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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Rules Committee be discharged from further consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 123 and, further, that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements related to the concurrent resolution be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Resolution 209 submitted earlier today by the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. DOLE

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. DOLE

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

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Concurrent Resolution 39, submitted earlier today.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, there will be a period for morning business until the hour of 1 p.m. We will not have any rollcall votes during today's session. I am not anticipating any rollcall votes for the remainder of the week. If a rollcall vote becomes necessary, ample notification will be given to all Members. We will, obviously, turn to any matters we can clear by unanimous consent on the Legislative Calendar. There will be a continuing resolution coming over from the House on, I believe, Wednesday of this week, and it is my hope that we can dispose of that by consent. If not, we would have to give Members at least 24 hours' notice on each side. I am not certain how many Members plan to be in town this week. Many are back in their States doing official business. But the continuing resolution expires Friday, January 26. Therefore, we need to act on it before that date. It is also my understanding that the Presiding Officer would like to bring up this week the conference report on the Defense authorization bill. Again, it is our hope that if that does come up, as I understand it, it now has bipartisan support. The conference report has been signed by Senators Nunn and Kennedy on that side and by all the Republican conferees, as I understand it. It is our hope that if that comes up, it can be done by consent. If not, we would either have to postpone that vote or give our colleagues notice, because we have indicated we would do that, and we will follow through on that.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, we do return to session today ending a recess that began on January 10. Much of what has occurred across America these past 12 days has to do with the weather. I know all Senators join me in saying that our thoughts and prayers are with all those who were victims of ``The Blizzard of '96.'' One of the hardest hit States was Pennsylvania. I saw Governor Ridge on television this morning expressing his concern that the Federal Emergency Management Administration has not been as helpful as Pennsylvania had hoped. I understand that is being worked out. I hope it is, and I hope FEMA does their usual good job, as they have in the past. We will follow that closely. I would expect that once Federal officials look at the devastation caused by the flooding, they will provide the necessary assistance. I know the Senate stands ready to work with our Governors and with the President to ensure that that occurs as quickly as possible. Not only was much of America frozen this past week and a half, but so, too, were the negotiations for a balanced budget. We do have from the President, finally, a certified CBO balanced budget. But I must say to my colleagues that, unfortunately, if you take a close look at that budget--and I commend the President for submitting it--much of the savings do not take place until the next century. This is 1996. If the President were reelected, he would be long gone before most of the savings in the discretionary spending occur. Ninety-five percent of the savings in the President's proposal in discretionary spending occur in the last 2 years, 2001, 2002. We were concerned about our budget because we think ours is a little bit backloaded, but I do not believe, knowing the Congress as I do, that it would be possible for the appropriators to do that much cutting in the final 2 years. Ninety-five percent of $295 billion would have to be done in the last 2 years. So it seems to me that there is still some glimmer of hope that we might come together on a balanced budget agreement. It is not that we have not tried. We have spent over 50 hours and, as far as I am concerned, everyone was there in good faith. The discussions were long, frank, and candid. In fact, I read about a lot of them in the Washington Post. If I had missed all the meetings, I would have known all about them because they were fairly accurate renditions of what happened. It was in four installments. It did not have everything in there, but almost. I think the basic problem is just this fundamental difference we have on each side of the aisle on the role of Government and giving power back to the States, letting the Governors and legislatures, whether it is on welfare or Medicaid, make the decisions, and whether or not we should have tax cuts for families with children--not for the rich, but for families with children. I must say, in that area both the President and the Republicans have a tax credit. So it is not that we think tax credits are bad. We cap ours. The President caps his. We are trying