May 9, 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S6315

The result was announced—yeas 97,

nays 1, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 157 Leg.]

YEAS—97

Abraham

Akaka

Ashcroft

Baucus

Bennett

Biden

Bingaman

Bond

Boxer

Bradley

Breaux

Brown

Bryan

Bumpers

Burns

Byrd

Campbell

Chafee

Coats

Cochran

Cohen

Conrad

Coverdell

Craig

D’Amato

Daschle

DeWine

Dodd

Dole

Domenici

Dorgan

Exon

Faircloth

Feingold

Feinstein

Ford

Frist

Glenn

Gorton

Graham

Gramm

Grams

Grassley

Gregg

Harkin

Hatch

Hatfield

Heflin

Helms

Hollings

Hutchison

Inhofe

Inouye

Jeffords

Kassebaum

Kempthorne

Kennedy

Kerrey

Kerry

Kohl

Kyl

Lautenberg

Leahy

Levin

Lieberman

Lott

Lugar

Mack

McCain

McConnell

Mikulski

Moseley-Braun

Murkowski

Murray

Nickles

Nunn

Packwood

Pell

Pressler

Pryor

Reid

Robb

Rockefeller

Roth

Santorum

Sarbanes

Shelby

Simon

Simpson

Smith

Snowe

Specter

Stevens

Thomas

Thompson

Thurmond

Wellstone

NAYS—1

Johnston

NOT VOTING—2

Moynihan Warner

So the concurrent resolution (H. Con.

Res. 53) was agreed to.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to

reconsider the vote.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. I move to lay that

motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was

agreed to.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanMORNING BUSINESS

fimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of routine

morning business until the hour of

12:30 p.m., with Senators permitted to

speak therein for 5 minutes each.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, that will

give everybody interested in the product liability bill an opportunity to discuss what their remaining strategy or

plans may be. We would like to complete action on the bill today. And

then, if possible, we would like to move

to the trash bill sometime this afternoon and try to complete action on

that bill this week.

Mr. MURKOWSKI addressed the

Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alaska.

Mr. MURKOWSKI. Mr. President, I

thank my colleagues for the evidence

of support to extend an invitation to

President Lee Teng-hui to visit the

United States in an unofficial capacity.

I think the support, as evidenced by

the vote of 97 to 1 is a clear message of

the prevailing attitude in this body toward extending this invitation.

It is my hope that the administration

and the State Department will understand the intensity of the feelings with

regard to our friends in Taiwan as evidenced in President Lee visiting his

alma mater and to a send him to the

United States-Republic of China Economic Council Conference in September of this year. I thank my colleagues

for their assistance, understanding,

and support of this resolution.

I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The

clerk will call the roll.

The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent that the order for

the quorum call be rescinded.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without

objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. GORTON. Mr. President, I thank

the Chair.

(The remarks of Mr. GORTON pertaining to the introduction of S. 768 are located in today’s RECORD under ‘‘Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint

Resolutions.’’)

Mr. ROTH addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

ASHCROFT). The Senator from Delaware.

(The remarks of Mr. ROTH and Mr.

D’AMATO pertaining to the introduction of S. Res. 117 are located in today’s RECORD under ‘‘Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.’’)

PRESIDENT CLINTON’S SUMMIT IN

fMOSCOW

Mr. ROTH. Mr. President, today the

President of the United States is participating in Russia’s May 9 commemoration of V–E Day. President Clinton

accepted Russian President Boris

Yeltsin’s invitation to this event despite the fact that I and many of my

colleagues encouraged him to select

another time for a United States-Russian summit. We were concerned that

because of the moral ambiguity of this

commemoration, United States participation would undermine the relationship we seek to develop with Russia.

We must not forget that the Soviet

Union contributed to the outbreak of

World War II, exploited the war’s end,

and committed countless atrocities to

Russians, Ukrainians, Lithuanians, and

other peoples subject to its brutal

domination.

President Clinton should not have accepted this invitation, but now that he

has, it is for these reasons that during

his visit to Moscow he must meet not

only with Russia’s leaders, but the

Russian people and emphasize three

key themes. First, he must emphasize

human rights. Second, democracy.

And, third, rejection of empire. In

doing so, the President would encourage all Russians not to look nostalgically back on the Soviet Union, but

forward toward the potential of a

democratic and postimperial Russia.

That should be the principal purpose of

President Clinton’s visit.

