Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield to me for 3 minutes?

Mr. DOLE. I thank the Senator.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, long-delayed parliamentary elections were held in Haiti last weekend. The long-suffering Haitian people deserve credit in what is a momentous step in their efforts to develop democracy. For many months, it appeared elections might never take place. Since January, President Aristide has been governing by decree because elections were not held in the constitutionally mandated period. All reports out of Haiti indicate confusion and chaos in the electoral process. Hundreds of thousands of Haitians were waiting to vote 24 hours after polls were supposed to close. Some polling stations opened very late, and some never opened at all. An election station was burned in northern Haiti. Turnout was low. [[Page S 9132]] According to information my office received from Haiti today, the ballot counting process is in total disarray. The final results are not yet in, but the early returns indicate deep flaws in the process leading up to the election, deep flaws on election day, and now a complete breakdown of the process. All the signs point to an election process that is fatally flawed. There are credible reports of ballots being destroyed, and of nonexistent ballot security. No one knows when ballot counting will be completed--or if it can ever be done credibly. You may have seen a picture of ballot security in the Washington Post this morning, boxes and boxes of ballots stacked up and ballots spilling out of the boxes. Witnesses today cite cases of ballots being shoveled into trash containers, and left in the street. The International Republican Institute [IRI] documented dozens of shortcomings in the months and weeks leading up to the election. The IRI delegation, headed by Congressman Porter Goss, issued a statement yesterday titled: ``Irregularities Mar the Electoral Process.'' The IRI statement details grave concerns with the Haitian elections. The International Republican Institute deserves credit for its honest and serious effort to expose flaws in the Haitian election process. The international community should not just stand by and applaud a deeply flawed election. As Chairman Goss' statement noted yesterday, ``The Haitian people deserve better.'' In light of the work done by IRI, it was all the more surprising to see the Washington Post editorialize today against IRI's work. The Post claimed IRI's criticism was not informed or constructive, but misunderstood the tough effort to rehabilitate Haiti. I agree the effort to rehabilitate Haiti will be tough--but it will not be served by turning our eyes from the very real problems in Haiti, or from an election that is fraught with problems. This is not a Republican view-- it is an honest assessment of the facts. The New York Times today reported that the Haitian election unraveled further yesterday. The mayor of Port au Prince, an old ally of President Aristide, said yesterday: ``There has been massive fraud. It does not seriously advance the process.'' I expect hearings into Haiti's election to begin as soon as the Senate returns from recess in July. Instead of criticizing the monitors of the election, the Post should look for answers to the tough questions: Why were thousands of candidates rejected by the election council in total secrecy? Why was an official list of candidates never released? Why weren't election administrators trained until it was too late-- despite the availability of millions in international assistance for such training? What happened to 1 million voter registration cards missing before election day? Why were voter registration records unavailable on election day, and then being destroyed 48 hours later? Why was there a complete lack of ballot security on election day and subsequently? Why were thousands of ballots and tally sheets destroyed and discarded before any official count was recorded or finalized today in Port au Prince and other departments? Are the verifiable cases of ballot substitution part of a national pattern to influence the outcome of the elections? Why was President Aristide silent on key issues of election integrity in the days before Sunday's balloting? Who in the government and police force played a role in the undermining of Haitian democracy? What has happened to the millions of dollars in election assistance given to Haiti--amid rumors that elections workers will not be paid? Is the election chaos in Haiti orchestrated, as charged by credible international observers on the scene today? These and other issues deserve serious scrutiny--not just cheerleading. The Haitian election process is at a standstill. I believe the election process in Haiti should be judged by the same standard used for other elections in other parts of the world--the Haitian people deserve no less. The election observers have left the country but IRI is still on the ground asking the tough questions. I am confident Congress will fully examine all issues associated with the Haitian elections in the coming weeks. I ask consent that a summary of the preelection analysis and the International Republican Institute statement of June 26, 1995, be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, today's Boston Herald contains a shocking front-page story--a story that should send shivers down the spines of all Americans, especially those who have criticized my call to the entertainment industry to exercise good citizenship when it comes to producing films that celebrate mindless violence. That is the headline: ``We're `Natural Born Killers.''' There was a movie called ``Natural Born Killers.'' This is a story, the