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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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, since the American people put the Republicans in control of Congress, I think there has been a consensus--Democrats, Independents, Republicans--that we should balance the budget. We have succeeded now in making a balanced budget, which is supported by 80-some percent of the American people, a national priority. Perhaps no policy is more important than the personal economic future of Americans, the future of our children and the future of our Nation. Last year, under Republican leadership, Congress did pass a budget that would be in balance by the year 2002. President Clinton vetoed that budget and denied America the brighter future that would have resulted in higher standards of living, more real economic growth, lower interest rates, reducing what Americans will pay for home mortgages, car loans, and student loans, and an increase in the savings rates, higher productivity, and relief from the crushing burden of debt. But notwithstanding that, the President and his allies in and out of Congress who talk about a balanced budget say we ought to have a balanced budget. They may have a different way to arrive at one. So I think there is a fairly strong consensus at least that we should balance the budget. We just have not been able to come together on how we do that. We have tried private negotiations at the White House with myself and the Speaker and the majority leader in the House. They went on day after day, week after week, 55 hours of face-to-face meetings. We could not come together. So my view is that since almost everyone agrees we should balance the budget at least by the year 2002, we should take the next logical step and do what it takes to make certain that we fulfill our commitment to pass a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. Last year, we had a month-long debate. We talked about all the pros and cons of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. The final vote was 65-35. It was actually 66-34. Then I changed my vote to ``no'' so that I could use the parliamentary procedure to have a reconsideration of this vote, and I said sometime this year. All we were doing, if you recall, was sending this to the States where three-fourths of the States would have to ratify the amendment before it became part of the Constitution. So we were, in effect, leaving it to up to the people or leaving it up to the legislative body closer to the people whether or not this particular balanced budget amendment to the Constitution should be ratified and be made a part of the Constitution. I have made a number of statements both in the Chamber and in public that we would take up the balanced budget amendment again, and since my departure is imminent, I want to keep my word and keep my commitment, although I have no illusions about the outcome. So during the week of June 3, it is my intention to fulfill the commitment I made to hold another vote on the balanced budget amendment. As I said, I am not under any illusions, but I think there is a great deal at stake. I think we have an obligation to future generations of Americans to make the effort. Only one man stands between the balanced budget amendment and the American people, and that is President Clinton. I hope President Clinton will change his position on the balanced budget amendment. I believe the upcoming vote will give President Clinton the opportunity to demonstrate the kind of leadership the American people want, but I am certain it will succeed only if the President lends his support, his unqualified support to the effort. Only the President can help encourage Democrats who voted for it in the past and then voted against it last year to give us the necessary 67 votes to send this to the States for ratification. Again, let me make it clear. We are not making the final judgment when we send an amendment to the States for ratification. It takes three-fourths of the States. It would not be easy, but my view is we can send it back to the people, back to the people's representatives, closer to the people, and this also, of course, will give my colleagues who have supported the amendment in the past but voted against it last year another opportunity to come home again, an opportunity to do the most important thing we can be asked to do, and that is to make a positive difference. So I hope that President Clinton could repair the damage. I know he urged and probably persuaded at least six of our colleagues to vote ``no.'' It is not very often we get a second chance to do the right thing, but we are going to offer that chance to the President and to others. I assume the vote will be the same, or maybe even one or two less, but this is a bipartisan effort. I want to underscore that. One of the leaders in this effort has been Senator Paul Simon from the State of Illinois, who is retiring from the Senate at the end of this year. He has been working day after day, month after month, year after year for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. He did not dream it up last year or the year before. As long as I have known Paul Simon, he has been supporting a balanced budget amendment, and so has the Senator from Idaho, Mr. Craig, and they have worked closely together. At one time, we thought we had as many as 72 votes, but when the vote was taken, it was only 66. So my view is it is bipartisan. It comes down to one simple question: Do we trust the American people? Do we trust the State legislatures? I think if we do, then we will send this amendment to the States and let them take a look at it. The Founding Fathers did not give Congress the power. They reserved that power to the States and the people. For most of us who say we are for a balanced budget, this is an opportunity to give our States, whether it is Kansas or some other State, members of my legislature, an opportunity to say, well, it is good; it is bad; it should not be done. So, I will let my colleagues know, and I will advise the Democratic leader on the precise time. But it will be sometime, probably, I would guess, along about June 4. But I will let my Democratic friend, the leader of the Democratic Senate, Senator Daschle, know a precise time. As I understand, there is no debate. So any debate will happen before. There will not be any agreement on any debate, but bring it up, vote, and then move on to something else. Let me also say that I was prepared last night--because the President made a statement in Wisconsin to send him the welfare bill and he would sign it--and I may later today ask unanimous consent to bring up the welfare bill and pass it, send it to the House. This is apparently a bill the President wants. I do not assume there would be any objection on the other side. But, if the President is serious, we are serious. We will get serious in a hurry. I will ask consent, we will send it to the House, and the House, of course, with the Rules Committee, they do not have to wait 4, 5, 6, 10, 12 days on an issue like this, they can do it in 3 or 4 hours. So, if the President is serious about this, if he will just notify my colleagues on the other side of the aisle not to object, we may pass a welfare bill here very quickly. I have also been asked, and I have not discussed it with the majority leader--the majority whip, Senator Lott, about when we would bring the minimum wage vote to the floor. I do not have a problem with bringing it to the floor at any time. In fact, we offered my colleagues on the other side an agreement which, had they accepted, we would bring it up as soon as we came back from the Memorial Day recess, but it was rejected. It still seems to me that we ought to be able to bring it up; whenever they want to they bring up an amendment, we bring up what we want to bring up as an amendment. We do that frequently around here. We have two different views. I think there should be an increase in the minimum wage. I think we couple it with--we have talked about it some, about a teenage provision, where you want teenagers to work, the so- called training wage. We might increase those who are not covered, by a small amount, for businesses that are small businesses. I have talked about this to Senator Daschle. I think there are a couple areas we may be able to agree on. There may be others who have other amendments we may not be able to agree to. But it seems to me, if we are serious about it, we ought to bring it up and do it very quickly. We have had enough debate on the action. We would be prepared to take care of that also on the week of June 3.

