Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I will just take 1 additional minute. Again, everybody has the right to offer amendments. We certainly learned that this year. We have voted on the same amendments time after time after time. I bet half of them are right on here again. Everybody out trying to make points: Social Security, children, or somebody else--offering these amendments. That is a right we have on both sides of the aisle, but we do not have to take a week just because Friday is coming. We do not have to say we cannot finish this bill before Friday. We have a lot of work to do if we are going to have any Easter recess around here. We have a list of ``must do'' legislation. There comes a point when you must get it done. I think if we can finish this bill on Thursday, start on either the supplemental appropriation, the second supplemental or the modified bipartisan measure on regulatory reform--not the moratorium but the 45-day review period, which I think Senator Reid and Senator Nickles are working on--then after that, we have the self- employed tax deduction, which is going to be very important to our constituents. Tax time is coming. We need to pass that early next week. Then we have the second supplemental with billions of dollars in there for FEMA, among other things. Then we have a couple of conference reports on the first supplemental; and then on paper simplification. My view is, if we do not push on this one we are--and if we do a couple of amendments tonight, that would only leave 35. My view is, certainly if the Senator from Illinois wants to offer an amendment, he can do that tonight. But I suggest we then have the vote on that amendment tomorrow, and we will just start and see how far we can go until we have a cloture vote tomorrow sometime.