prosecutor says, where the suspects bragged about the slaying saying, ``We're natural born killers.'' ``We're `Natural Born Killers,''' the headline blares, referring to the critically acclaimed Oliver Stone film. This is what happened. The Boston Herald story begins, and I quote: As they changed out of their bloody clothes, the men who plunged a knife into an elderly Avon man 27 times bragged they were ``natural born killers,'' a Norfolk County prosecutor said yesterday. ``Haven't you ever seen `natural born killers' before?,'' 18-year-old suspect Patrick T. Morse allegedly bragged to a girl after the gruesome slaying. According to the Norfolk County prosecutor, ``This is one of the most vicious premeditated murders I have ever seen.'' And Massachusetts State Police Trooper Brian Howe said ``My understanding was that they were drawing a comparison between the characters in the movie and themselves.'' Of course, no movie caused this brutal killing in Massachusetts. We are all responsible for our own actions, period. But, at the same time, those in the entertainment industry who deny that cultural messages can bore deep into the hearts and minds of our young people are deceiving themselves. If the Boston Herald story is true, and if these are the kinds of role models that Hollywood is content to promote, then perhaps some serious soul-searching is in order in the corporate suits of the entertainment industry. Let me just indicate again that is the headline. It is not Bob Dole's headline. It is the headline this morning in the Boston Herald about how these young murderers bragged about attacking an old man and stabbing the person 27 times. In fact, it goes into graphic detail about the knife that was so bloody that they had to ask for a new knife. Something is wrong in America with the entertainment industry, and maybe it is high time they took a look at themselves and put profit behind common decency. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article from the Boston Herald be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, a century-and-a-half ago, the great Daniel Webster said, We may be tossed upon an ocean where we can see no land-- nor, perhaps, the sun or stars. But there is a chart and a compass for us to study, to consult, and to obey. That chart is the Constitution. Today, Mr. President, the Senate joins with the rest of the country in mourning the passing of former Chief Justice of the United States, Warren Burger, a man who devoted his life to studying, consulting, and obeying the Constitution. Chief Justice Burger's public life began in 1953, when he came to Washington to serve as an Assistant Attorney General in the Eisenhowewr administration. Prior to that time, he was a respected attorney and civic leader in his home State of Minnesota. And when he arrived in Washington, he brought with him a great deal of midwestern common sense, practical experience, and an understanding of the importance of communities, neighborhoods, and families. In 1956, President Eisenhower appointed Chief Justice Burger to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia circuit. He served there with distinction until 1969, when President Nixon selected him as Chief Justice of the United States. During his 17 years as Chief Justice of the United States--a tenure which made him the longest serving Chief Justice in this century-- Warren Burger authored over 244 majority opinions and assigned over 1,000 others. Like most Americans, I agreed with some of those opinions, especially those that restored a sense of balance to our criminal justice system-- and disagreed with others. But I never doubted Warren Burger's devotion to his country. And I never doubted his devotion to making our judicial system and our courts run more efficently. Chief Justice Burger is due the credit he has received for the leadership he provided in improving education and training of judges and court personnel, and in the implementation of technological advances. He created the National Center for State Courts, the Institute for Court Management, and the National Institute for Corrections, institutions which will continue to serve as his legacy for years to come. Chief Justice Burger also spoke bluntly about the need of the members of the legal profession to always maintain the highest degree of ethics and professionalism. When Chief Justice Burger left the court, he assumed the chairmanship of the commission honoring the Bicentennial of the Constitution. And he presided over that celebration's activities with great dignity and ability. Warren Burger's devotion to increasing awareness of the Constitution continued until this year, when he published a book recounting 14 major Supreme Court cases. Mr. President, I know all Senators join with me in extending our sympathies to Chief Justice Burger's son, Wade, his daughter, Margaret, and his two grandchildren.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. This is in reference to the remainder of the evening, so it will be important to every Member. I understand we are not able to convince anybody to continue on this evening, except there will be amendments offered and there will be debate this evening, but there will be no more votes after this rollcall vote. There will be votes starting at 10:30 a.m. tomorrow: Two votes, under the same provision. There will be 2 minutes to explain before each vote, and then following those two votes, I understand there will be another amendment laid down. Senator Sarbanes will be recognized to lay down his amendment at about 11:15, I assume. We still very much would like to finish this bill in the early afternoon. There are five amendments, I understand, outstanding.

