Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Madam President, today the Senate takes a historic step on whether to move forward to pass a constitutional amendment to limit the terms of Members of both the House and the Senate. I am proud this step is one promised by the Republican Party in our last two party platforms. I am proud we made this promise in 1994. I am proud that the Republicans in the House of Representatives delivered on this promise that the Senate will have a chance to do so in about 45 minutes. I acknowledge the fine leadership of our newer Members, such as Senators Thompson, Ashcroft, Inhofe, Thomas and others, who have joined other leaders like Senator Brown for fighting for this reform. After years of rhetoric and stonewalling, this is a huge step forward for the American people. I am mindful this is not the last step. While the vast majority of Republicans in both the House and the Senate support term limits, the fact is that this is a constitutional amendment. We cannot do it without substantial support on the other side of the aisle. With President Clinton leading the opposition, it appears no such support exists on the other side of the aisle. It is pretty much like the debate on the constitutional amendment for a balanced budget we had last year. President Clinton not only has consistently opposed term limits, but he sent his Solicitor General to the U.S. Supreme Court to argue against the term limits law that passed overwhelmingly in his own State of Arkansas. He should drop his opposition to term limits and help deliver the votes necessary to pass the constitutional amendment. Madam President, I share my view of why I believe this is important. As someone who has served this country for most of his adult life, I am not one that subscribes to the notion that this is about the people who serve in representative democracy. I know it is fashionable to attack politicians, but the truth is that those elected represent the people, at whatever level of Government, reflect both the strength and weakness of the electorate in a thousand different ways. What this is about is the institution of representative democracy itself. I believe that the notion of a citizen legislator is an honorable one. I believe that representing your constituents to the best of your abilities is at the core of the success of the American experiment over the last 200 years. It is not an effort to tear down this relationship. Term limits certainly are not that. Instead, they are an effort to strengthen that bond. This is an issue that not many Americans--in fact, not many legislators, not many anybody--thought about until recently. Now, I think it is clear that I have been lukewarm to the idea for some time and only started indicating 2 or 3 years that it seems to me if we want to send it back to the legislatures--the people send it back, want to ratify--that is fine. I think we are capable also of keeping up with the American people. The American people, 75 to 80 percent, favor term limits. There clearly is a sense of something going wrong. We owe it to them and the future generation to think about whether the comfortable status quo is doing the job. For me, it has come down to this. We are a Republic founded on the rule of law. There are many ways to define what the rule of law means, but it is the genius of republican democracy that those who make the laws also live under them. That is what the rule of law means to me. I think in some respects we sort of drifted away from that. It was only last year in a Republican Congress that we insisted for the first time that all those laws that apply to the private sector had to apply to Congress, as well. I think that is probably a pretty good step in the right direction. When legislators leave Congress to start a business or do whatever, they will have to bear the consequence of those actions in a way that they may be insulated from if they served 15, 20, or 30 years in Congress. Now, obviously, I feel like I understand these consequences, and I'll bet most of my colleagues do too. But, studies that show that the longer a legislator spends in Congress, the more readily he or she spends taxpayers' money, suggest that this is not always the case. In such situations, I think it is wise to rely on the good sense of the American people. They are the ones most affected, and that brings me to my final point on why I support a constitutional amendment. The very nature of the process surrounding a constitutional amendment is that we let the people decide. Issues that go to the core of our Republican institutions are properly the province of the people. All we do when we pass a resolution on a constitutional amendment is allow the people in all of the States to decide--and, in fact, three- fourths of those States have to decide in the affirmative before an amendment becomes part of our Constitution. As I have said before, the Federal Government of today is not the same as that envisioned by our Founders. We need to dust off the 10th amendment, and return power back to the States and to the people. I say, give those we represent this opportunity to debate, consider, and decide. It is particularly appropriate that we do so, when the issue before us goes to the core of the relationship between those elected and those represented. This is not an issue we should decide alone. Mr. President, there should be no mistake about the importance of the vote today. The vote today is about whether we move forward and give the people the opportunity to make that choice. As with other constitutional amendments, you don't always succeed the first time. Nor should we necessarily. Constitutional amendments almost always involve great issues. But in State after State, the American people have already indicated their views on term limits. A vote today to end debate and move toward final passage is a vote to take the American people at their word and build momentum for support. I urge my colleagues to vote to end debate and support allowing the American people we represent the opportunity to choose for themselves. This is an opportunity for all of us who believe in sending power back to the States, back to the people. Also, it is an indication that we listen. Yes, we can change our mind. We listen. We listen to the American people. The American people have spoken, and I believe it is time for us to speak. I hope when the vote comes at 3:45, we will have a resounding vote for cloture--maybe 100 to 0, like we had on the last vote here at 2:15.

