Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, there is a considerable amount of what we call wrap-up around here. While that is being prepared, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I think once he recognizes the merit of it, certainly he will be disposed to sign it.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I believe we can also dispose of nearly all of the nominations on the Executive Calendar. Of course, anything that we can do by unanimous consent--I think the Senator from Delaware and the Senator from Utah have a bill that will take 1 hour, and it will not require a rollcall vote, on victims' restitution.

Mr. DOLE. I thank the Senator.

Mr. DOLE. That is correct, according by the wishes of the distinguished Senator from South Carolina.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I think the Democratic leader and I want to be in a position to announce that there probably will be no more votes today. I think on the START II Treaty, which is now pending under an agreement, I promised the Senator from New Mexico a couple of weeks ago that we would try to do this before we left. It is my understanding--in fact, the Presiding Officer is one of the principal players--the bill will be managed on this side by the distinguished Senator from Indiana, Senator Lugar, and he advises me that it may not be necessary to have a rollcall. There may be one amendment in the process of being resolved. Senator Thurmond has suggested that we go only as far as presentation of the resolution of ratification--that would be satisfactory with me if it is satisfactory with the Democratic leader--because he would like to have the President sign the Defense authorization bill and not finally dispose of the START II until the President has made a determination. But I think, based on what I have been able to find out in the last few minutes, if it is satisfactory with the Democratic leader, I think we could announce that there will no more votes today.

Mr. DOLE. Yes.

Mr. DOLE. Perhaps that can be disposed of today, and any other matters that we can dispose of on a consent basis--obviously, we will be here later today. So, based on that comment from the Democratic leader, I think we will announce there will be no more votes today, no votes tomorrow, no votes on Sunday, no votes on Monday, and no votes on Tuesday.

Mr. DOLE. We are working on that. The two leaders have discussed not only that provision, but the District of Columbia, foster care, and AFDC. It is our hope that before we leave here today, we can reach some accommodation. I have also discussed that with the distinguished Senator from New Hampshire, Senator Smith, who is very interested particularly in the veterans part having had a phone call this morning from a veteran friend of his. So, hopefully, we can resolve that. The Senator from Massachusetts has an interest in that, too.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Right.

Mr. DOLE. Right.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, on another matter, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 282, S. 1407, which would amend the Social Security Act to provide for increases in the amount of allowable earnings under the Social Security earnings limit for individuals who have reached retirement age. I further ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time, passed, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to this matter appear in the Record at the appropriate place.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I think this is a good bill and pretty much like the bill that passed the Senate by a vote of 87 to 12 with 1 absentee. We have heard many times that the President is going to end welfare as we know it. This is an opportunity the President has. Everybody ought to ask the question--and I know it has been addressed on the other side--does this conference report have the core principles and needed reforms that were in the Senate-passed welfare bill? The answer in my view is yes. We supported that bill in September, the Work Opportunity Act, as I said, by a vote of 87 to 12. We stood behind it in a bipartisan way. During this time before our vote, I also ask that we once again remember two overriding facts. First, our current welfare system has failed; and, second, it is our duty to fix it. Common Sense, Core Principles For Dramatic Reform The Senate bill and the conference report both take a commonsense approach. Both bills establish core principles: strong work requirements; strengthening families and requiring personal responsibility; providing protection for children; giving States the flexibility they need to design programs that best meet the needs of the people, and that can best reduce our alarming illegitimacy rate; and assuring States receive necessary Federal support. Let me take a moment to review the similarities in the commonsense policies in the Senate bill and the conference report. They both require able-bodied welfare recipients to work for their assistance as soon as the State determines they are ``work ready'' or within 2 years, whichever is earlier. They both put a 5-year lifetime limit on welfare benefits, so that welfare does not become a way of life. They both require single teenage parents who have children out of wedlock to stay in school and live under adult supervision in order to receive benefits. They both provide $75 million to States for abstinence education programs. They both grant our States the ability to try and reduce America's alarming illegitimacy rate. They both give States the option of exempting families with a child under age 1 from the work-participation rates. They both prevent States from sanctioning a single custodial parent for failure to work if the parent shows a demonstrated need for child care. They both include important provisions on locating and tracking absent parents, establishing paternity and enforcing support orders. They both give our States the flexibility to devise programs that meet the specific needs of their citizens. They