Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Is it fair to announce there will be no more votes this evening?

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I yield to the Senator from Maine.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I respond in the affirmative to the Senator from Massachusetts. That is why I will ask consent later this evening, when we have the draft completed, so that we would have Thursday and Friday, and staff could have whatever time over the weekend and again on Monday, for the principals to see if we can come together. We may not be able to come together. Maybe it will not happen next Tuesday. As I understand, a lot of people have been working on this in good faith, and all have not been in the same room but have been in different rooms in different groups. That is based on the suggestion made by the Senator from Massachusetts earlier today. I think we agreed that we would not push it, we would not try to start on a bill tomorrow, but we would put it in the Record, a draft. It may not be the one that is introduced next week. The answer is yes.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the draft be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Thank you, Mr. President. I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle. I think most everything has been said, but I just want to repeat a few things and sort of set the record straight about some other things. To begin with, maybe just a little history here might help some of my colleagues who may not have been here at that time. From 1987 to 1992, I served as Senate minority leader under Presidents Reagan and Bush. There can be little doubt that during that time, the process of Senate confirmation became more contentious and more political than ever before. Some of the nominations that became political footballs are well known--Robert Bork, John Tower, and Clarence Thomas, to name a few. But most of us here have probably forgotten about the others. While we may have forgotten, I am certain their families have not forgotten and they probably have not forgotten, either. This is not my information; it is information provided by the Congressional Research Service. During the 6 years Democrats controlled the Senate under Presidents Reagan and Bush, 11 nominees were reported out of the committee but did not receive a vote on the floor of the Senate. In other words, they came out here and that was the end of it. They did not get any vote; not on cloture, not anything. They just sat here and they went away at the end of the session. Eighteen nominees were allowed a committee hearing but not a committee vote. Is that fairness? We had all this talk about fairness. Where is the fairness in that, when you have a hearing and no vote? And a staggering 166 nominees were not even given the courtesy of a committee hearing. Let us get everything straight out here. I have listened to all the crocodile tears this morning about this nomination, but I have not heard anybody go back and review what has happened in the past. These are facts. These are facts. These are not Bob Dole's facts. These are facts. I was just one of the many Senators, Democrat and Republican alike, who said during those years that if the Senate continued to turn confirmations into inquisitions, then good men and women would be no longer interested in serving in our Government. When President Clinton took office, my philosophy remained the same: Absent unusual circumstances, a President's nominee should generally be confirmed. And Republicans cooperated to confirm President Clinton's Cabinet in record time. I think even the President said so when he called me. In fact, during his 2\1/2\ years in the White House, President Clinton has submitted 248 names to the Senate for confirmation to civilian positions. Several have been controversial, but not one has been defeated in committee or here on the floor--not one. Not one. My point is this: When we were in the minority, Republicans did not abuse the nomination process. And we will not abuse it now that we are in the majority. And we have not abused it with this nomination. I assume, when people refer to Presidential politics, they may have me in that category. Everything around here is Presidential politics up here, but not downtown. Oh, it is all statesmanship in the White House. It would never occur to them to have any Presidential politics. When this nomination was made, that was Presidential politics, to try to drive a wedge between Republicans on the issue of abortion. That is what it is all about. President Clinton made a calculated political move--politics. Politics, not qualification. Nobody, including Dr. Foster, can question the fairness of the hearings chaired by Senator Kassebaum who, if cloture is invoked, will vote against Dr. Foster. At no time did the hearings become a media circus. We went through media circuses this year, and when the Democrats had control, we had nominees who were being pilloried day by day and ridiculed by the media, by the liberal media. Dr. Foster was asked tough questions. He gave his answers and the committee voted him out 9 to 7. I heard on the morning news that this has been delayed and delayed. I am going to give the facts again, as I did when this debate started. This nomination was put on the calendar the 26th of May, the day we went out for the Memorial Day recess. We came back on the 5th of June. As I calculate, today is the 21st. I said that I wanted to meet with Dr. Foster. He could not meet the first weekend because he had commitments. I do not fault him for that. I could not meet the next weekend. We met on Monday. Today, we have the debate on the floor--on Wednesday. So I want to set the record straight for those who are saying somehow this has all been held up. It has not been held up at all on the Senate floor. In fact, I think it is a very expeditious handling of the nomination. Yes, supporters of the nominee must obtain 60 votes. That is the way it works. I have had the Congressional Research Service do a little work in that area. I have heard people say, ``Oh, this never happened before.'' It has happened a lot. I voted. Let me just give you a little information here. Sometimes facts may not be important, but they are nice to have in the record. Cloture was first sought on a nomination in 1968, when a motion to proceed to the consideration of the Abe Fortas nomination--Chief Justice of the Supreme Court--was defeated 45 to 43. When cloture was not invoked, President Johnson withdrew the nomination. Since 1968, 24 nominations have been subjected to cloture votes. So there have been plenty of precedents for cloture proceedings on nominations. In 1980, as the Senator from Massachusetts will recall, the nomination of Stephen Breyer to the Circuit Court of Appeals was subject to a cloture vote because of Republican concerns. Cloture was invoked, and the nomination was confirmed. I voted aye on cloture, and I voted aye on the nomination. In 1986, a very, very important nomination, the nomination of William Rehnquist to be Chief Justice of the [[Page S 8744]] Supreme Court was subjected to a cloture vote--the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court subjected to a cloture vote; not some small office with a staff of seven, with no policy, nothing but a public relations office. I voted yes on the cloture motion. I voted yes on final passage. Prior to the 103d Congress, the following nonjudicial nominations have been subjected to the cloture procedure: William Lubbers, nominated to be general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board, 1980; Don Zimmerman, nominated to be a member of the National Labor Relations Board, 1980; Melissa Wells, nominated to the rank of Ambassador, 