Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, 2 days ago, President Clinton called me to ask that I delay the vote on the Dole-Lieberman legislation until after the London meeting, which ended just a short while ago. I agreed to the President's request. Unfortunately, the London meeting was a disappointment--another dazzling display of ducking the problem. Instead of clarity and decisiveness, once again we have ambiguity and a lowest common denominator approach. Instead of dumping the dual key it has been modified. Instead of responding to the fall of Zepa and Srebrenica, these two eastern enclaves have been written off. Most egregiously, the London meeting reaffirmed the current failed U.N. operation. In the wake of the fall of Zepa, it is hard for me to imagine that anyone still believes that the U.N. mission is viable in Bosnia--that what we are witnessing is anything but a colossal, collective catastrophe. Yesterday, the Bosnian Presidency building was shelled while the European envoy, Carl Bildt, was meeting with the Bosnian President. If attacks on Sarajevo continue, what will be the West's response? Another meeting. According to Secretary Christopher, the focus of U.N. efforts will be to open access to the city for humanitarian aid. Yes; the Bosnian people need food. They also need protection. The London meeting reportedly produced a decision to defend Gorazde through a substantial response--after a serious warning is given to the Serbs. Gorazde is already under attack. How much further do the Bosnian Serbs have to go before the warning is triggered? The Serbs are becoming more aggressive and more defiant by the hour. The London meeting made it clear there would be no immediate or decisive response except more meetings. In effect, what the Clinton administration and European leaders are doing is trying to manage the conflict--to limit the war's consequences without providing a solution. Or, as the Bosnian Prime Minister said, without dealing with the real problem--which is Belgrade-sponsored aggression. Western leaders in London also called for a cease-fire and more negotiations. It has been 1 year since the Bosnian Government signed the so-called contact group's plan. Why should the Serbs sign now after yet another display of fecklessness? It is crystal clear that the London meeting did not produce a solution. It did not result in a policy. I believe that the Senate will not be fooled by administration spin doctors who will no doubt announce great results from the London meeting. I believe that there is a substantial majority in favor of the Dole- Lieberman legislation and that the disappointing outcome of the London meeting will only serve to strengthen that support. Once again, I want to emphasize that the Dole-Lieberman legislation lifts the U.S. arms embargo after UNPROFOR withdraws. It seems to me that this point is being deliberately ignored and intentionally obfuscated by those allied and administration officials who claim that the Dole-Lieberman legislation if passed will be responsible for a U.N. pull-out. This does not take effect until they are out, so we will not be responsible for a pull-out. No doubt this is a political tactic designed to find excuses for what is the inevitable end of the U.N. mission in Bosnia. It may not be today, may not be tomorrow, but this will end as a consequence of its own failed policy. If only administration and allied officials would spend as much time designing a new policy as they do designing new excuses for their inability to develop an effective and principled policy. The bottom line is that passage of the Dole-Lieberman bill may be an excuse for U.N. withdrawal, but it will not be a cause. The dire administration predictions of humanitarian disaster have come true--but not because of lifting the arms embargo, but because of a lack of American leadership and a willingness to go along with failure in the name of consensus. Despite the paternalistic assertions made by administration officials that they have the best interests of the Bosnians at heart, the present approach is not humanitarian, it is inhumane. First, the Bosnians were corralled into giant refugee camps, then disarmed, and then left unprotected. With respect to the assertion that this legislation would give the Bosnian President the right to send 25,000 U.S. troops to Bosnia I would make three points: First, the commitment to send 25,000 U.S. troops to Bosnia for either a withdrawal or to police a settlement is a commitment that was made by President Clinton--and not pursuant to any request by the Bosnian Government or the result of any congressional action. Second, the days of colonialism are over. The Bosnian Government is a sovereign government and has the right to tell the British, French, Dutch, and other forces if and when it wants them to leave. Third, President Clinton has yet to make his case to the Congress that 25,000 troops are needed for such a withdrawal. Let us not forget that the Dutch troops in Srebrenica negotiated their departure with the Serbs--they were not rescued by U.S. marines. Let me also indicate, as I was told by the foreign minister just a few days ago, he said there were about only 30 U.N. personnel in Serbian-held territory. Somebody said that figure is much higher, maybe 500, maybe 600; but, again, it would not take 25,000 American troops to rescue 30 or 500 or 1,000 U.N. personnel. We have been assured by the Moslems that they would in no way interfere with the withdrawal. Finally, I would like to say that a belated NATO response to the brutal Serb onslaught in the Eastern enclaves is not a substitute for a policy. The U.N. operation is a failure. That is a fact. And no amount of reshuffling will change that fact. Neither Bandaids, nor reconstructive surgery will save the U.N. operation in Bosnia. Lifting the arms embargo and letting the Bosnians defend themselves is the only policy option which has any hope of saving them--and saving United States credibility. I might point out, the New York Times--which has been struggling with this issue editorially, as many have on the floor, today, and maybe that will be referred to by my colleague from Connecticut--said rather flatly, it is time to lift the embargo. It is time to lift the arms embargo. If we do not want to Americanize what is happening there, and we want to give this independent nation a right to defend itself, then the course is clear. Lift the arms embargo after withdrawing the U.N. forces, and then we believe we can supply the Muslims with weapons. They can be trained in safe places with no hazard, by anybody in the United States or any United States force who might be involved in any weapons or training or whatever. We believe this is not the best solution. There are not any good solutions. It gives an independent nation a right to defend itself and gives the people in that nation a right to defend themselves. In my view, sooner or later, it will happen. Maybe not this week. Maybe not next week. Maybe not next month. But winter is coming very soon in that part of the world, and I believe before that happens, U.N. forces will be withdrawn or on the way out. Then, perhaps, the Bosnians will have an opportunity to do what they wanted to do for some time. I do not mean to dismiss the humanitarian aid that has been provided. It has been helpful in some cases, but unintentionally, the U.N. protection forces have become a barrier, which unintentionally has been a help to the Serb aggressors, and not to the poor people who are trapped in the enclaves. So far, one has fallen. Another is about to fall. Clearly, everyone is in danger.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I would just say for the information of all Senators, under the previous order the Senate will begin consideration of the gift ban/ lobbying bill on Monday morning. We hope to be able to reach an agreement on both of these measures that will allow us to complete action on the resolution on Monday. Rollcall votes, if they are to occur, will not occur before 5 p.m. on Monday, so there will be no rollcall votes before 5 p.m. I cannot say with certainty, but I would be fairly certain there will be rollcall votes after 5 p.m., either on final passage or on amendments.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent when the Senate completes its business today it stand in recess until the hour of 9 a.m. on Monday, July 24, 1995; that following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then immediately begin consideration of S. 101, the gift ban/lobbying bill, under the terms of the consent order of June 9.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent that all second-degree amendments under rule XXII must be filed by the time of the cloture vote.

