Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, earlier today, I was joined by a number of my Senate colleagues, and by Congresswoman Andrea Seastrand of California in announcing the introduction of legislation to designate the Federal Triangle project as the ``Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center.'' Like most who work in Washington, I have enjoyed watching the monthly progress made on the construction of what, upon its completion in 1997, will be an important addition to this city's architectural landscape. And in my view, Congresswoman Andrea Seastrand had come up with exactly the right name for the project. President Reagan always believed that Government and the private sector should be partners and not adversaries. And the Federal Triangle project--authorized during the Reagan administration--was constructed in that spirit. As Senator Moynihan, who is a cosponsor of this legislation, was the driving force behind congressional approval of the project. And he pointed out on the Senate floor in 1987 that the project's construction involved no appropriated Federal funds. Rather, money was borrowed from the Federal Financing Bank, and will be repaid with revenues derived from leasing office space. It is anticipated [[Page S 15120]] that after 30 years, the Federal Government will own the building outright. It is also fitting to name a building that will house an international trade center after President Reagan, because no one stood stronger for free and fair trade than he did. While naming a building can certainly not repay the debt America owes to Ronald Reagan, it is a fitting tribute to a man who transformed this city, this country, and the entire world. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, earlier today, I was joined by a number of my Senate colleagues, and by Congresswoman Andrea Seastrand of California in announcing the introduction of legislation to designate the Federal Triangle project as the ``Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center.'' Like most who work in Washington, I have enjoyed watching the monthly progress made on the construction of what, upon its completion in 1997, will be an important addition to this city's architectural landscape. And in my view, Congresswoman Andrea Seastrand had come up with exactly the right name for the project. President Reagan always believed that Government and the private sector should be partners and not adversaries. And the Federal Triangle project--authorized during the Reagan administration--was constructed in that spirit. As Senator Moynihan, who is a cosponsor of this legislation, was the driving force behind congressional approval of the project. And he pointed out on the Senate floor in 1987 that the project's construction involved no appropriated Federal funds. Rather, money was borrowed from the Federal Financing Bank, and will be repaid with revenues derived from leasing office space. It is anticipated [[Page S 15120]] that after 30 years, the Federal Government will own the building outright. It is also fitting to name a building that will house an international trade center after President Reagan, because no one stood stronger for free and fair trade than he did. While naming a building can certainly not repay the debt America owes to Ronald Reagan, it is a fitting tribute to a man who transformed this city, this country, and the entire world. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I wish to announce that the Special Committee on Aging will hold a hearing on Thursday, October 12, 1995, at 9:30 a.m., in room 628 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The hearing will discuss health care fraud.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send a substitute amendment to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate turn to consideration of calendar No. 202, H.R. 927, the Cuba sanctions bill.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I will just say a word and then turn it over to the distinguished Senator of the committee, Senator Helms. Senator Pell is here, Senator Dodd is here, and they will continue the debate. I want to say just as I leave--not leave, but leave the floor, that is, not leave the Senate--I am not certain what the administration policy is toward Cuba. President Clinton says he wants to tighten the embargo on Castro's Cuba, and then the White House issues veto threats on the legislation which toughens sanctions. President Clinton says he wants to increase pressure on Castro, and then he cuts a secret deal with him and changes the U.S. embargo and allows more money to flow to Castro. But whatever the administration's policy is, the Senate will have a chance to speak on this legislation. We will have to speak for the Cuban people who have been muzzled so long by Castro's tyranny. The choice in this legislation is simple: Do you want to increase pressure on the last dictatorship in the hemisphere, or let Castro off the hook. Many in the United States actually want to end the embargo, and in the coming debate, they will argue about property rights, legal interpretations, free trade, about many things. But let there be no mistake, passing this bill is about supporting democratic change in Cuba and sending Fidel Castro the way of all other dictators of Latin America. Let me also indicate that they have had a very good debate on the House floor on this similar bill, the Burton bill, the Burton- Torricelli bill on the House side. Sixty-seven Democrats had strong bipartisan support on the measure. It passed with strong bipartisan support. I know we have bipartisan support here. I hope we will have enough support that we can obtain the 60 votes on cloture, pass this bill, go on to conference and send it to the President. I also hope that we do not grant a visa, of course, to Castro to visit the United Nations any time in the future. I assume that may be in the works. This is an important bill, an important debate. It is about the last dictator in this hemisphere. I hope that we will tighten sanctions, which is precisely what the bill sponsored by Senator Helms, myself, and others does. There are a number of cosponsors, as the Record will reflect, Republicans and Democrats alike, cosponsoring this bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I indicate to my colleagues that there will be no more votes today. There is an agreement that there will be no amendments offered today. There will be lengthy discussions on both sides, as I understand it. So there will not be any votes. I give my colleagues advance notice of that.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send a cloture motion to the desk.

