Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, leader time is reserved, and there will be a period of morning business now until 3 p.m. There will be no rollcall votes today, and any votes ordered will be stacked to begin starting at 2:15 tomorrow. At around 4 o'clock today, Senator Bumpers of Arkansas will offer a space station amendment. We do hope to have amendments throughout the day, and votes on those amendments will be ordered and set aside until tomorrow, so that some of our colleagues who have a holiday today will not miss votes. We will have votes starting at 2:15 tomorrow. Let me repeat as I did on Friday, if we are able to complete the three remaining appropriations bills this week: VA, HUD; Labor, HHS; Commerce, Justice, State, and the continuing resolution, then we would be in recess until Tuesday, October 10. Now, it is going to be very difficult because these are rather major appropriations bills. As the distinguished Senator from West Virginia knows, these are the big ones, three of the biggest ones, and there are some contentious issues in each one. I believe, if we have cooperation on both sides of the aisle, we can accomplish this. I have been working with the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle. He certainly has been helpful, and I appreciate that very much. So I say to my colleagues, if we can complete action on the three appropriations bills--not the conference reports but complete Senate action--and the continuing resolution, then there would be a period from this Friday until Tuesday, October 10, which again would accommodate many of our colleagues because of holidays again next week. I reserve the remainder of my time and yield the floor.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I thank the President pro tempore.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. No second-degree.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President we have already discussed the amendment. I wonder if we need anymore time. It has been explained two or three times by the Senator from North Dakota. If we can just have 1 minute on this side to explain our side, that would be sufficient. He has had 15 or 20 minutes. I do not see any reason for additional debate. A lot of colleagues on both sides of the aisle had hoped we might be finished with this bill and the other conference report by 12:30. If the Senator from North Dakota could accommodate that, we will be prepared to table the amendment immediately.

Mr. DOLE. I thank the Senator from North Dakota. I do not have a quarrel with the Senator offering an amendment. That is how it works around here. I am certain we have done the same when we wanted to make a point when we were in the minority. We have a provision in the budget that about 90 percent of any tax benefit would go to people making less than $100,000--in that range. I cannot remember the precise wording. So it seemed to me we pretty much are in compliance with what the Senator may suggest. Having said that, we also have a real problem with Medicare. We are trying to address that problem. We have been working, members of the Finance Committee and others. Three of the President's Cabinet members who are trustees of the Medicare trust fund agree that it will go broke by the year 2002 if we do not fix it. We are trying to preserve, strengthen, and protect Medicare. We believe we can do it without any serious impact on any beneficiary or any of the providers in the program. We believe we have a good program. We have just left a press conference where the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth, and others outlined precisely what the Republican Senate plan did with Medicare. We have not yet come to the tax cut portion. That tax cut will go to families with children. They do not make over $100,000. Many in my State are making $20,000, $25,000, or $30,000. They will get the benefit. For all the reasons I can think of--it does not belong to this bill, it is subject to a point of order, 60 votes if the tabling motion fails--I am pleased that the chairman of the committee will now move to table the amendment.

Mr. DOLE

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

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I know Members are anxious to leave, and I know there will not be a vote on final passage. This will be the last vote of the day. There will be voice votes but no more rollcall votes. On Monday, there will be no rollcall votes, but we do expect to take up VA-HUD. The managers will be here at 3 p.m. Senator Bumpers will be here, I think, about 4 o'clock to offer an amendment on the space station, to add money to the space program. But probably not. [Laughter.] We will be in space here at 4 o'clock. What we would like to do is accommodate everybody. We know it is a holiday for some. There will not be any votes until, let us say, after the policy luncheon on Tuesday, but we want to get some work done. Still, we will be down to three appropriations bills. If we can do those next week, we are out of here for 8 days. That ought to be an incentive for less talk, fewer amendments. If we can do it on each side, we can finish by late Thursday or Friday. So I just hope, in accommodating everybody who wants to be accommodated, that they will accommodate us. So there are no further votes today, no votes on Monday, and any votes that are ordered will occur on Tuesday after the policy luncheons. Vote on Amendment No. 2768, As Amended

