Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, as President Clinton continues his review of Federal affirmative action policies, one of his top priorities should be to take a very close look at the Justice Department's brief in the Piscataway Board of Education case. This case is now pending before the third circuit court of appeals. In Piscataway, the Justice Department has taken the position that, when an employer is laying off employees, a worker can be fired from her job because of her race. That's right: Our Nation's top law enforcement agency says that it is perfectly legal, as a way to preserve workforce diversity, to tell a person that she can no longer keep her job because she happens to have the wrong skin color. This position is even too much for the editorial writers at USA Today, normally staunch defenders of affirmative action, who argue in a powerful editorial that the Justice Department's actions in Piscataway are ``a tale of values misplaced.'' Unfortunately, President Clinton has publicly embraced the Justice Department's misguided position. Hopefully, the President will rethink this position before he completes his affirmative action review. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the USA Today editorial be reprinted in the Record.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, first let me quote from what I consider to be a fairly reliable source. The budget which came from the President said, ``I've given up; that as long as I am President of the United States there will never be a balanced budget.'' That is an astonishing statement. That quote came from former Senator Paul Tsongas, Democrat of Massachusetts, cochairman of the bipartisan antideficit Concord Coalition. Another quote from our former colleague, Senator Tsongas: Let me say as a Democrat it's very easy for Democrats to poke fun at what these two people [Senator Pete Domenici and Representative John Kasich] are doing because, unlike our party, they've decided to really address this issue. And the fact is, they're prepared to put a balanced budget amendment on the table. The balanced budget amendment died because of the Democrats--not because of the Republicans, not because of the vote in the Senate, and we Democrats are equally responsible to our kids. That was not a statement by Bob Dole or anybody on this side of the aisle. That was a statement by Senator Paul Tsongas, who used to grace the Senate Chamber. He was seated on the other side of the aisle. I think he speaks volumes in just these two statements. Along with Senator Domenici, I was on the House floor yesterday for that historic vote when they adopted the resolution that will put us on a path for a balanced budget by the year 2002. It was a very exciting moment, and we hope to repeat that moment in the Senate sometime in the early afternoon next Wednesday. We will be here late, late, late Monday night and late, late, late Tuesday night, so we can finish sometime midafternoon on Wednesday. After the vote in the House yesterday, the President issued a statement, saying, ``There is a right way and a wrong way'' to reduce the deficit, and the House plan was ``The wrong way.'' Americans have a right to ask, if the House plan was the ``wrong way'' and if the Senate budget resolution is the ``wrong way,'' then just what does President Clinton define as the ``right way'' to reduce the deficit? He would not even let us save $10 billion in the rescission package. He threatened to veto that because it does not meet his standards of higher spending. Well, the only evidence we have of what he believes is the right way is what he proposed, and that is the question now before us. As Senator Domenici said, he asked if any Democrats wished to offer the President's budget as an amendment and they declined, so he did it to make a point. The point is the President does not have a plan, a credible plan. And the point is, the Democrats do not have a credible plan. Their plan is to attack Republicans, attack Republicans, attack Republicans--we are out there cutting Medicare; cutting everything to help the rich. That effort has been tried for years. It is called class warfare. It was tried in 1994--and we liked the results. And maybe it will be tried again in 1996. I assume the President was serious about his budget plan when he proposed it. We learned a number of things about what the President apparently believes is ``right.'' The President believes that, as Senator Tsongas said, the status quo is right. The President believes it is right to take no action and let the deficit continue, $200 billion a year as far as the eye can see, well into the next century. The President believes it is right to allow entitlement spending to consume 57 percent of total spending by the year 2000. The President believes it is right to ignore his own trustees' warning of the impending bankruptcy of the Medicare Trust Fund, and to take absolutely no action to preserve, improve, and protect Medicare. And, Mr. President, I have a suspicion of something else the President has proven he believes is right. He said reduce the deficit, and since his budget refused to do that by reducing the growth of Government spending, that can leave only one possible answer: Tax increases; tax increases. Are we going to be told by the President, ``Well, we have to balance the budget. This is the wrong way. The right way is to do what I did in 1993, have a big, big $255 billion tax increase''? I have not heard any other options. We have to conclude something. The only conclusion I can reach is the President does not want to balance the budget, does not want to cut spending, does not want to preserve, protect and improve Medicare. So it seems to me we have been waiting now 11 days since we proposed our balanced budget plan. We have not heard a word from anybody on the other side of the aisle. We have not heard a word from the President, and the deficit has increased $4.9 billion since we submitted our balanced budget plan. Is our plan perfect? No, but it is an honest effort to transform Government to make it smaller, to make it smarter, to make it more sensitive, to make it more responsive, to make it less expensive and to reverse the 40-year tide of power to the Federal Government. Let me say, we