Mr. DOLE. I ask for my leader time on this issue plus another issue I will speak to briefly.

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

Mr. DOLE

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

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of routine morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 5 minutes each.

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., Wednesday, April 24; further, that immediately following the prayer, the Journal of the 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 there be a period for the transaction of morning business until the hour of 10 a.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for 5 minutes each, with Senator Hatch to speak for up to 15 minutes; further, that the Senate then immediately resume consideration of S. 1664, the immigration bill.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senate Joint Resolution 21 be placed back on the calendar.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, 2 years ago, the Medicare trustees--three of whom are members of the President's Cabinet--reported to President Clinton and Congress that Medicare would be bankrupt by the year 2002. From the day the Medicare trustees issued their report, Republicans have worked to preserve and strengthen Medicare. We proposed to do this not by cutting Medicare--but by slowing its rate of growth. Under the Republican plan adopted by Congress, annual spending per Medicare beneficiary would increase from $4,800 this year to more than $7,200 in 2002. If you believed what President Clinton and some of my friends on the other side of the aisle had to say, however, you would have thought that instead of increasing Medicare spending from $4,800 per beneficiary to $7,200 per beneficiary, Republicans were trying to throw America's seniors out on the streets. And to the President's credit as a public speaker, a lot of Americans believed what he was saying. There is, however, a very big difference between leading and misleading. Republicans chose to lead--and we suffered in the polls because of it. President Clinton chose to mislead--and he gained in the polls because of it. But as a story in this morning's New York Times makes very clear, the President's gain came at the expense of the millions and millions of Americans who depend on Medicare. The story reveals the fact that Medicare's hospital insurance trust fund, which pays hospital bills for the elderly and disabled, lost $4.2 billion--that is billion with a ``B''--in the first half of the current fiscal year. Those losses are more than 100 times larger than the $35.7 million loss the trust fund experienced all last year. The $4.2 billion loss is also in stark contrast to the rosy scenario coming out of the White House last year. As part of their attempt to lead the public to believe that Republicans concern with Medicare was ``much ado about nothing,'' they predicted that the Medicare trust fund would take in $45 million more than it would spend in the current fiscal year. Obviously, the White House was as off base in its economic projections as they were in their political accusations. The article also reports that Roland King, former chief actuary of the Health Care Financing Administration, which runs Medicare, said that after analyzing these new numbers, he believes the hospital insurance trust fund will not run out in 2002 as the trustees originally projected. Instead, it will run out in 2000 or 2001. I am sure that a number of Republicans are tempted to say ``I told you so,'' this morning. But saying that will get us no closer to the solutions necessary to save Medicare from bankruptcy. And so, Mr. President, this Senator stands ready to work on a bipartisan basis to save, preserve, and strengthen Medicare. It is my hope that in the face of these alarming new numbers, the President will choose the path of leading rather than the path of misleading.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I now ask that there be a period for the transaction of routine morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will resume the term limits legislation at 10 a.m. At 12 noon on Tuesday, under a previous order, there will be 30 minutes of debate regarding the health insurance reform bill. It is hoped that an agreement can be reached Tuesday morning enabling the cloture vote on the term limits legislation to occur at 3:45 or 4 o'clock tomorrow afternoon. This would allow for the final passage vote on the health insurance reform bill to occur at 2:15 on Tuesday, immediately following the recess for the party conferences. The Senate may also turn to other legislative items that can be cleared. So if we can work out this vote on term limits, that would probably be another 1\1/2\ hours for debate equally divided.

Mr. DOLE

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

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I apologize for being a bit late, but I was listening to the Oak Ridge Boys next door. You might be able to hear them.

Mr. DOLE. They were very good.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, first, I thank the distinguished Senator from Georgia for his efforts this morning on Earth Day and on the environment. I will be making a statement later on that. I thank Senator Smith for his efforts on Superfund. He has been working on this, I know, month after month after month, and we have been trying to come together with a bipartisan bill. Hopefully, that will be accomplished and we can pass Superfund legislation in the next 30 to 60 days.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, is leader time reserved?