Mr. DOLE

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

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I think we ought to start with some facts. The line-item veto is not about partisan politics, as the minority leader said on Friday, as I said on Friday, and as the President said today in a release. He said he wanted as strong as possible a bill and make it effective immediately. So it is not about politics. It is about our economic future. And it is not about pitting appropriations versus entitlements. It is about subjecting all expenditures to the same scrutiny. According to the Congressional Research Service, at least 10 Presidents since the Civil War have stated support for the line-item veto. President Clinton will be the 11th. Governors of 43 States have some form of line-item veto authority. It has the overwhelming support of the American people. It is time we came to closure on this issue here in Washington, DC. And make no mistake about it, there have been differences of opinion about how to best design this authority. Some have backed a constitutional amendment, some enhanced rescission authority, and some separate enrollment legislation. And the substitute that I have offered today tries to build on the efforts of those on both sides of the aisle to reach a consensus after all these years of arguing. I understand it has been suggested--I hope not--we are surprising everyone. I do not think there are many surprises left in this debate. I was reminded by the Senator from Arizona in a Republican conference just a few moments ago we have considered different forms of the line- item veto seven times in the past 8 years. And so it is a matter that most of us have a lot of familiarity with, some more than others who have worked on it, such as the Senator from Arizona and the Senator from Indiana, the Senator from New Mexico, and others on the other side of the aisle. I hope that we could respond quickly here and get this done this week. There is no reason not to do it this week. It is only five pages long. There is one sentence on the sixth page. We do not have every vote on this side, I do not believe, for the amendment itself, although I must say we have improved it a lot and we have picked up a lot of support on this side. of the aisle. So it seems to me that with bipartisan support, which I expect will come, particularly with the President's strong statement today, there is no reason why we cannot complete action on this, go to conference with the House and get a really good bill. As I have indicated, since 1985 there have been no fewer than seven efforts to enact measures to provide for the separate enrollment of bills. That is separate enrollment of bills. And in the past there have been legitimate issues raised as to whether or not appropriations measures should be the only bills subject to this new procedure. In the view of Senators Stevens, Bradley, and others, all spending should be subject to review, whether it be the expansion of an entitlement or creation of a new entitlement or creation of a new tax break. This substitute covers all three. It is going to cover everything. Some have suggested we could never define the term ``item'' when you talk about line item. Our substitute tries to ensure that sufficient detail is provided in each bill so these determinations can be fairly and clearly made. Is this substitute perfect? Probably not. There may be some good ideas on change, maybe here, maybe in the conference. But it moves us in the right direction. And in my view it does not change the balance between the legislative branch and the executive branch. Both sides have the opportunity to lay out their priorities and subject them to the review of the other branch. The President retains his authority to veto, and we retain our authority to override such a veto. Will it put additional pressure on us to review and defend those special projects and new programs? You bet it will. That is what this debate is all about. That is what the American people expect. And, again, the American people are not Democrats and Republicans or Independents. The American people support this measure. That is what it should do, and that is what it should be about. There has been strong bipartisan support for the line-item veto. It passed the House 294 to 134. It has been voted on in various forms in the Senate in the past and received the support of many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, including my colleague from Delaware, Senator Biden, Senator Exon from Nebraska, Senator Heflin from Alabama, Senator Hollings from South Carolina, Senator Kennedy from Massachusetts, Senator Leahy from Vermont, Senator Nunn from Georgia, Senator Pell from Rhode Island, and others. In fact, I have noted--I think the Senator from New Mexico will touch on it--a vote in the Budget Committee where they had separate enrollments where I think at least five or six Democrats on the Budget Committee supported that approach. So I just hope that we are not going to get into any political debate, that this will be a debate on the line-item veto. Certainly there are probably questions that should be raised. We have gone through one political debate in the balanced budget amendment. In my view, we do not need another one right now. There should be a vote on this measure, and it should be soon. I think whatever way the vote comes out, the people are going to know where we stand. We know where they stand. They think they know where we stand. They believe that on this measure there will be strong bipartisan support. I happen to believe they are right, unless there is something I have not factored into this entire equation. It is an issue we are familiar with. We have debated it. We have discussed it. We have had hearings and hearings and hearings. It seems to me now it is time to act. I would just speak for my colleagues on this side of the aisle. I think it is safe to say 10 days ago we were sort of all over the lot. Different people had different views, and they were strongly held views. But again, by sitting down and working together--and we give credit to our staff for their help and their ideas--we have been able to come together. As I said, I think every Republican is now prepared to vote for cloture if cloture is necessary. And nearly every Republican, I think, is prepared to vote for the bill--not every Republican but nearly every one. So we have made a great deal of progress, and we believe that, as I said, now is the time to act. I would just conclude by again specially thanking the following Senators. Certainly Senator McCain has been out on this floor year after year after year after year, and when you see him coming you know it is probably about the line-item veto because he feels that strongly about it, and he is going to keep on coming. We hope this is his last trip so he can go on to something else like Social Security. This time he is going to succeed, in my view. Senator Coats has been right there with him. They have stuck together, and they have worked and they have worked. They have had a little different view than some other of my colleagues like Senator Domenici from New Mexico and Senator Stevens from Alaska, but as I have indicated, because of their dedication, because of all their efforts and the outstanding assistance we have had from the chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, and Senator Stevens, who had a lot of reservations about this, worried about having it apply to a certain amount of the appropriations --about what, 16 percent of the budget? He did not think that was going to be very effective, and he convinced a number of our colleagues--in fact, all of our colleagues--it was not very effective so we have made appropriate changes. We believe it is a good proposal, and I hope that we would have as strong a vote on this as we had on congressional coverage. It was 98 to 1. Or if not that strong, maybe as strong as the unfunded mandates bill that passed the Senate 86 to 10. This should be another one of those measures where we come together and we vote and the American people are the beneficiaries.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the side-by- side comparison of this amendment and the Hollings-Mattingly amendment, which was brought up, I think, in 1986, and the Bradley proposal be printed in the Record.

