Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, as the American people know all too well, Federal judges can play an enormous role in our daily lives. Through their rulings, Federal judges help determine whether criminals walk the streets or stay behind bars; whether racial quotas or merit govern in hiring decisions; whether businesses can function, prosper, and create jobs without being subject to baseless litigation; and whether parents can control the content of their children's education. Today, Federal judges micromanage schools, hospitals, fire and police departments, even prisons. According to one estimate, a staggering three-fourths of all State prisons and one-third of the 500 largest jails are under some form of Federal court supervision. One notorious example of judge-acting-as-legislator is Carl Muecke, appointed to the Federal bench by President Johnson. Judge Muecke has become the de facto administrator of the Arizona State Prison System. In a textbook example of judicial activism run amok, Judge Muecke has declared that Arizona prison libraries must be open at least 50 hours each week, that the State of Arizona must grant each of its 22,000 prisoners the opportunity to make at least three 20-minute phone calls every week to an attorney; that Arizona must provide lengthy legal research classes to inmates; and that Arizona prison officials must give each indigent inmate 1 pen and 1 pencil, 10 sheets of typing paper, 1 legal pad, and 4 envelopes upon request. Not surprisingly, Arizona's attorney general, Grant Woods, has challenged the judge's misguided rulings, appealing all the way up to the Supreme Court. Unbelievably, Attorney General Woods has found himself at odds with a powerful adversary: the Clinton administration. In a friend of the court brief filed with the Supreme Court, the Clinton administration's top lawyer--Solicitor General Drew Days--sided not with Attorney General Woods and the taxpayers of Arizona but with Judge Muecke and the State's litigious inmates. Let's put this in perspective: while the Justice Department should be working overtime to save the taxpayers money by reducing the number of frivolous inmate lawsuits, the Clinton administration--through its lawyers--is actually contributing to the litigation explosion. In other cases, the Solicitor General has shown that being tough on crime is apparently not part of his justice department portfolio. In the now-famous Knox case, the Solicitor General's office actually argued for a weakening of our Federal laws against child pornography. And in another case--United States versus Hamrick--the Solicitor General's office decided not to seek a rehearing of a fourth circuit ruling overturning the conviction of someone who mailed a defective letter bomb to a U.S. attorney. Since the letter bomb failed to detonate--although it scorched the packaging in which it had been mailed--a fourth circuit panel reasoned that the bomb could not be a dangerous weapon or a destructive device under the relevant Federal statute. Of course, had it detonated, I think probably they might have had a different indication. The Solicitor General would normally intervene in such a case, particularly since the recipient of the letter bomb was a U.S. attorney. Yet Solicitor General Drew Days declined to do so. As Prof. Paul Cassel of the University of Utah has explained: The . . . decision [by the Solicitor General's office] is truly hard to fathom. A ruling that otherwise dangerous bombs with defective igniters are not ``dangerous weapons'' could be expected to have serious effects on the Government's ability to prosecute a number of serious criminals under the relevant Federal statutes. Fortunately, the Reagan-Bush judges on the entire fourth circuit stepped in, and on their own initiative, reversed the crazy panel decision. And yes, President Clinton's appointment to the fourth circuit, Judge Blaine Michael, joined a dissent insisting that the letter bomb was nonoperational. In yet another case--United States versus Cheely--a panel of Carter- appointed judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals struck down the Federal death penalty statute. Despite the Clinton administration's professed support for the Federal death penalty, Solicitor General Days declined to appeal the ninth circuit panel decision. Unfortunately, the Solicitor General's actions in the Knox, Hamrick, and Cheely cases appear to be part of a pattern. As Senator Hatch explained last week, and I quote: The Clinton administration's Solicitor General generally has ceased the efforts of the Reagan and Bush administrations to vigorously defend the death penalty and tough criminal laws. So, what is the lesson here? The lesson is this: Talk is cheap. The President may talk a good game on crime, but the real-life actions of Clinton judges and Clinton lawyers often don't match the President's tough-on-crime rhetoric. Mr. President, I reserve the remainder of my leader's time. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I rise today to pay tribute to a Kansan who passed away recently. Jerry Robertson was the president of the Topeka YMCA and leader of the revitalization of downtown Topeka, KS. Jerry Robertson was a 1965 graduate of my alma mater, Washburn University, and symbolized everything that the YMCA stands for, the Christian service to the community, respect for God and the commitment to serving everyone in Topeka and Shawnee County. Prior to being president of the YMCA, Jerry headed the athletic department of Washburn University when Washburn won the N.A.I.A. national championship in basketball, and was a star baseball pitcher in the major leagues. Jerry dedicated many years of his life to the YMCA and to the growth of the Topeka economy and although I did not know him personally, I am told that his sudden passing will leave a great void that will be difficult to fill. Mr. President, I know all my colleagues join me in sending our most heartfelt sympathies to Jerry's wife, Carol, and their two sons, Jeff and Jason.