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

Mr. DOLE. Again, there has not been any delay on either side. There has been a lot of good debate all day today. But we would like to complete action on this bill to move to something else, hopefully regulatory reform. There will be no more rollcall votes tonight, but two votes starting at 10:30 a.m.

Mr. DOLE. I hope that will happen this evening. As I understand, the Senator from West Virginia wanted 20 minutes for debate. We will dispose of that this evening.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, at this time, on behalf of myself and Senator Daschle, I send a concurrent resolution to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration. This resolution authorizes the removal of the catafalque from the Capitol to the Supreme Court where Chief Justice Burger's casket will lie in state.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask that I may use part of my leader time, that it not interfere with the ongoing debate.

Mr. DOLE. Leaders' time was reserved?

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, is morning business concluded?

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, leader time has been reserved, and there will be morning business until 12 noon. At 12 noon we will resume S. 240, the securities litigation bill. There will be debate throughout the afternoon, and votes start at 5:15 today. The first vote is on a Bryan amendment regarding the statute of limitations; second, a Sarbanes amendment concerning proportionate liability; third, a Boxer amendment, which is relevant. I do not have the details on that amendment. Further votes are expected throughout the evening. We would like to complete action on this bill today or before noon tomorrow morning. Mr. President, leader time has been reserved.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, today is the 50th anniversary of the signing of the U.N. Charter. Amid high hopes at the end of the Second World War in Europe, the United Nations Charter was signed in San Francisco. Fifty years later, the record of the United Nations is mixed, and the expectations of its founders have not been met. The United Nations has had some important accomplishments--on international air travel, eradicating smallpox, and sharing information about global concerns ranging from weather to health. But the United Nations at 50 is an organization at a crossroads--if the United Nations is to survive another 50 years, there must be fundamental change. if the United Nations is to be more than a debating society with 185 members, there must be fundamental change. And if the United Nations is ever to fulfill the hopes of its founders, there must be fundamental change. Much was written this last weekend about the past and future of the United Nations. In my view, the best single piece was by Senator Nancy Kassebaum and Congressman Lee Hamilton--one a Republican and the other a Democrat, I might add. On each of the key issues facing the United Nations, they made important points. On peacekeeping, they conclude the United Nations has overreached. Much criticism of the United Nations in the last 5 years has centered on the failures of U.N. peacekeeping. The tragic record of Somalia and Bosnia make one fact very clear--the United Nations is not capable of mounting serious military operations. Nor should it be. Monitoring an agreement between two or more parties is one thing the United Nations can do. Imposing an agreement is something it cannot. The United Nations should be limited to peacekeeping, not peace enforcing. Senator Kassebaum and Congressman Hamilton also suggested the United Nations focus on key agencies and functions--such as the International Atomic Energy Agency--and quit wasting time and money on the dozens of agencies which no longer serve a useful purpose--if they ever did. In my view the United States should push to abolish wasteful organizations--and withdraw if we are unsuccessful. Examples of unnecessary or duplicative bureaucracies include the International Labor Organization, the United Nations Industrial Development Organization, the U.N. Conference on Trade and Development, and many more. The Kassebaum-Hamilton article suggests an end to U.N.