Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until the hour of 11 a.m., Monday, June 26, 1995; that following the prayer, the Journal of the proceedings be deemed approved to date, that the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and there then be a period for morning business until the hour of 12 noon, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 5 minutes each, with the exception of Senator Hatch, who will speak for up to 15 minutes; further, that at the hour of 12 p.m., the Senate resume consideration of S. 240, the securities litigation bill, under the provisions of the previous agreement.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I want to take a moment today and call the attention of the Senate to the accomplishments of a good friend of the Senate community and an individual who performs one of the most vital functions in the Senate: The calling aloud and reporting by hand of each Senator's vote. Mr. President, I know all of my colleagues join me in expressing a hearty congratulations to Scott Bates, the Senate's legislative clerk, on the occasion of his 25th anniversary of work in the Senate. Scott began his Senate employment 25 years ago today, on June 23, 1970, when he was appointed the assistant bill clerk of the Senate. After growing up in Pine Bluff, AR, and graduating from Hendrix College, Scott came to Washington for what was to be a summer job in the Senate. Twenty-five years later--the longest summer on record-- Scott finds himself seated at the rostrum of the Senate attending to the important duties of the legislative clerk. Scott performed the duties of the assistant bill clerk and bill clerk from 1970 to 1975, when he became an assistant legislative clerk. As the Senate's bill clerk, Scott efficiently executed the important functions of assigning bill numbers to legislation, processing bills for printing, and entering information in the Senate's Legis computer system to indicate the status of bills and amendments. In fact, Scott was instrumental in converting the legislative tracking system from cumbersome index cards to a computerized system. Due to his exemplary service and performance of duties, he was appointed as the Senate's legislative clerk on January 1, 1993. He continues to serve in this important role today. All of us who serve in the Senate are familiar with the meticulous care with which he manually takes and tallies rollcall votes and quorum calls and reads aloud bills and amendments when so ordered by the Senate's Presiding Officer. Scott is quite experienced in the taking of rollcall votes, because he started doing so at the young age of 27. Since he probably has taken more votes than anyone in recent memory, it is no surprise that viewers of C-SPAN witness such an expert execution of that particular duty. I know all Senators appreciate his accuracy and professionalism under the frequent conditions of long and intense Senate sessions. So it is with much gratitude that I congratulate Scott on this 25th anniversary of his Senate employment, and extend best wishes to Scott and his wife, Ricki, and their children Lisa, Lori, and Paul.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Resolution 141, submitted earlier today by myself and Senator Daschle.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that H.R. 956 and S. 562 be printed as passed by the Senate.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. The Senator indicated he needed additional time. I further ask that at 5 o'clock on Monday, the Senate proceed to vote on or in relation to the Bryan amendment, to be followed by a vote on or in relation to the Sarbanes amendment, to be followed by a vote on or in relation to the Boxer amendment; that there be 2 minutes for explanation between the second and third stacked votes to be in the usual form. In other words, Members get a brief explanation. Senator Byrd suggested, I think, a good idea. So that when they vote, they will have the latest information on that particular amendment.