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce legislation establishing a commission to review the various programs administered by the Federal Government to assist service members transitioning from military to civilian life. Current System Lacks Coordination Currently, several Federal departments and agencies offer programs to assist military men and women, veterans and reserve component members in their transition back to civilian life. Offices in the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Labor, and others, sponsor programs offering such services as education assistance, job-training, job placement, and home loans. These are all useful and valuable services. However, changes in the labor market are challenging today's veteran readjustment programs. Unemployment rates for recently separated veterans may be as high as 17 percent, compared with a national average of about 5.7 percent. This is extremely troubling when one stops to think about the experience, discipline, and work ethic veterans bring to the workplace. By better focusing these resources, we can make the existing programs more accessible to a greater number of veterans; we can streamline programs and make them more user-friendly; we can minimize overlap and improve cost-effectiveness. That would be a big improvement over the current situation, and would ultimately better serve our service men and women. Let me emphasize, the purpose of this commission is not to create new programs and make a large bureaucracy. Rather it is to review the range of existing programs and determine how we can better coordinate our efforts on behalf of veterans. Both the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees, as well as several veterans service organizations support this concept and agree that such a review is both appropriate and timely. There is real opportunity here to repeat the success of General Bradley's 1955 commission, which make significant improvements in transition programs with fresh concepts and approaches. Improved Service to Veterans In my view, establishing this commission is the first step toward providing more accessible and more practical assistance to service members who are facing fundamental changes in their personal and professional lives. These are brave men and women who committed precious years of their lives to defending their Nation. Now they are ready and willing to become productive members of their civilian communities. It is my hope that this legislation will help these very deserving individuals make better use of the opportunities and resources available to them. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I am pleased today to introduce legislation establishing a commission to review the various programs administered by the Federal Government to assist service members transitioning from military to civilian life. Current System Lacks Coordination Currently, several Federal departments and agencies offer programs to assist military men and women, veterans and reserve component members in their transition back to civilian life. Offices in the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, Labor, and others, sponsor programs offering such services as education assistance, job-training, job placement, and home loans. These are all useful and valuable services. However, changes in the labor market are challenging today's veteran readjustment programs. Unemployment rates for recently separated veterans may be as high as 17 percent, compared with a national average of about 5.7 percent. This is extremely troubling when one stops to think about the experience, discipline, and work ethic veterans bring to the workplace. By better focusing these resources, we can make the existing programs more accessible to a greater number of veterans; we can streamline programs and make them more user-friendly; we can minimize overlap and improve cost-effectiveness. That would be a big improvement over the current situation, and would ultimately better serve our service men and women. Let me emphasize, the purpose of this commission is not to create new programs and make a large bureaucracy. Rather it is to review the range of existing programs and determine how we can better coordinate our efforts on behalf of veterans. Both the House and Senate Veterans' Affairs Committees, as well as several veterans service organizations support this concept and agree that such a review is both appropriate and timely. There is real opportunity here to repeat the success of General Bradley's 1955 commission, which make significant improvements in transition programs with fresh concepts and approaches. Improved Service to Veterans In my view, establishing this commission is the first step toward providing more accessible and more practical assistance to service members who are facing fundamental changes in their personal and professional lives. These are brave men and women who committed precious years of their lives to defending their Nation. Now they are ready and willing to become productive members of their civilian communities. It is my hope that this legislation will help these very deserving individuals make better use of the opportunities and resources available to them. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOLE

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

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I now ask it be in order for me to table en bloc amendments Nos. 3670 and 3671, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DOLE. I now move to table amendment No. 3670 and ask for yeas and nays.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the vote be limited to 10 minutes.

Mr. DOLE. Let me indicate to my colleagues that it will probably be fairly late. We will have a series of votes here. I will try to reduce the votes from three to one. That may be objected to. If not, there will be three votes. That will be followed by the appropriations bill that is here from the House. I am not certain how much debate we will have. It is a $160 billion package. I assume there will be considerable debate. We are probably looking at 12 o'clock, somewhere in there. Having said that, I now ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to move to table en bloc, which would save time, amendments numbered 3669, 3670, and 3671. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DOLE. Let me indicate to my colleague from Massachusetts--and I have discussed this briefly with him and with the Democratic leader. I have asked Senator Lott to discuss it further with the Democratic leader. We made a proposal--as I understand, it has been objected to--that we would take it up not before June 4 but not later than June 28, and other provisions, but we understood that would not be agreed to. It is not that we have not tried. We will continue to work with the Democratic leader and the Senator from Massachusetts. I would like to pass the immigration bill. It seems to me that immigration, particularly illegal immigration, is a very, very important issue in this country. It has broad bipartisan support. The minimum wage, whatever its merits may be, does not belong on this bill. We waited 3 years into the Clinton administration for anybody to even mention minimum wage. At least, the President never mentioned minimum wage. Since the action on the Senate floor, the President has mentioned, I guess this year, minimum wage 50-some times--not once the previous 3 years. So, it is not too difficult to understand the motivation. Having said that, we are prepared to try to work out some accommodation with my colleagues on the other side, and we hope that we can save some time. These are going to be party line votes. There will be three of them. We could have three votes or we could have one vote, whatever my colleagues would like to have.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I now move to table amendment No. 3669 and ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DOLE. I will yield for a question. I do not want to frustrate the Democratic leader.