.m. tomorrow, to be followed on a vote on the passage of S. 1322, the substitute. We expect a vote about 11:40. I think 10 minutes of that 40 is reserved for Senator Byrd and the other is equally divided. In addition, I ask at this point to add the following cosponsors to the bill: Senators Feinstein, Lautenberg, and Kennedy.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, we are waiting for one response from the other side of the Senate, but it will be my intention to ask for consent that at 12 noon the Senate proceed to S. 1322 regarding the Embassy in Israel. Therefore, votes can be expected to occur in relation to that bill, but not to occur prior to the hour of 5 p.m. Monday. I will not make that request at this time because we are waiting for one call. But in addition to that bill, the Senate could be asked to turn to any of the following items on Monday and Tuesday of next week: S. 1328, regarding Federal judgeships; S. 1004, Coast Guard authorization; S. 325, technical corrections in laws relating to Native Americans. By Wednesday of next week it will be the leader's intention to begin the reconciliation bill, which all Members know has a statutory limitation of 20 hours. Therefore, late nights can be expected next week. Mr. President, let me state that it was our intention to bring up S. 1322 today. But we have been in negotiations most of the morning in my office and part of this afternoon, and there are negotiations going on now with interested parties, parties interested in S. 1322, with representatives at the White House, representatives of the President, and we believe that by Monday we will be in a position to indicate to our colleagues on both sides that we have reached some agreement. But, if not, we will proceed with S. 1322 in its present form. The reason for asking consent--which we are still waiting for--is that otherwise I would need to file cloture today on a motion to proceed. So, if consent is not obtained, then we will proceed on that. I think we will have consent here momentarily. So if we can obtain that consent, there would be no further business to come before the Senate except brief remarks by the Senator from South Dakota, the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOLE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, this week the Senate and the House began conducting hearings on the potential deployment of American ground forces to Bosnia and Herzegovina in the event a peace agreement is reached. This is the beginning of a very important process of congressional review and debate. I am pleased that the administration sent the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to testify on behalf of the administration's proposal. Any decision to send American Forces into harms' way requires the utmost consideration. American interests may justify sending Americans into Bosnia, but the goals must be clear and the risks must be understood and weighed carefully. Unfortunately, the administration has not yet made the case for its proposed operation. Many questions remain unanswered and many answers remain ambiguous. The first task must be to persuade the Congress that this is the best option of the options available. And let me be clear, there are other options. For over 3 years now, I have called for American leadership. For over 3 years now, I have called for NATO involvement. But, I am not convinced that exercising United States leadership and deploying NATO ground forces in support of a peace agreement that partitions Bosnia is the best or only option. We need to know: will American Forces be the guarantors of ethnic cleansing? Will they be used to prevent Moslem refugees from returning to their homes in what becomes the Bosnian Serb Republic? With respect to the peace settlement, the administration must be able to ensure that any peace reached is a stable and sustainable peace-- that there are defensible borders; that the Bosnian Government structure is viable; that this is not just the first step toward a greater Serbia. If there is a genuine peace, there is a real question why tens of thousands of peacekeepers, including Americans, are needed? Moreover, how did the administration come up with the number 25,000 for the American ground force contribution? Is this solely the result of President Clinton's speech 2 years ago or is there a military rationale for it? There is a lot of confusion as to what NATO's role will be. Will NATO ensure the territorial integrity of Bosnia? Who will accomplish the tasks that NATO does not wish to be involved in, such as facilitating the return of refugees, the conduct of free and fair elections, humanitarian operations? What will this operation cost? What factors are current cost estimates based on? How does the administration plan to pay for such an operation? Was Secretary Perry serious when he said that the administration would take funds from missile defense programs--intended to protect Americans from the growing threat of missile