1987; and William Verity, nominated to be Secretary of Commerce, 1987. On each of these nominations, cloture was invoked and the nominations were confirmed. And that is only part of the story. I remember meeting a few years ago with a fellow named Bill Lucas, an outstanding black American who was sheriff in Wayne County, MI; an outstanding man, a Republican. The Black Caucus did not show up for that event. But he was an outstanding American. The vote in the committee was 7 to 7, a tie. That was the end of it. We never had a vote. We never had anything on the Senate floor because the Judiciary Committee said, ``No; we are not even going to report it out, not even unfavorably.'' That is fairness? I do not think so. It was not fairness for Bill Lucas. It was not fairness to his family. He did not have any hearing on the Senate floor. So I just suggest that we are all talking about all this being fair. I have a memory for fairness. I have been here a while, and I have tried to be fair. I had a number of options--not bring it up at all. But I did not believe that was appropriate. I thought about it. It was an option. But that would have been one person making a decision for 100 Senators, and I did not do it although it has been done in the past by majority leaders on the other side when they had a majority, not to bring it up at all. But I chose not to do that. I do not believe we give up our rights when we bring it up. We are not giving up our rights. And I can understand where people would have different views. I would say, as I have said, I had a good visit with Dr. Foster. I think he is a very nice person. We are not voting on that. There were contradictions in his statements. I asked him 20 to 25 questions, and I tried to make a record so I would understand, myself, on much of the debate. I read the information which Senator Coats sent to each of us, which was very helpful. I was troubled by the Tuskegee information. I was troubled by sterilization of some mentally retarded women. I was troubled by a lot of these things that Dr. Foster had no recollection of. I could not understand it. But again, let some say, ``OK, maybe you can dismiss that.'' So I just suggest that there may be a lot of things--I am proud of the fact that Dr. Foster is a veteran. He served his country. I am proud of that. He is proud of that. I just want to suggest that a cloture vote on a nomination is nothing new here in the Senate. As I said, there are 24 nominations that have been subjected to cloture votes since 1968. And one of those votes occurred on the nomination of William Rehnquist to be Chief Justice of the United States, the head of the third branch of our Government, and we had to have a cloture vote. So it seems to me that we understand the options. I told Dr. Foster we would not let him hang there in limbo. He told me his sabbatical ends the first of the month. He has been on a year of sabbatical, and he would like to have some determination. I think he is entitled to it. That is why we are here today. So I must say, we said let us do it. The Democrats said, ``Oh, we would like to wait a week''--so they can work over Republican Senators and try to get the liberal media to follow the steps that they normally do and spread their spin across America. So I say again, about Presidential politics, certainly everything is not Presidential politics here. If I wanted to have one-upmanship, I would not have brought the nomination up. Maybe others have ideas about Presidential politics. But again, let me suggest that certainly it was not overlooked at the White House. I think another major point is candor. I think even Dr. Foster's supporters have to say on a number of occasions, this nominee's candor has come into question. All of these were not Dr. Foster's fault. This particular nomination was flawed from the outset because of the way it was handled at the White House, the way they did not bring out all of the information right up front. I know that was not Dr. Foster's fault. In his committee hearing, in his public statements, and in his meeting with me, Dr. Foster had an explanation for every misstatement concerning the number of abortions he performed and for every controversial action, including his alleged knowledge of the infamous Tuskegee syphilis study and his role in sterilizing several mentally retarded women during the early 1970's. Some explanations made sense, and some did not. Some questions were answered and some were not. And somewhere along the line, I think a line was crossed where no matter how Dr. Foster tries, there will always be questions in the minds of many Americans about this nominee's candor and credibility. This is not just the opinion, as has been noted here--I have watched every debate on C-SPAN--it is not just the opinion of a few conservative Senators. It is also the opinion from an editorial in today's New York Times. But it seems to me, Mr. President, that we have President Clinton demanding we return to civility in our politics. He said the Americans want Republicans and Democrats to work together for the betterment of our country. If that is true--and I think it is--then this nomination certainly does not further those goals. Without consulting with Senator Kassebaum, my colleague, or any other Senator, President Clinton selected a nominee who was all but guaranteed to cause a political controversy, a nominee who was all but guaranteed to divide the Senate, and all America, as well. And that is just what this nomination has done. Sadly, this divisive nomination was made in the wake of the forced resignation of a Surgeon General whose tenure led many to believe that the time had come to abolish the office before it became even more politicized than it was. So again, I will conclude by saying that while I admire Dr. Foster's military service and his obvious passion for his work--and he has done a lot of good work--that somewhere out there among America's hundreds of thousands of physicians, there is a man or a woman whose past actions and statements would not divide the American people and this Chamber. They can be pro-choice. They could be pro-life. They could be whatever. There are thousands and thousands of qualified people out there. The Surgeon General should be ``America's doctor''--America's doctor. I have listened to these statements, one just by the Democratic leader, about cancer, heart disease, the Surgeon General is going to take care of all these things. If we just confirm Dr. Foster, all these things are going to go away. We know that is not the case. They should not be the Democrat's doctor or the Republican's doctor. They should not be the liberal's doctor or the conservative's doctor. Ideally, their qualifications and experience should be so apparent that they would be confirmed by an overwhelming vote. And this is most assuredly not the case here. The bottom line is, will Dr. Foster unite the American people? Will his public pronouncements and speeches be regarded as medical and scientific fact rather than political rhetoric? Would he be regarded as America's doctor? That is the question we need to answer. As I said, he may be a fine person, but in my view he is the wrong person for this job. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me indicate that the Senator from Kentucky, Senator Ford, will want to make a statement on that particular item after I obtain consent.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on (S. 4) a bill to grant the power to the President to reduce budget authority. The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 4) entitled ``An Act to grant the power to the President to reduce budget authority'', do pass with the following amendments: Strike out all after the enacting clause, and insert:

Mr. DOLE. I move that the Senate disagree to the House amendments, request a conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses, and that the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, as in executive session, I ask unanimous consent that at 9 a.m. on Wednesday, June 21, the Senate proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of Henry Foster, to be Surgeon General, and the debate on the nomination be limited to 3 hours equally divided in the usual form, and at 12 noon on Wednesday, June 21, the Senate proceed with a vote [[Page S 8679]] on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Dr. Foster, to be Surgeon General, with the mandatory quorum under rule XXII being waived.

Mr. DOLE. Beyond the 30 hours?

Mr. DOLE. My view is there would be 30 hours. I do not think it would take 30 hours, but certainly--as I understand, the most any one Member could accumulate would be 7 hours.

Mr. DOLE. Again, if cloture is invoked, the Senate would immediately begin debate postcloture under the provisions of rule XXII. And finally I ask unanimous consent that if cloture is not invoked on the Foster nomination, the nomination be immediately returned to the calendar and the Senate return to legislative session, all without any intervening action or debate.

Mr. DOLE. If cloture is invoked, the Senate would immediately begin postcloture debate under the provisions of rule XXII. I also ask, if cloture is not invoked, the Senate return to legislative session, and at 12 noon on Thursday, June 22, the Senate resume executive session to consider the nomination of Dr. Foster, and there be 2 hours of debate equally divided in the usual form, and at 2 p.m. a second vote occur on the motion to invoke cloture on the nomination of Dr. Foster, to be Surgeon General, with the mandatory quorum under rule XXII being waived.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in recess until the hour of 9 a.m., on Wednesday, June 21, 1995; that following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and under the provisions of a previous unanimous-consent agreement, the Senate immediately go into executive session for 3 hours of debate on the nomination of Dr. Foster; I further ask unanimous consent that if cloture is not invoked on the Foster nomination on Wednesday, the Senate then resume consideration of S. 440, the National Highway System bill and at that time the Senator from Maine be recognized to offer an amendment regarding helmets.

Mr. DOLE. As a reminder for all Senators, the Senate will debate the Foster nomination from 9 a.m. to 12 noon tomorrow, with a cloture vote occurring on the nomination at 12 noon. If [[Page S 8719]] cloture is not invoked at that time, the Senate will resume the highway bill. We hope to complete the bill tomorrow evening. We will have rollcall votes throughout the day. I do not know of any conflicts tomorrow evening. Tonight, there are a number of conflicts, including the President and Mrs. Clinton have invited all Members to the White House for a picnic plus other things. I know that Senators have obligations to attend. If cloture is not invoked Wednesday, a second vote on cloture will occur at 2 p.m. on Thursday. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask the Senate stand in recess under the previous order following the remarks of Senator Ford and Senator Santorum.