look forward to next week. I guess you could say we are prepared to make the tough decisions, the President will not make any decision. That is a clear difference in party philosophy: Do not make any decisions, come to the floor and complain about what happens to senior citizens, children, veterans, farmers and everybody else, but do not worry about the next generation, do not worry about your grandchildren, do not worry about your young children. It will all be taken care of by red ink, as the Senator from Maine, Senator Snowe, just pointed out. It seems to me that if we want status quo policies, I guess we can have those, if the Democrats prevail. But what we need to do right now is defeat the President's budget and then have serious debate on the balanced budget proposed by the distinguished Senator from New Mexico, Senator Domenici. It is not because it is good political theater, as some have suggested, but I think it is time to do the right thing. I think the President, in his inaugural address, used the word ``change'' 11 times. Apparently he is out of change. He does not want any more change. He wants the status quo: ``Do not cut farm subsidies, do not do this, do not do that, do not cut anything until after I am reelected in 1996.'' I do not believe that will sell. I believe the American people are ready--they have been ready for leadership on the budget. We have had a lot of leadership on the other side over the years on the budget, and I am still hopeful we will still have leadership on the other side on the deficit. We ought to be in this together. But this is the first step. This is the first vote. This is a defining vote, and I urge my colleagues to vote against the President's budget. I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that I may use 5 minutes of my leader's time.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 18, 1995, at 9:30 a.m., in room SD-628, to conduct a hearing focusing on the Small Business Administration's 7(a) Business Loan Program.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Finance Committee be permitted to meet Thursday, May 18, 1995, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-215, to conduct a hearing on various flat tax proposals.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Rules and Administration be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 18, 1995, at 9:30 a.m., to hold a hearing to receive testimony on the Smithsonian Institution: Management Guidelines for the Future.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to hold a business meeting during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 18, 1995.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Indian Affairs be authorized to meet on Thursday, May 18, 1995, beginning at 9:30 a.m. in room 485 of the Russell Senate Office Building on the recommendations of the Joint DOI/BIA/Tribal Task Force on Reorganization of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee to meet on Thursday, May 18, 1995, at 10 a.m., for a hearing on Executive Reorganization: Various Proposals.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 18, 1995, at 10 a.m.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 18, 1995, for purposes of conducting a full committee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 9:30 p.m. The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on administration of timber contracts in the Tongass National Forest, and administration of the Tongass Timber Reform Act of 1990.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 3 p.m. on Thursday, May 18, 1995, in open and closed session, to receive testimony on bomber force issues in review of S. 727, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 1996, and the future years defense program.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 1 p.m. on Thursday, May 18, 1995, in open session, to receive testimony on the U.S. Marine Corps program and current operations in review of S. 727, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1996 and the future years defense program.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Energy Production and Regulation of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Thursday, May 18, 1995, for purposes of conducting a subcommittee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 2 p.m. The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on S. 283, a bill to provide for the extension of the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to two hydroelectric projects in Pennsylvania, and for other purposes; S. 468, a bill to provide for the extension of the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the construction of a hydroelectric project in Ohio, and for other purposes; S. 543, a bill to provide for the extension of the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the construction of a hydroelectric project in Oregon and for other purposes; S. 547, a bill to provide for the extension of the deadlines applicable to certain hydroelectric projects under the Federal Power Act, and for other purposes; S. 549, a bill to provide for the extension of the deadline under the Federal Power Act applicable to the construction of three hydroelectric projects in the State of Arkansas, S. 552, a bill to provide for the refurbishment and continued operation of a small hydroelectric facility in central Montana by adjusting the amount of charges to be paid to the United States under the Federal Power Act and for other purposes; S. 595, a bill to provide for the extension of a hydroelectric project located in the State of West Virginia; and S. 611, a bill to provide for the extension of the time limitation for a FERC-issued hydroelectric license.