defenses--for peacekeeping? What are the criteria for success of this operation? What is the exit strategy? How do we ensure that the Bosnians can defend themselves once peacekeepers leave? Who will arm and or train the Bosnians? It seems to me that developments in recent months have vindicated the overwhelming majority in Congress who argued that the Bosnians and the Croats were capable of defending themselves if armed. It has also demonstrated that NATO air power can be used effectively and that Bosnian Serb Forces are not invincible. The military balance began shifting in Bosnia, but I am not sure that it has stabilized. In my view, lifting the arms embargo on Bosnia is as relevant in a post- settlement situation as it is now. This matter cannot be avoided and must be resolved as part of any peace settlement. The bottom line is that Congress is not yet in possession of the facts. Indeed, the administration is not in possession of the facts. There is no settlement yet. But, with that in mind, we must make sure that we do not deploy any forces without clear answers to these critical questions. I am deeply concerned that since current NATO plans call for initial deployments within a few days of a settlement being signed that we may not have all the answers--and that the administration will go ahead and deploy forces and try to figure out what they will be doing after they are already on the ground. In view of these many unanswered questions--and those I have raised are by no means all-inclusive--I would strongly urge the administration to cooperate with the Congress and provide us with the information we need to make an informed judgment. Furthermore, I strongly urge the administration to seek congressional authorization for any deployment of United States ground forces to Bosnia. This was my view prior to the gulf war, and it is now. It is essential that the American people are behind any undertaking that places thousands of our soldiers in a dangerous environment for a prolonged period of time. Mr. President, let me also express my deep concern about other aspects of the diplomatic process and the talks that are due to begin on August 31 in Dayton, OH. The agenda does not include Kosova which has been under martial law for over 6 years now. This is not just a matter of human rights, but a question of Kosova's status. Even in the former Yugoslavia, Kosova had autonomous status--the people and their assembly could make their own decisions. Today, there are 2 million Albanians there under an apartheid-like system--A large majority terrorized and oppressed by a small minority. We cannot let Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic off the hook for Kosova, or for his continued support of paramilitary forces which are reported today to have slaughtered hundreds of Moslem men and boys in northern Bosnia. Milosevic is no peacemaker, rather the mastermind behind ethnic cleansing, oppression, and aggression in the former Yugoslavia. As early as 1992, senior U.S. Government officials accused him of war crimes. But today, he has been invited by this administration to the United States to participate in peace talks. I believe that this was a serious error in judgment which calls into question the administration's commitment to the prosecution of war criminals in the former Yugoslavia. Sure, Milosevic has not yet been indicted by the war crimes tribunal, but, there is no doubt that he has given support and safe haven to some of the most notorious war criminals. Slobodan Milosevic should not be issued a visa. If the administration insists on this, at the very least, it should ensure that any visa issued to Milosevic confines him to Wright Patterson Air Force Base. He does not deserve to be treated like other foreign dignitaries. Finally, there should be no comprehensive sanctions relief on Serbia until there is a satisfactory resolution of the situation in Kosova. Unless there is a comprehensive settlement including Kosova, there will be no stability in the region--one of the key objectives presently being cited by the administration. The sanctions on Serbia are the only leverage the United States and the international community have been willing to use on the Belgrade regime. Mr. President, I hope that the administration will address my concerns and those of my colleagues, and cooperate with the Congress so that together we can determine what is in the best interest of the United States.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 10 a.m. on Monday, October 23; that, following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, no resolutions come over under the rule, the call of the calendar be dispensed with, morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and then there be a period for morning business until the hour of 12 noon with Senators to speak for up to 5 minutes each with the exception of the following: Senator Daschle for 60 minutes, Senator Shelby for 10 minutes, and Senator Cochran for 50 minutes.