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

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me say the distribution of time and the management of the bill on this side will be by the Senator from Arizona, Senator McCain, or his designee.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send a substitute amendment to the desk.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, leaders' time has been reserved, and the Senate will immediately begin controlled general debate of S. 4, the line-item veto bill, until the hour of 5 p.m. today. At 5 p.m. today the Senate will begin consideration of S. 4. Therefore, amendments may be offered beginning at 5 p.m.--may be offered. However, I have stated there will be no rollcall votes during today's session. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, on Monday we are going to move to the line- item veto. I want to congratulate Senators McCain, Coats, Domenici, Lott, Stevens, and members of my staff and others who have been working trying to bring us together on the Republican side. I think now that we are in fair agreement on this side. I want to congratulate my colleagues, particularly Senators McCain and Coats, who have been at this year after year after year, for their efforts. They have not given up and they have stuck to it and have hung in there. Now we may be able to pass this legislation. Just as we had the debate on the balanced budget amendment which lost because six of my colleagues on the other side, who voted for a balanced budget amendment 1 year, voted against the identical--or almost identical--bill the next year. This line-item veto has the overwhelming support of the American people. It will receive the overwhelming support of Republicans on this side of the aisle. I know that this legislation is opposed by some and by many of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle. I know that they will do what they can within the rules to block passage. But let me say that the line-item veto, in my view, is a little different than the constitutional amendment for a balanced budget. In the House, it passed by a vote 294 to 134. Strong bipartisan support. It has also been voted on a number of times in the Senate over the past years. We have had support from Republicans and Democrats, including Senator Biden, Senator Exon, Senator Heflin, Senator Hollings, Senator Kennedy, Senator Leahy, Senator Nunn, and Senator Pell. The bottom line is that here in the Senate a vote will be taken, and the American people will know where we stand. That is how this process works. But will they know where President Clinton stands? That is the big question. Where does President Clinton stand? For a long time, it was hard to tell where he stood on the balanced budget amendment. It was not until the final weeks of the debate that he finally did what he could to defeat the amendment, although he continued to say he understood why Americans so strongly supported it. About 80 percent supported it. on countless occasions that he supported the line-item veto. But lately, the President seems intent on opposing anything that comes out of the Republican Congress. It is a right he has. It is a right he has, but I am not certain how he explains it to the American people or how he can say in one breath he supports the line-item veto and maybe in another breath say, ``Oh, I have doubts about it.'' So I guess if given the choice between passing something he has always supported, or denying Republicans a legislative victory, then the line-item veto will probably be sacrificed on the altar of politics. If that happens, there is not much we can do about it on this side. As long as we furnish the votes to shut off debate--and I think we will have every vote on this side of the aisle, so we only need 6 out of 46. So I think if the President truly supports the line-item veto, he should not wait any longer and let the American people know. I know he is struggling to be relevant in the process of things. But he can be relevant in this process. He does not have to stand in a schoolyard door or to some school lunch meeting to show how compassionate and how sensitive he is; or how he has, in effect, given up any effort to provide us any leadership in deficit reduction. I hope the President would let our colleagues on both sides of the aisle know that he feels strongly about the line-item veto, just as strongly as he did when he was running for President and when he was Governor. If he does that, we will have a big, big bipartisan victory. And the President can certainly claim all the credit, he and my colleagues on the other side, and we will be happy to join with them in a celebration for the American people. We debated this issue time after time after time. We have had hearings time after time after time. So this is not going to be one of these 20-day procedures in the Senate. This is going to happen, if we can make it happen, next week. We have had plenty of debate on this issue. We do not need 300 amendments from the other side. We are going to do our best to shut off debate. We believe the American people expect us to shut off debate. They are frustrated, our colleagues are frustrated, and I know maybe even it is time the leader gets a little frustrated. Maybe the Democratic leader gets frustrated, too. But I would just challenge the President. I would say: Mr. President, you can do this today. You can make this so easy. This bill will disappear next week. It will pass with a big margin, if you really believe what you have been telling the American people you believe for the last 2 years. If you do not believe it, well, tell us that, too. But if you do believe it, Mr. President, now is the time to speak up. Do not wait until the last minute. Do not wait until next Friday or next Thursday or next Wednesday. Do it this weekend. Make the American people feel good this weekend for a change. Let the American people know that you support what 75 to 80 percent of them support, to give you, Mr. President, not us, but to give you, the authority and the power, Mr. President, that if Bob Dole or somebody sticks something in a bill that does not belong there, you could take it out. We are giving the power to a Democratic President, a Republican Congress. Some say we ought to have our heads examined. But we are prepared to do that because we believe it is good policy. It is good policy. If the Democrats do not trust their President, I cannot help that. If they do not trust a Democratic President, that is their problem. We are prepared to trust President Clinton with this authority. And if we are defeated by Democrats in the Senate with a Democrat in the White House, that is going to be hard to explain. Now, some liberal media will figure out a way to do it, but not many. That is a hard one. I do not know how I would explain that. I would have to think about it a lot. So, Mr. President, we are Republicans. We are prepared to give you this authority, but we are afraid, without your strong support, it is not going to happen. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full Committee on Environment and Public Works be granted permission to meet Friday, March 17, 1995, at 9:30 a.m., to conduct a hearing on Department of the Interior and Department of Defense consultations concerning conservation of endangered species at Fort Bragg, NC, and on legislation regarding public uses of the Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge in Virginia.