both provide a $1.7 billion supplemental loan fund. States may borrow from it up to 10 percent of their welfare block grant amount. They both provide a $1 billion contingency grant fund for States over 7 years. They both put a cap on spending, because no program with an unlimited budget will ever be made to work effectively and efficiently. Child Care and State Maintenance of Effort During the Senate debate and establishment of these policies, two major issues emerged as central to the bipartisan support that emerged: first, access to child care and second, requiring States to maintain some level of their spending effort. The child care provisions in the conference report provide $1.8 billion more than current law and $1 billion more than the Senate- passed bill. Specifically, a child care block grant is established that includes $11 billion in mandatory spending for welfare recipients and $7 billion in discretionary spending for low income families. Spending on child care increases from $1.3 billion in fiscal year 1997 to over $2 billion in fiscal year 2002. In the conference report, States are required to maintain their spending effort for the life of the new cash block grant at 75 percent of what they spent in fiscal year 1994 for the programs that are in this block grant. This seems to represent the objective of the majority of Members in the Senate. Conference Report Modifications Now let me touch on some of the areas that have been modified since the Senate first passed welfare reform. No doubt about it, there has been much speculation over the savings that will come out of this reform. I can tell you this: The savings realized from the conference report are about the same as those realized from the Senate bill. The conference report does require States to deny more cash to mothers who have more children while receiving welfare. However States have the flexibility to opt-out. As Senator Santorum said last night, this provision asks State legislatures to make a decision. Let us make no mistake about it, the conference report does establish a child protection block grant that combines mandatory funding for existing child welfare programs while maintaining current law protections. However foster care and adoption maintenance payments remain open entitlement and the enactment of the block grant is delayed to fiscal year 1997. Funding for these programs are $1 billion more than the Senate passed Balanced Budget Act. New Provisions Let me list a few additions to the Senate-passed bill now in the conference report before us. The effective date of the new cash welfare block grant is delayed to fiscal year 1997 yet allows States to opt-in during fiscal year 1996. We have also included a 10-percent reduction in the social services block grant which was proposed by President Clinton. This will provide $1.6 billion in savings over 7 years. The eligibility for States to receive food stamp block grants is tightened up. States which have implemented electronic benefit transfer statewide will be eligible. States with an error rate of less than 6 percent are also eligible. The controversy surrounding block grants for child nutrition programs is settled by allowing a pilot project for seven States to participate in an optional block grant program. Authority expires in 2000. Block grants could then be revisited. GOP Governors Back Conference Agreement Thirty Republican Governors sent a letter to President Clinton on December 20 urging him to support this conference agreement. They write: While each State will have its own reform strategy, this legislation helps to accomplish those goals by setting forth these guidelines: Families must work for benefits and States that get families working are rewarded. No family can stay on welfare after 2 years without working. The total time a family can collect cash benefits is limited to 5 years unless States, because of their own unique circumstances, opt out of this limit. And States will have the option to pay cash benefits to teen parents, but they must live at home and stay in school to receive those benefits. I urge my colleagues to support the conference report to H.R. 4. The core principles and policies necessary for dramatic reform contained in it are consistent with the Senate-passed bill and consistent with the needs of Americans. So, Mr. President, it seems to me we have been able to retain nearly every provision that was in the Senate-passed bill. I know for some of my colleagues, because the President says he is going to veto it, maybe for that reason they feel compelled to support the President. But my view is we have a good bill. We ought to vote for it. We ought to send it to the President, and then try to persuade the President that this is a bill he should sign. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I object to further proceedings on this matter at this time.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I was very surprised and disappointed yesterday when I heard that President Clinton had vetoed the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Two weeks ago the Senate passed this bill by a bipartisan vote of 65 to 30 and until 30 minutes before the deadline Tuesday night, President Clinton indicated that he would support this bill. As I pointed out when the Senate was debating the conference report to this bill, President Clinton had a clear choice. If he supported this bill, he supported creating jobs for Americans by reducing frivolous, costly lawsuits on businesses. If he opposed it, he only supported enriching the pockets of wealthy trial lawyers at the expense of consumers and investors. It's too bad he chose the latter. President Clinton talks a lot about being concerned about middle- class Americans. It is my understanding that he invited some wealthy trial lawyers over for dinner the other night to thank them for a million dollar contribution. It's unfortunate that he decided to come down on their side, instead of the side of ordinary working Americans and small investors. These wealthy trial