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

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. For the information of all Senators, the proceedings from this morning's joint meeting to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II will be printed under the record of House proceedings. The cost of printing the transcripts of speeches for the records of both Chambers is prohibitively expensive. I urge my colleagues who were unable to attend to take special notice of this tribute to Americans who selflessly served their country.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I agree with the distinguished Senator from Kansas. America needs a work force that is trained for private sector occupations--especially those generated by small businesses and entrepreneurs--that will help ensure a competitive U.S. economy. I believe the system must be private sector driven to ensure it is flexibile and responsive to the evolving dynamics of the labor market, international competition, and technological advances over the coming years and decades. I believe small business should be able to compete with the public sector in the delivery of training and employment services and in the operation of the one-stop centers. If the consolidation of Federal programs is to adequately reflect the realities of today's labor market, business--particularly small business--absolutely must play a lead role in ensuring workers are equipped with the skills needed by America's employers. Incorporating competition and free market principles into training services at the local level will also encourage public sector programs to operate more effectively. Opportunities for private-public sector competition in the implementation of local work force development plans is an area strongly pursued by U.S. business interests. In particular, I want to recognize the work by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers in this area and welcome their input in education and job training services on behalf of small business. Does the distinguished chairman of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee agree on the unique role of small business?

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I thank my colleague from Kansas for opening discussion on the important role that business brings to the table. With strong private sector input, efforts to turn primary responsibility for education programs to the State and local levels will hold much promise.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I want to thank my colleagues Senator Kassebaum and Senator Kennedy. This was a priority matter, and it was completed on schedule, on time. I thank both my colleagues for that.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. Speaker, Mr. President, my House and Senate colleagues and fellow veterans, and I know there are many here today and many in the gallery, men and women: I might add, as I have been sitting there listening to other speakers, you think about a lot of things. I thought about Percy Jones General Hospital, where Dan Inouye was the best bridge player in the hospital. He played all night long and all day. I remember Col. Philip Hart. The Hart Building is named after Colonel Hart. We were on the same ward together. I was a second lieutenant; he was a colonel. He was out running errands for me. I couldn't believe it, but it happened. You think about your best friends who didn't come back. You think about a lot of things. And then you think about what Oliver Wendell Holmes said. He said, ``In our youth, our hearts were touched by fire.'' I think the same is true for my generation. Our hearts were also touched by fire as we united from the front line to the factory line to save the world for democracy. And I know I speak again for all veterans here today, men and women, in saying that we consider ourselves fortunate that we returned home after the war and today, like every day, we should remember those courageous Americans who made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. Americans like 23-year-old Lt. William Ford, Jr., who lost his life in an Air Force training mission on October 1, 1943; and Americans like his 21-year-old brother, Sgt. John Ford, who was killed less than 2 weeks after William when his aircraft was shot down over New Guinea 52 years ago tomorrow. And with us on the House floor this morning is William and John Ford's mother, Mrs. Anastasia Ford. Mrs. Ford, would you please stand? To you, Mrs. Ford, and to all those loved ones who gave their life for their country, America offers our respect and our appreciation and our enduring prayers. And you also have our promise that the best way, indeed the only way, to honor the memory of David and John Ford is to ensure the survival of the ideals for which they fought and died. [[Page H 9792]] That was the message delivered from this podium just over 50 years ago when my hero, Dwight Eisenhower, addressed the House of Representatives. We are honored that his son, John, is here today. John, we are honored to have you here. Please stand, John. And General Eisenhower came that day to thank the 3 million American soldiers who had served under his command and to express our thanks for the support we had received from the home front. And he spoke for the ages when he said that, and I quote, ``There is no doubt that our people's spirit of determination will continue to fire this nation through ordeals yet to come.''. And one of the great lessons of this century and the legacy of an entire generation is that Ike was right. America has faced many ordeals in the past half century, and the spirit of determination of the American people fired our country through all of them. So as we remember and pay tribute to the last 50 years, we must look ahead to the next 50 years, particularly Senator Thurmond, to the ordeals we face now and those yet to come: Ordeals like the budget deficit that threatens our children's tomorrow and the scourge of drugs that threaten their today. In looking forward, it should become clear to my generation and to all generations that our work is not yet finished and our mission is not yet complete. So as we leave this Chamber today let this Congress and the American people resolve to face our ordeals and tackle our problems with the same spirit of determination, the same courage and the same unwavering belief in the rightness of our mission that we displayed 50 years ago when our hearts were touched by fire and when America saved the world.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I would just indicate to my colleagues that we will have morning business until the hour of 9:30 this morning. At 9:30 we begin consideration of S. 143, a bill that consolidates Federal employment training programs. We had a time agreement reached on this bill on September 15 allowing 15 amendments to the bill. There will be no votes prior to 2:15 today. However, rollcall votes can be expected on or in relation to amendments to S. 143 from 2:15 on throughout the day. Between 11:30 and 12:30 this morning, there will be a period for morning business with time controlled by Senators Hutchison and Nunn, and then, as customary, we will recess from 12:30 to 2:15 for weekly policy conferences.

