Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Madam President, we have agreed to take this bill up at 2 o'clock to accommodate a lot of our colleagues who were on a plane all night. I thank the Senator from New Hampshire for not objecting to that process. We are going to take up H.R. 1833, which is a bill to ban partial- birth abortions, and I think it is worth noting this bill passed by an overwhelming majority in the House. I know there will be efforts to amend the House bill and refer the bill to committee. I urge my colleagues to reject those efforts, because it is a straightforward bill. This isolates one procedure, one used up to the ninth month of pregnancy, and one procedure alone. It is not calling into question some of the larger abortion issues that so often divide us. The American Medical Association's Council on Legislation voted unanimously to enforce H.R. 1833. A member of that council described it as not ``a recognized medical technique.'' The overwhelming majority vote in the House--including both those who consider themselves pro-choice and pro-life--underscores that this bill deserves immediate passage. After hearings and committee work in the House, nothing will be served by further delay. Those who seek to amend it are in effect trying to deprive this bill of any real meaning or significance. The only people in America trying to defeat this bill are abortion extremists who believe that no compassion, no common sense, should ever get in the way of an anything-goes approach. I do not think reasonable people, whatever their views on abortion, agree with that position. Opponents of this bill know that. As a result, we will instead hear soothing claims that opponents only want to amend the bill. There are those, for example, who argue that this bill needs to be amended to provide for an exception in cases where the life of the mother is at stake. [[Page S 16731]] However, the bill already provides an affirmative defense in such cases. More to the point is the fact that arguments about life or health of the mother are designed to scare people and ignore the facts. The facts are these: This procedure is a 3-day procedure--that is right, 3 days. This is not something where a quick medical decision is called for in a life-and-death situation and opponents know it. Doctor Pamela Smith, director of medical education in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at Mount Sinai Hospital in Chicago, IL, put it best: Doctor Smith states unequivocally: There are absolutely no obstetrical situations encountered in this country which require a partially delivered human fetus to be destroyed to preserve the health of the mother. This is a straightforward and balanced bill that allows the Congress to do something it rarely has a chance to do: Step past divisive abortion arguments of the past, stand up for those who cannot defend themselves and do it in a bipartisan way. I urge my colleagues not to allow those who have a very different agenda to defeat or delay this bill's passage. I hope as we get into the debate that we can debate this bill and not get into unrelated matters that have no possible reference to this bill. This is an important issue. So, hopefully, we can complete action on it or do whatever the opponents wish to do, if they are going to send it back to committee. I think there are a couple Members absent who support that approach and a couple absent who support another approach. Perhaps we can have that vote tomorrow. This is worthy of debate, and I thank my colleagues for letting us proceed to it. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOLE

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

Mr. DOLE

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

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, was leaders' time reserved?