Mr. DOLE. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. DOLE. We have the right to amend.

Mr. DOLE. I would be happy to work out something along that line with the Senator from Kentucky.

Mr. DOLE. I would want to consult, obviously, with my colleagues. But my view is there will be a minimum wage increase. It will pass the Congress. It will have some amendments that maybe are not totally pleasing to everybody in the Senate on either side of the aisle. In fact, maybe even the minimum wage is not totally pleasing to everybody on either side of the aisle. But I think, given the strong bipartisan vote in the House, and I think there is support, bipartisan support, for an increase on this side, the question is what do you add to it to get it passed?

Mr. DOLE. I will be happy to take it up with the leadership on my side and, hopefully, be able to go to the Democratic leader and the Senator from Kentucky with some proposal to be accepted. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate turn to the immediate consideration of the bill, which I now send to the desk re welfare, and it be considered under the following time restraints: 1 hour on the bill to be equally divided in the usual form; no amendments or motions in order; and that following the conclusion or yielding back of time, the Senate proceed to third reading and final passage to occur, all without further action or debate.

Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I object to that. But I indicate that we have talked about minimum wage, we have talked about welfare reform, and we have talked about repeal of the gas tax, which we hoped to have done before the Memorial Day recess in order to save millions of Americans a lot of money. We did not quite get it done. I am perfectly willing, if we can work out some agreement. My point is that the President says he likes this bill. He said, ``Send that bill down here and I will sign it.'' He is going to have a week to look at it--the Memorial Day recess. It will be printed, and it will be available. I believe the Democratic leader will find that there are even more generous provisions in the bill that passed this body by a vote of 87 to 12, and it would have been 88 to 12 except Senator Hatfield from Oregon was ill that day. So we have tried in this bill to accommodate many of the concerns the Governors raised, from both parties. We believe it is a good bill. The President said it is a good bill. At least that is what he said Wednesday in Wisconsin. I am just trying to accommodate his wishes. But I cannot agree with all of the other matters pending. We may decide on the missile defense, if we can work out some broad agreement to put it back on the calendar. I think we could dispose of the other three next week--the week we are back, the last week I will be in the U.S. Senate. It would certainly be agreeable with me. So I will try to work with the distinguished Democratic leader.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent that the bill which I introduced be placed on the calendar.

Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations en bloc on today's Executive Calendar: Calendar Nos. 534, 580, 581, 582, 583, 584, 592, 593, 599, and 600.

Mr. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, and that any statements relating to the nominations appear at the appropriate place in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and that the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I will just say a word or two, and I will make a unanimous-consent request. Three days ago in Wisconsin, I outlined my welfare reform plan. Let me be as clear as I can about what it contains. There are five principal points. I mean every able-bodied welfare recipient to find work within 2 years, or a shorter period of time if the State so desires. I mean a real 5-year lifetime limit on welfare payments with few exceptions. I mean making certain that illegal noncitizens are ineligible for all emergency benefits. I mean giving States the ability to stop payments to unmarried teens. And, above all, I mean trusting the Nation's Governors with the flexibility they need to establish the laboratories of our democracy. I think it is fair to say that there are different approaches. Everybody wants welfare reform. I think the President and I have a different approach. It will be debated--maybe after my departure from the Senate--and I hope there is some way to work out welfare and Medicaid as a package and have that signed by the President. We are witnessing in the inner cities out-of-wedlock births as high as 80 percent. Most Americans believe, I think, that able-bodied people on welfare should work if there are jobs, and the President indicated yesterday that, in effect, he said he would take our suggestions. I am not certain he has had an opportunity to read the bill. It was introduced a couple of days ago. If he does agree with my five positions, which I just stated--I do not think they are consistent with his views. In fact, I will indicate for the Record that he has a different view on almost each of the five. Governor Thompson and four other Republican Governors wrote to President Clinton, ``Without national welfare reform for all 50 States, the cycle of poverty goes on--for instance, the number of single women head of households in poverty has increased by 175,000 since you, Mr. President, took office.'' No doubt about it, we must stop the plague of out-of-wedlock births in our inner cities, which is as high as 80 percent in some areas. We must give all able-bodied Americans a chance at the American work ethic. We must reform welfare. President Clinton is not doing this. As we all know, he has twice vetoed welfare reform passed by Congress. I wonder if he is willing to deny the American dream to another generation of Americans. President Clinton yesterday suggested my five positions outlined above were very consistent with his. They are not. The President suggested that Congress pass my welfare reform plan and the he will sign it. I am ready to move on my plan. I offer the following unanimous consent.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate reconvenes under the provisions of Senate Concurrent Resolution 60 at 1:30 p.m., on Monday, June 3, that 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, and there then be a period for morning business not to extend beyond the hour of 3:30 p.m. with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: the first 90 minutes under the control of Senator Coverdell, or his designee; the second 30 minutes under the control of Senator Daschle, or his designee.