- hosted conferences which cost millions and accomplish very little. Finally, and most importantly, Senator Kassebaum and Congressman Hamilton focus on the importance of accountability at the United Nations. Last year, Congress tried to move the United Nations toward an inspector general. Progress has not been sufficient. An individual was appointed, but with limited powers, and under the authority of the U.N. Secretary General. I expect Congress to revisit the issue this year. Much more needs to be done: Promotions based on merit, real investigations of U.N. waste, shutting down bloated bureaucracies. Reforming the United Nations is a tall order--but the alternative is to give up on an organization that could still live up to the ideas of some of its founders. Mr. President, the United Nations can be an important tool to advance American interests--as long as America leads the way. The answer to the problems of the United Nations is not getting the United States out of the United Nations, it is getting common sense into the United Nations. There are two very different U.S. approaches toward the United Nations--one pursued by the Bush administration and one pursued by the Clinton administration. In 1990-91, the United Nations gave valuable support for American and allied efforts to liberate Kuwait. But 2 years later in Somalia, the United Nations changed the mission and began a vendetta against one Somali faction. Many brave Americans died in the ensuing disaster. Nation building was complete failure, and the United Nations finally left Somalia little better than when the humanitarian mission began. The lesson is clear--if the United States is not in the drivers' seat at the United Nations, the United Nations will take us for a ride. If the United Nations is to realize its potential--and if American support for the United Nations is to continue--real reforms must begin now. No more window dressing but real reform to build a foundation for future U.S. support for the United Nations. I expect the Congress will continue to lead the way to reform as it has before. And I expect to work with Senator Kassebaum, Congressman Hamilton, and other interested colleagues in this 50th anniversary year. I ask unanimous consent that their article be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, today I am pleased to cosponsor S. 594, legislation which provides for the administration of the Presidio in California. I have discussed this legislation with my colleagues, Senator Campbell and Senator Feinstein, and feel that this legislation allows for the national recognition of the Presidio while also taking into account concerns about the growing demand for Federal funding for National Park Services. Through this innovative approach to managing one of our Nation's finest landmarks, we can ensure the preservation of the Presidio while also providing significant opportunities to the local community. The unique history of the Presidio's operation as a military post dates back to 1776. Its designation as a national historic landmark in 1962 recognized the importance of the post in many military operations. After the Army closed the post, the National Park Service took over the Presidio. When comparing our limited resources against the increasing number of national parks and historic sites which have become the responsibility of the Federal Government, it becomes apparent that we must find new ways to manage and preserve such important resources. This legislation proposes a Presidio trust, ensuring the continued preservation of the post with assistance from the local community. This trust, established within the Department of the Interior, would manage the renovation and leasing of specific Presidio properties. The revenues generated from these leases would then offset the cost of maintaining the Presidio as a national park, reducing the need for Federal funding. In my view, this legislation represents the best approach to ensure the efficient management and preservation of the Presidio at the least cost to the taxpayer. The importance of public sector participation in this effort to maintain the Presidio sets this initiative apart from others, and I am pleased to support it.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, as I stated on the floor last Thursday, I and other Senators, particularly Senators Johnston and Heflin, have been working to craft a bipartisan regulatory reform bill that we can take up tomorrow. Senator Johnston and I placed a discussion draft in the Record that incorporated many of the ideas included in various bills. We then worked through last weekend, and are still working, on final text that takes into acccount comments and suggestions by Democrat and Republican Senators to improve the bill. I understand that at 6 o'clock today a group of us will meet with Senator Daschle, the Democratic leader, to see if we can make further improvements. So I must say I was surprised and dismayed, in the middle of these negoatiations, to receive a letter last Friday night from the OMB Administrator for Regulatory Affairs threatening a veto of any bill that closely followed the discussion draft. Let me point out this was just a discussion draft. The timing of this veto threat is not helpful, nor I suspect was it intended to be. For one thing, the letter relied on generalizations so bland as to be meaningless. But it also continued a pattern of distortions of the regulatory reform bill which call for a response. Among the list of complaints in this letter was a description of the bill as containing a ``supermandate,'' that is, a requirement to consider costs that would override other statutory goals such as promoting health and safety and protecting the environment. One