Mr. DOLE. I further ask unanimous consent that regardless of the outcome of the cloture vote, and notwithstanding rule XXII, immediately following the cloture vote, the motion to table by Senator Mack be voted on, on amendment No. 1808, the legislative appropriations bill.

Mr. DOLE. I also ask unanimous consent that if cloture is not invoked, the Senate resume the legislative appropriations bill.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I think we have an agreement on Bosnia. Let me indicate, as I said last night, I did have a phone visit with the President of the United States, and obviously I want to cooperate with the President. I think we now have an agreement that does that. I thank the Democratic leader. I ask unanimous consent that S. 21 be temporarily laid aside; that on Tuesday, July 25, the majority leader, after notification of the minority leader, may resume consideration of S. 21, the Bosnia Self- Defense Act, and the following amendments be the only first-degree amendments in order to the Dole substitute, and they be subject to relevant second degrees, following a failed motion to table: There be a Nunn amendment, relevant; Nunn amendment, U.S. participation; Nunn amendment, multilateral embargo; Nunn amendment, relevant. Two Nunn relevant amendments. Four amendments by the distinguished Democratic leader or his designee, relevant amendments; a Byrd amendment, relevant; Kerry of Massachusetts amendment, relevant. I further ask unanimous consent that, following the disposition of the above-listed amendments, the Senate proceed to vote on the Dole substitute, as amended, if amended, to be followed by third reading, and there be 4 hours of debate equally divided between Senator Dole and Senator Nunn, and then final passage of S. 21 as amended, if amended.

