Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me explain that under our previous agreement, when I call for the regular order, the highway bill comes back. I understand they have agreed to the Stevens-Murkowski amendment with Senator Bumpers. That would be adopted. There would be speeches for the record; very short. Then we would proceed to final passage of the highway bill.

Mr. DOLE. Does anybody request a rollcall on final passage? I ask unanimous consent that once the amendment is agreed to, and the committee substitute, as amended, is agreed to, the bill will be advanced to third reading, the bill passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, with the above occurring without any intervening action.

Mr. DOLE. There will be no more votes tonight. There will be a vote at 10:55 tomorrow morning. The first vote will be at 10:55. It will be on the amendment by the Senator from Alabama, Senator Shelby, and Senator Bryan. Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. As I said yesterday, I would like to begin with just a few facts, facts we sometimes are not using in debate or are not reported by the media. Let me again say, because I did not read it anywhere and did not hear it on television--maybe it was on radio: During these 2\1/ 2\ years in office, President Clinton has submitted 251 names to the Senate for confirmation of civilian positions. Of these 251, 115 have been confirmed, 1 withdrawn and none defeated. The rest are in the confirmation pipeline. Let us get the record clear right up front. You talk about fairness. That is 251, and not one defeated. And, second, I heard about a filibuster. I do not know of any filibuster going on. If so, I missed it. By unanimous consent we agreed to this procedure. I think it is a good one. We are giving Dr. Foster the same thing we gave Chief Justice Rehnquist back in 1986 when I had to file cloture because the Senator from Massachusetts would not let it come to a vote. So Dr. Foster's nomination was reported out of the Labor Committee on May 26. We began this debate on June 21, and during that period there has been a 7- or 8-day recess. So Dr. Foster has been treated fairly. The Labor Committee has acted promptly and his nomination has been placed before the full Senate for debate and a vote. Again, as I said yesterday, I have always felt that the President should have a right to his nominees, but there may be exceptions from time to time, and I have voted against nominees from time to time--not very often. I believe the record will show that we have cooperated in nearly every case; in fact, even helped the President with some of the nominations which might have been in trouble without assistance from this side of the aisle. There is plenty of precedent for rejecting a nomination on a cloture vote. Again, as I said, I will put in the Record for everyone to see that there were 24 nominations, including the nomination of William Rehnquist to be Chief Justice, which had to face cloture vote hurdles. So overnight, I have done a little research on the Rehnquist nomination, and I learned that 19 of my Democratic colleagues who are still in the Senate today voted against invoking cloture on this nomination: Senators Baucus, Biden, Bradley, Byrd, Dodd, Exon, Glenn, Harkin, Inouye, Johnston, Kennedy, Kerry, Lautenberg, Levin, Moynihan, Pryor, Rockefeller, Sarbanes, and Simon, and also then Senator Albert Gore. Now, certainly, he would not be unfair, but he was, according to all the rhetoric I heard coming from the other side. In fact, I filed a cloture motion on the Rehnquist nomination because my colleague from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, was apparently unwilling to end debate. Do not take my word for it, just take a look at page 23336 of the Congressional Record for September 15, 1986. Senator Kennedy also urged his colleagues to follow the Abe Fortas example: Defeat cloture so the Rehnquist nomination will be withdrawn. That can be found on page 22805 of the Congressional Record of September 11, 1986. So, Mr. President, we hear a lot of talk about fairness, we hear a lot of talk about the need for an up-or-down vote, but I do not remember all the hand wringing about fairness back in [[Page S 8874]] 1986, or many times since that time, when at that time the Chief Justice Rehnquist nomination was on the line. What does history tell us? History tells us that 31 of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle were prepared to filibuster a nominee to one of the highest positions of our Government, and today many of those who supported this filibuster allege unfairness when Republicans exercise the same right--the same right--only this is a minor office compared to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. We are talking about a nominee to an office with a budget of under $1 million with a staff of six. But he is supposed to make certain everybody is taken care of, all the medical problems are going to be taken care of if we just vote yes on this nomination, according to my distinguished colleague from South Dakota, Senator Daschle. In fact, I remember my colleague from Massachusetts arguing against the Justice Rehnquist confirmation because he ``lacked candor in testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee'' and because of Justice Rehnquist's ``alleged pattern of explanations * * * that are contradicted by others or are misleading or do not ring true.'' Does that sound familiar? Many of us said this time the same thing about Dr. Foster. I have talked to him personally, others have talked to him, others who are on the committee. We should not have the right to make that judgment because we are Republicans, but it is all right to make it against the Chief Justice nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court. So, Mr. President, facts can be stubborn things. They are rarely noted by the media, not often used in this Chamber. But they show that we have a double standard and it is alive and well in Washington, DC. And it goes on and on and on. We hear all the hand wringing over there and all the talk of Presidential politics on this side and