to get the package together. We also know we are not going to be successful unless we deal with entitlements. Everybody will recognize, including the entitlement commission, which was chaired by Senator Kerrey of Nebraska and Senator Danforth of Missouri, who recognized that entitlements were out of hand and needed to be addressed. If we do not do something to preserve and strengthen Medicare, it is going to be in real trouble in a few years. So if there is movement--again, I say this without any criticism--I think the movement has to come from the President. We have indicated many, many times that we have moved substantially on the Republican side, whether it was on Medicare or Medicaid, or whether it was the earned income tax credit, or whether it was tax reductions. All those four programs we put in a little box and we have indicated how much we have come in the President's direction and how little he has come in our direction. So if there is to be an agreement--and I say it as fairly as I can--I think the President needs to make a response. Until that happens, I do not see any real reason to sit down for additional meetings. There is still an opportunity and still some glimmer of hope, as I said. With reference to the continuing resolution, which is currently funding Government, it does expire at the end of this week. I do not find much support, as I travel around the country, for another Government shutdown. We can point our fingers at the President for vetoing three major appropriations bills, which would have put nearly every one of the workers back to work. He can point his finger at us saying we permitted the Government to shut down. I think the American people really do not understand. They do not like it. I know the Federal employees do not like it, and others do not know why we pay people for not working, although in this case the Federal employees were willing workers and were prepared to go to work. Our response this week is clear: Keep faith with our principles and keep our word to the American people and also to keep faith with Federal employees who should not be the pawns in this game, I think, as the Washington Post said in an editorial 2, 3, or 4 weeks ago. That is what we have coming up this week. The President will address the Congress and the American people tomorrow night on the State of the Union. I think I will respond to that. I think that will happen. Then, as far as I know, if we can work it out, there will be no votes the remainder of the week. We will let Members know on each side. I will discuss this with the Democratic leader, Senator Daschle. Then we will also outline plans for the next week and the week after that as we go into February.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I now ask that the Senate stand in adjournment under the provisions of House Concurrent Resolution 133.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, rollcall votes are not expected to occur during Monday's session of the Senate. The Senate could, however, turn to any Executive Calendar items cleared for action. I must also remind everybody that I think it is the 26th when the present continuing resolution expires. So we will need to take action on that before the expiration date. Hopefully, we can do that by agreement and not require a rollcall vote. If that can be done, I do not anticipate any rollcall votes the week of the 22d. If there should be some change, we will try to notify our colleagues on both sides of the aisle and give them at least 24 hours notice, if possible. I will put that caveat in there, ``if possible.'' I hope it will not be necessary. Mr. President, let me just indicate this before we adjourn. As I understand it, next Wednesday there may be additional talks at the White House between myself, the Democratic leader, the leaders on the House side, and the President, with reference to a balanced budget. I think between now and then our attitudes should be positive. We should be trying to find ways to come together. Maybe we can, maybe we cannot. There are fundamental differences, and it is not just about numbers. But can we reach an agreement? I do not know. Is it doubtful? Probably. Is it possible? Yes. So there are still differences. In my view, we have had a slight narrowing of the differences. We are talking about a difference in policy, not just in numbers on the blackboard or on charts. So we will see what happens this next week. I know that some of the staff will be meeting with the Chief of Staff, Mr. Panetta, or his designees, and perhaps by next Wednesday, there will be some coming together, or maybe next Wednesday we will decide that there is no need to proceed further.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate reconvenes at 12 noon, Monday, January 22, 1996, immediately 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, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and there then be a period for morning business until 1 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I understand there is a bill on the calendar that is due for its second reading.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I object to the further consideration of this matter at this time.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to.

