Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I understand the objector is on the floor. I ask consent that the Committee on Finance be permitted to meet Wednesday, September 27, 1995, to conduct the markup of spending recommendations for the budget reconciliation legislation.

Mr. DOLE. We have one other amendment, the Simon-Moseley-Braun amendment. Is that being worked out?

Mr. DOLE. So just let us see--11, 12, 1. Maybe we can complete action on this bill by 2 p.m.?

Mr. DOLE. That could take some time, then.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I wonder if I might inquire of the managers when they believe we may be able to complete action on this bill? It is my understanding it is going to be vetoed, but there are still a lot of amendments on the other side. I am not certain how many require rollcalls. If we are going to complete action on two additional bills, Labor-HHS and State-Justice-Commerce, and this is our third day on this bill, I do not know how we can do two others in 2 days. So if anybody knows, when might we complete action on this bill? Plus we will recess the Senate so we will be able to have meetings of the Finance Committee, so we probably will not do anything after this bill the rest of the day. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. As I understand, the bill remains at the desk?

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess so that we may personally greet Members of the European Parliament.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I agree that outpatient, ambulatory care should be the focus of future construction by the VA. In my home State of Kansas, I have been working closely with the staff of the Dwight D. Eisenhower VAMC in Leavenworth to improve outpatient care for our veterans with the addition of a new ambulatory care clinic. Currently, primary care treatment processes at the Leavenworth VAMC are unnecessarily fragmented and severely deficient in the space required for their functions. This clinic is a must if the Leavenworth VAMC is to retain its College of American Pathologists accreditation. Last year, the Congress provided funds to begin planning and design of this facility. It is my expectation that the VA will include this project in next year's budget. However, if they do not, it is my understanding that the committee will give this project every consideration. I would ask my friend, the Chairman, is that correct?

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that if the second vote on the motion to proceed does not receive 60 votes in the affirmative, the motion automatically be withdrawn.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that if the motion to proceed does not receive 60 or more votes, there then be a second vote on the motion to proceed at 11 a.m. on Thursday, with the time between votes to be equally divided in the usual form.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 9 a.m. on Thursday, I be recognized to make a motion to proceed to consideration of H.R. 2127; that a vote occur on the motion to proceed at 10 a.m. on Thursday; that the time between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. be equally divided in the usual form.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet for an executive session, during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 27, 1995, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 27, 1995, at 2 p.m. to hold a hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full Committee on Environment and Public Works be granted permission to conduct a nomination hearing to receive testimony from Kathleen A. McGinty to be a member of the Council on Environmental Quality, Wednesday, September 27, at 9:30 a.m., Hearing Room (SD-406).

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, there will be a period of morning business until 9:15. At 9:15, as I understand--and we do not have staff around-- there will be four votes. There will be a vote in relation to the amendment offered by the Senator from West Virginia, Senator Rockefeller; one vote on an amendment offered by the Senator from Montana, Senator Baucus; and on one amendment offered by the Senator from Maryland, Senator Sarbanes. Under the previous order, leadership time is reserved.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I ask further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with.

Mr. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent to use leader's time.

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

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 rise in opposition to the Bumpers amendment to terminate funding for the space station. It seems to me that we have answered the question of whether or not to proceed with this historic endeavor. Year after year the Congress has endorsed the outreach to space. And we have done so for the right reasons--the space station represents the next logical step of man's exploration of the universe and it represents the next logical step for understanding our own world. I will not try and reiterate the many sound reasons for continuing this important program. They have been presented in great and compelling detail. But I would offer another reason which was recently brought to my attention by Ambassador Pickering, our envoy to Russia. Clearly the Russians are in dire need of hard currency. Should the United States default on our commitment of cooperation with Russia on this project, Russia will necessarily look elsewhere--to Iran or Iraq-- nations who have demonstrated a clear desire to possess and proliferate technology and weapons of mass destruction. Cooperation with the United States on space station is vital to Russian needs for hard currency. And the United States will get fare more in exchange--both in technology and in stability. Again, I urge my colleagues to reject the Bumpers amendment, preserve our outreach to the stars, and keep a mindful eye on commitments made for the purpose of keeping peace and stability in these difficult times.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I suggest after these two votes we will announce what agreement we have been able to reach. We may not be able to reach any agreement. I do not want to keep raising this, but whether or not we are in session next week depends on whether or not we finish this bill, Labor-HHS, and State, Justice, and Commerce. Yesterday we did not do anything. We had debate on one amendment. The amendment was voted on at 2:15 today. My view is it is our hope we can finish this bill tonight and finish Labor-HHS by Thursday and dispose of the other bills by Saturday. If we cannot [[Page S 14273]] do it, we cannot do it, and we will be here next week.