lawyers devote their professional lives to gaming the system by filing ``strike'' suits alleging violations of the Federal securities laws--all in the hope that the defendant will settle quickly in order to avoid the expense of drawn-out litigation. Of course, these strike suits are often baseless. If a stock price falls, these lawyers will file a class-action suit claiming that the company was too optimistic in their projections. If the stock price soars, these same lawyers will file suit saying that the company withheld information that caused shareholders to sell too early. In effect, the lawsuits act as a litigation tax that raises the cost of capital and chills disclosure of important corporate information to shareholders. The high-tech, high-growth companies of Silicon Valley, CA are particularly vulnerable to these fraudulent and abusive lawsuits because of the volatility of their stock prices. Over 50 percent of the top 100 businesses in Silicon Valley have been sued at least once. And the $500 million in so-called damages, the majority of which goes to the wealthy trial lawyers, is money that could have been used to create jobs and pay higher salaries to the working-class in the high-tech industry. Mr. President, the Senate has been working for years in a bipartisan manner to pass legislation on this issue. Yesterday, the House, in an overwhelmingly bipartisan fashion, voted 319 to 100 to override President Clinton's veto. This is a good and fair bill, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do likewise and support it.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, we will immediately begin 30 minutes of debate on the veto message on H.R. 1058, the securities litigation bill. Following that debate, we will begin 30 minutes on the welfare reform conference report. At approximately 11:15 we will begin two consecutive rollcall votes, first on the veto message, to be followed by a vote on the welfare reform conference report. Following those votes, the Senate will turn to consideration of the START II Treaty. Additional votes are therefore possible today on that treaty or any other matter that may become available, including a CR, if one is received from the House--I do not think that will happen--a Veterans' continuing resolution, which is at the desk, and any other available conference reports. I will just indicate that the leaders will start their meeting with the President at 12 o'clock today in an effort to make progress on the balanced budget over the next 7 years. That meeting will last approximately 3 hours. I do not have any idea what may develop during that session, but at least it is another indication that some progress is being made. We are negotiating. I hope that we can come to some agreement soon. I yield the floor. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, just for the information of my colleagues, following the meeting today at the White House, we issued a joint statement. I will just read the joint statement. We have agreed that we will issue statements from now on so we do not have any problem about somebody saying something that might be misinterpreted. And the joint statement reads: Today we had good meetings which built on the progress made in yesterday's discussions. Staff will prepare further analysis to clarify options for the budget advisory group, which will then advise the principals on outstanding issues. Following the meeting of the budget advisory group, the principals will meet again next Friday afternoon. So there will be a meeting with the President and the Vice President, the chief of staff, Leon Panetta, and the leaders of the House and the Senate. On Thursday of next week and Wednesday of next week, staff and the advisory committees will meet. So without much elaboration, I will say, in my view, we had a good session, very positive. I felt people wanted to get something done. We discussed some very difficult issues. The hard decisions have not been made yet, but I guess without being too specific, it is fair to say, at least right now, the attitude of everyone is very positive, and I hope that we can do what the American people want us to do, and that is come to some agreement which will balance the budget over the next 7 years, using Congressional Budget Office numbers. If we can do that--it may be painstaking, it may interrupt holiday schedules for some, but it will be worth it in the long run. So I certainly want to thank all of my colleagues and members of our staff who have been working this past week and will be working next week in an effort to bring about a balanced budget over the next 7 years.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I object to further proceedings on this matter at this time.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, in the case of Cherry versus Cherry, a divorce proceeding pending in New Jersey Superior Court, the plaintiff has caused a subpoena to be served on an employee of Senator Lautenberg, seeking documents and testimony concerning the employee's performance of constituent services by contacting the IRS on behalf of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's attorney has not been able to demonstrate to Senator Lautenberg's office or to the Senate legal counsel how the office's casework assistance is relevant to the issues in controversy in the divorce suit. Accordingly, this resolution would authorize the Senate legal counsel to represent Senator Lautenberg's employee in this matter, and to seek to quash the subpoena in order to protect Senator Lautenberg's office from the burdens of complying with a discovery request of no relevance to the underlying dispute. This resolution also would authorize the employee to testify and produce documents in the event that the court determines that the employee does have any evidence somehow relevant to the divorce proceeding. S. Res. 204 Whereas, in the case of Charles Okoren, et al. v. Fyfe Symington, et al., No. CV-95-2527- PHX-RCB, pending in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, the plaintiffs have named the United States Senate as a defendant; Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(1) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 288b(a) and 288c(a)(1)(1994), the Senate may direct its counsel to defend the Senate in civil actions relating to its official responsibilities: Now therefore, be it Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent the United States Senate in the case of Charles Okoren, et al. v. Fyfe Symington, et al.