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, maybe just for 1 minute the chairman and the distinguished Senator from West Virginia might give us a summary of the bill. This will be the last vote of the day. There will be a vote on Monday, late Monday on cloture. Mr. HATFIELD addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DOLE. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DOLE. I send a second-degree amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DOLE. I move to recommit the bill, and I send a motion to the desk.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DOLE. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DOLE. Now I send a second-degree amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of the amendment be dispensed with.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I now send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join Senator Lautenberg in offering this legislation to remember the 10th anniversary of the terrible nuclear accident at Chernobyl. While 10 years have passed since that tragic day, the health and economic consequence of Chernobyl continue to be borne by the Ukrainian people. I recall quite well how the Chernobyl accident on April 26, 1986 signaled the inhumanity of the totalitarian system of government. At first, the Soviet Government feebly attempted to deny the incident-- with the effect of causing further harm to those who lived in its vicinity. Ultimately, the full scale of the disaster became known, but only after millions in Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, and Poland had been exposed to radioactive fallout. That a government could be so brutal to its people is no surprise to those of us who worked for many years to confront and defeat the totalitarian system. That the Soviet Government could be so brutal to the people of Ukraine was no surprise to a people who endured the forced starvation, massacres, and genocidal policies of Joseph Stalin in the 1930's. The radioactive wasteland around Chernobyl will, unfortunately, serve as a lasting and hideous monument to refute those who would defend such a system, or whose historical memory has faded sufficiently to allow them to forget its evil. Within the catastrophe at Chernobyl were sown the seeds of the downfall of the Soviet system. A fiercely independent people such as the Ukrainians cannot be subjected forever to such abuse. I am proud of the role that I was able to fulfill in the Congress, in full support of Presidents Reagan and Bush, as the United States prevailed, the Soviet Union collapsed, and Ukraine again became an independent state in the momentous year of 1991. I was proud to sponsor legislation which called for direct United States aid to the republics, rather than through Moscow in 1990. The goal of defeating communism and achieving independence for Ukraine was not easily achieved, it was one that required the combined efforts of many nations and many people, including the Ukraine-American community, who simply refused to accept that communism would prevail over the spirit of Ukrainians. Democracy is prevailing in Ukraine today, but the Ukrainian people and Government continue to shoulder the burden of the Chernobyl disaster. Just as the United States joined with the Ukrainian people to defeat communism, we work in partnership to overcome the tragic consequences of Chernobyl. I was pleased to support the Republican initiative in Congress to provide Ukraine with $225 million in assistance this year, including specific assistance to nuclear safety, the development of alternatives to nuclear power and to address the ongoing health problems due to the Chernobyl disaster. I am certain that working together we can bring peace, prosperity, and a better quality of life to the people of Ukraine. I urge my colleagues to support our resolution.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, we have just passed in the last hour and a half the Omnibus Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1996. I think we have dealt a big blow to the era of big government. My view is the Americans--whether Republicans, Democrats or Independents--wanted us to make changes, and we have delivered a true victory for all of America's taxpayers. We have saved $23 billion over last year's level of discretionary spending. That is $23 billion less Washington spending, and $30 billion less than the President requested. That is a lot more savings than many people predicted. I think we probably could have done more had we had a little more time. It is the biggest decrease in Washington spending in more than half a century, according to some who have been around. It has been a long and difficult process and has taken a lot of bipartisanship in many cases, working with the White House in other cases, but it covers five separate appropriations bills, nine Cabinet agencies, and appropriates over $160 billion. There has been a lot of back and forth with the White House. A lot of negotiations. A lot of give and take. Both sides had to give a little. Certainly nobody got everything they wanted in the final version of this bill. But what the American people got was a spending bill that is $23 billion less than last year and $30 billion less than President Clinton's request. We did our duty for the taxpayers of America. If we maintain our path of savings, we will stay on path to a balanced budget in 2002. We will continue to follow through on our promise for smaller Government, less Washington spending, and letting America's working families keep more of their hard-earned money. There is also good news in other parts of this bill. For instance, the ``stop-fril'' language will help stop frivolous inmate litigation. This much-needed legislation makes it harder for inmates to sue States and localities on prison conditions--like the prisoner who sued because he wanted ``Reebok'' brand tennis shoes instead of the ``Converse'' brand shoes provided by the prison. Some 33 States have estimated that frivolous lawsuits cost them more than $55 million annually. We are doing something about that in this bill. I also want to say a word about the funding restriction on Vietnam in this legislation. I am disappointed the certification standard was changed from ``fully cooperating'' to ``cooperating in full faith'' in this conference report. This is an issue of great importance to many Members of Congress, including myself. I know some voted against the entire bill because of this provision. It is also very important to me. The administration was successful in including this change, but Congress will continue to monitor cooperation on POW/MIA issues very closely--regardless of the certification standard. I want to thank the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Hatfield, for his leadership, and also the distinguished ranking minority member, Senator Byrd, for his leadership, in putting together this historic legislation, as well as all the other Senators on the Appropriations Committee who worked so hard and so successfully on this legislation. Mr. KEMPTHORNE addressed the Chair.