Mr. DOLE. And I further ask that at 3:30 p.m. the Senate resume the Bryan statute of limitations amendment, and there be 90 minutes of debate to be divided in the usual form.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the high cost of litigation imposes an enormous burden on our economy. According to some estimates, legal judgments account for 2.3 percent of our gross national product. Plaintiffs' lawyers earn nearly $20 billion annually in legal fees, often as a result of contingency-fee arrangements guaranteeing a 30 or 40 percent share of any jury award. These are the big-picture statistics. But, as we all know, the fear of litigation can hit much closer to home: Playgrounds and little leagues shut down because local communities can't afford the insurance. Boy Scout troops disband because there aren't any adults around who are willing to be troop leaders. Doctors practice defensive medicine, increasing the cost of health care in the process. Volunteers stay home instead of offering their services to the community. Police officers start second-guessing their own actions, wondering whether they're going to be hauled into court for some minor misstep. Even worse, people start to lose faith in the system. They begin to view the system not with respect, but as an opportunity to make a quick buck. Everyone becomes a potential victim. Every social transaction, no matter how minor or benign, becomes a potential lawsuit leading to a multimillion-dollar jackpot. That is why comprehensive legal reform is so important--not only to reduce costs for businesses and consumers alike, not only to protect the innocent from frivolous lawsuits, but also to restore a sense of perspective and personal responsibility. So, earlier this year, the Senate took the historic step of passing landmark product liability reform legislation. And, today, we continue the reform process in another key area--the area of securities litigation. Why securities litigation? Because our securities markets provide the fuel that drives our economy. When these markets run efficiently, allocating capital to established companies and to newer, emerging businesses, we all win out with more economic growth, more jobs, a stronger economy. Of course, those who seek to invest in our securities markets need to be confident that these markets operate efficiently and fairly. And that is why Congress acted more than 60 years ago to promote investor confidence by passing the Landmark Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Unfortunately, a handful of lawyers today devote their professional lives to gaming the system by filing strike suits alleging violations of the Federal securities laws--all in the hope that the defendant will quickly settle in order to avoid the expense of prolonged litigation. The lawyers who file these suits often rely on professional plaintiffs, shareholders with only small stake in the company being sued, but who are nonetheless willing to stand on the sidelines ready to lend their names to the litigation. Needless to say, these strike suits are often baseless, triggered not by any evidence of fraud, but by a drop in stock price or the announcement of some bad news by the company. In effect, the lawsuits act as a litigation tax that raises the cost of capital and chills disclosure of important corporate information to shareholders. High- technology, high-growth companies are particularly vulnerable to these baseless strike suits because of the volatility of their stock prices. S. 240, the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, seeks to reduce the number of meritless securities fraud cases, while protecting investors, by proposing several commonsense reforms: First, it puts an end to the use of professional plaintiffs by requiring that the court appoint as the lead plaintiff the party willing to serve in this capacity who has the greatest financial stake in the outcome of the litigation. Second, it clamps down on skyrocketing attorney's fees by requiring that fees be awarded as a percentage of the actual recovery based on the efforts of the attorney. Third, it retains joint and several liability for those who knowingly commit fraud, but establishes a system of proportionate liability for other, less culpable defendants. Fourth, it adopts the second circuit's pleading standard, which requires specificity when pleading securities fraud cases. As a result, general allegations of fraud will no longer be enough to justify a lawsuit. And fifth, it creates a statutory safe harbor for those companies whose good-faith estimates about future earnings do not materialize. Statements that are knowingly false, however, are not protected by the safe harbor. Mr. President, I want to commend my colleagues, the chairman of the Banking Committee, Senator D'Amato, and the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, for their leadership in moving this bill through Senate. I also want to commend my colleague from Connecticut, Senator Dodd, whose involvement in this issue is proof that there is nothing partisan about securities litigation reform.

Mr. DOLE. Right. We were not certain what the subject matter is.

Mr. DOLE. As long as it does not cause any problem. The time of 5:15 is fine with me.