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Last Friday, I outlined some of my views on the issue of judicial nominations, one of the most lasting legacies of any President. I said that Federal judges should respect the clear language of the Constitution as it is written; that judges should understand that society is not to blame for crime, criminals are; that judges should protect the rights of crime victims, not invent new and more expansive rights for criminal defendants. Today, let me make another point: Those who seek to sit on the Federal bench should be well-grounded in the basics of constitutional law. Unfortunately, Charles ``Bud'' Stack, one of President Clinton's nominees to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, does not meet this standard. During his recent confirmation hearing, Mr. Stack was unable to cite any fourth amendment case concerning the law of search and seizure. He demonstrated little knowledge about Supreme Court precedent on capital punishment. And despite the Supreme Court's highly publicized decision in the Adarand case, Mr. Stack was unable to discuss any Supreme Court or Federal case concerning discrimination or affirmative action. When asked how he would remedy his own ignorance of key aspects of the law, Mr. Stack said he ``Could attend some courses'' or ask other judges for help. Yet Mr. Stack has been nominated to sit on one of the Nation's most influential judicial panels, the court that effectively serves as the court of last resort for the citizens of Florida, Georgia, and Alabama. Apparently, Mr. Stack's most important qualification is his prowess as a political fundraiser. According to news reports, administration aides had discussed offering Mr. Stack an ambassadorship and a seat on the Federal district court as a reward for his rundrasing efforts, but that Mr. Stack had his heart set on a court of appeals position. Mr. President, I understand that Mr. Stack raised millions and millions of dollars for President Clinton and the Democratic Party, but does that qualify him to be on the next highest court in the land? I do not think so. That is not what the judicial system is all about. Mr. President, I understand that the American Bar Association has given Mr. Stack a qualified rating, but in my judgment, this rating is yet another example of why we should not rely on the ABA to review the qualifications of our judicial nominees. Although I do not know Mr. Stack personally, I have no reason to challenge his integrity. I am sure he is a fine man who has contributed much to his community and to his country. But that is not the point. The question we must ask is whether Mr. Stack is, in fact, qualified to sit on the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the second highest court in the land? The answer, or course, is, ``No.'' President Clinton should withdraw the Stack nomination without delay. Mr. KENNEDY addressed the Chair.