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, it has been almost exactly 1 year since the United States sent military forces to restore President Aristide to Haiti. The purpose of U.S. military intervention was to promote democracy and increase observance of human rights. President Clinton argued that American national security interests were at stake in Haiti. I disagreed with President Clinton, and I opposed U.S. military intervention in Haiti. Many of us were concerned that the invasion and occupation of Haiti would not substantially change Haiti, and could lead to unnecessary casualties. We were also concerned that it could be very difficult to withdraw American forces once committed to Haiti. We should be clear about what American intervention has achieved-- Cedras and the thugs that ran Haiti for 3 years are gone. Human rights violations have decreased. The lifting of the economic embargo on Haiti has resulted in some economic activity, and thanks to the professionalism and bravery of American Armed Forces, American casualties have been limited. However, one American soldier, Sgt. 1st Class Gregory D. Cardott, 36, was shot to death January 12 in Gonaives, Haiti. Mr. President, we should also be clear about the lack of success in the American intervention in Haiti. The stated purpose of American intervention in Haiti was to restore democracy--not just to restore Aristide, but to restore democracy. Elections have been held, but Haiti has failed the democratic test. The initial June 25 elections were, by objective accounts, deeply flawed. A report from the Carter Center and former National Security Council member Robert Pastor concluded: ``Of the 13 elections that I have observed, the June 25 Hatian elections were the most disastrous technically, with the most insecure count.'' Pastor further states that he witnessed ``the compromise of one-third of the ballot boxes in Port-au-Prince.'' Pastor concludes that ``the international community will not help Haiti's democratic process by being silent or dishonest. It has a responsibility to insist that the parties' concerns be effectively addressed.'' The OAS concluded that it could not determine whether the election was free and fair. The human rights situation in Haiti is not something America should be proud of. The joint United Nations Organization of American States International Civilian Mission in Haiti has identified some 20 cases of ``commando-style'' executions in which theft does not seem to have been the motive. Some might argue that Haiti should not be held to a high standard, or that there have not been enough killings to be concerned. I disagree. The standard should be much higher for a country which was invaded and occupied by American military forces. The Government of Haiti was put in place by American military power. That makes the situation fundamentally different from a country like El Salvador where we simply provided military assistance. Mr. President, the American people have seen more than $2 billion of their tax dollars go to the Hatian operation. All this amendment says is do not send any more money to the Hatian Government unless the President certifies they are not conducting political assassinations. The amendment is modeled after many similar provisions supported by Democrats throughout the 1980's. In addition to certification on political killings by Haitian Government forces, it addresses the issue of Haitian cooperation with the FBI. On March 28, 1995, a Haitian political opponent of President Aristide was killed in broad daylight. President Clinton promptly offered the services of the FBI to investigate the brutal slaying. At one time, 20 FBI special agents were in Haiti. The result of their efforts--the Government of Haiti stonewalled, harassed, and refused cooperation. A high-priced Miami law firm suddenly entered the picture to represent members of the Haitian Government forces that the FBI sought to interview. And yesterday, the Government of Haiti released four Haitians charged with the crime for ``lack of evidence.'' This is not justice, this is an outrage. This is not good faith, it is an affront to the risks undertaken by the men and women of the American Armed Forces to democratize Haiti. My amendment says enough is enough. No aid unless our concerns are met. I urge its adoption and ask unanimous consent that the September 20 Reuters article dealing with the death of Mireille Durocher Bertin and the release of the suspects be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I offer an amendment which would amend Section 540(b) to increase the Department of Defense draw down authority in this bill for Bosnia and Herzegovina from $50 million to $100 million. I am joined by the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, and the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman. This authority could be exercised pursuant to either a lifting of the United Nations arms embargo on Bosnia or a unilateral lifting of the United States arms embargo. Mr. President, there is no doubt that the majority--an overwhelming majority--of the United States Congress supports lifting the arms embargo on Bosnia. And there should be no doubt that some time in the not so distant future the arms embargo will be lifted. Under what circumstances, I am not certain. It will depend on developments over the next couple of weeks. Nevertheless, we need to be prepared to provide the Bosnians with meaningful military assistance--whether in the context of continued fighting or as part of a settlement. In spite of the recent administration euphoria over prospects for peace, according to news reports today the Bosnian Serbs violated the no-fly zone and conducted air strikes on Bosnian and Croat positions. These planes reportedly came from Banja Luka airfield--which escaped the wrath of the NATO bombing campaign. The fact is that the war is not over. Passage of this measure will also facilitate Senate consideration of the Multilateral Bosnia and Herzegovina Self-Defense Fund--introduced by Chairman Helms--which would create a multilateral fund for contributions from the United States and other countries for the defense of Bosnia. These contributions of equipment or financial aid would be held in a U.S. chaired fund until the U.S. arms embargo is lifted. Mr. President, the arms embargo has prolonged the war in Bosnia. If it had been lifted 3\1/2\ years ago, the war would have been over--with far less suffering. Moreover, a couple weeks of NATO air strikes do not substitute for allowing a sovereign nation to defend itself. This issue may be delayed, but cannot be avoided. I hope that my colleagues will support this measure, as they have supported lifting the arms embargo on Bosnia. amendment no. 2762 (Purpose: To establish the Croatian-American Enterprise Fund and make available funds to support the Fund) At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following new section:

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

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk and ask for its consideration. I ask that the amendment be read. It is very brief. I think that will sort of explain the purpose of the amendment as well as I can.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I think the Senator from Rhode Island is also seeking recognition. I am going to offer an amendment and make a brief statement, and then I think there will be statements made in support or maybe even in opposition. I ask unanimous consent that all pending amendments be set aside.

Mr. DOLE. I see my primary cosponsor, Senator Simon, is in the Chamber, and I yield the floor. Mr. McCONNELL addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I rise today to thank my colleagues for their support of the Humanitarian Aid Corridor Act. The amendment that has been offered, I think, is clear and precise, not very long. We just had it read. It has strong bipartisan support, and it furthers an important American foreign policy objective, which is to facilitate the prompt delivery of humanitarian aid. The amendment, which overwhelmingly passed the House, prohibits U.S. foreign assistance to countries that impede or prohibit the delivery or transport of U.S. humanitarian assistance to other countries. This legislation also recognizes there may be a compelling U.S. national security interest which would override the principle of noninterference with humanitarian aid. For this reason, U.S. foreign aid to nations in violation of this act may be continued if the President of the United States determines that such assistance is in the national security interest of the United States. Let me say, Mr. President, this bill does not single out or exempt any one country. All nations are held to one standard. The intent is simple, to ensure that American humanitarian aid can be delivered where it is needed and when it is needed. Currently, there is one country that is clearly affected by this legislation. Turkey, a valuable ally in NATO and in Operation Desert Storm, continues to receive a large amount of assistance in the form of grants and concessional loans financed by the American taxpayers. At the same time, however, they continue to enforce an immoral blockade on Armenia. Mr. President, today marks the fourth anniversary of Armenia's independence from the Soviet Union. We as Americans welcome their independence and through our humanitarian efforts strive to help this fledgling democracy grow and prosper. Their road has not been an easy one, but the United States has been willing to provide the assistance they need. The delivery of humanitarian assistance to aid those in need is consistent with the fundamental values of our Nation. This legislation will also strengthen our ability to deliver such assistance, which, as I stated before, is an important component of our foreign policy. Just let me conclude by saying it does not make sense to offer U.S. taxpayer dollars unconditionally to countries that hinder our humanitarian relief efforts. And in light of budgetary constraints, it is imperative that U.S. relief efforts be timely and efficient. The Federal budget deficit and spending constraints require maximum efficiency in the usage of U.S. foreign assistance. And no doubt about it, countries that prevent the delivery of such assistance or intentionally increase the cost of the delivery of such assistance do not deserve unrestricted American assistance. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment, not for partisan politics, but for the belief in the fundamental values this Nation is built on. Let me repeat. If some country out there is receiving American aid and they are preventing delivery of assistance paid for by the American taxpayers or if they circumvent delivery or make it almost impossible or impede delivery, or increase the cost of delivery, then I do not believe they should receive American assistance. And that is all this amendment is about. It does not exempt any specific country. It does not apply to a particular country. Right now, it applies to Turkey, but in the future it will apply to any other country that would follow the same practice. I hope, if the amendment cannot be accepted, it can be voted on rather quickly. I also ask unanimous consent to add my colleague, Senator Murray, as a cosponsor, and my colleagues, Senator Kerry from Massachusetts, Senator Pressler from South Dakota, and the manager of the bill, the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. McConnell as cosponsors.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that in addition to Senator Simon, Senator Helms, Senator Hatfield, Senator D'Amato, Senator Feinstein, and Senator Carol Moseley-Braun be added as cosponsors.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment, together with the distinguished senator from Delaware, Senator Biden, which would limit the availability for United States assistance to Bosnia and Herzegovina--with the exception of humanitarian or refugee assistance-- to activities in the territory of the Bosniac-Croat Federation. The purpose of this amendment is two-fold: to induce Bosnia to remain unified and to guard against United States assistance falling into the hands of war criminals. The fact is that the recently concluded ``Agreed principles'' recognizes two entities: the Bosniac-Croat Federation and a Bosnian Serb Republic. There is no agreement on a superstructure to unite these entities. The goal of the Bosnian Serb leadership has been to break away from the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina. There are no signs that this goal has been abandoned nor are there any indications that recognizing a Bosnian Serb republic is not just an interim step toward a Greater Serbia. Furthermore, there are no guarantees or provisions in the ``Agreed principles'' to ensure that the Bosnian Serb republic will not have at its helm indicted war criminals such as Radovan Karadzic and General Mladic. So, if we do not make some provision in this legislation to take this possibility into account, United States assistance could end up in the hands of those indicted by the International War Crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Mr. President, I believe that this legislation sends a strong message of support for a unified Bosnia and Herzegovina, while protecting United States interests. My office has been in contact with the Serb members of the Bosnian Presidency and they have indicated their support for this measure. In their view, this amendment if adopted will not only encourage Bosnian Serbs to remain in Bosnia, but will prevent United States assistance from being used to shore up the leadership positions of Bosnian Serb separatists and war criminals. I hope that all of my colleagues will support this measure. amendment no. 2766 At an appropriate place in the bill insert the following new section: ``SEC. . RUSSIAN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CFE TREATY AND

