Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the motion.

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

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

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, what is the pending business?

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be allowed to meet during the Tuesday, March 26, 1996 session of the Senate for the purpose of conducting a hearing on the fiscal year 1997 NASA budget.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent on behalf of the Governmental Affairs Committee to meet on Tuesday, March 26, 1996, at 9:30 a.m. for a hearing on the IRS oversight.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Seapower of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet on Tuesday, March 26, 1996, at 2:30 p.m., in open session, to receive testimony on the Department of the Navy's Marine Corps programs in review of the Defense authorization request for fiscal year 1997 and the future years defense program.

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 Tuesday, March 26, 1996, at 10 a.m.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent at this time that when the Senate receives from the House House Joint Resolution 165, the continuing resolution, it be deemed considered read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, all without any intervening action or debate.

Mr. DOLE. As I understand it, there is a request for the yeas and nays on final passage.

Mr. DOLE. As I understand it, the Senator from South Dakota has an amendment.

Mr. DOLE. There has also been a request for final passage on the Taiwan resolution which has been agreed to. That can be the second vote, and then everybody can vote and leave. Unanimous-Consent Agreement--House Joint Resolution 165

Mr. DOLE. And on Taiwan.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation which will have a profound impact on America's future. I am pleased to be joined by the chairman of the Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees, the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, the Republican leadership, and other Republicans strongly interested in missile defense, in introducing the Defend America Act of 1996. An identical bill is being introduced in the House by the Speaker and the chairmen of the Appropriations Committee and the National Security Committee, among others. This bill addresses the most fundamental responsibility the U.S. Government has to its citizens: to protect them from harm. At present, the United States has no defense--I repeat--no defense against ballistic missiles. The Defend America Act of 1996 answers the question of whether Americans should be protected from the threat of ballistic missile attack with a resounding ``Yes.'' There should be no doubt that we have the technical capability to defend our great Nation from the growing threat of ballistic missiles. What we need is the will and the leadership. We have seen no leadership from the White House on this issue. Indeed, we have witnessed a complete denial from the highest levels of the administration that there is even a threat to the United States. President Clinton vetoed the fiscal year 1996 Defense authorization bill because it required developing a national missile defense system for deployment by the end of 2003. President Clinton refuses to defend America preferring to rely on the false protection of the cold-war-era antiballistic missile [ABM] treaty. The cold war is over and the threat from ballistic missiles is real and growing. Among others, North Korea, Iran, Libya, Iraq, and Syria are seeking to obtain weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile delivery systems. China and Russia have been engaged in transferring related components and technologies. Just last week, the former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, James Woolsey testified before the House National Security Committee on his views of the threat posed by ballistic missiles--as well as the current national intelligence estimate on this threat. I would like to quote from his testimony: We are in the midst of an era of revolutionary improvements in missile guidance. These improvements will soon make ballistic missiles much more effective for blackmail purposes . . . even without the need for warheads containing weapons of mass destruction. . . . With such guidance improvements, it is quite reasonable to believe that within a few years Saddam or the Chinese rulers will be able to threaten something far more troubling . . . Woolsey went on to say: But, in current circumstances, nuclear blackmail threats against the United States may be effectively posed by North Korean intermediate ranged missiles targeted on Alaska or Hawaii, or by Chinese ICBM's targeted on Los Angeles. With respect to the national intelligence estimate, Woolsey criticized the narrow focus of the estimate which concentrated on indigenous intercontinental ballistic missile development--as opposed to the transfer of such components and technology. As Woolsey pointed out, since the end of the cold war, Russia, China, and North Korea have been actively exporting missile technology and components. Furthermore, Woolsey noted that the national intelligence estimate only looked at the threat to the 48 continental States. Well, the last time I checked, Alaska and Hawaii were part of the United States. The bottom line is that the threat is real and we cannot wait for it to arrive on our doorstep before we act. As former Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle stated before the National Security Committee, and I quote: If we achieve a defensive capability a little before it is absolutely necessary, no harm will have been done. But if we are too late, the result could be catastrophic. In cases like this, it is always wise to err on the side of too much, too soon, rather than too little, too late. Mr. President, this legislation establishes a clear policy to deploy a national missile defense [NMD] system by the end of 2003, that is capable of providing a highly effective defense of U.S. territory against limited, unauthorized, or accidental ballistic missile attacks. The bill also specifies the components of a national missile defense system that are to be developed for deployment, including: An interceptor system, fixed ground-based