Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I further ask unanimous consent that H.R. 889 no longer be the pending business and the bill be returned to the calendar.

Mr. DOLE. And with the consent of Senator Kassebaum, I would ask that her amendment be withdrawn.

Mr. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote scheduled for Thursday on the Kassebaum amendment be vitiated.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent there now be a period for the transaction of morning business with Senators permitted to speak not to exceed 5 minutes each.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I yield to the Senator from Massachusetts. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, how much time is remaining?

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me just lay it out cold. This is all about politics. It has nothing to do with workers or anybody else. Last week, President Clinton kicked off his 1996 reelection campaign by signing an Executive order that would prohibit Federal contractors from hiring permanent replacement workers during economic strikes. Despite all the talk about fostering fairness in the Federal workplace, the Executive order is a transparent effort on the President's part to shore up a political base that he believes is vital to his own reelection chances. During the past several years, Congress has considered, and repeatedly rejected, the so-called striker-replacement bill. That is why the President is setting a dangerous precedent if he believes he can revive this defeated legislation simply by issuing an executive order. It is the responsibility of Congress, not the administration, to write the laws governing labor-management relations in this country. So, Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support this motion to invoke cloture. The amendment offered by my friend and colleague from Kansas, Senator Kassebaum, will help restore the careful balance--that is what we want--a careful balance between labor and management that has been the hallmark of our system of collective bargaining for more than 60 years. The President's misguided directive is a politically inspired attempt to do an end run around the legislative process. I do not believe it should go unchallenged. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOLE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Illinois. I know of his feelings in this area. I think, in fact, we want to do the same thing he has already suggested through nondiscrimination and penalties for discrimination. I mean, if you discriminate there ought to be punishment. Al Shanker of the American Federation of Teachers came out against the Justice Department's position on the Piscataway case. In fact, he has written a column about it. There was not any evidence of any discrimination by the school board. Next time, it could be a black person, a black woman or black man, who may lose their job. So that is why I say if somebody discriminates, to me that is one thing. If somebody has 1,000 white males, as the Senator from Illinois suggested, and there were good Asian, Hispanic, and black applicants, there ought to be at least some presumption or some evidence that someone may have discriminated, and we ought to go after that person if there is any evidence. We are talking about the same result. We may have a different way of approaching it. But I think, in any case, when we have had laws on the books for 10, 15, 20, 25, 30 years around here, it might be time to go back and take a look to see what has worked, what has not worked, see if they have worked at all, or if they have been misused or abused, taken advantage of by some people who may not have been in any of those special groups. That has happened, too. So I hope we can discuss this in a very reasonable way, because it is a very, very touchy subject. In the past, you know, if you had two equally qualified people, you used to flip a coin. One might be black, one might Asian; or one Hispanic, one white. You would say, ``Well, somebody has to go.'' You flipped a coin. And we have done a lot of that. I think we can all look back at the time we flipped coins. Sometimes we won; sometimes we lost. In any event, it is a very important debate. There has been a lot of statements made that I think go over the edge; probably some from each side that go over the edge. That is not my purpose. I hope that, as we delve into this on the committee level, we will have a good discussion and maybe get some better results. I yield the floor. Mr. BAUCUS addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE. We have had a lot of requests for the CRS report, not just from Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, but from a lot of people who would like to study it. I hope, in the final analysis, that this would be a matter that we can discuss again in a bipartisan way. I believe my civil rights record is impeccable, and I believe I have some credibility in this area. I am not out to destroy anybody or devastate anybody. I am out to take another look at what America should be. Can we have a color-blind society, which I think would meet the hopes and aspirations of 90 to 95 percent of all Americans? Some may want special rights and preferences. There may be some cases when we look over this document with 160-some different laws and regulations that have been compiled, where there may be some exception. There are some that should be continued. But As I said earlier, unless I am totally wrong, we ought to take another look at the Executive order signed by President Johnson and see if it has been distorted, magnified, or whatever. The goal should be nondiscrimination. That was the original intent of it. We ought to look at the Small Business Administration 8(a) program. It has been abused, no doubt about it. A lot of people have made a lot of money by finding someone in a minority group to sort of front for the effort. I do not