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 thank my colleague, Senator Daschle, the Democratic leader. Let me indicate, as I said before, I did meet with Dr. Foster yesterday morning in my Hart office. We had a good discussion. I asked him a series of questions. I indicated to him that there would be possibly two votes, a cloture vote, which he understood would be, in effect to vote on the nomination, and if cloture was invoked, there could be a second vote, which would be a vote on the nomination itself. I tried to lay it out as best I could to Dr. Foster. In addition, I must say, as is the case sometimes, different plans to proceed sometimes do not please everyone. This is not the process some of my colleagues would prefer. Some would prefer not to bring it up at all; that I, in effect, as the leader had a veto and should not bring this up. I thought about that and indicated at one time that might be the course I would follow, but I also had other options to consider, and this is another option. If cloture should be invoked, then there will be the debate. I do not think it will consume 30 hours and I guess the vote, if it went that far, would be very, very close, based on my count. Whether or not there will be votes for cloture, I am not certain. I do not think so, but there may be. We will put all this information in the Record tomorrow. There had been a number of nominations for the Bush administration which never got to the floor. They were in the committee and held in the committee and never got to the floor. We can have that debate, too. The important thing is the Foster nomination was reported out of the Labor Committee in late May, and we had a week's recess. Nobody is suggesting, and I think the record is fairly clear, there has been no undue delay. We are trying to dispose of the nomination one way or the other. I think that is acknowledged, though some might suggest we should not be proceeding in this fashion. But that is a judgment that I made and I hope that we can conclude--in fact, I hope cloture is not invoked and that this nomination then would go back on the calendar after a vote on Thursday.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be considered and agreed to, that the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and that any statements related to the resolution appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Resolution 137, submitted earlier by Senators Dole and Daschle.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to. Amendment No. 1440 (Purpose: To clarify the treatment of the Centennial Bridge, Rock Island, IL, under title 23, United States Code)

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 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, June 20, 1995, that following the prayer the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and that the Senate then immediately resume consideration of S. 440, the National Highway System bill; further, at the hour of 9:30 Senator Reid be recognized to offer an amendment regarding truck speed limits.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I will just say for the information of my colleagues that the Senate will resume consideration of the highway bill tomorrow at 9:30. Senator Reid will be recognized to offer an amendment. There could be rollcall votes possible before the 12:30 recess, and they are anticipated throughout the day. I am advised by the managers that we did not make a great deal of progress today, which indicates that when people tell you on Friday they are going to do something on Monday and then you announce no votes on that Monday, nothing happens around here. So I will not make that mistake again. But in any event, there are a number of amendments that will be taken and other amendments as I understand will be debated. But the managers seem fairly confident that they might be able to finish the bill tomorrow evening. If that happens, and if in fact we have an agreement that is helpful--I appreciate the staff putting that together. I know there are a lot of amendments listed, but I doubt that many of those amendments will be called up.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order following the brief remarks that I will make and the remarks of Senator Bond, who is on his way to the floor.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, earlier today I met with Dr. Henry Foster. At our meeting we discussed a number of subjects, including the infamous Tuskegee syphilis study, the inconsistent statements from the White House and from Dr. Foster himself concerning the number of abortions Dr. Foster has performed, and Dr. Foster's role in sterilizing several mentally retarded women during the early 1970's. I would just say that we had a very frank discussion. The discussion lasted 30 to 40 minutes. I indicated earlier I felt, as the majority leader, that Dr. Foster certainly is entitled to an opportunity to speak to me. We went over probably 15, 20, 25 different questions. He answered each of the questions. Some had been answered during his nomination consideration before the Labor Committee. I told Dr. Foster we were trying to work out some procedure on the Senate floor so that we could have two votes: one on cloture; if cloture was not invoked after two votes, that the nomination would go back on the calendar; and, if cloture were invoked, then, of course, we would have the debate. We have not reached an agreement, but I hope to visit tomorrow morning with the distinguished Democratic leader, Senator Daschle. But I would say that our phones are ringing off the wall. Just because you meet with someone--some people do not even want you to meet with nominees because they have different views than the nominee. My view is that they are entitled to that regardless of whether I agree or disagree. I do not support Dr. Foster's nomination, but my view is that he is entitled to that courtesy. And we had a good meeting as far as covering different points that I wanted to cover, and he had an opportunity to make his own statements. So, hopefully, tomorrow we can announce a process that will lead us to consideration--at least the first step in the process, whether or not cloture will be invoked, and, second, if it is, what will follow. It will be my intention to try to make that announcement sometime tomorrow. I see the Senator from Missouri is here [Senator Bond]. At the end of his remarks, the Senate will stand in recess, and the Senator from Missouri is the man of the hour. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Resolution 136 submitted earlier today by myself and Senator Daschle.