Mr. DOLE. I further ask unanimous consent that at 3:30 p.m. the Senate resume debate on the motion to proceed to the Defend America Act.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I recap, for the information of all Senators, that a cloture motion was filed on the motion to proceed to the Defend America Act. That vote occur on Tuesday June 4, at 2:15 p.m., unless we can work out some overall agreement. We would want to add to that--I have discussed this with the Democratic leader--health care reform. That package is in conference. That is something which I very much would like to do that week. I talked to both Senators Kassebaum and Kennedy, and others. Hopefully, we might add to the list three or four things that we might complete action on that week. If there is not any change, then that rollcall vote will occur after the policy luncheons, I understand, at 2:15. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE. I would say to the Democratic leader that if we cannot arrive at some agreement, I would be prepared to call them up one at a time. If someone wants to vote ``no''--and I understand that at least one may take some time, one of the nominees. For others, there may be rollcall votes. But it seems to me that the Democratic leader is correct. We should not be holding people up. If we need a vote, vote them down or vote them up, or whatever, but they ought to be voted on because they probably have plans to make and there are families involved. So I hope we can reach some accommodation to dispose of those as quickly as possible when we return.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Madam 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 Senate Concurrent Resolution 60.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, today I am pleased to join Representative Rick Lazio of New York, in paying tribute to the dedicated Americans who served in the Armed Forces, Intelligence Agencies, and the Diplomatic Corps during the Cold War. Their courageous efforts not only ensured America's security, but eventually brought peace and freedom to millions of people around the world who had suffered under communism for decades. In the aftermath of World War II, a new threat to freedom emerged. Fifty years ago this spring, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill warned the Western world of that new threat in a speech at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri. ``From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an iron curtain has descended across the Continent * * *. The Communist parties, which were very small in all these Eastern States of Europe, have been raised to pre-eminence and power far beyond their numbers and are seeking everywhere to obtain totalitarian control. Police governments are prevailing in nearly every case, and so far, except in Czechoslovakia, there is no true democracy.'' To combat this new threat Prime Minister Churchill called on us to work to prevent open hostilities and to ensure the ``* * * establishment of conditions of freedom and democracy as rapidly as possible in all countries.'' He further called for cooperation between the United States and her allies ``* * * in the air, on the sea, all over the globe and in science and in industry, and in moral force * * *'' in order that we might have an ``overwhelming assurance of security.'' For the next four decades, the United States, with its Allies, stood resolute against Communist aggression. The full resources of our military, intelligence organizations, and diplomatic corps were brought to bear to ensure freedom and prevent the spread of tyranny. The United States, through the Marshall Plan, rebuilt Europe. We formed alliances, such as NATO, with our allies to provide a coordinated military response to Communist aggression. And the United States embarked on the Strategic Defense Initiative, to ensure that future generations would not grow up fearing a nuclear holocaust. Now, 50 years after Prime Minister Churchill's speech in Fulton, Missouri the United States is again the world's only super power. We again are leading the world into a new age. Just as America's principled leadership was required for victory in the Cold War, so will our moral strength be required to face the challenges of the future. Mr. President, I think it is only fitting that today we take a few moments to recognize and thank those Americans who served our government throughout the long years of the Cold War. Without their dedication, bravery, and sacrifice our victory would not have been possible. I am pleased to join Congressman Lazio in recognizing these Americans and I know my colleagues in the Senate join me in this expression of thanks.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, yesterday President Clinton acknowledged-- belatedly--that the post-cold-war era presents us with new national security challenges. He stated, ``The end of communism has opened the door to the spread of weapons of mass destruction * * *.'' Unfortunately, while the President is finally willing to recognize the threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, he remains unwilling to seriously respond to it--with progress, as opposed to pronouncements--on national missile defense. Most Americans do not know--let me underscore--most Americans do not know that the United States has no defense against ballistic missiles. If you were to ask the average American, in fact to ask anybody in this Chamber unless they are on the Armed Services Committee, they might not know. If you were asked a question, ``If a missile, an incoming missile was headed toward Chicago, what should the President of the United States do?'' and the people will tell you in these little focus groups, ``Shoot it down''--we can't. We don't have a defense. So, if a rogue state such as North Korea launched a single missile at the United States, we could do nothing to stop its deadly flight towards an American town or city. In his speech yesterday President Clinton pointed to his $3 billion budget request for missile defense programs as evidence of a ``strong, sensible national missile defense program.'' This happens to be 21 percent less than the President's own national security advisers proposed in their Bottom-Up review of U.S. defense needs. It is also 30 percent less than what the Senate Armed Services Committee provides in this year's defense authorization bill. In short, it is not enough for a determined and effective effort to defend the American people from the threat of ballistic missiles. President