Mr. DOLE

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

Mr. DOLE

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

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar No. 203, S. 1309.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House on H.R. 2126, an act making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996. The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the House disagree to the amendment of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 2126) entitled ``An Act making appropriations for the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1996, and for other purposes'', and ask a further conference with the Senate on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses thereon. Ordered, That Mr. Young of Florida, Mr. McDade, Mr. Livingston, Mr. Lewis of California, Mr. Skeen, Mr. Hobson, Mr. Bonilla, Mr. Nethercutt, Mr. Istook, Mr. Murtha, Mr. Dicks, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Hefner, Mr. Sabo, and Mr. Obey be the managers of the conference on the part of the House.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate agree to a request for a further conference with the House and that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Friday, October 20, 1995; that following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that there then be a period for the transaction of morning business until the hour of 10:30 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each, with the exception of the following: Senator Warner, 10 minutes; Senator Baucus, 10 minutes; Senator Kerrey, 20 minutes. So there will be an additional 40 minutes for those who would like to participate in morning business.

Mr. DOLE

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

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 197, S. 868

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, first, I indicate there will be no further votes this evening.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. For the information of all Senators, at 10:30 it will be the majority leader's intention to turn to Calendar No. 207, S. 1322, regarding the relocation of the Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Votes could occur in connection with that bill and the Senate could be asked to turn to the State Department reorganization if the managers' amendment could be agreed to. Therefore votes can be expected to occur.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I will just make one brief statement before we recess. I will just say this. I think, for the first time, the President of the United States, President Clinton, indicated today that he was prepared to negotiate with the leaders of the Congress concerning a balanced budget in 7 years. It is the first time he suggested 7 years. He also mentioned capital gains, taxes, and other matters. That may be the beginning, at least a glimmer of hope that we might be able to come together in some negotiation with the President of the United States, myself, and the Speaker of the House, Speaker Gingrich. And I hope that is a sincere offer by the President of the United States, that we can properly pursue it at the appropriate time.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, before we recess, I would like to take a moment to discuss President Clinton's appearance before reporters at the White House this morning. Republicans have been willing to work with the President in our efforts to finally balance the budget. Regrettably, the President's veto threat today makes us wonder whether he is serious about working with the congressional majority to fulfill the mandate the American people gave us. If anyone needs to think again, in my view it is President Clinton. Rather than continuing his cynical reelection campaign designed to scare the American people, particularly senior citizens, he should show some leadership and work with us to balance the budget, cut taxes for American families, protect Medicare from bankruptcy, and overhaul welfare. If any plan puts America's elderly at risk, it is the President's plan, which fails to offer any long-term reforms, any choices for seniors, and any real solutions, just sort of a Band-Aid to get us beyond the next election in 1996. I think it is interesting that the President confessed this week he raised taxes too much in 1993. I think a $265 billion tax increase is a bit too much. It affected senior citizens, people who drive automobiles, subchapter S corporations, a lot of Americans who did not consider themselves rich until the President announced that only the rich pay taxes. But he has learned since 1993 that other people pay these increased taxes, too, who are not rich, when he increased taxes on Social Security, when he increased taxes on gasoline, when he increased taxes on subchapter S corporations, and a number of other people who were not rich. So I think now that he has confessed he made a mistake on raising taxes, he ought to confess he has made a mistake on not wanting to adopt a balanced budget. He fought us in an effort to pass a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. He convinced six Democrats who voted for a balanced budget last year to vote no this year. We lost by one vote. We had 66. We needed 67. So it seems to me the President is now saying, well, I raised taxes too much but it was not my fault; Republicans are responsible. Not a single Republican in the House or the Senate voted for the tax increase. I do not understand how he can blame us for that. It was the biggest tax increase in American history. In fact, I think the Senator from New York [Mr. Moynihan] said, no, it was the biggest tax increase in world history, and it probably was. So I would ask the President today, now that he is feeling in a mood to say he has made mistakes--and we all make mistakes from time to time--we would be happy to have him join us in this budget debate in balancing the budget by the year 2002 and protecting, preserving, strengthening Medicare and overhauling welfare and providing tax cuts for families with children, the very thing that the President proposed, I might add. About 70 percent of our total tax credit goes to families. They are not rich. On the Senate side we have capped what your total income could be if you are going to be eligible for the tax credit for your children. So, Mr. President, we agree you raised taxes too much. We agree it hurt the economy. We agree it probably cost a lot of jobs in America. We agree it cost a lot of dislocation, a lot of pain, a lot of suffering. But now that you have confessed to making that mistake, let us not make another mistake. Let us work together. Let us try to balance the budget, Mr. President. Let us try to save Medicare, Mr. President, and try to have a good tax cut for families with children and stimulate the economy with the capital gains rate reduction, and then reform welfare, which the President indicates he supports. We are prepared. I know the Speaker is prepared. I hope that we might have some cooperation. I yield the floor. And I think it is 12 o'clock.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, we are about to conclude action on the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act. The Senate has spent a week on this bill. We had three cloture votes. A sustained lobbying campaign by the White House forced Chairman Helms to delete a significant section of the bill. The Senate will pass the bill today, and the conference will certainly address the issue of stolen property. I am confident that the House-Senate conference will be able to find a way to prevent Fidel Castro from using foreign investment to prolong his tyranny. That is the issue--do we want to allow the hemisphere's last dictator to replace his lost aid from the Soviet empire with western investment? The Senate will have another chance to address this issue when the conference report comes back. We should be clear on what is still in this bill. Title I strengthens the international embargo on Cuba. It requires the United States to oppose Cuban membership in international financial institutions. It conditions aid to Russia on an end to support for Cuba. It tightens the restrictions against the importation of Cuban sugar. And it authorizes assistance to the real victims of Castro's repression--the Cuban people. In the debate, some of the advocates of lifting the embargo have said this bill looks backward, that this bill does not respond to current conditions. Nothing could be further from the truth. Title II of the bill requires the President to look ahead--to look at the inevitable post-Castro period. Title II provides for support for a free and independent Cuba and authorizes suspension for the embargo and other restrictions once a transitional government is in place. Title II also provides incentives for a truly democratic government in Cuba. So I think the President, the Senate is going to speak loudly today-- in support of the Cuban people and in opposition to Fidel Castro. He should know that as he prepares to come to New York for whatever he is going to do at the United Nations. The White House has made its views known. By allowing Fidel Castro to enter the United States, and by vigorously lobbying against this bill, there is no doubt where they stand. Today, the Senate can make its views known, and I urge my colleagues to support the bill. I thank Senator Helms for his outstanding work on this issue.