Mr. DOLE. I further ask that at 2 p.m. the Sarbanes amendment be laid aside, and that Senator Boxer be recognized to offer a relevant amendment, on which there be 90 minutes equally divided, with no second-degree amendment in order prior to a failed motion to table.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, a number of my colleagues are inquiring about the schedule for the remainder of the day, and I want to congratulate the managers for their good work until late last evening after somewhere around 10:30. This is a major bill. What I would like to do is propound a unanimous-consent request. I have been told it has been worked out with the managers for action on Monday, and if we can do this on Monday, then there will be no more votes today. So I would ask consent that when the Senate resumes S. 240 at 12 noon on Monday--there is going to be additional debate this afternoon. This refers only to Monday. We go on the bill at 12 noon--Senator Sarbanes be recognized to offer an amendment relative to proportional liability, and there be a time limitation of 2 hours to be equally divided in the usual form, with no second-degree amendments in order.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I might say, too, that it is particularly hard when Senators mutter and mumble sometimes, and whether they voted ``yes'' or ``no'' or ``I do not care.'' But it generally works out alright, because the Record is always accurate.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, in just over a week, Americans will celebrate Independence Day. But as we pay tribute to our heritage and our freedom; and as we remember what is right with America, we must also rededicate ourselves to fixing what is wrong. And one thing that is most definitely wrong is that millions of Americans still live in fear of crime. Last fall, Republicans promised Americans that if they gave us a majority in Congress, we would do all in our power to bring an end to crime without punishment. I have asked Judiciary Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch to be ready to bring to the floor a crime bill sometime after the Fourth of July recess. To his credit, President Clinton has spoken frequently and eloquently about the need to combat crime and drugs. But, as an important article in June 19th's Investor Business Daily makes clear, the President seems to believe that rhetoric--and not resources--will win the fight against crime. As the article states, President Clinton has repeatedly sought to reduce funding and personnel from the FBI, the DEA, and U.S. attorney's offices. The effect of this withdrawal of resources can most clearly be seen in the war against drugs. In 1992, 347 new DEA special agents underwent training. In President Clinton's first year in office, that number fell to zero. And his 1995 budget proposal forecast training no new agents in either 1994 or 1995. Under the President's proposals, total DEA personnel is slated to fall by nearly 800--from 6,149 in 1993 to 5,388 in 1995. As a result, DEA arrests have decreased dramatically--from more than 7,800 in the last year of the Bush administration, to 5,279 in 1994. In those same years, Federal narcotics prosecutions have fallen by 25 percent. All this is taking place at a time when surveys show that drug use among adolescents has climbed in the last 2 years. President Clinton has also spoken eloquently about guns. Yet, as Investors Business Daily details, the number of Federal prosecutions for firearms-related violations has fallen by 20 percent in the last 2 years. Mr. President, I believe these numbers are very disturbing, and they will be analyzed more closely during the crime bill debate. Talking tough is one thing. But getting tough is another. And Senator Hatch and I share a commitment to passing legislation that will give our law enforcement community the resources they need to stop the tidal wave of crime and drugs that has washed over so many of our communities. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the article by John Barnes in June 19th's Investor's Business Daily be printed in the Congressional Record.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I have a number of statements to make and I think also the Senator from South Dakota, the Democratic leader, has a statement to make. I ask unanimous consent that after our statements, unless there should be further business, the Senate stand in recess.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I was pleased to join last night with Speaker Gingrich and the chairmen of the Budget Committees, Senator Domenici and Congressman Kasich, in announcing an agreement between the Senate and House on the budget resolution--a monumental budget which will balance our Nation's books for the first time in more than a quarter of a century. As we said last night, this agreement is another historic step in bringing the Federal budget into balance in 7 years by slowing the growth of Government spending, by making Government leaner, more efficient and more cost- effective. This budget finally turns off the out-of-control big government spending machine, and puts us on a responsible path to prosperity America can rely on well into the next century. While we ratchet down the deficit to zero by the year 2002, we also provide for $245 billion in long overdue tax relief, putting more money in the pockets of American families and providing incentives for savings, economic growth and job creation. Importantly, this budget takes action to preserve, improve, and protect Medicare, while permitting Medicare and Medicaid spending to increase dramatically in the next 7 years. Furthermore, this budget does not touch Social Security, and it maintains our commitment to national security second to none. The American people have been drowning in a sea of red ink, and this budget provides the liferaft they have been waiting for. Now, I know our opponents will try to deflate that liferaft with their sharp partisan darts and routine scare tactics, but the American people will not be fooled. They know the status quo is no longer acceptable, and they know leadership means making tough decisions. Mr. President, this agreement reflects the product of countless hours of hard work, and on the Senate side, that effort has been led by my friend from New Mexico, Senator Domenici. The taxpayers of America are fortunate to have Senator Domenici on their side. He has done a remarkable job leading this historic effort, and I look forward to continuing to work with him to ensure enactment of the balanced budget. I would also like to commend our Senate Republican conferees for their crucial role in forging this agreement: Senators Lott, Brown, Grassley, Gorton, Gregg, and Nickles. I think the icing on the cake would be if the President of the United States would announce his public support for a constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. We are just one vote short in the Senate. I am certain the President of the United States could find that one vote with the six Senators who voted against the balanced budget this year, when they voted for it last year on the Democratic side. Mr. President, I look forward to bringing this balanced budget conference report to the floor next week. We hope it will be no later than Thursday, but it could be on Friday. By statute, there are 10 hours of debate, and we will complete action on the budget resolution next week.