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment, together with the distinguished Senator from Utah [Senator Hatch] which would create an enterprise fund for Croatia and makes available $12 million for that purpose. Much has changed in Croatia over the past few months. Less than 5 percent of Croatian territory is not under the Government's control. As a result, the number of displaced persons is rapidly dwindling. It seems to me that with the situation in Croatia normalizing, with the return of displaced persons to their hometowns and villages, that an enterprise fund could make a significant contribution to Croatia's economy. Moreover, it would do so in a way that would promote free enterprise and a market economy--American values. Mr. President, this a Croatian-American enterprise fund would offer hope and opportunity to the average Croatian--whether he or she is a would-be restauranteur or shopowner. Croatia has a lot of economic potential--next year should be a big year for Croatia's tourist industry, in particular. I would also like to point out that the Croatian-American community in the United States has distinguished itself in many business sectors and will prove to be a rich source of support and expertise for the Croatian-American enterprise fund. Mr. President, I believe that the time is right for establishing this fund and I urge my colleagues to support it. amendment no. 2763 (Purpose: To earmark funds for humanitarian assistance to the former Yugoslavia) Before the period at the end of the heading entitled ``international disaster assistance'', insert the following: ``: Provided, That of the amount appropriated under this heading, $40,000,000 should be available only for emergency humanitarian assistance to the former Yugoslavia, of which amount not less than $6,000,000 shall be available only for humanitarian assistance to Kosova''.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I offer an amendment which would earmark $40 million for emergency humanitarian assistance to the former Yugoslavia with no less than $6 million of that amount for Kosova. While there is some new optimism about the prospects for a settlement in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the humanitarian situation remains grim for large segments of the population of the former Yugoslavia. Winter is fast approaching. Life in Sarajevo is still one of minimum subsistence. Gorazde is a large refugee camp surrounded by hostile forces. Thousands of refugees are flooding the town of Banja Luka. The bottom line is that even if a peace settlement were signed tomorrow, the humanitarian situation in Bosnia would not repair itself overnight--nor over the next few weeks and months. The humanitarian crisis will remain with us for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, a peace settlement along the lines pursued by the administration would not address Kosova--a serious error from my perspective. In Kosova, 2 million Albanians continue to live as they have for the past 6 years--under martial law, without jobs and without enough food and medicine. And so, I believe that we must do what we can to ensure that the people of the former Yugoslavia, particularly in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Kosova, are provided with food and medicine to relieve their suffering. I trust that my colleagues will support this amendment. amendment no. 2764 (Purpose: To impose sanctions against countries harboring war criminals) At the appropriate place in the bill, insert the following new section: [[Page S 14073]]