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, as America marks Earth Day 1996, I would like to remind my friends across the aisle that the environmental heritage we are all so proud of was forged under Republican stewardship. Our Republican environmental heritage stretches back to Ulysses S. Grant, who established Yellowstone as the first of the crown jewels of our precious national parks. President Theodore Roosevelt set up the National Wildlife Refuge System and promoted the value of conservation. It was Republicans, under President Nixon, who created the Environmental Protection Agency and enacted the first Clean Air and Clean Water Acts. Under Presidents Ford, Reagan, and Bush we enacted and implemented the majority of the enabling statutes to protect our environment. An important Clean Air Act revision in 1990, which introduced new initiatives like using markets to achieve our goals, has helped to set new directions for the future. The progress we have made as a nation over the last 25 years deserves praise. We saw problems that needed to be addressed--setting pollution standards to protect public health and dealing with pollution that crosses State and international boundaries. We responded with laws that I was proud to support--laws that addressed those problems in the best way we knew then. We have learned a lot over these 25 years of environmental experience and progress. America's ability to create innovative ways of dealing with environmental protection and, at the same time, have continued economic growth is the envy of the rest of the world. Now we are at a crossroads about how to make further progress. I want to improve the system so it protects people's health and the environment better with less cost and complexity. I want to put more trust in the ability of all Americans--at all levels of government--and their desire to do the right thing. The old ways won't help much as we face new problems in the future. During the last 25 years, the States have become very knowledgeable about the best way to deal with most environmental problems. The States have become laboratories of innovation on better ways to deal with many issues of concern: Welfare and health care reform--and environment as well. California, for example, is leading the way in setting up an integrated approach that calls for simpler permits and dealing with air, water, and waste in a coordinated way that goes after the worst problems first. Other States also lead the way. Wisconsin, for example, has a Brownfields program in place which allows appropriate clean up for urban areas previously written off for development. That makes good sense and shows a sense of the right priorities. Eighteen States--including Kansas, Texas, Indiana, Colorado, and Oregon--are encouraging their own companies to voluntarily find and fix environmental problems on their own. This is a partnership that works. We should follow that example and encourage rather than punish our communities and businesses for trying to do the right thing. The States and localities are leading the way in these and other areas. We should use the most appropriate level of Government for the problem at hand. Try the local level first, States next. Try regional solutions when environmental issues involve more than one State. The Federal Government should step back when it can and use its expertise when it is most helpful to the States: To provide scientific or technical help. Farmers, ranchers, businesspeople, families--all are partners, not villains. We should acknowledge that these people do the right thing every day. Let us measure environmental protection not by the size of a Federal bureaucracy or the number of regulations on the books but by the desire of our people to work together to protect the environmental values that we all treasure. One of the things I have tried to promote this last year was that we must use good science to set environmental priorities, and then we should tackle the most important problems first. We know we could do better. The Harvard Center for Risk Analysis, for example, estimates that 60,000 lives per year could be saved with the same level of spending if we targeted our money at the worst problems. It takes leadership to make choices. We need to be wiser about what we go after and at what level that is done. I want to say one word about individual private property rights, which are so precious that they are protected by the Constitution. Owning property is a right that makes us strong and is a powerful force for the environment. If the Government takes someone's property for a public purpose, that person should be compensated. If we as a society believe that that person's property is needed for an important purpose, let us make that choice as a nation and ensure that we are not diminishing our citizens' rights. I am proud of what we have done this year on the farm bill. It is the most environmentally sensitive farm bill ever. The conservation title of the farm bill reflects a commonsense approach. The bill continues the Conservation Reserve Program, expands the Wetlands Reserve Program, making this program the Nation's biggest and most successful environmental efforts. In addition, we provided $300 million to restore the Everglades. This was an immediate response to a need identified by the people of Florida. The farm bill provides a good example of what we can do in other areas: Injecting simplicity, common sense, and flexibility, and lifting the heavy hand of the Government. These goals were also met in the Safe Drinking Water Act and resulted in a bipartisan bill that passed the Senate 99 to 0. We have set the same goals for Superfund reform, to get the lawyers out and get sites cleaned up. Yet today, no Democrats have joined us in this effort. We can get things done when we focus on the goals and not the rhetoric. Today I received a letter from my Democrat colleagues. I share their environmental goals. But there are better ways to achieve these goals. No one is interested in repealing or weakening environmental protections. Years ago, we accomplished our work by using typewriters. Today our offices are run by computers. Were we rolling back our desire to communicate efficiently by moving from typewriters to computers? I think not. Let's take the same approach on the environment. That proud tradition and the strong Republican values of personal stewardship, good science, trust in the people, and respect for the States and localities will be used to build a better environmental future for our children.

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 10 a.m., Tuesday, April 23; further, that immediately following the prayer, the Journal of the 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 Senate immediately resume consideration of Senate Joint Resolution 21, the term limits legislation, with debate between 10 a.m. and 12 p.m. equally divided in the usual form; I further ask that the Senate stand in recess from the hours of 12:30 to 2:15 for the weekly policy conferences to meet.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, today there is a period for morning business until 2 p.m., with the following Senators controlling debate: Senator Daschle or his designee controlling the first 90 minutes, Senator Coverdell or his designee in control of the second 90 minutes. At 2 o'clock we resume consideration of Calendar No. 201, Senate Joint Resolution 21, proposing a constitutional amendment to limit congressional terms. No votes will occur today; however, Senators are expected to debate the joint resolution and pending amendments. A cloture motion was filed on the committee amendment on Friday and, under the consent, that vote will occur tomorrow at 2:15. Following that vote there will be a vote on the passage of the health insurance reform bill. So there will be two consecutive rollcall votes beginning at 2:15. In accordance with rule XXII, Senators have until 1 o'clock today to file first-degree amendments and until 12:30 tomorrow to file second- degree amendments to the committee amendment to the congressional term limits resolution.