believe that is right. I do not believe that is fair. So we have asked for hearings. We will be reviewing this process, hopefully, on a bipartisan basis, not only in the Senate but in the House. I assume there will be further discussion of this as we come to the floor with a tax bill that has been reported out by the Senate Finance Committee, which takes a step, I believe, in the right direction toward eliminating preferences. Mr. SIMON addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, to his credit, President Clinton has initiated a long-overdue review of all Federal affirmative action laws. After nearly 30 years of government-sanctioned quotas, timetables, set-asides, and other racial preferences, the American people sense all too clearly that the race-counting game has gone too far. The President is responding to these pressures, and his review could not have come at a more propitious time. But first things first. As the President conducts his review, he should also revisit some of the misguided affirmative action policies of his own administration. For starters, he should take a few moments to read the Justice Department's brief in the Piscataway Board of Education case, which 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, an individual American can legally be fired from her job because of her race. That is right: Our Nation's top law enforcement agency says that it is perfectly legal, as a way to achieve work force diversity, to tell a person that she can no longer keep her job because she happens to have the wrong skin color. This is an insidious position--one that goes beyond current law and one that the President should emphatically reject. I note that he had a little meeting as reported in the Washington Post last night with a number of people. I hope they discussed the Piscataway case, and I hope the President might respond to this Piscataway case. The bottom line is that the President's affirmative action review cannot have credibility if the affirmative action policies of his own administration are fundamentally flawed. Correcting these policies, not reviewing old ones, should be the President's first priority. With that said, let's remember that to raise questions about affirmative action is not to challenge our antidiscrimination laws. Discrimination is illegal. Those who discriminate ought to be punished. And those who are individual victims of illegal discrimination have every right to receive the remedial relief they deserve. Unfortunately, America is not the color-blind society we would all like it to be. Discrimination continues to be an undeniable part of American life. But fighting discrimination should never become an excuse for abandoning the color-blind ideal. Expanding opportunity should never be used to justify dividing Americans by race, by gender, by ethnic background. Race-preferential policies, no matter how well-intentioned, demean individual accomplishment. They ignore individual character. And they are absolutely poisonous to race relations in our great country. You cannot cure the evil of discrimination with more discrimination. Mr. President, last December, I asked the Congressional Research Service to provide me with a list of every Federal law and regulation that grants a preference to individuals on the basis of race, sex, national origin, or ethnic background. Frankly, I was surprised to learn that such a list had never been compiled before, which, I suppose, speaks volumes about how delicate this issue can be. Earlier this year, the CRS responded to my request with a list of more than 160 preference laws, ranging from Federal procurement regulations, to the RTC's bank-ownership policies, to the Department of Transportation's contracting rules. Even NASA has gotten into the act, earmarking 8 percent of the total value of its contracts each year to minority-owned and female-owned firms on the theory that these firms are presumptively disadvantaged. They may not be disadvantaged at all. As a follow-up to the CRS report, I have written to my colleagues, Senators Bond and Kassebaum, requesting hearings on the most prominent programs identified in the report--the Small Business Administration's section 8(A) program and Executive order 11246, which has been interpreted to require Federal contractors to adopt timetables and goals in minority- and female-hiring. These hearings, I expect, will demonstrate that there are other, more equitable ways to expand opportunity, without resorting to policies that grant preferences to individuals simply because they happen to be members of certain groups. And unless the hearings produce some powerful evidence to the contrary, it is my judgment that the section 8(a) program should be repealed outright. The hearings also provide us with the opportunity to rediscover the original purpose of Executive Order 11246. As signed by President Johnson, the Executive order required Government contractors to agree, * * * not to discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin * * * [and] to take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed * * * without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin. In other words, Executive Order 11246 defined affirmative action to mean ``non-discrimination.'' I believe in nondiscrimination. Everybody in this body should believe in nondiscrimination against race, color--and you can add disability to that list, too. There was no mention of timetables or goals. No mention of racial preferences. These concepts were later grafted onto the Executive order not by Congress, but by regulation, the work of Federal bureaucrats. of Executive Order 11246: to ensure that Federal contractors do not discriminate. And if they do, they should be punished. However, if the Executive order continues to be used, and misused, as a hammer to force contractors to adopt race-based hiring practices, then it, too, should be repealed. In fact, I intend to introduce legislation