Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Oh, no. I would go beyond that. I would provide weapons, although I understand the Bosnians are much better equipped to handle Russian weapons, and will not need as much training. I would train the Bosnians. That is not ``Americanizing.'' It would be training in a safe place, just as we helped train the Afghans in that adventure in El Salvador. So I would go as far as to provide air cover in this little hiatus, as I mentioned earlier on. But I think the problem was in June of 1993, when President Clinton said, ``Let me tell you something about Bosnia. On Bosnia, I made a decision. The United Nations controls what happens in Bosnia.'' That is not an American policy. That is United Nations policy. That is not American leadership. I do not know. I see all the people who come to our offices. They are just asking for a right to defend themselves. That may not be the best policy. But it is a policy the Bosnians themselves are asking us to try. It seems to me they are doing all the dying. There is not any dying here. Their voice should be heard.

Mr. DOLE. I came to listen to the Senator from Nebraska. [[Page S 10617]]

Mr. DOLE. I am not certain how to accept their pronouncements. If we passed this legislation, which I assume the President will veto, we would have to override his veto.

Mr. DOLE. My own view is I think the British Prime Minister may be looking for some excuse to withdraw, and it would be nice if he could lay it on the United States because we have no forces on the ground. But we are, of course, engaged in NATO forces. We have people at risk, as we learned a few weeks ago with the young pilot. But I do not know whether they would withdraw or not. There is lot of rhetoric out there. We have had rhetoric for 3 years, and no results. We can ask these endless questions forever, and go on and ask this question. We have been asked these questions forever. It seems to me that it is time to vote. It is time to send a message. If we lose, we lose. If we win, we win. And then it goes through all the other processes. The President can decide what to do. But I do not believe that just passing this in the Senate is going to cause the British and French to say, ``Oh, that powerful U.S. Senate has spoken. We had better get out of here.'' I do not believe that will happen.

Mr. DOLE. I would prefer that policy. But it is probably not a solution. I do not know if it is a policy. I do not think we have a policy.

Mr. DOLE. But that is not what happened in London. We do not even know if they have not abandoned the dual-key approach. They have not decided what did happen. Bihac is under siege right now by Krajina Serbs and Bosnian Serbs, and nothing has happened. NATO is doing nothing. The United Nations is doing nothing. Another 15,000 people are at risk, and they say, ``Well, that is all; 15,000, take that off; take off the other two safe havens that have fallen, Srebrenica and Zepa. That leaves three. We will protect whatever is left.'' By the time they get around to it, there may not be any left. It may be a better policy if NATO did not have to be supported. The U.N. in my view would be a much better way to do it, as the Senator I think would like to do it.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, pursuant to the unanimous consent agreement on July 20, I now ask the Senate resume consideration of S. 21, the Bosnia and Herzegovina Self-Defense Act. I have asked my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, to lead the effort this afternoon. Also, will my colleague from Virginia be willing to help manage the effort this afternoon?

