Robert Dole

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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 ask unanimous consent that when the Senate reconvenes at 10 a.m. on Monday, June 5, 1995, that following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, no resolutions come over under the rule, the call of the calendar be dispensed with, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; there then be a period for the transaction of morning business not to extend beyond the hour of 11 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each. I further ask consent at the hour of 11 o'clock the Senate resume consideration of S. 735, the antiterrorism bill.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, earlier this week, the Senate adopted a resolution expressing our appreciation for the outstanding service of Gerald Hackett, our Senate executive clerk, who will retire from the Senate effective June 30, 1995. I now want to add my personal thanks for his many 33 years of dedication to the Senate--nearly 29 of those as Senate executive clerk. As Members know, the executive clerk assists the Senate with its constitutional duty to consider nominations and treaties under its advise and consent authority. The office's many responsibilities include managing original documents, maintaining records, transmitting copies of Presidential messages, compiling the executive calendar, and preparing all resolutions of confirmation for nominations and resolutions of ratification for treaties. Gerry has dedicated his Senate service not only to these duties, but also to improving the operation of the executive clerk's office. He was instrumental in the computerization of the treaty and nomination processes. Moreover, under his direction, publishing the executive journal is now done on-line, with a substantial savings of tax dollars. I know all Senators agree with me in saying that Gerry has always acted with the best interests of the Senate in mind, and in wishing him and his wife, Mary Ellen, best wishes for a long, healthy, and happy retirement.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, earlier this week, the Senate adopted a resolution paying tribute to Fred Broomfield, a member of the Department of Office Services in the Office of the Secretary of the Senate, who will retire July 15, 1995. Fred has worked in the Office of the Secretary for over 19 years. Among his numerous responsibilities is to deliver to our offices the many many important documents necessary for the legislative process. In fulfilling those duties, Fred has ably carried out a tradition that dates back to the very beginning of the Senate. Just 2 days after the first Senate convened in 1789, the Members elected their first Secretary and chose their first messenger. And if I am not mistaken, the first message was delivered to Senator Thurmond. Fred is well known in the Secretary's office as a loyal, reliable, and hard working civil servant. He will be missed by all of us. I know all Senators will join with me in thanking Fred, his wife Hilda, and his five children for his dedicated and distinguished service, and in extending our best wishes for a long and healthy retirement.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, in my role as Senate majority leader, I also serve as a member of the Joint Leadership Commission for our program for America's young people, the Congressional Award. As such, it is my responsibility, from time to time, to appoint individuals to serve on the Congressional Award Foundation's board of directors, which works with us to implement the program nationwide. Several years ago, when we were reorganizing the volunteer board, I asked Russell King, a senior vice president of Freeport-McMoran, if he would be willing to serve, and to make this program a truly national opportunity. He agreed, and has since become the foundation's treasurer, and two-term chairman, where he has presided over the exciting growth of the program. As Russ ends his tenure as chairman, I extend the appreciation of the Senate to him for his tireless devotion to the Congressional Award, and for his commitment to America's youth. We are fortunate that he will remain on the board, and will continue to work with us as this outstanding program grows throughout the country.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, 25 years ago, we created the Office of Curator of the U.S. Senate. And since that time, that job has been filled by just one man--Jim Ketchum. Jim has now announced his retirement, and it is entirely fitting that a resolution we adopted earlier this week designated him as curator emeritus of the Senate. After working in the Office of the White House Curator for many years, Jim came to the Senate in 1970, when he accepted an invitation to organize the Office of Senate Curator. For the past quarter century, Jim has devoted his career to preserving the works of art in the Senate and the history and traditions of this institution. Jim was the driving force behind the restoration of the old Senate and old Supreme Court Chambers, the President's room, and countless other important Senate treasures. Painting and documents have been recovered and preserved due to Jim's tireless efforts. He has helped us all better understand this institution and the Capitol through exhibitions, lectures, publications, and other educational programs. I know Jim is especially proud of the exhibit, ``a necessary fence * * *: The Senate's first century,'' which opened in the summer of 1989 in celebration of the Senate's bicentennial. Jim has also made an important contribution to protecting the dignity of this institution by helping to develop legislation prohibiting abuse of the Senate seal. Finally, one cannot mention Jim without remembering his efforts on behalf of the State of the Union dinners. I am just one of many Senators who has enjoyed one of Jim's trademark chicken pies. Mr. President, for all that he has done for this institution, Jim has truly earned the designation as ``curator emeritus.'' I know all Senators will join me in thanking Jim for his extraordinary efforts in preserving the history and traditions of this institution, and in extending our best wishes to him, as he and his wife, Barbara, head to their farmhouse in Pennsylvania.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, it had been our hope that we could have appointed conferees today on four major pieces of legislation: Medicare select, regulation reform, product liability, and line-item veto. But for a number of reasons we are not able to do that today. We hope to be able to be in a position to appoint conferees in all four of those measures when we return on Monday, June 5. At least we will make the effort. If there is objection at that time, the objection will be noted. We have done all the nominations on the calendar with one exception, because I had requests from some of my colleagues that we make certain we did that before recess. They have been done. I would say it will be my intention now, when we come back on Monday, to stay with the terrorism bill at least through Monday to see what happens. I apologize to Senators Pressler and Hollings because we thought we would go to the telecommunications bill that day, but we did lose a day yesterday with the votes. In the last 2 days we had 50-some votes. We might have been able to finish the terrorism bill this week. So we will make an effort on Monday, June 5, and maybe up through noon on Tuesday, and at that point we will see what the situation is, how many amendments are remaining, whether or not we can have time agreements. But it is still my hope to go to the telecommunications bill early the week we are back.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. So I would say for the information of all Senators, when the Senate is reconvened following the Memorial Day recess, we will resume consideration of the antiterrorism bill. Under the previous consent agreement, amendments are limited to the bill. Therefore Senators should be aware that rollcall votes can be anticipated on Monday. However, we will have no rollcall votes until--they will not begin before 5 o'clock on Monday, June 5. Both Senators Biden and Hatch have indicated to both leaders, Democratic and Republican leaders, that they will have amendments. There will be votes. And that they will be prepared at 11 o'clock on Monday, June 5, to move forward as rapidly as possible on the antiterrorism bill.