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, an article appeared in today's Washington Post with the catchy, but entirely misleading, headline ``Dole Takes 180-Degree Turn on Affirmative Action.'' I would like to take a few moments now to set the record straight. If affirmative action means remedying proven past discrimination against individuals, then I am all for it. If affirmative action means recruitment of qualified minorities and women to give them an opportunity to compete, without guaranteeing the results of the competition, then I am for that too. But if affirmative action means quotas, set-asides, and other preferences that favor individuals simply because they happen to belong to certain groups, then that is where I draw the line. Of course, those who discriminate ought to be punished, and those individuals who are the victims of discrimination ought to be made whole. But you do not fix one problem by creating another. You don't cure discrimination with more discrimination. As I said when the Senate unanimously adopted the amendment that created the glass ceiling commission: ``There is no right or correct number * * * and my opposition to quotas could not be stronger or more deeply felt.'' That was during the debate which apparently the reporter did not check into. Mr. President, I am proud of my civil rights record and I have never shied away from it. I supported the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Americans With Disabilities Act. The compromise leading to the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. However, my past record on civil rights does not, and should not, disqualify me from raising legitimate questions about the continuing effectiveness and fairness of affirmative action, particularly when the affirmative action label is used to describe quotas, set-asides and other preferences. In fact, it was precisely because of these questions that I asked the Congressional Research Service last December to prepare a list of all Federal preference laws and regulations. And, after all, even President Clinton and the chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council are raising these same questions. They understand, as I do, that no Federal program is writ in stone. And no Federal policy should be immune from congressional scrutiny. This has been my position in the past. It is my position now. And it will be my position in the future. If we cannot go back and look at some Executive order or some law that has been passed 5, 10, 15, or 25 years ago without some liberal reporter suggesting that somehow that is a change in position, then I think we are never going to accomplish anything. Things have changed. The programs have failed in some cases. In some cases, maybe they have worked properly. But we have a continuing obligation in the Congress of the United States, regardless of our part, to go back and take a look at programs or Executive orders, whatever it may be on the horizon, regulations that have been in place for a long time and maybe have served no useful purpose. That is precisely what we intend to do. That is precisely what we will do. Hearings will be held on a couple of these provisions, one by the distinguished Senator from Missouri, Senator Bond, and one of my other colleagues, the Senator from Kansas, Senator Kassebaum, relating to two programs that we think should be examined.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, today President Clinton announced his proposal for reinventing environmental, food and drug regulations. I certainly want to welcome President Clinton to the regulatory reform debate. Easing the burdens of compliance is a welcome first step, but misses the point that real reform means getting rid of unnecessary and overburdensome regulations. President Clinton is trying to have it both ways. On the one hand, his limited proposals are consistent with legislation I have introduced on regulatory reform. On the other, he sent his administrator of EPA to Capitol Hill last week to denounce our common sense reform bill as rolling back 20 years of environmental protection and to reel off wild horror stories that are an obvious misreading of what we are trying to do. On February 21, President Clinton specifically instructed the Federal regulators ``to go over every single regulation and cut those regulations which are obsolete.'' President Clinton's proposal does not meet that test--his proposal is no substitute for eliminating unnecessary regulations that stifle productivity, innovation and individual initiative. That is exactly the kind of reform the American people are looking for, and the kind of reform our comprehensive regulatory reform act will provide. What I am looking for is real common sense when regulations are needed. Commonsense regulations that will not require fines for not checking the right box, regulations that do not define all farm ponds as wetlands and regulations that will not create significant burdens for small businesses and communities. Americans are demanding that we get government off their backs by eliminating unnecessary regulations and applying some common sense before enacting regulations that are necessary. President Clinton's proposal today, while welcome, does not address this fundamental problem. I invite him to work with us to pass meaningful regulatory reform. Mr. McCAIN addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DOLE. Madam President, before we vote on the supplemental appropriation bill before us, I want to thank Chairman Hatfield, Senator Byrd, Chairman Stevens, and Senator Inouye for their hard work in hammering out a bill which will restore $1.9 billion needed for training and readiness of our Armed Forces. I am pleased that this bill is fully off-set in both budget authority and outlays. Additionally, in my view, the committee has done a good job in identifying the defense programs which should fund this supplemental appropriation. However, I am concerned by the fact that the operations and maintenance accounts of our Armed Forces are continually being raided to fund unbudgeted contingencies that have little if anything to do with our national security. The administration requested this supplemental because it diverted 4th quarter O&M funding to pay for operations in Somalia, Haiti, Rwanda, Kuwait, Korea, and Bosnia. Now, let me be clear, I am not saying that all of these operations do not relate to U.S. interests. Certainly some, such as the deployment to Kuwait and the increased operations in and around the Korean peninsula, were in line with our national security interests. That is the way it is supposed to be. The deployment of U.S. troops should only be considered when the vital interests of the United States are at stake. We simply cannot continue to raid our O&M accounts to pay for every peace-keeping or peace-making operation dreamed up by the United Nations. Even as the drawdown continues, our fighting men and women are asked to take on more missions in hostile environments. They face greater dangers with fewer numbers and less resources. In fact, since the collapse of the Berlin Wall, the Army has seen operational deployments increase by 300 percent. Last year, the Army twice set a new record for soldiers operationally deployed to other countries--with U.S. troops in more than 91 countries around the world. Despite all of the administration's rhetoric, they have provided neither an adequate force structure nor an adequate defense budget for the challenges that face us in this new era. Now, we in the Congress find ourselves in the position of voting on a measure which essentially funds peace-keeping operations on which this Chamber has not expressed its position. Certainly, the President should have the flexibility to act in defense of our Nation and its interests. But we have been put in a position where we are asked to reimburse the Department of Defense for these operations, and if we do not, the readiness of our forces will be irreversibly harmed. Earlier, my colleague, Senator Stevens, laid out for us what it would mean to not provide these funds. No doubt about it, the readiness of our forces would be downgraded from their current level, which in my view is precarious at best. So, let me be clear, because I am concerned about the readiness of our forces and because I support the men and women who put their lives on the line whenever this Government asks them to, I will vote for this bill. But that should not be interpreted as a stamp of approval of all of the operations which made this supplemental necessary.