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, Congress is now trying to put in place a plan that will reduce the tax burden on the American people, produce growth, create jobs, and put us on a responsible path to a balanced budget. In the midst of this monumental undertaking, President Clinton would like to get Congress to give him new fast-track trade negotiating authority. He wants to negotiate more trade agreements with more countries. In fact, he has already started negotiations for new trade agreements even without fast-track authority. Mr. President, I believe it would be a mistake to extend new fast- track authority at this time. There are a number of good reasons, but in my view first and most important is President Clinton's complete failure to explain to the American people why we need yet another trade agreement at this time. I believe the President's effort to get new fast-track authority has most Americans shaking their heads, wondering ``Why does the President seem to want to rush into more free-trade agreements with as many countries, regions, or trading blocks as he can?'' Mr. President, the fact is we recently concluded two major trade agreements, GATT and NAFTA. I believe it only makes good common sense to step back a little and assess the results. The ink is hardly dry on the largest trade agreement in history, the Uruguay round of the GATT, which came into force on January 1 of this year. We do not really know what the impact of that agreement will be. We had many predictions last year, favorable and unfavorable, about the potential impact. But the agreement is unprecedented in its coverage, creating new rules for textiles, agriculture, services. It makes massive tariff cuts and lowers barriers worldwide. It establishes an entirely new and untested dispute settlement regime. We need time to assess the impact of what amounts to the largest restructuring of our trading relationships ever. No private entity, no corporation, no small business going through a fundamental restructuring would consider a new merger or acquisition in the middle of that process. Indeed it would be irresponsible. It could endanger the enterprise. So too for the United States as we implement the recent major restructuring of our trade relationships. Instead of new trade agreements, let us proceed with a proposal I made last year to ensure that our sovereignty is not compromised by the new world trade organization. Although I believe the United States stands to gain overall from the GATT Agreement, many Americans remain unconvinced that the WTO will benefit them in the long run. Indeed, there is one important way the WTO could be harmful, and that is if the new dispute settlement system runs out of control. We must never submit to decisions by an unelected WTO bureaucracy if it oversteps its mandate and pursues its own agenda. My legislation, which I had hoped to have passed by now, and I hope we can pass in the near future, would set up a Dispute Settlement Review Commission that would allow us to withdraw from the WTO if our rights are being trampled by bureaucrats in Geneva. This is the kind of legislation we need right now. We need this legislation because it will help to protect American workers and American jobs. We need to have this protection in place as soon as possible before the first WTO decisions start to come. In fact the administration supports my legislation. And yet the administration has been silent on this issue. We have had no cooperation in trying to pass and enact into law a bill that everyone agrees is good for America, good for working Americans, and good for the multilateral trading system. It provides insurance against harm, it is an insurance policy for our sovereignty. What could be more important? Certainly not more trade agreements, because we are choking on new agreements right now. It was just 21 months ago that we entered into another major trade agreement, the North American Free-Trade Agreement. The record for NAFTA is a work in progress. The verdict is not yet in. This is so for a number of reasons. The peso crisis is the most significant, but there has also been significant disappointment with the operation of that agreement, and with the level of cooperation we have experienced since it went into effect. The operation of the NAFTA dispute settlement mechanism for unfair trade cases has also raised serious concerns in Congress and in the private sector. So we need time to assess the real results of NAFTA as well. I do not know how President Clinton explains to the American people that the provisions of NAFTA, good and bad, should be extended to other countries when we do not yet have a clear picture of how NAFTA has benefited working Americans. We need to know how this agreement has helped the American family. Mr. President, I believe we need to step back from this unprecedented whirlwind of new trade agreements. We need a cooling-off period, a time to digest the results. We need to focus on our domestic house, on the actions we can take here at home that will improve our global competitiveness. But for some reason, the administration seems to be in a great hurry to pile on not just one, but many more trade agreements as soon as possible from Latin America to Asia to Europe. President Clinton seems to be saying ``Don't worry about it--I'll cut a new trade deal now and we'll figure out later if it was good for the American people.'' I have no quarrel with any country that, as part of a program of overall economic reform, pursues a trade agreement with the United States. I admire and applaud countries that eliminate barriers to trade, that reform their economies, that improve the standard of living for their people, that attempt to open up to world trade, to reverse years and decades of ill-conceived, statist policies. Getting the [[Page S 16696]] dead hand of government off the backs of the private sector results in explosive economic growth. The evidence of this is irrefutable as countries around the world throw off the shackles of protectionism, high tariffs, and trade barriers, to the great benefit and enrichment of their people. The United States is the most desirable market in the world. I understand why countries seek to gain ever better access to our market through trade agreements. And no one has been a bigger supporter over the years of breaking down trade barriers worldwide than I have. But Mr. President, a responsible, sober trade policy for America is not measured by the number of trade agreements we conclude with the rest of the world. A responsible, sober trade policy for America is measured by the benefit to the American people, to the American worker, and the American family. Mr. President, another concern that I have, and that Republicans generally have, with fast-track relates to our experience during approval of the two previous trade agreements. This administration has promised that it will add extraneous issues, such as labor and environment and maybe other issues, to any trade agreement it negotiates. I believe that linking trade to the agendas of worker rights and environmentalist activists would be a serious mistake and in the end would harm working Americans. Mr. President, I supported the NAFTA and GATT agreements because I support increased trade and opening foreign markets to U.S. goods and services. However, I did not support the way in which this administration used, and some would say abused, the fast-track procedures for those trade bills. The fast-track rules were the result of an agreement between the Congress and the President. The President agreed to consult with the Congress regularly and indepth on the details of trade agreements under negotiation. In return, Congress agreed to give up the right to amend legislation implementing a trade agreement after its submission to the Congress, and further agreed to consider the implementing legislation in a limited time concluding with an up-or-down vote, without amendment. The fast-track rules were crafted to provide a sensible way for negotiating the elimination of trade barriers with other countries. The purpose of requiring considerable consultation between the President and the Congress was to arrive at a consensus on the content of an acceptable agreement. If you did that, you did not need a lot of amendments. That was the original intent. The fast-track rules were never meant to operate as a vehicle for matters that lay well outside any consensus. Fast-track was never meant to be a vehicle for matters on which there was fundamental disagreement. The fast-track procedures were used effectively for a long time. Through four administrations trade agreements were negotiated and submitted to Congress under fast-track rules, and the process worked pretty well. But when the Clinton administration arrived, this changed. Despite warnings from Republicans, then in the minority, the administration insisted on labor and environment side agreements accompanying the NAFTA. We opposed these side deals for a simple reason: linking trade to other issues like these winds up hurting us more than others. Now the President has stated that if Congress gives him fast-track authority, he is committed to extending these labor and environment provisions to other countries in any trade agreement he concludes with them. Mr. President, this is unacceptable. We cannot and must not burden our trade relationships with the agendas of any number of special- interest groups. The President seems to want to use fast-track once again to advance interests other than trade. We must not permit that to happen. During the GATT debate, we had a similar experience. Despite numerous warnings from Republicans, the President submitted an implementing bill that was full of provisions that had nothing to do with trade. One in particular was an incredible multimillion-dollar handout for a few telecommunications companies. It had no reason to be in that bill. It was strictly special interests, and some would say really special interests because of their links to certain people in the administration. These additional provisions could not be removed, because of the fast-track rules. Members of Congress in both Houses were powerless to act against this abuse of the fast-track procedures. Mr. President, most of us remember these events very clearly. We explicitly warned the administration at the time that stretching the fast-track rules to the breaking point would jeopardize reauthorizing fast-track in the future. Well, Mr. President, as they say, the future is now. I do not believe Congress should extend new fast-track authority until we have had an adequate cooling-off period following the 2 recent major trade agreements and until there is no possibility that the fast-track procedures can be abused. I also believe this is the view of the majority of the American people, and I happen to believe it is the majority of those of us in the Senate on each side of the aisle. The American economy is the most innovative, most technologically advanced and most productive economy in the world. I want to keep it that way. I want to make sure American goods, commodities, and services get a fair opportunity in the world marketplace. I want to tear down unfair trade barriers and make it clear to our trading partners that unfair trade practices that harm American companies and jeopardize American jobs will not be tolerated. Mr. President, we do have an obligation to set a higher standard for the world in the matter of trade relations and economic policy. And in discharging that obligation, we must never give in to the temptation to sacrifice real gains for mere appearances. We do have an obligation to demonstrate to our trading partners our seriousness of purpose in bringing about a more open world trading system. But this is not achieved through a haphazard rush to sign more trade deals with more countries as quickly as possible. Trade agreements are not trophies. A policy that treats them as trophies is wrong and is not in the best interests of America or of working Americans.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Resolution 192, submitted today by this Senator.