nothing about Presidential politics downtown. This is not about Presidential politics. That may be a good sound bite. This is about Dr. Foster and his qualifications for the office, and it is about our right to advise and consent. I must say, as I look back on it, we could have chosen other options, but it seemed to me this was a fair option, just as fair as it was for Justice Rehnquist who was nominated to be Chief Justice. Cloture was invoked in that case. Cloture can be invoked in this case. The issue is not whether cloture was invoked on 22 of the 24 nominations that have been subjected to cloture procedure. This is a false distinction. What is important is we have had 24 nominations subjected to a cloture vote. So he can get an up-or-down vote, all he needs to do is get 60 votes on this, as others have done in the past. I do not question those who say Dr. Foster is probably a fine person. I do not know Dr. Foster that well. I have had one visit with him. I do not snoop around about his past. I think Senator Danforth was right when he made that statement: Tell it to the family of John Tower when you talk about allegations and stuff over the transom, under the transom and wrecking somebody's character; tell it to John Tower's family. He is gone. Tell it to Robert Bork. Tell it to his wife when they were harangued and harassed day after day after day by the Judiciary Committee. Tell it to Bill Lucas and his family, the fine outstanding sheriff of Wayne County, MI, an outstanding black American who did not even get a vote, any kind of a vote on this floor, because the Judiciary Committee voted, in a 7-7 tie, and would not report him out. That is the thing the Democrats do not tell us: How many Republicans never had a hearing, were never reported out of the committee, and when they were reported out, they stayed on the calendar; never had the courtesy to even have a cloture vote. They died on the calendar. I have not heard anybody say anything about that over there, and I put those facts in the Record. I thought surely somebody would get up and explain why the Democrats would do that when they talk about fairness and their hearts ache and they cannot sleep at night. Why do they not read the Record and go back and call all the families of the people who did not even get a hearing or were on the calendar week after week after week, month after month after month and never even had the courtesy of a vote, not even a cloture vote. So I know all about it. I have been here a while, and I keep track of these things. What comes around goes around, and none of us are perfect. When we make arguments on the Senate floor, we ought to go back and look at the last argument we made and the one before that to see if it is consistent and how did we vote on Rehnquist before standing up to make a speech. I can recall in 1980 joining with the Senator from Massachusetts, Senator Kennedy, when they wanted to block John Breyer's nomination. I said it should not be blocked, and I voted for cloture, and we succeeded. He was a Democrat, so it is not politics. This nomination was flawed from the start, and the President knows it. But he sought to divide the American people on the issue of abortion. That is all this nomination is about, trying to divide the American people for political purposes, and the President talks about politics and his Chief of Staff Leon Panetta goes on television this morning in some outrageous statement about a vengeance up here-- vengeance--which means they must be losing. So I wish Dr. Foster well. No one likes to see someone who may want to have a job denied that opportunity. I met with a lot of the families who did not even get a vote of any kind because they were Republicans in a Democratic Senate. Well, Dr. Foster is getting a vote. I promised him that, and he is getting it very quickly, in 2 days. I met with him on Monday, and here it is Thursday, and we are going to have the second vote. I think his initial lack of candor and certainly lack of truthfulness on the part of the White House made this nomination in doubt from the start. So whether it is his misleading statements concerning his abortion record, or his alleged knowledge of the infamous Tuskegee syphilis study or involvement in sterilizing several mentally retarded women, there are just too many questions. If the Senator from Massachusetts can say that somebody lacks candor, maybe we can say it with the same credibility on this side of the aisle. Maybe we are not entitled to that because we are Republicans, only the liberals are entitled to make those judgments. But we are, too. As I said yesterday, we need somebody in that position to be America's doctor--not Republicans, not pro-life, not pro-choice, not Democrats, not conservatives, not liberals, but America's doctors. It is not a policy position, it is a public relations job, with a staff of six. The world will not come to an end if we do not ever fill this office or if it is abolished. So it seems to me we do not want somebody to divide us, as the previous Surgeon General did, about legalization of drugs and all the other statements made by that Surgeon General, but that has nothing to do with this nomination. My point is, if there is somebody out there, there are thousands and thousands of good people out there who can unite America, unite Americans, whatever they can do in that office, and this is not the right nomination. Again, I agree with Senator Danforth. I wonder sometimes why anybody would accept a nomination, but I do not know anybody on this side who has been personal about Dr. Foster. I am proud of the fact he is a veteran. As far as I can see, he is a good person. We had a nice visit. But also we have to have a record, and the record, I think, is the problem: His lack of candor. So we are proceeding, I think, in a very fair way, as we look at history and look at the record and look at how quickly this nomination has moved. It seems to me cloture should not be invoked and this nomination would go back on the calendar, as the unanimous-consent agreement indicates.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Will the Senator withhold?