Mr. DOLE. I thank the President pro tempore.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I want to say a few words in support of the amendment offered by my distinguished colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch. Unfortunately, the litigation explosion now plaguing our country does not stop at the prison gate. The number of lawsuits filed by inmates has grown astronomically--From 6,600 in 1975 to more than 39,000 in 1994. These suits can involve such grievances as insufficient storage locker space, a defective haircut by a prison barber, the failure of prison officials to invite a prisoner to a pizza party for a departing prison employee, and yes, being served chunky peanut butter instead of the creamy variety. These legal claims may sound far-fetched--almost funny--but unfortunately, prisoner litigation does not operate in a vacuum. Frivolous lawsuits filed by prisoners tie up the courts, waste valuable legal resources, and affect the quality of justice enjoyed by law- abiding citizens. The time and money spent defending these cases are clearly time and money better spent prosecuting violent criminals, fighting illegal drugs, or cracking down on consumer fraud. The National Association of Attorneys General estimates that inmate civil rights litigation costs the States more than $81 million each year. Of course, most of these costs are incurred defending lawsuits that have no merit whatsoever. This amendment will help put an end to the inmate litigation fun-and- games. It establishes a garnishment procedure so that prisoners, like law-abiding citizens, will have to pay the court fees associated with filing a lawsuit. It requires State prisoners to exhaust all administrative remedies before filing suit. It would allow Federal courts to revoke the good-time credits accumulated by a prisoner who files a frivolous suit. And it prohibits prisoners from suing for mental or emotional injury, absent a prior showing of physical injury. The second major section of this amendment establishes some tough new guidelines for Federal courts when evaluating legal challenges to prison conditions. These guidelines will work to restrain liberal Federal judges who see violations of constitutional rights in every prisoner complaint and who have used these complaints to micromanage State and local prison systems. More specifically, by requiring Federal judges to meet a high burden of proof before imposing a prison cap order, this amendment will help keep convicted criminals behind bars where they belong. Mr. HATCH addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me first indicate that we are making progress. I am not certain where, but somewhere we must be making progress. It is still our hope we might be able to complete business sometime tomorrow or Monday. We are still in the Finance Committee. We have 40 or 50 amendments left in the Finance Committee to deal with. I do not see how we are going to do all that today. In addition, one urgent thing we need to address is the continuing resolution because we have about 435 House Members who would like to depart and they cannot do that until we pass the continuing resolution. I am advised by the Senator from New Hampshire, [Mr. Gregg], that he intends to offer a sense-of-the-Senate amendment with reference to Bosnia on the continuing resolution once it is before the Senate. It is our hope, if it is necessary to offer that amendment, it can be offered on the State-Justice-Commerce bill. And also to notify the Senator from Texas his last day on the Appropriations Committee is when we finish this bill. So if the Senator is in a hurry to leave, why, we hope he will cooperate in any event. So I do not know precisely what to do here. I would like to expedite this and everybody be able to go home tonight and not come back for 8 days. But to do that we have to make some accommodations one way or the other. And we would like to pass the pending bill yet today. Senator Hatfield is insisting we pass the Labor-HHS appropriations bill so all the appropriations bills and the CR will have passed the Senate. This does not mean they are not going to be vetoed. They may not get to conference. So if the Democratic leader has any suggestions, I will be happy to hear them.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, under the unanimous consent agreement just adopted, the committee amendment adding the text of the Equal Opportunity Act to the underlying bill has been withdrawn. After a lengthy process of consultation and drafting, I introduced the Equal Opportunity Act earlier this year. The act has been referred to the Labor Committee. This past June, the Labor Committee held hearings on Executive Order 11246, one of the Federal Government's major affirmative action policies. And I expect the committee to hold hearings on my bill sometime later this year. The Small Business Committee, at my request, has also held hearings on the SBA's section 8(A) set-aside program. And the Subcommittee on the Constitution, under the leadership of Senator Hank Brown, intends to convene a general series of hearings on affirmative action as it operates