can debate the merits of a supermandate, but it is irrelevant to this bill. The text of the bill makes clear that it is intended to ``supplement, and not supersede'' other laws. This type of staff work does not serve the President well. But it is not the first time that President Clinton's rhetorical embrace of regulatory reform has been undermined by his own handpicked officials publicly attacking any meaningful attempt to enact such reforms. One example stands out because it is an example both of the distortions at play in this debate and, ironically, of the value of the reforms we propose. At various times, the present Administrator of EPA has stated that cost-benefit analysis requirements would have prevented a rule getting lead out of gasoline and consigning a generation to lead poisoning. This is false. In fact, EPA refused to do a cost-benefit analysis initially in 1982 when a rule on lead phaseout was being considered. However, after a cost-benefit analysis was performed that showed the social benefits outweighed the costs of a quick phaseout of lead, EPA issued a new rule in 1984 providing for a quick phaseout of lead. That rule also introduced a new concept--market-based mechanisms--that allowed trading in lead permits that sped up the phaseout of lead and reduced the economic costs of the regulation. So, not only has the Administrator gotten her facts wrong, she chose the wrong example. Getting lead out of gasoline occurred precisely because a cost-benefit analysis supported doing so. And that analysis helped produce a regulation to achieve that goal through market-based mechanisms that reduced the economic impact. Both cost-benefit analysis and market-based mechanisms are at the heart of the reforms we propose. We should have a debate on these important issues, but that debate will not be furthered if President Clinton continues to duck the issue and allow his officials to muddy the debate with arguments that have nothing to do with the bill the Senate will actually consider. I want to point out again, we are working, I think, in good faith, Members of both sides of the aisle, Democrats and Republicans, to see if we can put together a good regulatory reform bill; and hopefully one that will be signed by the President.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, we will resume consideration on Monday at 12 noon on S. 240. We have reached agreement earlier today that we will have votes starting at 5:15 p.m. on Monday. There will be three votes, and prior to each vote there will be a brief 2 minute explanation of the pending amendment. There could be additional votes after we have had a disposition of the amendments that I have referred to earlier today. It could be-- though it probably will not happen--that they can complete action on S. 240 on Monday.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. For the information of all Senators, a lot of amendments will be debated during the day on Monday and the first vote will occur at 5:15. We will notify all offices, certainly the Democratic side and the Republican side, and I again wish to thank the managers for the progress. It is a very important bill. I listened to the debate last night and learned a little bit after I got home. You were still debating. It is an important bill, very important bill. In view of the progress made and the fact there is going to be an amendment debated this afternoon, I think it is safe to announce--and I have checked with the Democratic leader--no more votes today. Mr. D'AMATO addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE. One.

Mr. DOLE. Yes.

Mr. DOLE. The first vote will be at 5:15, and the rest will follow.

Mr. DOLE. At 5:15.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the plaintiff in William D. (Bill) Peterson II versus the Honorable Senator Orrin G. Hatch, a case pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, contends that his constitutional rights, including his first amendment right to petition the Government, have been violated because Senator Hatch has followed economic policies that differ from those the plaintiff advocates. Lawsuits alleging that citizens have been aggrieved by Members' failures to act in accordance with the citizens' views have been filed against Members of Congress from time to time. As the Senate has noted previously in response to such lawsuits, every citizen has a constitutionally protected right to petition the Government for the redress of grievances. However, elected officials have the discretion to agree or disagree with communications they receive, and must be allowed to decide how best to respond to the many problems and points of view which are presented to them. the following resolution would authorize the Senate legal counsel to represent Senator Hatch in this matter. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be considered and agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the resolution appear at the appropriate place in the Record.