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I offer an amendment which I believe is of great significance--and reflects our commitment to the pursuit of justice around the world. This amendment would penalize any country that permits entry into or permits the presence of any person indicted for war crimes. Very simply, this amendment would prohibit U.S. bilateral assistance or support for multilateral assistance from international financial institutions to any country that provides sanctuary to war criminals. Over the past 3 years, we have been witnesses to crimes against humanity. Courageous journalists revealed the horrors of starving and tortured Bosnian Moslems herded into concentration camps at Manjaca and Omarska. CNN brought the haunting images of the Rwandan genocide into our living rooms. These crimes against humanity cannot be swept aside or forgotten. We cannot pretend not to know the truth. And because we know the truth, we have a duty to do all we can to bring those responsible to justice. The International War Crimes Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, under the able leadership of Justice Goldstone of South Africa, has already handed down a number of indictments--to include Gen. Ratko Mladic, the commander of Bosnian Serb forces and Radovan Karadzic, the leader of the Bosnian Serbs. However, the tribunal does not have the means to pursue these indicted. It is up to the countries where these indicted war criminals reside to turn them over. Mr. President, the provisions of this legislation would apply not only to war criminals indicted by the International War Crimes Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, but to any individuals indicted for war crimes--including Nazi war criminals. I want to bring to my colleagues attention that one of the most notorious Nazi war criminals, Alois Brunner, is still alive and believed to be residing in Syria--where he went around 1955. Brunner is the former aide to Adolf Eichman and has been blamed for the deaths of 100,000 to 120,000 Jews and 60,000 non-Jews. His job was to ship prisoners under his charge to concentration camps. If it is true that Brunner is residing in Syria, then Syria would be subject to the sanctions under this legislation. I hope that all of my colleagues will support this legislation. Passing this measure will send a strong message to war criminals that there are few places of safe refuge for them. It will also send the message to countries that provide sanctuary to individuals indicted for crimes against humanity, that there is a significant price to pay. amendment no. 2765 (Purpose: To limit the use of funds for Bosnia and Herzegovina (other than for refugee or disaster assistance) to activities in the territory of the Bosniac-Croat Federation) On page 121, after line 24, insert the following new section:

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, first let me make a general statement. As Members on both sides know, we are trying to work together so we can finish all the appropriations bills by next Saturday on the 30th. I do not think there will be a Saturday session this week because, frankly, some of the Members who would have to manage the bills are not here. We have not had much success in working out that Saturday session. So I would hope that we can keep the Medicare amendments and line-item veto amendments, and others, off the bill. But if they have to be offered, do not come around next week to me and say, ``Why can't we go home?'' So I will just leave it up to whatever. We probably will not go home in any event because maybe it does not make any difference. amendment no. 2707