later this year that will force the Federal Government to live up to the color-blind ideal by prohibiting it from granting preferential treatment to any person, simply because of his or her membership in a certain favored group. I might add, when I got this CRS study, we made it available to the White House. There has been a story about it. They asked for it and we were happy to give it to the White House. It saved duplication. We would be happy to work with the White House and anybody else. And we will be working with Representative J.C. Watts of Oklahoma on overall legislation, maybe at some later date. Of course, the Government should fight discrimination where it exists, but, at the same time, it should be color-blind, race-neutral, both in theory and in practice. Mr. President, I am hopeful about America. And I am optimistic, as we head into the 21st century, that the American experiment will continue to be a model of self-government and a source of hope for millions the world over. But leadership also requires a sense of common purpose. We cannot continue to lead the world, if we are divided here at home. Yes, we should celebrate our own differences. Yes, we should take pride in our own rich ethnic heritage. It is a source of great strength in America. But, at the same time, we should not devalue the common bonds that define us as Americans. Too often, we speak in terms of a hyphenated identity: it is Italian-Americans, German-Americans, African-Americans, Irish-Americans, and not just ``Americans.'' We are all just Americans. Historian Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., probably put it best when he warned, and I quote: Instead of a nation composed of individuals making their own unhampered choices, America increasingly sees itself as composed of groups more or less ineradicable in their ethnic character. The multiethnic dogma abandons historic purposes, replacing assimilation by fragmentation, integration by separatism. It belittles unum and glorifies pluribus. So, Mr. President, the coming debate over affirmative action will be much more than just a debate over reverse discrimination. It will be a debate that focuses us to answer a fundamental question: What kind of country do we want America to be? Do we work toward a color-blind society? I hope so. A society that judges people by their talents, their sense of honor, their hopes and dreams, as individuals? Or do we continue down the path of group rights, group entitlements--special rights for some--judging people not by their character or intellect, but by something irrelevant: the color of their skin? Maybe it will extend to disabilities or something else. America has always been a melting pot. But it should never become a place where race and ethnicity exclusively define who we are, how we think, and what we are supposed to believe. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my letters to Senators Bond and Kassebaum be printed in the Record, along with the report prepared by the Congressional Research Service.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on: (S. 244) An act to further the goals of the Paperwork Reduction Act to have Federal agencies become more responsible and publicly accountable for reducing the burden of Federal paperwork on the public, and for other purposes, to the Committee on Governmental Affairs. The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the bill from the Senate (S. 244) entitled ``An Act to further the goals of the Paperwork Reduction Act to have Federal agencies become more responsible and publicly accountable for reducing the burden of Federal paperwork on the public, and for other purposes'', do pass with the following amendment: Strike out all after the enacting clause, and insert:

Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I move that the Senate disagree to the amendment of the House, agree to the conference requested by the House, and the Chair be authorized to appoint conferees on the part of the Senate.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. For the information of all Senators, if we can reach an agreement for a short list of amendments to the supplemental appropriations bill, it will be my intention to call the bill back before the Senate in order to complete action on it expeditiously, and I think that means around 2 o'clock in the afternoon. Then we would hope to move to the line-item veto at that point. I urge my colleagues--I know everybody feels compelled, because it is permitted in the Senate, to offer everything that they have ever thought of on every bill that comes through here. I hope, at least it is my understanding, the President very much wants the supplemental appropriation bill. The Defense Department has been calling on a daily basis. I have notified the White House that if they were really interested in getting this bill done maybe they could help talk some of their colleagues off offering amendments, so we are working on that. We will be working on it overnight. If an amendment is acceptable, that is one thing. If it is something that is going to take a long time to debate, then we would hope it would be called up at a later time.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent when the Senate completes its business today it stand in adjournment until the hour of 9 a.m. Thursday, March 16, 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, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that there then be a period for the transaction of morning business not to extend beyond the hour of 10 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each, with the exception of the following: Senator Craig, 35 minutes; Senator Pryor, 15 minutes; Senator Dorgan, 10 minutes.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. If there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask unanimous consent the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I now ask for its second reading.