Mr. DOLE. We will do that amendment and then the amendment of the Senator from Vermont, Senator Jeffords. I understand there is a 30- minute time agreement agreed to or willing to be agreed to. We will have those two votes. By that time, we hope to be in a position to announce what will happen to the remainder of the evening. I am hopeful that Members who still have amendments will be willing to debate those amendments tonight and we will start voting on the amendments tomorrow. We are talking about the additional amendments. There are two Rockefeller amendments, a Baucus amendment, Moseley-Braun.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me indicate to my colleagues what we hope to achieve here this evening. The Senator from Maryland will be recognized. I understand there is a 1-hour time agreement. We are willing to accept a 1-hour time agreement on the amendment.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I reserve the balance of my leader's time.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, yesterday, together with some of my colleagues, I sent a letter to President Clinton urging him to consult with the Congress on the nature of the commitments his administration has made to our NATO allies and the Bosnians with respect to United States involvement in a potential peace enforcement operation in Bosnia. The letter included a number of specific questions about such an operation and the wisdom of the administration's present approach. Much to my surprise, administration spokesmen protested this letter claiming that there have been numerous consultations on this matter. Despite White House claims, the fact is that the Clinton administration has not consulted the Congress on sending United States ground forces to Bosnia since 1993--when consultations were held on possible enforcement of the Vance-Owen plan. What was Congress' reaction then? As part of the fiscal year 1994 Defense Appropriations bill we passed an amendment, 99 to 1. The Mitchell-Dole amendment--which reads as follows, and I quote: It is the sense of the Congress that none of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this act should be available for the purposes of deploying United States Armed Forces to participate in the implementation of a peace settlement in Bosnia-Herzegovina, unless previously authorized by the Congress. A subsequent provision addressed consultation on U.S. participation in any peacekeeping or peace-enforcement operations and opposed it unless, and I quote: The President initiates consultations with the bipartisan leadership of Congress... This was followed by directions for such consultation, including discussion of the goals of the operation, U.S. interests, the costs, funding strategy, extent of U.S. involvement, and the expected duration and scope of the operation. Well, it is more than 2 years later--more than 2 years later--and a great deal has changed. The situation on the ground is not what it was and the peace settlement being negotiated is also not what it was. While we are aware that the administration continues to repeat its commitment to send U.S. troops to participate in a settlement force, we in the Congress do not know what that means in concrete terms. And we believe we have a right to know. About 2\1/2\ weeks ago, the administration sent a high level team, led by Deputy Secretary of Defense White, to brief Senators on the NATO air campaign. At that time, questions were raised about administration plans to participate in a peace enforcement operation. Unfortunately, these officials did not answer any of these questions, claiming that the planning process was not finished. Mr. President, the point of consultations is to have input before there is a finished plan, before the Congress is handed a fait accompli. We do not want to be told after the fact that is a briefing, not a consultation. And we have had plenty of those where we are informed. We are not consulted; we are told. Lists of administration briefings and returned phone calls don't add up to consultation. Today administration officials and members of the contact group concluded a second round of negotiations with the Bosnian, Croatian, and Serbian Foreign Ministers on principles for a peace settlement. There is little doubt in my mind that whether the Bosnian Government continues participating in these talks and finally agrees to sign a settlement will depend significantly on whether or not the United States sends troops to enforce it. Let us face it, the so-called agreed principles are vague, except in that they partition Bosnia into two entities. As such, the Bosnians are bound to rely on United States guarantees where there are differences with the Serbs, which are inevitable on matters of Bosnia's sovereignty and territorial integrity. Because the administration and allied approach has left the Bosnians without the means to secure their own peace, they will depend on those troops sent to enforce a settlement to defend their sovereignty. Mr. President, we are still waiting to hear the administration's plan on lifting the arms embargo on Bosnia, a question that remains relevant now, as well as central to any exit strategy for American forces. I cannot conceive of supporting a plan that sends United States troops into Bosnia, while leaving the Bosnians unable to defend against future aggression. We must know what the administration is telling the Bosnians, the Serbs, and our NATO allies, what promises and what threats, are being made. We also need to know what commitments are being made to the Russians with respect to their participation. In particular what is the administration response to Russian demands to share command with NATO in an enforcement operation? Will U.S. forces be under unified NATO command at all times? The bottom line is that U.S. credibility depends on the United States keeping its word, meaning what it says. NATO credibility is also on the line. Why has there been no response to Bosnian Serb violations of the NATO no-fly zone reported today and last week? No doubt about it, there is a lot at stake here--United States and NATO credibility, as well as the future of Bosnia. [[Page S 14272]] It cannot escape the administration that the Congress has repudiated its approach toward Bosnia for the past 2 years. An overwhelming bipartisan majority has opposed the arms embargo, and Congress has voiced concerns with respect to peace plans that would destroy the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Bosnia and Herzegovina. So, to operate under the assumption that Congress will approve administration plans to send thousands of Americans in harm's way to enforce a settlement is a major error. The fact is that the Clinton administration may be making promises it cannot or should not keep. Therefore, I am writing today to the chairmen of the Appropriations, Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees to request that they hold extensive hearings on this critical issue. I will request that the questions asked in the letter to President Clinton form the basis of their examination of this matter. I ask unanimous consent that a copy of the letter we sent to the President today be printed in the Record.