Mr. DOLE. So, Mr. President, now we have the 1-hour debate before the cloture vote. Senator Johnston is here, Senator Roth is here, and there will be a cloture vote and then we will be back on the legislative appropriations bill. Hopefully we can finish that tonight. Then, we will have the debate, hopefully, on the rescissions bill tonight. I will be talking with the Democratic leader about that.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I call for the regular order.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I designate Senator Hatch.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I will just take a minute or two because I know we have had a lot of debate here and we have had a lot of negotiations. In fact, we have been negotiating since April. This is about the 10th day now on this bill. I think what we have forgotten--we keep talking about we have to satisfy this Senator, that Senator--somewhere out there some small business man or woman or farmer is saying, what are these people doing in the U.S. Senate? We have been on this bill 10 days. We had about 2 weeks of negotiation before that. We have made over 100 changes. When do we stop? When we satisfy every liberal Senator on the other side of the aisle? Then you could not find the rest of us voting for it. I note in the latest offer they made they say, ``We are not able to accept proceeding with any of these as individual amendments without addressing the package as a whole.'' So you take this package, then tomorrow you will have another package, oh, just four or five more things we thought of or the staff thought of or the administration thought of or the bureaucrats thought of. It is one thing to say we are for regulatory reform. But we are not going to have it unless we have cloture. So the moment of truth is about to arrive. The moment of truth is about to arrive. I have heard all the speeches. I have listened to the speeches. I suppose everybody wants some vague regulatory reform. But by the time we adopt every amendment we have had proposed by some of my colleagues, we would not have regulatory reform. We would satisfy the bureaucracy, which is apparently what some wish to do. The Senator from Louisiana just read a piece of the Glenn bill, ``in sole discretion.'' They make the determination. So I hope my colleagues will understand, we have a lot of work to do this year. In fact, we just voted earlier today on an amendment, I think it had regulatory reform in it. I think the vote was 91 to 8--91 people voted for this broad bill that had regulatory reform, tax reform, grazing reform, all the reforms we could think of; 91 to 8 voted for it. So there ought to be 91 votes for cloture. I just hope my colleagues--we have made a lot of progress. Every Republican will now vote for cloture. That is up from about 49; now it is 54. But we cannot get there alone. I tell the American people, we cannot have regulatory reform without at least a half dozen on the other side. It is not possible to satisfy the concerns of some. It is never possible in any legislation. I do not know what a filibuster is, but it seems like after a couple of weeks we ought to make some decisions. There are a lot of amendments filed, relevant, germane. There are still opportunities to improve this bill after cloture is invoked. Some of these things, in my view, we ought to just say, ``If we cannot reach an agreement, there ought to be an up-or-down vote.'' We would win some, the other side would win some, but at least we would have some resolution. So I urge my colleague, particularly on the other side of the aisle-- and I know you are under extreme pressure. I know the little sweatshop is working right outside the corridor here. I know there are a lot of people coming out there with arms that are hurting. Some have slings. I know the pressure is great, all the way from the White House, the President, the Vice President, every bureaucrat in town is concerned about this bill because they do not want it to happen. I think it is time we just, in the next 20 minutes, think about the American people during the vote--people in Kansas, Rhode Island, Georgia, Virginia, New York--wherever. So, before we cast our vote-- Oregon. Anybody else who is here. We are all one big country. It is going to be one big vote. I thank my colleagues.