Toward this end, President Clinton

must emphasize that his role in this

celebration is not to honor the Soviet

Union, but the valor and sacrifices of

all the peoples who fought in opposition against Nazi aggression.

He must underscore the fact that

while the United States, as a whole,

celebrates victory in this war, it has

not forgotten the victims nor any

crimes committed during that era, be

it by the Nazis, Stalin and his henchmen, or others.

This will not slight those who fought

valiantly against fascism, as indeed did

millions of Russians. It will in fact

honor them even more highly by ensuring that their contributions are distinguished from the war-mongering and

atrocities of that brutal time. And, in

this way, the President will clearly differentiate the United States from those

who seek to reanimate the Soviet past.

In articulating these themes, the

President must publicly and forcefully

address the ongoing war in Chechnya.

Moscow’s management of the

Chechnyan autonomy movement is depressingly reminiscent of the policies

that Stalin, himself, used to terrorize

the peoples incorporated into the

former Soviet Union. It indicates the

fragility of democracy in Russia and,

perhaps, even a weakening of its impulse.

President Clinton vowed that he

would not visit Russia as long as Moscow continues the war against

Chechnya. Indeed, Mr. President, in the

weeks preceding this summit meeting,

President Yeltsin actually stepped up

military operations against the Republic, leveling more towns and killing

more innocent civilians, both Russian

and Chechnyan.

It is therefore absolutely essential

that President Clinton speak forthrightly to the Russian people, not hiding the fact that America condemns

the brutal use of military force against

Chechnya.

He should state that America’s relationship with Russia is contingent

upon Moscow’s peaceful resolution of

its differences with the Chechnyan people. Hesitation on this matter will undermine the legitimacy of Russia’s true

democrats who have valiantly protested against this war and will strip

credibility from our efforts to support

Russia’s still embryonic democracy.

The bottomline, Mr. President, is

that human rights is an international

issue. If Russia avows to be a member

of the community of democracies

founded upon respect for inalienable

human rights, it must live up to those

standards.

Third, in order for a true strategic

partnership to evolve between the

United States and Russia, Moscow

must respect the sovereignty of the

non-Russian nations of the former Soviet Union and former Warsaw Pact.
S6316 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE May 9, 1995

In this regard, the President’s decision to visit Ukraine is crucially important. A Kyiv summit will be an important signal of America’s commitment to assist the consolidation of

Ukraine’s independence. In light of

Ukraine’s intertwined history with

Russia, the success of Ukrainian independence and integration into the

Western community of nations will be

a critical determinant of Russia’s evolution into a postimperial state.

An important underpinning of the

constructive role we desire RussianUkrainian relations to play in European security has been the Tripartite

Agreement between Russia, Ukraine,

and the United States. In addition to

facilitating the elimination of

Ukraine’s nuclear arsenal, the agreement committed Russia to respect

Ukraine’s sovereignty and independence. While in Moscow President Clinton must underscore America’s commitment to this agreement and our expectations that Russia do the same.

The President must also emphasize

that NATO enlargement will contribute to greater peace and stability in

post-cold war Europe. He must communicate that this is a normal process

that is driven not only by the need to

address the security of Central Europe

but also by the Central Europeans who

have clearly articulated their desire

for membership.

By further ensuring stability in

Central and Eastern Europe, NATO expansion will positively and significantly shape the futures of Russia and

Germany, two great powers now engaged in a delicate and complex process of national redefinition. It is a critical step toward providing the security

essential to enhance the prosperity and

stability now beginning to characterize

Central and Eastern Europe.

It is a requirement for preserving

Germany’s progressive role in European affairs and promoting Russia’s

postimperial evolution. By creating

greater stability along Russia’s frontiers, NATO enlargement would allow

Moscow to spend more of its energy on

the internal challenges of political and

economic reform.

I hope that, while he is in Moscow,

our President will underscore the fact

that Russia cannot and will not have

any veto over the future membership of

NATO.

We all must recognize that NATO enlargement is a process whose outcome

Russia will, nonetheless, inevitably influence. If Russia resists the process

through intimidation or aggression,

NATO enlargement will more likely be

directed against Russia. If Russia respects the rights of other nations to determine their own geopolitical orientation, if Russia recognizes the objective

benefits of NATO enlargement, and if

Russia ultimately works with the alliance, enlargement will contribute to a

broader engagement and integration

that will bring Europe and Russia closer together.