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

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, it is with deep sorrow I note the passing of Vice Adm. John Bulkeley. Friday morning a memorial service was held at Memorial Chapel at Fort Myer to honor Admiral Bulkeley, and I think it only appropriate that the Senate takes a few minutes to honor this true American hero. Admiral Bulkeley had a long and distinguished military career. However, he is best remembered for his service during World War II. In August 1941, then-Lieutenant Bulkeley assumed command of Motor Torpedo Boat Squadron 3, which participated in one of the most spectacular events of the Philippine campaign. Lieutenant Bulkeley helped break through Japanese lines to transport Gen. Douglas MacArthur and his staff from Corregidor and Bataan to Mindanao. From there MacArthur flew to Australia, where he assumed command of the Allied Forces in the Southwest Pacific. Shortly thereafter, Lieutenant Bulkeley returned to Negros Island and located and transported the President and Vice President of the Philippine Islands through the Japanese lines to Mindanao to be flown to Australia. For his service in defense of the Philippines, Admiral Bulkeley was awarded the Medal of Honor. The citation read in part: For extraordinary heroism, distinguished service and conspicuous gallantry above and beyond the call of duty, as Commander of Motor Torpedo Board Squadron Three, in Philippine waters during the period December 7, 1941 to April 10, 1942. The remarkable achievement of Lieutenant Bulkeley's Command in damaging or destroying a notable number of Japanese enemy planes, surface combatant and merchant ships, and in dispersing landing parties and land based enemy forces during the four months and eight days of operations without benefits of repairs, overhaul or maintenance facilities for his squadron, is believed to be without precedent in this type of warfare. His dynamic forcefulness and daring in offensive action, his brilliantly planned and skillfully executed attacks, supplemented by an outstanding leader of men and a gallant and intrepid seaman. These qualities coupled with a complete disregard for his own personal safety reflect great credit upon himself and the Naval Service. Admiral Bulkeley's service did not end there. He went on to further distinguish himself in the European theater. In 1944, while in command of 110 mine sweepers and escorting motor torpedo boats, he spearheaded the invasion of Normandy by sweeping the Baie de LaSeine assault area prior to the arrival of the assault force. In July he conducted an operation which successfully deceived the Germans into believing that the main landings for the invasion of Southern France would come in the Baie del Ciotat. Consequently, Admiral Bulkeley engaged in a running gunfight with two German corvettes, both of which were eventually sunk. Admiral Bulkeley also served with distinction in the Korean conflict, during which he commanded a destroyer division. Later he commanded the naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Finally, in June 1967, Admiral Bulkeley reported to Washington, where he headed the Board of Inspection and Survey, a position he held for an unprecedented 21 years. So I think it is fair to say Admiral Bulkeley's life was marked by courage, dedication, and sacrifice. He is a man who loved his country and served it with distinction. We would all do well to emulate Admiral Bulkeley, a true American hero who will be greatly missed. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, today is a very sad day in the northwest Kansas community of Goodland. For today is the day when much of the community will gather to say their final farewells to one of Goodland's favorite sons. Much of America came to know Brook Berringer for his leadership on the football field, and for the role he played in helping to quarterback the Nebraska Cornhuskers to back-to-back national championships in 1994 and 1995. More important than being a champion on the field, however, is being a champion off the field. And in the days that have followed the tragic death of Brook and his friend and former Goodland resident Tobey Lake, countless Kansans and Nebraskans have testified to the fact that Brook was a champion in all aspects of his life. ``Unassuming,'' ``modest,'' ``role model,'' ``a great kid''; these are some of the words that Brook's family, friends, teachers, and coaches have used to describe him. Brook used his status as a football hero to make a difference in the lives of others. He was active in church and charitable activities, and was a dedicated member of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. He returned to Goodland often during his college years to visit with family and friends, and to provide an inspiration to young people. Brook's tragic death occurred just 2 days before the National Football League draft, in which he surely would have been selected. In a gesture typical of this outstanding young man, Brook had said that he hoped he would be selected by Kansas City or Denver, so he could remain close to home. Mr. President, as I think about Brook Berringer, I am reminded of the famous poem by A.E. Housman entitled ``To an Athlete Dying Young.'' The last four lines of that poem read: Now you will not swell the rout Of lads that wore their honors out Runners whom renown outran And the name died before the man. In countless communities in Kansas and Nebraska, the name and the memory of Brook Berringer will live on for years and years to come. Mr. President, I know I speak for all Senators, particularly my colleague Senator Kassebaum and my two colleagues from Nebraska, Senator Exon and Senator Kerrey, in extending our sympathies to the families and friends of Brook Berringer and Tobey Lake.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I now ask, in response to the statement by my colleague from Illinois, that we now observe a moment of silence in honor of the memory of Ron Brown and others who died in that tragic accident. [A period of silence.]