Mr. DOLE. Therefore, I ask for its first reading.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I inquire of the Chair if H.R. 956 has arrived from the House of Representatives.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, one of the first decisions I had to make as majority leader was which bill should be designated S. 1. When I considered the message the American people sent us last November, the decision was easy. I chose Senator Kempthorne's unfunded mandates bill, because it shows we are serious about reining in the power of the Federal Government. The 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people. When the 104th Congress convened, I pledged that we would dust off the 10th amendment, and restore it to its rightful place in the Constitution. The unfunded mandates bill is the first step in the important process of returning power to the States and to the people. For far too long, Congress has operated under the false assumption that legislation that did not affect the Federal Government had no cost. But, ask any mayor, Governor, county commissioner, or school board official--or any State and local taxpayer--and they will tell you otherwise. This law will change the way we do business in Washington. Under business-as-usual, Congress had the costly habit of giving State and local governments new responsibilities without supplying the money to pay for these new obligations. Those unfunded mandates have forced State and local officials to cut services or increase taxes in order to keep their budgets in balance. The unfunded mandates law will be a reality check for advocates of new mandates: the Federal Government should know and pay for the costs of mandates before imposing them on State and local governments, and the Federal Government should know the costs and impacts before imposing them on the private sector. This law will provide real relief to State and local governments, and to the people who ultimately pay the bills for unfunded mandates-- individual American taxpayers. I am pleased that this bill will pass with strong bipartisan support, and there are a lot of Senators who deserve credit for this initiative's success. Senator Glenn has led the effort on the Democratic side of the aisle, and Senators Domenici and Roth are among those who have also worked hard for this bill. But no Senator worked harder than our colleague from Idaho, Senator Dirk Kempthorne. He came to the Senate as a mayor, with front-line experience coping with the Federal Government telling him how to run Boise, ID. When he ran for the Senate, he promised the people of Idaho he would fight to stop unfunded mandates. He kept his promise. The first bill he introduced was an unfunded mandates bill--and it attracted only three cosponsors. But that did not stop him. He kept pushing, and he helped mobilize the mayors, county commissioners, and Governors, who stepped up their efforts. After he got more than 51 cosponsors on his unfunded mandates bill, he worked across the aisle to write a bipartisan bill. After that effort was blocked late last year, he spent the recess writing a better, tougher bill. He then spent 11 days and nights tirelessly debating and managing the bill on the floor, and 40 days and nights--it seems there is something else about 40 days and nights--getting it through the conference, successfully resisting efforts to weaken it. All that work has produced a strong bill that all of us can be proud of, and all of us should vote for. A few weeks ago, I told mayors they should send Senator Kempthorne and Senator Glenn keys to their cities to thank them for their efforts. I do not know if they have received any keys yet, but if you can use some, maybe I can round them up. Maybe by now you both have a pocketful of keys, and I am certain there are more on the way. After all, our Nation's mayors, Governors, county commissioners, and taxpayers would be hard pressed to find a better friend than Senator Dirk Kempthorne. Mr. President, I urge all of my colleagues to vote for S. 1, and I urge President Clinton to sign it into law at the earliest possible date.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, was leader's time reserved?

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 completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, March 15, 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, and the time for the two leaders reserved for their use later in the day. I further ask that the Senate then immediately resume consideration of H.R. 889, the supplemental appropriations bill, and at that point there be 1 hour for debate on the Kassebaum amendment, to be divided equally between Senators Kassebaum and Kennedy.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. For the information of all Senators, at 10:30 a.m. on tomorrow, Wednesday, two back-to-back votes will occur, the first being the cloture vote on the Kassebaum amendment, to be followed immediately by a vote on adoption of the unfunded mandates conference report, and following those two votes the Senate will resume consideration of the supplemental appropriations bill. Therefore, additional