Mr. DOLE. I assume there would be an acceleration. Nobody is under the illusion they are going to say, ``Well, let us see. Let us take a time out while the Bosnians get ready. Let us have 30 to 60 days while people bring in arms and heavy weapons.'' But the Bosnians are people who understand and comprehend. They understand what they are up against. But in understanding what they are up against now, take a look at the casualties. Who has been doing the dying? It has been the Bosnians--women, children. There has been a lot of talk on this floor about the children, that we ought to do more for children. We are not engaged. We are not asking to send ground forces. I would support air cover even during this hiatus, as I think the Senator from Massachusetts maybe might, if I understand the question correctly. But all I am suggesting is--and I hope the Senator from Massachusetts will join us because he has the experience. He is a member of the committee. He understands what this is all about. This is about the U.S. Senate. It is not about Republican Bob Dole or Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman. This is about the Senate and whether or not we have a voice and whether or not we [[Page S 10624]] have a role, or whether we care about what happens in the world. We believe it is a failed policy, as I did back in the administration of the Republican President. So I am not here standing and jumping up, saying we had a Democrat President and I am a Republican, so I should find some way to find fault with this policy. I hope that we will have a strong vote. I think it would send a message of hope to the Bosnians.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, with the recent passing of John Moravek, our nation's legal community lost an outstanding and respected member, and many Americans lost a good friend and trusted adviser. John worked for Century 21 real estate for 20 years--the past 15 as general counsel at the corporate headquarters in Irvine, California. John was recognized as one of America's preeminent experts in his field in the field of real estate and franchise law, and he was one of few attorneys who had the honor of appearing before the United States Supreme Court. I was not privileged to know John as well as his countless friends and colleagues, which included my daughter, Robin. But I do remember John as a man of great integrity, intelligence, compassion and curiosity. The title of the obituary that ran in his hometown newspaper, the Long Beach Press-Telegram, summed it up best--``John Moravek was a renaissance man.'' John's interests ranged from classical guitar, to sailing, to painting, to politics. And while John and I didn't share beliefs on every political issue, we shared a sense of determination and a sense of humor. Without exception, those who knew John well speak of a remarkable man with a passion for life--a man who loved the ocean, who loved his job, who loved his friends, and who, above all, loved his wife, Lisa. Mr. President, I join in extending my sympathies to Lisa Moravek, and to all who were proud to call John Moravek their friend.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, earlier this year, Congress took an important step forward in reforming the way we conduct the Nation's business by passing congressional coverage legislation. Now, we will think twice before imposing new regulatory burdens on the private sector because these burdens will be imposed on Congress, too. Today, we will pass another key element of the reform agenda-- lobbying reform. Unlike last year's bill, this legislation strikes the right balance: it tightens up the registration and disclosure requirements for the Washington-based lobbyists, without infringing upon the rights of ordinary citizens at the grassroots to petition their Government. This was the main bone of contention during last year's debate, and I believe we have resolved our disagreements. While I was hopeful that we could have made a number of additional changes, including codifying President Clinton's executive order which imposes a 5-year ban on postemployment lobbying by executive branch officials, I am nonetheless pleased that the bill includes my amendment restricting the postemployment activities of our Nation's top trade negotiators. This amendment will prohibit anyone who has served as U.S. Trade Representative or Deputy U.S. Trade Representative, from ever representing, aiding, or advising any foreign government, foreign political party, or foreign business entity with the intent to influence a decision of any officer or employee of an executive agency. Current law prohibits the U.S. Trade Representative from aiding or advising a foreign entity for a period of 3 years after his service has ended. My amendment transforms this 3-year ban into a lifetime ban and applies the ban to the Deputy Trade Representative as well. The real problem here is one of appearance--the appearance of a revolving door between government