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 want to thank my Republican colleagues and four of our colleagues on the other side who voted for regulatory reform and congratulate those who stuck together to bury it. It seems to me they have been successful. I will just say, we thought we made a good effort. There is always more and more and more, and maybe this is all a way to keep the bill from going to the White House where the President indicates he would veto it. We have had months of negotiation, hundreds of changes, 10 days of consideration, and then we are told, ``Oh, we just need more time.'' Either we are for regulatory reform or we are not. We cannot satisfy everybody in the Chamber, and those people made their choices. After the vote, people said, ``Oh, we just need to negotiate more. Let's just have some more negotiations.'' The truth is that our bill largely tracks President Clinton's Executive order but has one important difference. This bill will ensure the requirements are actually carried out. I particularly want to commend Senator Johnston for his work, and his tireless efforts. He came to me--it seems like months ago now, but I guess it was just weeks--and he said, ``We are not going to get anywhere unless we make some changes in this bill.'' So we set about to make changes. Today, all across America--I do not have a copy--we are being flooded with statements by the Democratic National Committee on this vote about how Senator Domenici is for dirty meat, and Senator Warner and somebody else is for dirty meat. They mixed it up a little, depending on where you live. It has a little cartoon there with our pictures in the middle. Very nicely done. I think that has been the purpose right along--to try to get a campaign issue. Forget about the farmers and ranchers in Montana, or Kansas, or Virginia, or somewhere else. Forget about the small businessmen and women all across America. We have to protect the bureaucracy. We cannot have the bureaucracy overworked in Washington, DC. That is what we have heard for the last 3 days. Not many people in Russell, Kansas, are worried too much about the bureaucracy in Washington, DC. They have never seen it, most of them. They have felt it in their wallets, and they feel it when they open up their little business, and they feel it when they go out of business, and they feel it on the farm, and they feel it on the ranch, and they feel it all across America. But they cannot have regulatory reform because we cannot get the cooperation. Everything in this Senate needs 60 votes. To get 60 votes, you end up with nothing. I do not believe that is what the American people expect us to do. We can hold our heads high, those of us who voted for cloture. We can look the small businessman in the eye, and we can look the rancher in Montana in the eye, or wherever he may live, and say we did our best, we tried once, twice, three times. We were told, oh, nobody is delaying this bill; we do not want to delay this bill, and we are all for regulatory reform--until a vote came. Mr. President, I do not know--I think I know what the final outcome is. I do not want to cause any anxiety for my friends on the other side, but I thank Senator Breaux and Senator Heflin and Senator Nunn for their votes, because I know the pressure was great, intense, and steady. I assume we could have put together a package that would have gotten 100 votes. It would not have been worth anything, but we could have said we all voted for regulatory reform. Particularly, Senator Roth and Senator Hatch, and others on this side, have worked so hard to try to bring it together. But I think there is a little bit of principle left in this argument. We would like to think that we have at least 58 votes. That is 58 percent of the Senate that would like to have regulatory reform. Eighty-eight percent of the American people would like to have it. But we cannot get it because we are short 2 percent. Two percent of the Senate is denying about 85 or 90 percent of the American people regulatory reform. That is a right we all have. We have all been through it. Some of us have been on the other side. I do not know of any more important bill than this one. But I think the dye has been cast. I am willing to entertain any legitimate concerns, but no more of these four or five pages that say at the end, ``we are not able to accept proceeding with any of these individual amendments without addressing the package as a whole.'' Then I assume that if this were addressed, there would be another one ready. They are endless. So I regret that we have failed the American people--again. But there will be other opportunities. I, again, thank my colleagues on this side of the aisle for being 100 percent for regulatory reform. One hundred percent. You cannot get any better than that. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, of the 27 amendments on this side, many of them were offered to accommodate requests on the other side, to make the bill ``better.'' I do not believe the vote on the Glenn amendment reflected the vote that came out of the committee unanimously. As I recall listening to the Senator from Delaware, that is not the case. It is a different bill entirely. I ask the Senator from Delaware, am I accurate, or have I misstated the problem?