As it was well put in one of the recent hearings of the Foreign Relations’

Committee on this matter, it is not

NATO enlargement that will determine

the future of Russia’s relationship with

the alliance, but Moscow’s reaction to

NATO enlargement.

Finally, during his stay in Moscow

President Clinton must emphasize that

America is more interested in the future of Russian democracy than in the

fate of a single leader. I strongly encourage that the President meet with

members of Russia’s beleaguered press

and those democratically minded legislators—particularly Sergei Kovalyov,

the Duma’s former Human Rights Commissioner who was recently relieved of

his duties because of his courageous

criticism of the Russian Government’s

Chechyn policy. Perhaps, the President

should even meet with those Russian

generals who oppose this war, such as

former Deputy Minister of Defense

Boris Gromov who also lost his position for his criticism.

I say this because the future of our

relationship with Russia lies not with

those who fall back on the brutal

mechanisms of a bygone age, but with

those who envision Russia as a prospering democracy.

Mr. President, America’s role in Moscow’s V–E Day celebrations should be

to encourage Russian people and their

leaders to concentrate not on the

former Soviet Union, but on Russia’s

future. These themes—human rights,

democracy, and the rejection of empire—are the keys not only to

unlocking Russia’s potential but also

to a true strategic partnership between

Russia and the United States. Should

Moscow’s leaders respond positively to

these themes, it would be a strong

demonstration that Russia is shedding

the imperialist ambitions and totalitarian proclivities of the Soviet past.

Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Pennsylvania.

HEARINGS SCHEDULED BY THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM,

fTECHNOLOGY AND GOVERNMENT

INFORMATION

Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I have

sought recognition to comment briefly

on a series of hearings scheduled by the

Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Government Information of

the Judiciary Committee in the wake

of Oklahoma City, although one had

actually been scheduled in advance.

We have so far had hearings on the

statutes proposed by the administration and others. We have had a hearing

in response to certain groups concerned

with the issue of constitutional rights.

A hearing is scheduled for this Thursday, May 11, on the so-called mayhem

manuals, where you can find out how

to make a bomb, and a hearing is

scheduled on May 18 on the incidents

involving Waco, TX and Ruby Ridge,

ID.

I have received correspondence from

the distinguished chairman of the full

committee, Senator HATCH, who raises

a question about the timeliness of the

hearings and about the jurisdiction of

my subcommittee. I have responded to

Senator HATCH, and intend to put the

correspondence in the RECORD so it

may be available for the public, by noting that the jurisdiction is clear-cut on

the subcommittee, both under the authority on terrorism and on governmental information.

It is my view, Mr. President, that it

is important and the hearings are long

past due on what happened at Waco,

TX and what happened at Ruby Ridge,

ID. There can be no misunderstanding

or no question that whatever happened

at Waco, TX and Ruby Ridge, ID, that

there is absolutely, positively no justification for the bombing of the Federal building in Oklahoma City, OK.

But there has been a great deal of

concern about whether there has been

a candid response by the Government

of the United States, and in the congressional oversight responsibility, we

should lay all the facts on the table in

the interest of full disclosure—let the

chips fall where they may. The virtue

of strength of a democracy is that we

do not cover our mistakes; that if there

are errors and if there are problems, we

identify them forthrightly.

There had been some concern that a

hearing on Ruby Ridge, ID might in

some way prejudice the investigation

by the prosecuting attorney who may

intend to bring some charges, perhaps

even against Federal officials. I have

had an extended discussion with Randolph Day, Esq., the county attorney

for Boundary County, who has advised

me that he sees no problem in our

going forward with hearings by the

subcommittee.

A number of Senators have made

public statements about the importance of having such hearings. Others

of my colleagues have discussed the

matters with me privately. I do think

it is important that hearings proceed

and that other Senators and the public

be aware of the status of this matter.

So I ask unanimous consent that the

text of the letter from Senator HATCH

to me dated May 8, with my reply to

him dated May 9, be printed in the

RECORD.

There being no objection, the letters

were ordered to be printed in the

RECORD, as follows:

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, DC, May 8, 1995.

Hon. ARLEN SPECTER,

U.S. Senate,

Washington, DC.

DEAR ARLEN: I am writing with regard to

your public statements concerning the convening of a hearing in the Terrorism, Technology and Government Information subcommittee to review the incidents at Waco,

Texas and Ruby Ridge, Idaho. This letter is

intended to settle any misunderstanding

that may exist as to what the Senate Judiciary Committee’s plans are surrounding a review of these matters.