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Finally, Mr. President, I have made a number of statements over the past couple of years on Bosnia. I keep thinking maybe someday there will be some good news about Bosnia; that people who do not really focus on it very much--Democrats, Republicans, it is not a partisan issue--maybe there is some good news that people might feel good about if they watch TV or listen to the radio or watch television. But I am afraid there is more bad news on the Bosnian fronts. First, word leaked out of a letter from Boutros Boutros-Ghali's Special Envoy, Yasushi Akashi, to Radovan Karadzic, the Bosnian Serbs' militant leader, intended to assure the Bosnian Serbs that despite the deployment of the European Rapid Reaction Force [RRF], the United Nations. would continue business as usual in Bosnia. I have obtained a copy of that letter. I would note that the letter is addressed to H.E. Dr. Radovan Karadzic--the H.E. stands for His Excellency--a term usually reserved for dignitaries and government officials, not alleged war criminals. The letter reads, and I quote: I wish to assure you that these theatre reserve forces will operate under the existing United Nations peace-keeping rules of engagement and will not in any way change the essential peace-keeping nature of the UNPROFOR mission. While the reserves will enhance UNPROFOR's security, the understanding and cooperation of the parties themselves will be the best guarantor of the force's continued effectiveness as an impartial force. The United Nations, troop contributing states and the Security Council have all recognized that the reserve force cannot and will not be a substitute for a political process aimed at an overall peaceful settlement of the Bosnian conflict. Once again, Yasushi Akashi did what he does best as the United Nations' appeaser on the front lines: delivers good news to the Serbs, and bad news to the Bosnians. This morning, we read that the French held secret negotiations with the Serbs--in Pale and in the ethnically cleansed city of Zvornik. Reportedly, the French promised that in return for the release of the U.N. hostages, NATO would not conduct any further airstrikes on Serb positions. A lot of people suspected that and maybe this now makes it a fact. Mr. President, the message is crystal clear: The United Nations has abandoned its mandate of protecting the so-called safe areas and intends to continue to bend to the will of the Serbs. And, it has done so not in the Security Council through a vote, but in back rooms with Serb militants whom French President Jacques Chirac publicly called ``Terrorists.'' When President Chirac met with congressional leaders he called for an end to the humiliation of the peacekeepers. In my view, letting war criminals blackmail the leaders of the Western World is humiliating-- and an absolute outrage. This brings us to the matter of the rapid reaction force, which is intended by the British and French to protect the U.N. forces in Bosnia. From these reports it is obvious that the rapid reaction force will not change the way UNPROFOR conducts its business. In other words, UNPROFOR will not do the job it was tasked to do by the Security Council in numerous resolutions--whether or not the rapid reaction force is deployed. In fact, the rapid reaction force appears designed to protect UNPROFOR so that it can continue not doing its job. And this brings us finally to the question of why the United States should subsidize the rapid reaction force, let alone the entire UNPROFOR operation. We know that the taxpayer's dollars are being dumped in a big black hole because international leaders do not have the courage to do what is right and what is smart--and that is to withdraw the U.N. forces and lift the arms embargo on Bosnia. Can we in good conscience continue to appropriate funds for such a failure? Well, the administration appears committed to this massive multilateral mess. In today's New York Times, administration officials were cited as considering the use of funds designated for humanitarian aid to pay for a U.S. contribution of about $100 million to the rapid reaction force. While there are budgetary reasons such a shift would be difficult, congressional opposition would likely be strong. The fact that anyone in the administration is thinking along these lines is shocking. People in Sarajevo and elsewhere in Bosnia are hungry--they cannot eat European pride. Furthermore, virtually the only effective United States activity in Bosnia and Herzegovina has been the provision of emergency humanitarian assistance. Mr. President, the U.N. operation in Bosnia is in a meltdown. Now is the time to cut our losses, not sink more resources into a failed investment. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent a letter I referred to be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, there were a couple of reports that the August recess would start on August 4. That has not yet been determined. I saw in a couple of the Hill publications--one called the Hill, and I think the other was Roll Call--that that matter had been settled. We hope it will start as previously scheduled but it depends on what unfinished business there may be. I think August 4 would be the day we hope to start the recess, but it may go into the next week. It could be the 11th or even shortly after the 11th, if we have unfinished business. We still have some very major pieces of legislation to deal with. One is certainly regulatory reform. We are working, in a bipartisan effort, Republicans and Democrats, to try to come together. If we can do that and complete action on that next week, that will be a big step in the right direction. I have been asked by the Democrat leader to sit down with him next week on that issue. Also, before the recess, we have agreed to take care of the gift reform legislation and lobbying reform legislation. Again, we are attempting to work in a bipartisan way. I have asked Senator Lott to lead a group on our side to meet with a like group on the Democratic side to see if we cannot come to some conclusion for good, sound gift reform and lobbying reform legislation. Welfare reform is another very important issue that will take some time to dispose of. I think it is fair to say--I can say on the Republican side, we are having problems coming together on some of the issues. That may be true on the other side. But we believe we can resolve any differences, at least on this side. That is a matter we want to do before the August recess. In addition, there will be a number of appropriations bills that will be ready for action and a number of conference reports that will be ready for action. Hopefully, in the month of July, we can consider crime legislation. That will depend on whether or not the Judiciary Committee will have the time to report out reform of the present crime statutes. Hopefully, again, that will have bipartisan support. I am just speaking here from memory. I may have left out some critical pieces of legislation. But the point I want to make is that obviously we want to start the recess as early as we can, hopefully on time. That decision has not been made. I know many of my colleagues have already made commitments in their own States for meetings, meeting with constituents, and I certainly want to honor all those commitments if we can. But the other side of the coin is, if we do not complete it, it means we are going to be here longer this fall. Hopefully, we can arrive at some agreement that will accommodate nearly all the views of Members on each side of the aisle.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read the third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the bill be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 962, a bill introduced earlier today by Senator Helms.