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Let me indicate to my colleagues this will not be the last vote this evening because we will try to finish the legislative branch appropriations this evening and then later on in the evening, much later on in the evening, we will take up the rescissions bill. When everything else is done, nothing else is left to do, we will take it up. Vote on Amendment No. 1808

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion was agreed to.

Mr. DOLE

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

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me indicate that we are happy to have the managers here this morning on the first appropriations bill. We hope to dispose of six appropriations bills before the August recess. This is certainly an indication that we are on target. We had these bills scheduled for tomorrow. We will do them today. Maybe we can do something else tomorrow. I wish the managers success, and I hope we can do it quickly. Mr. MACK addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I now ask unanimous consent that the committee amendments be considered, en bloc, agreed to, en bloc, and considered original text for the purpose of further amendment, and that no points of order be waived.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I am advised that this request has been cleared by the Democratic leader. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to the consideration of H.R. 1854, the legislative branch appropriations bill.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, before the next vote, as I understand, there will no more amendments on this bill unless I offer the rescissions package.

Mr. DOLE. Right. I mean after this next one. Is there any demand for a rollcall on final passage?

Mr. DOLE. If we cannot get an agreement on the rescissions package, I intend to offer it as an amendment and then have the Wellstone-Moseley- Braun amendments and do it all tonight. We are not going to add any more time in the morning. We have been trying to put this together for 3 weeks. I have been here a long time. I have never been so frustrated in my life. So if they want to stay here tonight and keep everybody else here half the night, I am prepared to offer the rescissions package as an amendment as soon as we complete the next vote. If they are prepared to enter the agreement we thought we had, we are prepared to do that. So we can think it over during this vote, and I am prepared to offer the amendment right after this vote. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, as some of my colleagues may know, I am in the process of preparing legislation that is designed to get the Federal Government out of the business of granting group-preferences. I will be introducing this legislation next week. This legislation will stand for a simple proposition--that the Federal Government should neither discriminate against, nor grant preferences to, individuals on the basis of race, color, gender, or ethnic background. Whether it is employment, or contracting, or any other federally conducted program, our Government in Washington should work to bring its citizens together, not to divide us. Our focus should be protecting the rights of individuals, not the rights of certain groups. The amendment offered by my distinguished colleague from Texas is consistent with the approach embodied in the bill I will be introducing next week. And of course, I look forward to working with him as well with all of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Rather than the piecemeal approach of amending each of the appropriations bills, I would prefer to address this very, very important issue more thoroughly and as a separate matter--and that's the point of my bill--to serve as a starting point for this discussion. This legislation may not be perfect, but it is my hope that it can act as the basis for a serious, rational, and, yes, optimistic dialog on one of the most contentious issues of our time. Of course, our country's history has many sad chapters--slavery, Jim Crow, separate but equal. And, of course, discrimination persists today. We do not live in a color-blind society. I understand this. But, Mr. President, fighting discrimination should not be an excuse for abandoning the color-blind ideal. The goal of expanding opportunity should not be used to divide Americans by race, by gender, or by ethnic background. Discrimination is wrong, and preferential treatment is wrong, as well. So, Mr. President, our goal should be to provide equal opportunity-- but not through quotas, set-asides, and other group preferences that are inimical to the principles upon which our country was founded. A relevant civil rights agenda means conscientiously enforcing the antidiscrimination laws. It means outreach and recruitment. And it means knocking down regulatory barriers to economic opportunity, including repeal of the discriminatory Davis-Bacon Act; enacting school choice programs for low income innercity families; and fighting the scourge of violent crime that is unquestionably one of the biggest causes of poverty today. This is the agenda upon which dreams can be built--and it is an agenda that this Congress should be relentlessly pursuing.

Mr. DOLE

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