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I want to make a few comments about the Dole-Helms amendment offered yesterday. Our amendment will save money, make government more efficient, and better protect American interests overseas. The Foreign Affairs Reinvention Act of 1995 streamlines and consolidates U.S. Foreign Affairs agencies. Our amendment builds on the hard work by Senator Helms and his staff in their months of effort to reduce bureaucracy, and reinvent the international agencies for the U.S. Government. In July, the Senate considered S. 908, the Foreign Relations Revitalization Act of 1995. At administration prodding, Democrats filibustered the bill. The Senate fell five votes short of invoking cloture on two successive votes on August 1. Because of the lack of Democratic willingness to allow consideration of reorganization legislation, I was forced to return S. 908 to the Senate Calendar. During debate on S. 908, Democrats conceded the need for reorganization. Senator Lieberman, for example, said: Senator Helms and his committee, I say, have acted on sound impulse, which is that we do need to do a searching reappraisal of the way we conduct our foreign policy in the post-cold-war era. The committee has produced a coherent new architecture for our Foreign Affairs agencies. Democrats supported reorganization, but they expressed concern over Congress mandating the details of reorganization. Give the President flexibility they said. Senator Kerry of Massachusetts, for example, said: All we are suggesting is give the President a mandate from the Congress to make the cuts, but allow the President to determine exactly how they are going to be made. Mr. President, that is exactly what the Dole-Helms amendment does. The amendment requires the President to submit a plan in 6 months with the following guidelines: Achieve cost savings of $3 billion over 4 years; Abolish at least two of three major Foreign Affairs agencies; and Specify how the consolidation of all personnel and functions will occur. The plan is enacted automatically within 60 calendar days unless Congress passes a resolution of disapproval. If the President does not submit a plan which meets these guidelines, the three agencies are abolished. Finally, transition funds are authorized to allow an orderly transfer. So the Helms amendment--it is primarily Senator Helms' amendment; I am very honored to be a cosponsor--streamlines bloated bureaucracies and eliminates duplication. It increases the control of the Secretary of State over the conduct of American foreign policy. That is why five former Secretaries of State from Henry Kissinger to Jim Baker endorsed Senator Helms' original effort. The Dole-Helms amendment also meets the stated concerns of Senate Democrats about Presidential flexibility in reorganizing Foreign affairs agencies. The scaremongers in the administration claim reorganization is a ploy by [[Page S 14020]] isolationists--some kind of veiled effort to help America withdraw from the world. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our plan is a way to better support American engagement in the world. Five Secretaries of State are not isolationists and would not endorse a plan that diminished America's ability to protect its global interests. After sitting on the budget sidelines all year--we have had all this talk about line-item vetoes since March; we have had this all year long--the administration now says funding cuts will imperil American diplomacy. Yet the best way to avoid deep cuts in programs is to save money by reducing duplication and by streamlining bureaucracy. I do not want to complicate action on Senator McConnell's legislation. Much of this plan is consistent with legislation proposed by Senator McConnell earlier this year. We have tried to reach agreement with other Senators, and I believe the Senate should know what offer has been made and rejected. Senator Kerry yesterday suggested he would support an agreement along the following lines: Pull the amendment from this bill; bring up freestanding legislation which requires the President to submit a plan abolishing only one agency--only one agency; vote after 4 hours of debate; release all 15 State Department nominees currently on the Executive Calendar; resume the normal business of the Foreign Relations Committee on nominations and treaties. Mr. President, that is a very fair deal. No one guarantees the outcome of the vote or the outcome of the conference or the eventual fate of any conference report. Nominees would be confirmed immediately, like today, or whenever we had the vote, and more would be reported to the Senate. Unfortunately, after Chairman Helms indicated his willingness to accept the terms proposed by Senator Kerry, the White House said no. One State Department official said, ``There's nothing in that deal for us.'' I must say we also made inquiries, I made inquiries to the White House, saying this seems to be a reasonable proposal to me to have all these Ambassadors confirmed, talking about eliminating one agency. I thought it was a rather reasonable effort. We would do it freestanding. It would have to go through the House. The President could veto it if he wished. There are all kinds of options the President has. So it would seem to me that the partisanship out of the White House and State Department does not serve our country well and only jeopardizes important issues from Ambassadors to China, Indonesia, Panama, and other critical countries to ratification of the START II treaty. I do not know if President Clinton knows what his advisers turned down because he has not been in town much the last few weeks, but I do know that 15 nominees and their families know what has happened. They ought to know what has happened and they ought to know who turned it down. I do not know why the Clinton administration would want to keep gridlock going on foreign affairs. I do not know why they are now afraid of the reorganization proposed by Secretary Christopher earlier this year. I hope they quit saying ``no, no, no'' and begin to engage honestly in the legislative process. If they have a counteroffer, let us hear it. So it would seem to me, if the President had this information, he would be saying, ``Take the Kerry proposal.'' Let us set it aside, take it off this bill, and have 4 hours of debate. I hope the President would weigh in; if not, the Vice President, or, if not, somebody in the administration. I think we have made a lot of agreements around here, and I certainly think this is a very reasonable effort--one agency, freestanding bill, 4 hours of debate. It has to go to the House. The President can veto it. The nominees are confirmed immediately. The other nominations pending in the Senate go back through the orderly business and come back to the floor. So I would hope there could be some disposition because I know the Senator from North Carolina shares the view of the Senator from Kentucky. We want to get this bill finished. We want to finish the bill this evening. Then we want to take up the District of Columbia appropriations, maybe follow that with State-Justice--if not, VA/HUD. And there is one other one floating around out there somewhere, but it is a major one. So I would just hope that we could resolve this issue. I know the manager wants to move very quickly. There are other relevant amendments. But I must say--and this is a relevant amendment--if we are going to continue to have a lot of amendments that have nothing to do with this bill, then I do not know what the managers have in mind. But hopefully we can complete action by early this evening.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, this will be the last vote tonight. Tomorrow morning, starting at 9:30 we will take up the MilCon conference report, to be followed by the D.C. appropriations bill, to be followed by the legislative appropriations conference report. Therefore, I would expect one, two, three, and maybe one amendment on the D.C. bill, so maybe four votes tomorrow. We should finish early. Then I will tell you what will happen next week. Hopefully, we will finish those bills and take the next week off. But we are not there yet. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is on the engrossment of the amendments and third reading of the bill. The amendments were ordered to be engrossed and the bill to be read a third time. The bill was read a third time. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill having been read the third time, the question is, Shall the bill pass?

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I think it is a bad amendment. I like farmers, but it is a little early for Christmas. We just did welfare yesterday, welfare reform, where we are dealing with low-income Americans. My view is, it is a great idea to give farmers $2,500. I think in my State they will understand if I vote ``no.''

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished Senator from North Carolina.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I yield 2 minutes to the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. Chafee].