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

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I understand there is a managers' amendment at the desk on behalf of Senator Mack.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar 295, S. 1260.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committee amendment, as amended, be agreed to, the bill be deemed read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements relating to the bill be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, balancing the budget is all about sacrifice. To paraphrase Webster's Dictionary, that means surrendering things we prize for a higher purpose. Sacrifice is also about fairness. We call this share, and share alike. It makes no sense to me then that Congress would create a giant corporate welfare program when we are reforming welfare for those trapped in a failed system. But, that is exactly what would happen if we pass telecommunications reform in it current form. No doubt about it, balancing the budget the passing telecommunications reform will ensure America's place as the world's undisputed economic leader. They are both bills that look to the future, not to the past.

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, in the State of the Union Address President Clinton delivered nearly 1 year ago, he said--and I quote--``Nothing has done more to undermine our sense of common responsibility than our failed welfare system.'' In just a few weeks, President Clinton will deliver another State of the Union Address. And he will do so with the knowledge that he bears total responsibility for the continuation of that failed welfare system. America heard a great deal of rhetoric in 1992 from candidate Clinton, and a great deal of rhetoric since then from President Clinton about ``ending welfare as we know it.'' But all the words in the world cannot obscure President Clinton's action of last night. Given his promises, it is no wonder President Clinton used the cover of darkness to veto the truly revolutionary welfare reform bill which would have kept his commitments. This bill was, of course, the result of almost a year of hard work by a bipartisan group of Members of Congress, Senators, and, very importantly, our Nation's Governors. The President may have tried to hide his stealth veto by doing it late at night, but he can not hid the message he is sending to the American people: a loud and clear message that he will stand in the way of fundamental change, and, instead, will fight for the status quo. The President's veto means that American taxpayers will enter 1996 continuing to pour countless millions into a system that has failed, according to everyone. The system failed, and failed, and failed. And those who are served by the system will enter a new year with little or no hope for escaping from a future of welfare. What a different 1996--and a different future--it would have been had the President backed his words up with action by signing the legislation. Instead of the status quo where all authority resides in Washington, we would have shifted power to our State capitals, and given our Governors the ability to create a system that meets the unique needs of their States. Instead of the status quo, where welfare often becomes a way of life, and where some receive Federal; cash benefits just because they choose not to work, we would have a system where people are required to work after 2 years, and one with a 5-year limit on the receipt of Federal benefits. Instead of the status quo, where children are rewarded for having children and for moving away from home, we would have one which recognizes the importance of family--one that discourages illegitimacy, and encourages personal responsibility. Instead of the status quo, which often allows deadbeat dads to escape their financial responsibilities, we would have a system that streamlined paternity establishment, that established State registries, that made child support laws uniform across State lines, and that required States to use the threats of denying drivers licenses to parents who refuse to pay child support. Instead of the status quo which wastes billions of taxpayer dollars, we would have a system that gives our States the authority and responsibility to crack down on fraud and abuse. I am not claiming that our welfare reform legislation was perfect. Nor would it have magically solved our Nation's many social problems. But it did put an end to a failed system. It was a sharp departure. It was a fundamental change. It was a big, big, step in the right direction. It did return power to our States and cities, and to our people. It did offer hope and opportunity to millions of Americans. And we did want to stress work, and not welfare. But instead of beginning in 1996 by signing this legislation, the President has chosen to begin it by keeping the status quo intact. I suspect that in this year's State of the Union Address, the President will again talk about how he wants to end welfare as we know it. But they are words that will sound very hollow to many in this Chamber, and to all Americans who pay for, or who are served by, the status quo: And that is a failed system that remains intact thanks to the President's actions of last evening. It seems to me that here is a bill that passed the U.S. Senate by a vote of 87 to 12. If one absentee, Senator Hatfield, had voted ``aye,'' it would have been 88 Senators--good, bipartisan, strong bipartisan support. The bill went to conference, and we came back with a fundamental Senate bill. And by then it had become politicized again, and it was more of a party-line vote, with one exception on the other side. We have discussed welfare reform in all of the meetings we have had at the White House. But I do not see how the President could veto a bill that we were so close to coming together on, one that he praised when it passed the Senate, one that he said he can support. I must say, if there are any sharp differences in those two bills--our bill and the bill that came from conference--they were not major. So we will try again. We will try again in 1996. It seems to me, and it seems to most of my colleagues--at least the 87 who voted for welfare reform--that system has failed. We need fundamental change. We are willing to trust the Governors. We are willing to send power back to States. Therein lies the problem. Therein lies the problem, because I do not think the President of the United States wants that to happen, unless the Federal Government determines eligibility and determines who is going to be covered and everything else. If you put all those regulations on Governors, they will say, ``No, thank you. If you don't give us flexibility, we can't save the money.'' We are talking about saving somewhere in the neighborhood of $60 billion over 7 years. And $60 billion is a lot of money to the American taxpayers. We believe it can be done. We believe it can be done, and we can still preserve the benefits for those who need the benefits. There will always be some who need help, and we understand that. But we will also tighten up the system so those who should be working will be working, and the alternative will not be receiving benefits. So we regret that the bill has been vetoed. I guess you can say it came as no surprise. But in our view we had a good product that should have been signed. It seems to me that we will have to take our case to the American people and let them make the final decision.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 133, calling for an adjournment of both Houses of Congress until January 22, that the concurrent resolution be agreed to and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, leader time has been reserved, and there will be a period for morning business until the hour of 12:30 p.m. Following morning business, it is hoped that the Senate could turn to the adjournment resolution from the House, House Concurrent Resolution 133, calling for adjournment of both Houses until Monday, January 22. I have been asked if votes are anticipated during that week. I would not think so. We will have the State of the Union Message on Tuesday, the 23d. I do not know of any votes that would occur that week, and it would be very unlikely, in my view. I have not talked with the Democratic leader about that. We are reminded that we have the continuing resolution which expires on the 26th. I hope that would be resolved without votes. I am not certain of that.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, not far from the floor of the House of Representatives is a statue of that great son of Oklahoma, Will Rogers. Rogers, of course, delighted in making fun of politics and politicians--but he believed in democracy, and he loved America. Another Oklahoman who believed in democracy and loved America was former Congressman Mike Synar, who passed away this weekend after a brave fight against brain cancer. Mike served in the House of Representatives with great energy from 1979 to 1995. Since we represented neighboring States, we worked together on a number of issues--especially those relating to agriculture. Since Mike was a staunch Democrat, there were many other issues on which we found ourselves on opposite sides. But Mike knew that you could disagree with someone without being disagreeable. And I never doubted for a minute that Mike was standing up for what he believed. He was, in the words of our former colleague David Boren, truly a ``person of principle.'' I know I speak for all Members of this Chamber in extending our condolences to Mike's family, and to his many friends.