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 at 5 p.m. on Monday, March 20, the Senate proceed to Calendar No. 26, S. 4. I further ask unanimous consent that the general debate on the line- item veto occur from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. on Friday, and 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Monday, with the time to equally divided as designated by the leaders or their designees.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent that I may use part of my leader's time.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask that there be a period for morning business with Members permitted to speak therein for an indefinite time, unless there is some agreement on equal time. I think Senator McCain wants to speak for a couple of hours. Mr. President, was leader time reserved?

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I thank my colleagues. It is my understanding that the Senator from Arizona would like to discuss, generally, the line-item veto this evening, and somebody on the other side may wish to discuss it this evening. There will be no votes this evening and no votes tomorrow. I do not anticipate a vote on Monday. But there will be discussion. Once the bill is laid down Monday, there will be discussion into the evening on the bill itself. On Tuesday, I hope we might start voting.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered on the motion to table?

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I just wanted to announce before the vote started that at 12:30, we will be honored by the presence of King Hassan II of the Kingdom of Morocco. The King has been a loyal friend and ally of the United States, and I urge all of my colleagues to greet His Majesty and welcome him to the floor of the U.S. Senate. At this very moment, he is in a meeting in S-207 which will conclude at about 12:30. So if you can stay for a few moments after voting, I know he will appreciate very much meeting you. I thank the Chair. Vote On Motion To Table Amendment No. 333

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.