radars, space-based sensors, and battle management, command, control, and communications. To implement this policy, this legislation directs the Secretary of Defense to: Promptly initiate planning to meet this deployment goal; conduct by the end of 1998, an integrated systems test using NMD components; to use streamlined acquisition procedures to reduce cost and increase efficiency; and to develop a follow-on NMD program. The Secretary of Defense is also required to submit a detailed report to the Congress no later than March 15, 1997, which outlines his plans for implementing this policy, the estimate costs associated with the development and deployment of the NMD system, a cost and operational effectiveness analysis of follow-on options, and a determination of the point at which NMD development would conflict with the ABM Treay. With respect to the ABM Treaty, the legislation urges the President to bring the Russians on board, by pursuing high-level discussions with Russia to amend the ABM Treaty to allow for the deployment of the NMD system specified in this act. If the Russians do agree, the legislation requires any agreement to be submitted to the Senate for advice and consent. However, if a satisfactory agreement is not reached within a year of the date of enactment of this legislation, the President and Congress will consider U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. Mr. President, deploying a national missile defense system--which will protect all 50 States--should be our top defense priority. The Defend America Act lays out a realistic and responsible course by which we can do so. A national missile defense system will not only defend, it will deter--by reducing the incentive of rogue regimes to acquire ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction. I hope that the White House is listening. Republicans are united and clear in their message that America must be defended. We are ready to exercise leadership to fulfill our responsibility to all Americans to protect them from ballistic missile attack. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce legislation which will demonstrate the cost effectiveness of Medicare reimbursement to the Department of Defense [DOD] for treatment of military beneficiaries age 65 and older. This bill will enable these individuals to enroll in Tricare Prime and be treated in military hospitals. current system is flawed As I am sure my colleagues know, Tricare is DOD's new managed health care program. While Tricare has merit, it also has flaws: It bars all Medicare-eligible retirees and family members from enrolling in Tricare Prime. In fact, all career military members and their families eventually will be affected, because even those who enroll now will be dropped from Tricare at age 65, when they become eligible for Medicare. In my view, this breaks long standing health care commitments to retirees, may increase costs, and affect military readiness. identifying the problem Current law inadvertently encourages DOD and Medicare to work against each other. As the defense budget tightens, DOD has a strong incentive to push older retirees and families out of the military medical system and back into Medicare, although Medicare probably costs both the Government and retirees more money than care under the military system. Theoretically, Medicare-eligible retirees may still use military hospitals on a space-available basis. However, space-available care is rapidly becoming nonexistent as military facilities downsize and Tricare expands across the country. medicare subvention is the solution It seems to me, the solution to this problem is to change the law to allow Medicare subvention, allowing Medicare to reimburse DOD for care provided to older beneficiaries enrolling in Tricare Prime or otherwise using military hospitals. demonstration test of medicare subvention We need to demonstrate to the interested parties, Department of Health and Human Services, and Department of Defense, that subvention is indeed a feasible and cost-effective program. Therefore I am introducing the legislation which gives those agencies the authority to conduct such a test. I believe this test will justify implementing subvention and allow those eligible military retirees over 65 to participate in Tricare Prime and receive care in military hospitals. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, today I rise to introduce legislation which will have a profound impact on America's future. I am pleased to be joined by the chairman of the Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees, the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, the Republican leadership, and other Republicans strongly interested in missile defense, in introducing the Defend America Act of 1996. An identical bill is being introduced in the House by the Speaker and the chairmen of the Appropriations Committee and the National Security Committee, among others. This bill addresses the most fundamental responsibility the U.S. Government has to its citizens: to protect them from harm. At present, the United States has no defense--I repeat--no defense against ballistic missiles. The Defend America Act of 1996 answers the question of whether Americans should be protected from the threat of ballistic missile attack with a resounding ``Yes.'' There should be no doubt that we have the technical capability to defend our great Nation from the growing threat of ballistic missiles. What we need is the will and the leadership. We have seen no leadership from the White House on this issue. Indeed, we have witnessed a complete denial from the highest levels of the administration that there is even a threat to the United States. President Clinton vetoed the fiscal year 1996 Defense authorization bill because it required developing a national missile defense system for deployment by the end of 2003. President Clinton refuses to defend America preferring to rely on the false protection of the cold-war-era antiballistic missile [ABM] treaty. The cold war is over and the threat from ballistic missiles is real and growing. Among others, North Korea, Iran, Libya, Iraq, and Syria are seeking to obtain weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missile delivery systems. China and Russia have been engaged in transferring related components and technologies. Just last week, the