service and private-sector enrichment. This appearance problem becomes all the more acute when former high Government officials work on behalf of foreign interests. Service as a high Government official is a privilege, not a right. This amendment may discourage some individuals from accepting the U.S.T.R. job, but in my view, this is a small price to pay when the confidence of the American people is at stake. Finally, Mr. President, I want to congratulate my distinguished colleagues, Senators Levin, Cohen, McConnell, and Lott, for all the hard work they have put into this effort. I know they have been working a number of days--in fact weeks--in trying to come to some agreement. And because of their efforts, and because of the their willingness on a give-and-take proposition, I believe they have crafted a very clear and a very sensible bill. And it should go a long way toward helping restore the trust of the American people in their elected representatives. I think the vote yesterday reflects broad support. The vote for the McConnell-Levin substitute was 98 to 0. There were two Senators absent, or it would have been 100 to 0. And I predict the vote today will probably be unanimous. Every Senator present will vote in favor of it. [[Page S 10598]] So, again I congratulate my colleague from Kentucky, Senator McConnell, Senator Levin from Michigan, Senator Lott, who more or less had the responsibility for moving this bill along for the past several weeks and working with different groups; and, of course, Senator Cohen who was the principal author of the bill last year and again worked hard this year.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Finally, Mr. President, let me say with reference to the gift ban, [[Page S 10597]] that has been debated this morning. It started at 9 o'clock, it would be my hope that during the debate on Bosnia we could continue our bipartisan efforts to reach some agreement on a gift ban. I do not know of anybody here that will live or die based on what happens on the gift ban. I think what we want to make certain of is that you do not have someone in this body who gets in trouble for some unintentional act. I received five birthday cakes last week. I am not certain what the value of the cakes were. I only ate one piece. But I might be in trouble because I am certain that the value of some of those cakes was in excess of $20. I was in Ocala, FL, on Sunday. They gave me a very nice piece of artistic work from wood. I do not know the value of it. The artist is not well known but well known in that part of Florida. Are we to say we cannot take that? There was not any lobbying group there. There were about 400 people there. For some reason they were happy I was there, and they gave me this gift. I believe that the thing we want to make certain of is that we do not go over the cliff here. I know there are 23 exemptions, as I understand it, for ``nonlobbyists.'' But I would hope my friend from Kentucky, who is present on the floor, would make certain, in our effort to make certain we are all simon pure, that we do not unintentionally involve one of our colleagues in some difficulty down the road if somebody in an election year, particularly if somebody did not register this birthday cake, they did not register this or that. I think it is easy to go to the extreme. If you do not have any friends they do not give you any gifts, and you do not have any problem. But most of us have friends, and they are good people. They are people from our home State, and people from other States which we visit. I am talking about minimal gifts, not anything of any great substance. If we can work out a bipartisan agreement, then obviously we will take it up tomorrow. If not, we may delay it for a while because we want to start on the State Department authorization bill. Hopefully, we can finish that in 2 or 3 days. That would still leave DOD authorization and appropriations, also foreign operations, welfare reform bill, four appropriations bills, the Ryan White bill, and a few other things before we recess for August. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the opposition to lifting the United States arms embargo in Bosnia and Herzegovina has been an elaborate exercise in buying time. It has been more than 11 months since the Senate last voted to lift the arms embargo in Bosnia. Following that vote, the administration worked with the distinguished Senator from Georgia on a compromise--the Nunn-Mitchell provision--which ultimately was adopted. The Nunn-Mitchell compromise essentially provided time, time for the Bosnian Serbs to sign the contact group plan; time for UNPROFOR to improve its performance; and time for the administration to work out a multilateral lift of the arms embargo. That is what it was supposed to do. Any one of these things have occurred not because of the lack of good intentions on the part of the Senator from Georgia, Senator Nunn, I might add, because he certainly expected