Mr. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 10 a.m., Monday, November 6; that following the prayer, the Journal of the proceedings be deemed approved to date, no resolutions come over under the rule, the call of the calendar be dispensed with, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and there then be a period for the transaction of morning business until 1 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Murkowski, 20 minutes; Senator Feinstein, 10 minutes; Senator Daschle or his designee, 60 minutes; Senator Thomas, 60 minutes.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. If there be no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that after the statement by the distinguished Senator from Montana, Senator Baucus, the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will be in a period of morning business on Monday until 1 p.m. At 1 p.m., it is the hope of the majority leader to turn to the consideration of the State Department reorganization bill, S. 908, if agreement can be reached. The Senate may also be asked to turn to other legislative items cleared for action. Senators are reminded that there will be no rollcall votes during Monday's session of the Senate. Under a previous unanimous-consent agreement, the Senate will begin consideration of H.R. 1833, the partial-birth abortion bill, at 11 a.m. Tuesday, November 7. Senators should be reminded that the Senate will adjourn for the Thanksgiving holiday at the close of business on Friday, November 17, to reconvene on Monday, November 27. That is always subject to change without much notice, depending on whether we get all the work done with reference to increasing the debt ceiling and continuing resolution and, hopefully, passage of the conference report on the reconciliation bill and all that going to the President for his review.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be allowed to meet during the Friday, November 3, 1995, session of the Senate for the purpose of conducting a hearing on the nominations of S. Jane Bobbitt, to be Assistant Secretary for Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs at the Department of Commerce; Charles A. Hunnicutt, to be Assistant Secretary for International Aviation at the Department of Transportation; and Nancy E. McFadden, to be general counsel of the Department of Transportation.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the committees have until the hour of 5 p.m. today to file any legislative or executive matters, and further, that the Record remain open until 5 p.m. today for the introduction of bills and statements.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will be in a period of morning business until 1 p.m. At 1 p.m. the Senate could turn to any legislative item cleared for action. Therefore, votes are a possibility. Also, Senators should be reminded that the majority leader has announced that the Senate will adjourn for the Thanksgiving holiday at the close of business on Friday, November 17, to reconvene on Monday, November 27. This coming Monday, it is hopeful that the Senate will be able to turn to the State Department reorganization bill, which has a previous consent of 4 hours. However, no votes will occur on Monday. Mr. President, let me indicate that I know there are a number of matters that will be coming out of committee in the next few days. It may be that there will be an opportunity to proceed to some minor--I should not say minor, they are very important pieces of legislation, but are those which have no opposition or real problems from either side. We would like to dispose of some of those bills in the next 2 weeks.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I, in turn, would like to thank Senator Helms for his cooperation. I know he has been trying and trying to get the State Department bill passed. He is working in good faith. We expect that a managers' amendment will be agreed on shortly and that the Senate will pass a modified version of his legislation. I am pleased that the chairman has lifted his objection, and that we can pass a clean MEPFA, Middle East peace facilitation extension--at least in the Senate. I hope it can be taken up in the House.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, if there be no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I also confirm the Senator from Alaska, Senator Stevens, has, as indicated by the Senator from Illinois, Senator Simon, agreed to have hearings and a markup of an amendment that Senator Simon would have offered to this bill. So there are no amendments, no objections to it proceeding.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Senate now turn to consideration of Calendar No. 220, H.R. 2492, the legislative branch appropriations bill.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following brief statements, the bill be advanced to third reading and final passage occur, all without further objection or amendment.