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, this weekend, an important advertisement will be appearing on our television screens. The ad will feature two prominent Americans--Dr. William Bennett and C. Delores Tucker, chair of the National Political Congress of Black Women. Dr. Bennett is a Republican. Ms. Tucker is a Democrat. Both agree that the entertainment industry must be held accountable for the mindless violence and loveless sex it serves up each day to our children. Of course, there are many fine people in the entertainment industry and there are many fine movies, songs, and television shows. And, thankfully, it appears that Hollywood is finally beginning to understand that family-friendly films can also be box office hits. That is the good news. The bad news is that too much of today's entertainment continues to operate in a moral vacuum, without a redeeming hope, and without any suggestion that virtues are important, that morality is, in fact, preferable to immorality. We cannot ignore this simple truth: culture does count. Cultural messages can and do bore deep into the hearts and the minds of our impressionable young. And when these messages are negative ones--repeated hour after hour, day after day, month after month--they can rob our children of that most precious gift of all: their innocence. One of the leading cultural influences in America today happens to be one of our largest corporations, Time-Warner. Now, Time-Warner has produced much entertainment over the years that has enriched the cultural life of our country. But unfortunately, through its affiliation with companies like Interscope Records, Time- Warner is now on the cutting-edge of the misogyny business. As Ms. Tucker will explain in her television ad, and I quote: Time-Warner's music division promotes music that celebrates the rape, torture, and murder of women. The lyrics are vulgar, offensive, and do terrible harm to our children. Columnist John Leo puts it another way. He calls Time-Warner's affiliation with Interscope the ``cultural equivalent of owning half the world's mustard gas factories.'' Last month, I urged all Americans to join with me in refocusing the spotlight on the entertainment industry. I said that ``shame is a powerful tool and [[Page S6839]] we should use it.'' So, it is gratifying to see two concerned Americans, with different backgrounds and different political views, joining forces to put some much-deserved public heat on one of the giants of the entertainment industry. Let us also be very clear that Government censorship is not the answer. We have more to fear than to gain from putting Washington in charge of our culture. But just as Time-Warner has the right to produce and sell its harmful wares, concerned Americans like Bill Bennett and Dolores Tucker also have the right to call upon the executives of Time-Warner to think less about short-term profit and more about the long-term good of their country. So, I want to congratulate Dr. Bennett and Ms. Tucker for taking this initiative. I know that Dr. Bennett cites courage as one of the great virtues in his great ``Book of Virtues'' and with this bold advertising campaign, he has proven that courage and good citizenship are alive and well in America today. Mr. President, I will just say, maybe as a suggestion, it would be well for the Time-Warner executives and Bill Bennett and Ms. Tucker to sit down and talk about this, try to work it out, try to have a dialog. I hope that there will be some meeting of the minds and some agreement to start this discussion, to start a dialog because, as I have indicated before, it is very important to Americans, particularly America's children.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. The children see it.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, on Monday more than 1,000 shells fell on Sarajevo--5 people were killed and 25 wounded. Yesterday Bihac was being shelled. Today a Sarajevo marketplace was hit by a mortar shell. The response to these attacks on U.N. designated safe havens reflects the United Nation's latest de facto policy: Blame the Bosnian Government for trying to defend its people, and dispatch NATO planes to buzz overhead. Meanwhile contact group negotiators are desperately trying to sweeten a deal for Serbian President Milosevic. Let us face it, the protection of U.N. safe havens has become a fraud. The enforcement of weapons exclusion zones has also become a fraud. The United Nations is not fooling anyone even with its blame both sides rhetoric. According to news reports, the United Nations is considering mandate reduction for its forces in Bosnia. In my view that has already happened, and without a U.N. Security Council vote. The General Accounting Office recently released a study on U.N. operations in Bosnia-Herzegovina prepared at my request. In painstaking detail the report explains how the United Nations is not doing the job it was tasked to do in Bosnia. The GAO report confirms what many of us already knew: that the U.N. operation in the former Yugoslavia is ineffective, that UNPROFOR is not carrying out its mandates. It also indicates that UNPROFOR has lost its credibility and has impeded NATO's ability to carry out air strikes in defense of U.N. designated safe havens and U.N. forces, facts that are very clear in light of events over the last 2 days in Bosnia. I would remind my colleagues that even though there are no Americans participating in UNPROFOR, the United States has been subsidizing this failed endeavor for several years now, to the tune of more than $1.1 billion in direct support and $1.4 billion more in indirect support. It is high time that we review our support for this flawed policy. The facts are clear: This operation is a failure, an expensive failure. It seems to me that increasingly UNPROFOR's real reason for being is to prevent a change in policy, specifically to prevent the lifting of the arms embargo on Bosnia. Mr. President, I simply urge all of my colleagues to read the GAO's report. I believe that after reading it, one would be hard pressed to argue that this operation is worth Bosnia being denied its fundamental right to self-defense. I say, along with Senator Lieberman of Connecticut, it is our hope that we will be able to vote on lifting the arms embargo in the Senate some time in June. It seems to me that everything is falling apart and we are getting less and less response from the United Nations. I must say I have no quarrel with the U.N. Protection Forces, the men and women there. They are certainly exhibiting courage and bravery. But it seems to me that the time has come for a total review of our policy. I suggest to the President of the United States that he provide the leadership in this review and that we do it as quickly as possible. I thank my colleagues and I yield the floor.