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the plaintiffs in Okoren v. Symington, No. CV-95-2527-PHX-RCB (D. Ariz.), have brought a civil action in Federal district court in Arizona seeking two declarations from the court: first, a declaration that Arizona's indictment procedures violate the United States Constitution; and second, a declaration that the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 overrules the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), that federal courts will not enjoin pending state criminal prosecutions except under extraordinary circumstances. In their suit, these plaintiffs have named, among others, the United States Senate as a party. The Senate is not, however, a proper party to this lawsuit. In fact, the plaintiffs assert no claim against the Senate. This resolution authorizes the Senate legal counsel to represent the Senate in this action. S. Res. 205 Whereas, in the case of United States of America v. Karl Zielinski, Case No. F12187-94, a criminal action pending in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, the United States Attorney has caused a trial subpoena to be served on Michael O'Leary, a Senate employee on the staff of the Committee on the Judiciary; Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States and Rule XI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate can, by administrative or judicial process, be taken from such control or possession but by permission of the Senate; Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate is needed for the promotion of justice, the Senate will take such action as will promote the ends of justice consistent with the privileges of the Senate; Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 288b(a) and 288c(a)(2), the Senate may direct its counsel to represent employees of the Senate with respect to requests for testimony made to them in their official capacities; Now, therefore, be it Resolved, That Michael O'Leary is authorized to provide testimony in the case of United States of America v. Karl Zielinski, except concerning matters for which a privilege should be asserted. Sec. 2. The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to represent Michael O'Leary in connection with the testimony authorized by section 1 of this resolution.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, in the case of United States of America versus Karl Zielinski, the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia has charged the defendant with threatening to do bodily harm to occupants of the Hart Senate Office Building in violation of section 22-507 of the District of Columbia Code, during a visit in December 1994 to the offices of the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Patents, Copyrights, and Trademarks. Michael O'Leary, an employee on the Judiciary Committee's staff, witnessed the incident and has been subpoenaed by the U.S. Attorney to testify at the trial. This resolution would authorize Mr. O'Leary to testify at the trial, with representation by the Senate legal counsel.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate turn to House Joint Resolution 136, a continuing resolution just received from the House; that the joint resolution be read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, first, I thank my colleague, Senator Byrd, for his kind comments and my colleague, Senator Thurmond, from South Carolina. It has been an honor to serve as the Republican leader and an honor to serve with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle over the years. I certainly enjoyed my service in the Senate, and I think most every day I have enjoyed being leader. Some days it is in doubt. But it is a great honor and a great responsibility that I am proud to try to carry. I thank my colleagues on both sides for their continued cooperation.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Nevada, Senator Reid.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, we will immediately go to House Joint Resolution 132 regarding the use of the CBO economic assumptions. There will be 60 minutes of debate equally divided with an amendment ordered to the resolution. There should be a rollcall vote around 10:30, 10:35. Also, this morning we will take up the veto message to accompany H.R. 1058, the securities litigation. It may also be that we will take up the welfare reform conference report today. It just arrived. There is objection to taking up the resolution concerning application for veterans' benefits unless we can add to it a CR to open up the Government. So that may or may not come up today. There are other time lines that we need to address concerning AFDC recipients, and other groups, that unless we have a CR, we will take specific action on. I will try to determine what that is during the day. I have not had a report on the meeting this morning between Chief of Staff Leon Panetta, Senator Domenici, chairman of our Budget Committee, and Chairman John Kasich of the House Budget Committee. I understand there was some progress made. It is my hope that sometime today we can meet again with the President of the United States and see if we can resolve some of the major differences still outstanding. There really are not that many big ones, but there is Medicare and Medicaid and tax cuts. I mean there are some very, very important provisions that need to be addressed. Whether or not that meeting will occur, I think it is too early to tell. I know the Speaker and I are prepared to meet with the President at any time during the day.