Mr. DOLE. I will be happy to yield to the manager on the other side and then I will make a brief statement.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague. I am pinch-hitting for Senator Mack of Florida, who is, right now, involved in a very important hearing on the Banking Committee. Let me indicate I will place in the Record at this point a summary of the funding recommendations. As pointed out by my colleague from Washington, this is a reduction of about 8.6 percent. We believe we are setting an example for other branches. There are a number of areas where we made rather significant cuts, also terminating the OTA, for example, something that was not easy for many of my colleagues. But it is an indication we are concerned, we are sincere about a balanced budget, and we are prepared to do our share or more. The bill includes a provision relative to the disposition of the records and property of the Office of Technology Assessment subsequent to its closure. Specifically, the agreement provides that OTA's property and records ``shall be under the administrative control of the Architect of the Capitol.'' The Office of the Senate Historian has raised a concern that this provision not interfere with the transfer of archival material of the Office of Technology Assessment to the legislative archives of the National Archives. It is my understanding that the conferees had no such intent, and that the Architect of the Capitol will only assume temporary, administrative control of the material before transferring appropriate records to the National Archives. It is also my understanding that the Clerk of the House, after discussions with the Secretary of the Senate, has agreed that OTA's archival material shall be treated as records of the Senate and administered according to Senate Resolution 474 of the 96th Congress. This will give the Secretary of the Senate administrative jurisdiction over the archival records. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent a statement of a summary of funding recommendations be printed in the Record at this point.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until 10 a.m., Friday, November 3; that 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 the transaction of morning business until 1 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Thomas, 60 minutes; Senator Daschle or his designee, 60 minutes; Senator Murkowski, 20 minutes; Senator Graham of Florida, 20 minutes; Senator Grams, 10 minutes; Senator Grassley, 10 minutes, and Senator Craig, 10 minutes.

Mr. DOLE

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