former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, James Woolsey testified before the House National Security Committee on his views of the threat posed by ballistic missiles--as well as the current national intelligence estimate on this threat. I would like to quote from his testimony: We are in the midst of an era of revolutionary improvements in missile guidance. These improvements will soon make ballistic missiles much more effective for blackmail purposes . . . even without the need for warheads containing weapons of mass destruction. . . . With such guidance improvements, it is quite reasonable to believe that within a few years Saddam or the Chinese rulers will be able to threaten something far more troubling . . . Woolsey went on to say: But, in current circumstances, nuclear blackmail threats against the United States may be effectively posed by North Korean intermediate ranged missiles targeted on Alaska or Hawaii, or by Chinese ICBM's targeted on Los Angeles. With respect to the national intelligence estimate, Woolsey criticized the narrow focus of the estimate which concentrated on indigenous intercontinental ballistic missile development--as opposed to the transfer of such components and technology. As Woolsey pointed out, since the end of the cold war, Russia, China, and North Korea have been actively exporting missile technology and components. Furthermore, Woolsey noted that the national intelligence estimate only looked at the threat to the 48 continental States. Well, the last time I checked, Alaska and Hawaii were part of the United States. The bottom line is that the threat is real and we cannot wait for it to arrive on our doorstep before we act. As former Assistant Secretary of Defense Richard Perle stated before the National Security Committee, and I quote: If we achieve a defensive capability a little before it is absolutely necessary, no harm will have been done. But if we are too late, the result could be catastrophic. In cases like this, it is always wise to err on the side of too much, too soon, rather than too little, too late. Mr. President, this legislation establishes a clear policy to deploy a national missile defense [NMD] system by the end of 2003, that is capable of providing a highly effective defense of U.S. territory against limited, unauthorized, or accidental ballistic missile attacks. The bill also specifies the components of a national missile defense system that are to be developed for deployment, including: An interceptor system, fixed ground-based radars, space-based sensors, and battle management, command, control, and communications. To implement this policy, this legislation directs the Secretary of Defense to: Promptly initiate planning to meet this deployment goal; conduct by the end of 1998, an integrated systems test using NMD components; to use streamlined acquisition procedures to reduce cost and increase efficiency; and to develop a follow-on NMD program. The Secretary of Defense is also required to submit a detailed report to the Congress no later than March 15, 1997, which outlines his plans for implementing this policy, the estimate costs associated with the development and deployment of the NMD system, a cost and operational effectiveness analysis of follow-on options, and a determination of the point at which NMD development would conflict with the ABM Treay. With respect to the ABM Treaty, the legislation urges the President to bring the Russians on board, by pursuing high-level discussions with Russia to amend the ABM Treaty to allow for the deployment of the NMD system specified in this act. If the Russians do agree, the legislation requires any agreement to be submitted to the Senate for advice and consent. However, if a satisfactory agreement is not reached within a year of the date of enactment of this legislation, the President and Congress will consider U.S. withdrawal from the ABM Treaty. Mr. President, deploying a national missile defense system--which will protect all 50 States--should be our top defense priority. The Defend America Act lays out a realistic and responsible course by which we can do so. A national missile defense system will not only defend, it will deter--by reducing the incentive of rogue regimes to acquire ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction. I hope that the White House is listening. Republicans are united and clear in their message that America must be defended. We are ready to exercise leadership to fulfill our responsibility to all Americans to protect them from ballistic missile attack. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, today I am pleased to introduce legislation which will demonstrate the cost effectiveness of Medicare reimbursement to the Department of Defense [DOD] for treatment of military beneficiaries age 65 and older. This bill will enable these individuals to enroll in Tricare Prime and be treated in military hospitals. current system is flawed As I am sure my colleagues know, Tricare is DOD's new managed health care program. While Tricare has merit, it also has flaws: It bars all Medicare-eligible retirees and family members from enrolling in Tricare Prime. In fact, all career military members and their families eventually will be affected, because even those who enroll now will be dropped from Tricare at age 65, when they become eligible for Medicare. In my view, this breaks long standing health care commitments to retirees, may increase costs, and affect military readiness. identifying the problem Current law inadvertently encourages DOD and Medicare to work against each other. As the defense budget tightens, DOD has a strong incentive to push older retirees and families out of the military medical system and back into Medicare, although Medicare probably costs both the Government and retirees more money than care under the military system. Theoretically, Medicare-eligible retirees may still use military hospitals on a space-available basis. However, space-available care is rapidly becoming nonexistent as military facilities downsize and Tricare expands across the country. medicare subvention is the solution It seems to me, the solution to this problem is to change the law to allow Medicare subvention, allowing Medicare to reimburse DOD for care provided to older beneficiaries enrolling in Tricare Prime or otherwise using military hospitals. demonstration test of medicare subvention We need to demonstrate to the interested parties, Department of Health and Human Services, and Department of Defense, that subvention is indeed a feasible and cost-effective program. Therefore I am introducing the legislation which gives those agencies the authority to conduct such a test. I believe this test will justify implementing subvention and allow those eligible military retirees over 65 to participate in Tricare Prime and receive care in military hospitals. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, there is a broad bipartisan consensus that we must do more to curb lawsuit abuse in America--the kind of abuse that has turned suing your neighbor into the newest American pastime. This bipartisan compromise bill is an important first step: It will restrain outrageous and costly lawsuits that inhibit economic growth, threaten small businesses, and inflict a litigation tax on American consumers of $152 billion a year--that's right, $152 billion a year. I want to congratulate Chairman Pressler, and particularly Senators Gorton and Rockefeller for their hard work--years of hard work, really--on this important legislation. I also want to thank Senator Lott for his assistance in resolving the differences between House and Senate. But despite all the work, all of the bipartisanship, all of the sweet whispers of support out of the White House, suddenly we are voting on a bill that is under a threat of veto. Why? Well, let us take a look at what President Clinton said last Saturday when he issued his veto threat. President Clinton said that he was concerned about federalism and an ``unwarranted intrusion on State authority.'' But this argument was long ago dismissed by such concerned parties as the National Governors Association. In fact, the Governors, including then-Governor Clinton, called for a uniform national standard, stating that it would ``greatly enhance the effectiveness of interstate commerce.'' In other words, this sudden attack of States rights fever is misplaced. President Clinton also said last Saturday that he was concerned the bill would ``prevent injured persons from recovering the full measure of their damages.'' But compensatory damages are not affected by this legislation at all. And punitive damages are available for exactly those situations for which they were intended--situations which involve wrongdoing or egregious conduct. That is what the President said. What the President did not say however was that he has been under enormous pressure to veto this measure from the wealthiest and most powerful special interest lobby in America: the trial lawyers. Mr. Clinton has been one of the most-favored recipients of their largess. The Center for Responsive Politics found that lawyers and lobbyists funneled a grand total of $2.6 million to Mr. Clinton's 1992 campaign. That of course vastly understates the real number, since it is often impossible to identify the source of the real donors. In just the first 9 months of 1995, lawyers and law firms have pumped another $2.5 million into the President's campaign coffers. If money talks, this money screams. And what it screams is very simple: kill each and every attempt at legal reform. Now, I'm not one to assume just because someone gives you money, they call the tune. But this message has apparently been heard down at the White House loud and clear. Consider the record: President Clinton instigated a filibuster to stop legal reform that covered small business and charities and volunteer organizations last year. President Clinton pulled a much-publicized flip-flop and vetoed the securities litigation reform late last year. Fortunately, Congress overrode his veto. President Clinton now threatens to veto a modest and bipartisan bill that he once suggested he would support. This is unfortunate, but how it happened is worse. Before he said he would veto this bill, President Clinton's allies did something very cynical. Mr. Clinton's friends on the Hill made sure that the protections from lawsuit abuses in this compromise bill would not be extended to charities and nonprofits. Why would they do that? Everyone professes to want such protections passed into law. Yet, they insisted. Well, obviously, it would have been more difficult to veto a bill that offered protections for charities and volunteer organizations. It would have interfered with posturing as the defender of the little guy. So, those protections had to go. And 2 days after those protections were deleted by his allies, President Clinton issued his veto threat. I don't intend to play this game. Charities and volunteer organizations deserve relief, not cynical politics as usual. Elaine Chao, president of the United Way of America, recently wrote a passionate plea calling for protections for charities, so caseworkers in family counseling agencies, literacy tutors, and volunteer fundraisers won't be chased away by the threat of liability. All Americans should be outraged, as Elaine Chao puts it, by ``the proliferation of frivolous lawsuits that treat charities and nonprofits as pinatas, as so many bags of goodies to be plundered.'' That's why Senator Hatch and I have introduced a bill that provides such relief. Our bill would protect charities and nonprofits like the Little League and Girl Scouts. I intend to bring it to the floor for consideration as soon as possible. The President and his allies will then be asked to make a simple choice between protecting charities or enriching trial lawyers. President Clinton, please do not block this measure again. Do not let the heavy hand of special interests stay the helping hand of charities. Mr. President, with nearly 19 million new suits filed per year--1 for every 10 adults--no one is immune from the lawsuit epidemic. The cost of defending yourself in an average, nonautomotive case is about $7,500. That is money you lose even if you win your case. The lawyers, of course, never lose. It is time that this stopped. I hope President Clinton will reconsider his ill-advised veto threat. In the meantime, I urge my colleagues to pass this bill.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, there will be a number of votes. I ask unanimous consent that following the next vote--we have already had one vote-- that all other votes in the sequence be limited to 10 minutes each.