Mr. DOLE. How much time is left on the Helms amendment?

Mr. DOLE. I ask for the yeas and nays on final passage.

Mr. DOLE. I ask that the yeas and nays be vitiated.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I would like to take a moment to recognize a staffer who has recently left my Topeka, KS office, Susan Hoffmann. Susie was a dedicated member of my staff for almost 8 years and has recently moved on to pursue her career with the Community Bankers Association in Topeka. Susie is a graduate of my alma mater, Washburn University, and has worked for several years helping the Young Republicans in the State. She was committed to assisting constituents with their concerns about government and they knew Susie was always there to lend a helping hand to a Kansan in need. She made a difference in hundreds of people's lives, because she cared. Mr. President, I know my staff joins me in wishing Susan Hoffmann the best of luck in her future endeavors.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 186, submitted earlier by Senator Dole and Senator Daschle.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the U.S. Government is the defendant in a pending case in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims arising out of a dispute with a private real estate developer over the Government's procurement to lease a new headquarters building for the Securities and Exchange Commission. The plaintiff developer responded to the Government's request for proposals by offering to build the SEC a new headquarters building in Silver Spring, MD. The plaintiff alleges in this lawsuit that the Government violated procurement law in connection with the SEC headquarters procurement. The Government has determined that the group of individuals who may have relevant information about this case includes two employees on Senator Sarbanes' staff. In addition to his interest in this matter arising out of the SEC's potential selection of a site in Maryland for its headquarters building, Senator Sarbanes is the ranking minority member of the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, which has oversight jurisdiction over the SEC. Senator Sarbanes would like the Senate to authorize the employees in his office to testify in response to the Government's request. This resolution would authorize them to testify with representation by the Senate legal counsel. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the resolution appear at the appropriate place in the Record.