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 adjournment under the provisions of House Concurrent Resolution 72.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I thank the distinguished Senator from Maine. Having had the honor and privilege, as did the Presiding Officer, of serving with Senator Margaret Chase Smith, I can certainly appreciate his remarks. I can almost see her seated at that desk, with a rose--there was a rose there every morning on her desk. We certainly wish her well.

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 ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I understand there are about 54 amendments, but only about 30 will require rollcall votes. I thought maybe we would do 20 today and 10 tomorrow--whatever is left tomorrow--and still try to accommodate the President on the antiterrorism bill. But it is going to be very difficult to do that. As long as he understands why we cannot do it, I assume he will not hold me responsible. We do not want to do all these today, we have so many.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me remind my colleagues that we do have 10 minutes--1 minute for the explanation, 9 minutes for the vote. I want to accommodate everybody, but if we are going to finish this at a reasonable time, we are going to have to stick to the 9 minutes. I just give that alert to people. Nobody wants to miss a vote. I do not want anybody to miss a vote. Some people would like to be out of here late tonight or early tomorrow. Amendment No. 1175 (Purpose: To restore funding to Medicare)

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to the adjournment resolution, House Concurrent Resolution 72.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I think we have a way to dispose of Harkin- McCain. I would add that as a fourth effort and move to table the underlying amendment--that will take care of both of them--and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DOLE. Did we get the agreement on the 1 hour to 40 minutes?

Mr. DOLE. I have cleared it with Senator Harkin.

Mr. DOLE. I just did it.

Mr. DOLE. To table both of them.

Mr. DOLE. Right.

Mr. DOLE. Yes.