these things to happen. Mr. President, 11 months later the situation is far worse than when the Senate last voted 58 to 42 to unilaterally lift the arms embargo in Bosnia. Thousands have died, tens of thousands have been forced from their homes, homes which were in the U.N. safe havens. Tens of thousands more are facing the same fate in Bihac, Sarajevo, and Gorazde. Furthermore, NATO is dangerously close to losing what credibility it still has, and the United States is no closer to exercising leadership in a new direction. President Clinton called me last week to ask for more time--he asked me to delay the vote on the Dole-Lieberman legislation until after the London meeting. And certainly we were pleased to oblige the President. Wherever we can, we want to work with the President of the United States, particularly in foreign policy areas. But now the London meeting has come and gone and there is no change on the ground in Bosnia. The London conference did not result in a reaffirmation of the U.N. obligation to defend the U.N. safe havens. The conferees wrote off Srebrenica and Zepa, vowed to protect Gorazde-- at some point, that point not being clear--and declined to respond to the dramatically worsening situation in Bihac and Sarajevo. So I guess what they have said, in effect, is if there are six safe havens we may be willing to protect one--one out of the six. Yes, there were modifications to the dual key arrangement, but the dual key remains. The bottom line is that the London meeting did not result in significant change in approach. It did not result in a new policy. It essentially reaffirmed business as usual with the possibility of a few displays of force sometime in the future. So the commander of the Bosnian Serbs, General Mladic--who, interestingly enough, was delivered the London conferees' ultimatum in Belgrade--is probably not shaking in his boots, but more likely laughing all the way to Bihac. Today there are reports of more NATO military planning. But planning was never the problem. Executing those plans was and still is the problem. This debate has never been about policy options, but about political will. It is high time the Clinton administration abandon its flimsy excuses for the United Nations' pitiful performance, shed the false mantle of humanitarianism, and face the reality of the U.N. failure in Bosnia. I intend to take up the Dole-Lieberman legislation tomorrow and hope we can vote tomorrow and have a clear-cut vote. It is not a partisan vote. It is supported strongly by colleagues on both sides of the aisle. This is the Senate of the United States speaking, not Bob Dole, not Joe Lieberman, not a Democrat, not a Republican--but the U.S. Senate. The clock has run out and now is the time for the United States to fulfill its role as the leader of the free world, do what is right and what is smart. Now is the time to pass the Dole-Lieberman legislation. We have an obligation to the Bosnian people and to our principles, to allow a U.N. member state, the victim of aggression, to defend itself. I listened to George Stephanopoulos at the White House yesterday on television, saying if we lifted the arms embargo, as proposed by myself and Senator Lieberman and other Republicans and Democrats, we were going to Americanize the war. How? All we are suggesting is to give these people the right to defend themselves as they have under article 51 of the U.N. Charter. We are not asking American ground troops, not suggesting American ground troops, not suggesting American involvement. But the spin machine at the White House is saying, ``Oh, this is going to Americanize the war.'' Nothing can be further from the truth. Let me again reiterate, this is a Senate effort--not a Republican effort, not a Democratic effort, but a bipartisan, nonpartisan effort-- to protect the rights of innocent people, an independent nation, a member of the United Nations, which under article 51 of the U.N. Charter has the right to self-defense. In 1991, we imposed an illegal embargo on Yugoslavia. There is not a Yugoslavia anymore. It is gone. It is now Bosnia, it is now Serbia, now Slovenia, now Croatia--it is no longer Yugoslavia. The embargo has been illegal from the start. We have, in effect, tied the hands of one side and said, OK, you cannot have any heavy weapons, but you go out and fight the aggressors, and, if you lose, we will provide humanitarian aid. I just suggest we have gone on long enough. I have great respect for the U.N. protection forces who are there. Two members of the French force lost their lives over the weekend; one was seriously wounded. Others have lost their lives in this effort--British, Dutch, Pakistanis--a number have lost their lives. But it has been a failed policy, and I believe it is time that the world recognize the policy has failed and time to give these people, the Bosnians, an opportunity to defend themselves. Several Senators addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE. Sure.