Mr. DOLE. I thank the Senator.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I rise today in support of Senator Smith's Vietnam POW/MIA bill. As the members of this Chamber know, Senator Smith has worked long and hard in the effort to make Hanoi account for our missing in action and prisoners of war from Vietnam. This bill is not only the most recent example of that fine work, but also a reminder to the administration and other supporters of rushing to diplomatic relations with Vietnam that Hanoi has 2,000 unanswered questions to answer before proceeding with recognition. My association with Vietnam POW/MIA's goes way back to 1970. I helped found the National League of Families of POW/MIAs. I remember going to President Nixon and saying we had to do something about the POW and MIA problem--answers had to be given before the people of America could rest easy that all had been done to find their loved ones and account for their fate. Mr. President, this is not an onerous bill. It requires Presidential certification on three key issues before moving ahead on normalization: (1) a listing of cases for which the likelihood is the greatest that Vietnam has information; (2) that Vietnam is fully cooperating in the four key areas outlined by President Clinton; and (3) that Vietnam is cooperating in providing access to records concerning Americans captured during the war. Mr. President, I note that the distinguished chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Helms and the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Thurmond, as well as Senators Thomas, Grassley, Campbell, and Gramm of Texas are original sponsors of the Vietnam POW/MIA Full Disclosure Act of 1995. Once again, I commend Senator Smith for his leadership on this issue and yield the floor.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I thank the Senator from South Dakota for his cooperation. Let me just explain to my colleagues, then, the Senator will lay down the amendment tonight, and it is my understanding at the end of the day there will be 40 hours left in today's session. Then hopefully tomorrow we will be in long enough to take 10 more hours, and after tomorrow there will be 30 hours left. So we start Monday with 30 hours. We would like to complete action on this bill on Wednesday so we can take up the President's request on the antiterrorism bill and pass that before the recess. So there will be one vote tomorrow. And first vote on Monday will be at 3:15. There may be votes after that vote on Monday. So I urge my colleagues to not leave on the assumption that there will only be one vote on Monday. There could be several votes on Monday. I assume after the disposition of the Lautenberg-Rockefeller amendment, there will be an amendment offered on this side. I assume we are going to rotate back and forth. So there could be several amendments, because again we will be in session at least 10 hours on Monday, maybe longer. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I further ask that following the disposition of the Domenici amendment, Senators Lautenberg and Rockefeller be recognized to offer an amendment relative to restoring the Medicare funds; that no amendments be in order to the amendment; that no amendments be in order to the language proposed to be stricken; and that a vote occur on the amendment at 3:15 p.m. Monday, May 22, without any intervening action or debate.

Mr. DOLE. I add further, if the substitute is adopted, I will be out of work.

Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that prior to the close of business today, Senator Domenici be recognized to offer a substitute amendment, the text of which is President Clinton's budget; that no other amendments be in order during the pendency of the Domenici amendment; that a vote occur on the amendment at 10:45 a.m. on Friday, May 19, 1995, without any intervening action or debate; and that the time between 10:15 a.m. and 10:30 a.m. be under the control of Senator Exon, and 10:30 a.m. and 10:45 a.m. under the control of Senator Domenici.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I was pleased to see the National Rifle Association apologize for some of the statements in their recent fundraising letter. The NRA has done the right thing. They should not have used some of that language in the first place. Alleged abuses of power by Federal law enforcement authorities are a fair and legitimate subject of debate--for Congress and for the American people. But it is wrong to impugn the motives and actions of the courageous men and women who risk their lives every day in enforcing our laws. Mr. President, words do matter. Statements do matter. Our debate should recognize that fact. I ask that the article from today's Washington Post on the NRA apology be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Was leader time reserved?