Mr. DOLE

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

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. We were going to move on to something else at 3:30. Now it is 4:30. I would like to finish the bill. I know the managers would. They have done an excellent job. I certainly want to accommodate the Senators from Alaska. I understood the Senator from Arkansas, Senator Bumpers, thought he had a satisfactory resolution.

Mr. DOLE. I did get consent you could offer the managers' amendment right now.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I wonder if the Senator from Rhode Island--I know there are four amendments. Are they going to be offered? Should we move on to another bill and come back to this next week? We do not want to sit here in a quorum call for a couple of hours while Members are floating around the Capitol.

Mr. DOLE. Which four are they? Maybe we can identify the players and have them get over here.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, first I want to remind my colleagues the two managers are here on the highway bill and have been here since 9:30 and would very much like to complete action on this bill by noon today because at noon we have 2 hours of debate on the Foster nomination and then another vote. And then hopefully after that we would go to securities litigation legislation. I have just talked with Virginia Senator, Senator Warner. Maybe many of these amendments will never be called up, but it will be helpful if our colleagues on either side will let the managers know. If we are not going to call up the amendments or if you have an amendment, it would certainly be better to offer it at 10:30 in the morning rather than 10:30 tonight. The reason we are here every night until 10 o'clock, 11 o'clock, is because people will not cooperate during the daytime. They are the same ones who complain in the evening after 7 or 8 o'clock. So I would tell my colleagues, if you have an amendment, the managers are here.