Clinton attacked the Defend America Act, which I introduced 2 months ago, claiming: They have a plan that Congress will take up this week that would force us to choose now a costly missile defense system that could be obsolete tomorrow. This is simply not true. The Defend America Act only forces to commit now to deploy a national missile defense system by the year 2003. The choice of what type of system is left up to the Secretary of Defense who will report back to the Congress on the requirements for an effective ballistic missile defense system. And making a decision to go forward with missile defense now will not, as the President argued yesterday, lead to America deploying an obsolete system. The programs we currently have in development can serve as the building blocks for a system that meets the missile threat as it emerges. Furthermore, as with the procurement of any weapons system, moving from development to deployment requires lead time. You cannot do it in a week or a year or 18 months. It does not happen overnight. The President's assertions contradict those of his own Secretary of Defense, who recently stated that these technologies ``would be quite capable of defending against the much smaller and relatively unsophisticated ICBM threat that a rogue or a terrorist could mount any time in the foreseeable future.'' That is the Secretary of Defense. I would like to address the issue of cost. There has been quite an uproar about a Congressional Budget Office estimate of the cost of deploying a national missile defense system pursuant to the Defend America Act. The CBO stated that total acquisition costs for the year 2010 would range from $31 billion to $60 billion, if such a system largely consists of advanced space-based components. However, the Defend America Act does not specify any required components of a national missile defense system to include space-based components. On the other hand, the CBO says that a ground-based system with upgraded space-based sensors would run around $14 billion. Section 4 of the Defend America Act states: The Secretary of Defense shall develop for deployment an affordable and operationally effective national missile defense system which shall achieve initial operational capability by the end of 2003. The decision on what is affordable and effective is left up to the Secretary of Defense. What I would like to know is how CBO estimated a national missile defense system whose components are unknown. It seems to me that the CBO approach was somewhat like a family deciding they are going to buy a house and being told by a real estate agent that it will cost them anywhere between $40,000 to $4 million. That is the range. That is true, houses come in many prices. There are two-bedroom homes and then there are the mansions and the couple's decision would come down to what they need and what they can afford. Those are the same guidelines we need to use here. What does the United States need to protect its citizens, and how can it best be done and how can we achieve this protection in an affordable manner? Outlining these estimates are a good way to avoid a serious debate on a most serious issue. The American people deserve better, because we are talking about the safety and security of their children and their grandchildren and themselves. You would not know, if you follow some of the press coverage of this issue, that the cold war is over. We do not need a so-called space shield to defend against an attack of thousands of missiles. We do, however, need to defend the American people against the much more limited threat of an accidental launch or an attack by rogue and terrorist regimes, such as North Korea and Iran, who are acquiring a limited, but deadly, capability to deliver weapons of mass destruction with ballistic missiles. As President Clinton's former Director of Central Intelligence testified, the threat of ballistic missiles is growing and the administration is not addressing this frightening reality. This is President Clinton's former Director of the CIA. In his testimony before the House National Security Committee, James Woolsey stated: Ballistic missiles can, in the future they increasingly will, be used by hostile states for blackmail, terror, and to drive wedges between us and our allies. It is my judgment that the administration is not currently giving this vital problem the proper weight it deserves. Through budgetary scare tactics and skewed analysis, the administration is trying to confuse this issue and avoid answering the central question of whether or not the American people should be protected. By seeking to proceed to the Defend America Act today, I hope to move beyond rhetoric and misinformation to a serious debate on a critical matter affecting the future security of all Americans. I believe the number one responsibility this Government has to its citizens is to provide them with protection. That is what the Defend America Act is all about. So, again, let me repeat the question: If you had an incoming ballistic missile and you ask somebody in my State or any State, What should the President do, they would say, ``Shoot it down.'' And your response would have to be, ``We cannot. We have no defense.'' I suggest those who say it is a decade away go back and look at some of the predictions made in the past. I believe we have that obligation. When we talk about the cost, $14 billion is a lot of money, but so would be the human cost and any added cost if some rogue state or some accidental launch directed a missile toward the United States. Unanimous Consent Request--S. 1635

Mr. DOLE. I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate turn to the consideration of calendar No. 411.

Mr. DOLE. Let me identify that as S. 1635, the ``Defend America'' bill.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I now move to proceed to S. 1635 and send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the cloture vote occur at 2:15 p.m. on Tuesday, June 4, and that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the Select Committee on Intelligence has received a request from the Office of the Inspector General of the Central Intelligence Agency for copies of committee records relevant to the Inspector General's pending inquiry into the Zona Rosa massacre of six American citizens in El Salvador in 1985. Mr. President, this resolution would authorize the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, acting jointly, to provide committee records in response to this request, utilizing appropriate security procedures.