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

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, earlier this week, it was my privilege to introduce former Kansas Governor John Carlin, President Clinton's nominee to be Archivist of the United States, at his confirmation hearing before the Governmental Affairs Committee. That nomination has now been unanimously reported out of that Committee with a favorable recommendation. And as Governor Carlin is confirmed by the entire Senate, I wanted to repeat some of the comments I made at his hearing. Mr. President, the National Archives is an invaluable source of information and, no less important, inspiration for millions of Americans who yearn to know more about our origins and our collective history. Last year alone, more than one million of our fellow citizens visited the Archives building in Washington. Another 1.3 million visited the Nation's Presidential libraries. Countless more visited Federal records centers to explore their family genealogy, or attending public programs sponsored by the Archives. It is important to note that only a very small percentage of those who use the National Archives every year have Ph.D's. The vast majority have something more important than a Ph.D--They have curiosity and they have pride in America's history. These are the people who made Ken Burns' ``The Civil War'' a national phenomenon. These are the readers who made David McCullough's ``Truman'' a deserved best seller. And these are the Americans to whom the Archivist of the United States must answer. In this, the Archivist is no different from the rest of us who are temporarily entrusted with our positions. In the last two elections, voters have insisted on a government that serves their needs, while reflecting their values. The National Archives should be in the forefront of this grassroots revolution. I believe that the National Archives should reach out beyond the Washington beltway to the very heart of America. And the heart of America is where John Carlin comes from. I have known Governor Carlin for many years, and worked with him on countless occasions during his 8 years as Governor. Though we are from different parties, Governor Carlin was more interested in partnership than in partisanship, when it came to doing what was right for Kansas. I believe John Carlin is uniquely qualified to serve as our National Archivist. Following a period of internal strife and serious morale problems, the Archives needs a leader--someone with the ability to frame a coherent vision, the skills to communicate it, and the willingness to tap the talents of every single employee of the agency. Governor Carlin is such a leader. He demonstrated as much in spearheading the magnificent Kansas State History Museum and in his continuing involvement with the Kansas State Historical Society. Far from disqualifying him, as some professional historians have suggested, Governor Carlin's political experience will make him a persuasive advocate for an agency whose cultural and educational possibilities are limited only by its resources. As a member of the National Archives Foundation Board, the nominee understands better than anyone, that in this era of shrinking budgets, the Archives will need to enlist private support to carry out its public obligations. His years as a legislator and speaker of the Kansas House also afford him a unique perspective on Congress and its oversight functions. Finally, Governor Carlin also has a wealth of first hand experience in the preservation of Government records. When he left the Governor's Office, he not only turned over all his papers to the Kansas State Historical Society, he did so with the assurance that the entire collection would be open as soon as possible and with no restrictions placed upon it. He proved to be a man of his word, to the benefit of future students of Kansas history, and I am confident his service as Archivist of the United States will be of benefit to all students of American history.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with my distinguished colleague from Arizona, Senator Kyl, in introducing the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Over the past two decades, we have witnessed an alarming explosion in the number of lawsuits filed by State and Federal prisoners. According to enterprise institute scholar Walter Berns, the number of ``due- process and cruel and unusual punishment'' complaints filed by prisoners has grown astronomically--from 6,600 in 1975 to more than 39,000 in 1994. As Chief Justice William Rehnquist has pointed out, prisoners will now ``litigate at the drop of a hat,'' simply because they have little to lose and everything to gain. Prisoners have filed lawsuits claiming such grievances as insufficient storage locker space, being prohibited from attending a wedding anniversary party, and yes, being served creamy peanut butter instead of the chunky variety they had ordered. Unfortunately, prisoner litigation does not operate in a vacuum. Frivolous lawsuits filed by prisoners tie up the courts, waste valuable judicial and legal resources, and affect the quality of justice enjoyed by the law-abiding population. According to Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods, 45 percent of the civil cases filed in Arizona's Federal courts last year were filed by State prisoners. That means that 20,000 prisoners in Arizona filed almost as many cases as Arizona's 3.5 million law-abiding citizens. The time and money spent defending most of these cases are clearly time and money that could be better spent prosecuting criminals, fighting garnishment The bottom line is that prisons should be prisons, not law firms. That's why the Prison Litigation Reform Act would require prisoners who file lawsuits to pay the full amount of their court fees and other costs. Many prisoners filing lawsuits today in Federal court claim indigent status. As indigents, prisoners are generally not required to pay the fees that normally accompany the filing of a lawsuit. In other words, there is no economic disincentive to going to court. The Prison Litigation Reform Act would change this by establishing a garnishment procedure: If a prisoner is unable to fully pay court fees and other costs at the time of filing a lawsuit, 20 percent of the funds in his account would be garnished for this purpose. Every month thereafter, an additional 20 percent of the income credited to the prisoner's account would be garnished, until the full amount of the court fees and costs are paid-off. When average law-abiding citizens file a lawsuit, they recognize that there could be an economic downside to going to court. Convicted criminals shouldn't get preferential treatment: If a law-abiding citizen has to pay the costs associated with a lawsuit, so too should a convicted criminal. In addition, when prisoners know that they will have to pay these costs--perhaps not at the time of filing, but eventually--they will be less inclined to file a lawsuit in the first place. judicial screening Another provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act would require judicial screening, before docketing, of any civil complaint filed by a prisoner seeking relief from the Government under section 1983 of title 42, a reconstruction-era statute that permits actions against State officials who deprive ``any citizen of the United States * * * of the rights, privileges, or immunities guaranteed by the constitution.'' This provision would allow a Federal judge to immediately dismiss a complaint under section 1983 if either of two conditions is met: First, the complaint does not state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or second, the defendant is immune from suit. other reforms The Prison Litigation Reform Act would also punish Federal prisoners who file frivolous lawsuits by requiring them to forfeit any good-time credits they may have accumulated. Why should we provide ``good-time'' credits to Federal prisoners who waste taxpayer dollars and valuable judicial resources with unnecessary lawsuits? The act also requires State prisoners to exhaust all administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit in Federal court. In addition, the act amends both the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act and the Federal Tort Claims Act to prohibit prisoners from suing for mental or emotional injury while in custody, absent a showing of physical injury. If enacted, all of these provisions would go a long way to curtail frivolous prisoner litigation. conclusion Finally, Mr. President, I want to express my thanks to Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods. In many respects, the Prison Litigation Reform Act is modeled after the attorney general's own State initiative in Arizona. Without the invaluable input of Attorney General Woods and his staff, Senator Kyl and I would not be here today introducing this important piece of legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the Prison Litigation Reform Act be reprinted in the Record.