Mr. DOLE. Of course none of this would take effect--we would not lift the embargo--until they were gone. But I would be willing to support the President to extricate the U.N. protection forces. It seems to me, as a member of NATO we have that obligation. I know the views of the American people are very mixed, as I saw in the polls. But in my view, after they have been removed--if we have to help extricate them, I think we should. We should support the President in that effort. Second, when it comes to training the Bosnians, we helped the Afghans. We did not send anybody to Afghanistan. We helped train. We provided weapons. The same in El Salvador. I believe that can be done without Americanizing anything. Plus, what they want, as the Senator from North Dakota knows, are Russian weapons. They are familiar with Russian weapons, and they are readily available. So I am not certain they would need a great deal of training. But it just seems to me--and it is not just because I watch television, it is not just because I visited there 5 years ago when all this was just beginning to ferment--I think anybody, any objective observer, would say no, no U.S. ground troops. We could even question airstrikes, but certainly no Americanization. But, finally, let us give these innocent people a chance to defend themselves. That is all they are asking. I thank my colleague from North Dakota.

Mr. DOLE

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

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask that I may use some of my leader's time without interfering with the ongoing debate on lobbying reform. We are making progress on lobbying reform. I appreciate that. I hope we have will have a unanimous vote for a strong bill.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, this amendment has two provisions: The first provision says that no one shall be appointed to the important posts of U.S. Trade Representative or Deputy U.S. Trade Representative if that person had, in the past, directly represented a foreign government in a trade dispute or negotiation with the United States. The second provision says that no one who has served as U.S. Trade Representative or Deputy U.S. Trade Representative may, after his or her employment has ended, represent, aid, or advise any foreign government, foreign political party, or foreign business entity with the intent to influence a decision of any officer or employee of any executive agency; 18 U.S.C. section 207(f)(2) currently prohibits the U.S. Trade Representative from aiding and advising a foreign entity for a period of 3 years after his service has ended. My amendment transforms this 3-year ban into a lifetime ban and applies the ban to the Deputy Trade Representative as well. Of course, there are many fine men and women who have served America as our trade representatives. My amendment should not be misconstrued as an effort to impugn their integrity in any way whatsoever. The real problem here is one of appearance--the appearance of a revolving door between Government service and private-sector enrichment. This appearance problem becomes all the more acute when former high Government officials work on behalf of foreign interests. That is why my amendment insists that if you have represented the United States as one of its most senior trade officials in sensitive trade negotiations, you should not now--not 3 years from now, not ever--represent a foreign government or foreign business before the Government of the United States. Service as a high Government officials is a privilege, not a right. This amendment may discourage some individuals from accepting the U.S.T.R. job, but in may view, this is a small price to pay when the confidence of the American people is at stake.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the joint resolution be considered and passed, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, that any statements relating to the resolution appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar 131, Senate Joint Resolution 27.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that S. 101 be divided and renumbered with texts I now send to the desk, that they be placed on the calendar and all other provisions of the existing consent agreement governing the consideration of S. 101 apply to these two bills.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there be a period for the transaction of routine morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

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, as we consider the fiscal year 1996 Milcon appropriations bill, I wish to commend Senator Burns, the chairman of the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee, and Senator Reid, the subcommittee's ranking member, for their hard work in preparing this bill for floor action. It is evidence of the able leadership of Chairman Burns and Chairman Hatfield that we can consider this bill so quickly. I would also like to commend Jim Morhard and Warren Johnson of the subcommittee staff for their efforts in crafting a comprehensive and responsible bill. Mr. President, this is an important bill. It provides the Armed Forces with funds to construct facilities which are necessary in preparing them to protect the United States and our interests around the world. It also fully funds the requested amounts for BRAC II, BRAC III, and BRAC IV. In addition, the bill provides funds for the renovation and construction of barracks and family housing. The military's most important assets are the men and women who sacrifice every day to ensure the security of this great Nation. It is the least we can do to provide them and their families with quality housing. I am pleased that the bill also provides funding for the Department of Defense's initiative to develop private sector solutions to the current military housing shortfalls. It is a viable option as we consider how to better meet the needs of our service men and women. I encourage the Department to work with Congress and with the Military Appropriations Subcommittee so that this program might move forward expeditiously. Mr. President, I would also like to commend Chairman Burns and Chairman Hatfield for their efforts to meet the construction needs of the Reserve components. Last year, during consideration of the fiscal year 1995 military construction bill, I expressed my disappointment with the President's budget and its lack of funding for Guard and Reserve construction projects. At that time, I expressed my hope that this year's budget would more adequately address the needs of the Reserve component. The Department of Defense did include some Guard and Reserve projects in the fiscal year 1996 budget. Chairman Burns went further to ensure that additional Guard and Reserve projects were funded. In my view, that is a crucial step. As the Active Force continues to draw down, the Guard and Reserves will be asked to take on more day-to-day missions. In my view, it is our responsibility to ensure that they have the necessary facilities to meet these growing demands. I am aware that the committee has added projects that were not included in the President's request. The committee judged each of these projects by strict criteria in an effort to ensure that military construction dollars are used wisely. The projects that have been added directly impact the readiness and quality of life for our Armed Forces. In closing, Mr. President, I again commend my colleagues for their hard work on this bill. I thank them for their assistance in moving this bill forward and urge my colleagues to support it. air force reserve and michigan air national guard military construction projects

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I just say, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order following the remarks of the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, and the distinguished Senator from South Dakota, Senator Pressler.