Mr. DOLE. I would be pleased to accede to that request for a minute on each side to explain the vote.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, as I understand the Senator from Illinois, his amendment has been cleared on both sides.

Mr. DOLE. I was just informed maybe it had not been cleared on this side.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the timber and salvage issue has been subjected to confusing direction from the Clinton administration. After first vetoing the bill, the President began to criticize the bill. This constantly changing position of this administration on this bill hardly contributes to a solution on what has become a needed resolution both for environmental concerns as well as economic. The repeal of this amendment would stop ongoing salvage sales, creating numerous new court challenges and lawsuits. During regulatory reform this problem was noted to be a significant concern of our friends across the aisle. Now however, it is a acceptable requirement. Second, as Senator Craig has pointed out, the emergency salvage law is necessary for jobs and forest health. As the amount of dead and dying trees increases, so dies the threat of wildfires. The lack of access to this timber results in lost jobs. The Clinton forest plan is not working. The amount of timber being produced is far below what the President promised and jobs continue to be lost. The Forest Service has produced very little salvage volume. The only volume that is really being produced under this provision are in the area covered by section 318, timber that was previously sold. Yet the President wants to hold up the sale of this timber as well. If this law is repealed the liability of the Federal Government increases, jobs will be lost, the environment threatened and a bureaucratic nightmare is created. We can move forward with managed timber sales and still protect endangered species and jobs. What we have to do is apply good management. Repealing this law is not the first step that needs to be taken. I urge my colleagues to defeat the Murray amendment.

Mr. DOLE

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