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Perhaps--perhaps we can, if our colleagues do not object, then we can go to third reading, say at 11:30? That would be one way too expedite the process. We have indicated to one of our colleagues, the eldest, there may not be any votes until 11:30. But that does not mean we should not proceed. I think we are making progress and I want to congratulate the managers. I do believe I can see some of these may be tied together. Some may not have any--some may be more related to the next bill than this bill, as I understand it. Some that do not want the other bill to come up. In the meantime, while we are waiting for our colleagues to come, I know there must be a rush on the subway as I speak. They are all heading for the floor at the same time. Mr. President, while we are waiting additional action on this bill, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOLE. Could I ask, will there be any of these other amendments requiring rollcall votes?

Mr. DOLE. We are making progress as we speak.

Mr. DOLE. I think that means Senator McCain's amendment will disappear.

Mr. DOLE. Now can we have a bit from the other side?

Mr. DOLE. We are making progress.

Mr. DOLE. I note the presence of the distinguished chairman of the committee, Senator Chafee. There are a number of amendments under the jurisdiction of the Commerce Committee, Energy Committee, whatever. As the Senator from Virginia has pointed out, they are not under the jurisdiction of the committee that has the bill on the floor. In any event, I know many of my colleagues may have conflicts at this moment because there are amendments here by Senator Boxer, three by Senator Exon, one by Senator Ford, Senator Hatfield, Senator Kerry, Senator Lautenberg, Senator Nickles, Senator McCain, Senator Sarbanes, Senator Smith, Senator Stevens, and Senator Murkowski. We would hope whoever is willing to come to the floor would do so. If they do not intend to offer their amendments, if they would notify the managers on either side then we can move on because we do have a lot of legislation we will finish before the July 4 recess begins. It is up to our colleagues when that may happen.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I announce that the Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm], the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Helms], the Senator from Idaho [Mr. [Kempthorne], and the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. Lott] are necessarily absent.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Yes.

Mr. DOLE. I think what we would do is make certain you have agreed or disagreed on whatever has been offered. Both Alaska Senators are on the floor, obviously, and the Senator from Utah----

Mr. DOLE. That could take a while and we could be halfway down the trail on the litigation bill. As soon as it is worked out, we will come right back and finish it. I am not going to lay it aside for a day or even an hour. We will come back, finish it, get the yeas and nays on final passage and have that vote occur along with the first vote on any amendment on the litigation bill. Is that right?

Mr. DOLE. I further ask, when the Senate resumes S. 440, the only amendments remaining in order to the committee substitute be the following: They are going to offer the managers' amendment, and then the only following amendment would be the Stevens-Murkowski amendment or amendments. And that would also include the [[Page S 8885]] Senators from Utah, Senator Bennett and Senator Hatch.

Mr. DOLE. Then it has to be reviewed by the Senator from Utah.

Mr. DOLE. Well, amendment or amendments.

Mr. DOLE. I assume, in talking with Senator Bumpers, it is something everybody can agree on. You can offer the amendment when we bring the bill up. If it is not satisfactory, you can do what you want. In the meantime, we can go ahead with the litigation bill. When you have it worked out----

Mr. DOLE. I wonder if we can move on to the next bill and not, in any way, undercut any of the rights of any of the Senators. As soon as you get the language and agreement, we can come back to this bill. In the meantime, let us go ahead and start the other bill, the securities litigation bill. And then, hopefully, you will have the language. The first vote would be on this, back-to-back with final passage of this bill, plus the amendment on litigation.

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

Mr. DOLE. Sure.

Mr. DOLE. They do not want to be here in the morning either. It is very difficult for the managers who are down to three amendments. They have been on this bill long enough--last week, and 4 days this week. The bill was supposed to take 2 days. It has taken almost 5. Because we want to go to securities litigation next, the only thing I know, without prejudicing the managers, if we cannot conclude it by 3:30, then we would move to another matter and this would come back sometime when we finished the next bill.

Mr. DOLE. I certainly want to thank the managers. I do not have any quarrel with the managers. But those who have amendments, you know-- people are going to be wanting to get out of here for an August recess. They do not want to be here late at night. But they do not want to be here in the afternoon. We cannot have it both ways.