in both the public and private sectors. One hearing has already occurred. The next hearing will probably take place sometime in October. In my view, inserting the Equal Opportunity Act into this appropriations bill would have short-circuited the hearing process and, in fact, would have harmed the bill's chances for passage in the Senate. Of course, I strongly support the Equal Opportunity Act because I believe the Federal Government should be in the business of uniting all Americans, not dividing us through the use of quotas, set-asides, and other preferences. In fact I view the Equal Opportunity Act not only as a piece of legislation, But as an opportunity to bring Americans together in a thoughtful, rational discussion about race in America. This discussion is long overdue. So, Mr. President, I look forward to continued hearings on this important issue. And I fully expect the Senate to consider the Equal Opportunity Act at an appropriate time in the near future. Mr. GRASSLEY addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I rise to offer an amendment, together with the distinguished Senator from South Dakota, Senator Pressler, which would require the President to certify that certain conditions have been met before United States sanctions on Serbia can be lifted. These conditions include an end to systematic violations of the civil and human rights of the people of Kosova; the restoration of Kosova's political autonomy as exercised prior to 1984; and an end to the Belgrade regime's support for Serb separatists in Bosnia and Croatia. In my view this amendment is very important. For all of the administration talk of peace being around the corner, the situation in the former Yugoslavia is hardly peaceful--or stable. We cannot and must not forget that in Kosova, 2 million Albanians are in their 6th year of martial law. Not only are they disenfranchised, unemployed, and living what is at best a subsistence existence, they are victims of brutal and systematic repression. The Serbian Government has deployed thousands of interior police to ensure its regime of terror in Kosova. Furthermore, despite his image as peacemaker, Serbian President Milosevic continues to support aggression against Bosnia, and the occupation of Croatia. The Yugoslav Army is assisting Bosnian Serb forces--who are still attacking Bosnian towns. The sanctions imposed on Serbia and Montenegro are essentially the only leverage the United States--and the international community--has chosen to use to influence the behavior of the Milosevic regime. These sanctions should not be lifted until the situation in Kosova is resolved--even if a peace plan is agreed to for Bosnia. One of America's key objectives should be stability in the region, and this goal cannot be achieved without a military balance in Bosnia and Croatia, and without resolving the question of Kosova. Although originally Kosova was on the agenda of EU and U.N. sponsored talks on the former Yugoslavia, negotiating efforts since 1992 have ignored Kosova. This is short-sighted and a serious error. Both the Bush and [[Page S 14686]] Clinton Administrations have publicly recognized that a conflict in Kosova could draw in Albania and our NATO allies. Therefore, I believe that sanctions should not be lifted on Serbia until a comprehensive settlement which includes Kosova, is not only agreed to, but implemented. We must take a long term view, not a short term view, and pursue policies which can enhance stability. kosova

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, there are few examples that better illustrate the case of good intentions gone awry than the Legal Services Corporation. Created in 1974 to relieve the burden of an expensive legal system for poor Americans, the Legal Services Corporation has become in many instances the instrument for bullying ordinary Americans to satisfy a liberal agenda that has been repeatedly rejected by the voters. Mr. President, I wish to make clear at the outset that I support efforts to help low-income Americans by ensuring that they are not shut off from legal redress, especially where important constitutional rights are concerned. And I also have no doubt that the existing legal services framework has produced good programs and employs good people who are devoted to providing the very best representation to those who otherwise could not afford it. But as the Washington Post noted on September 18, 1995, the model of providing legal services to the poor has become twisted into something ``more ambitious: a powerful network of poverty lawyers funded by Washington and backed up by university-based centers of expertise, that would help not just individual clients but `the poor' as a whole.'' There are two points to be made about this outcome: First, despite many dedicated lawyers who have undoubtedly helped poor clients through Legal Services grants, the inevitable result of this shift in focus has been to hurt those whom the Corporation was created to help. The impoverished individual who has run-of-the-mill, but important, legal needs is shunted aside by Legal Services lawyers in search of sexy issues and deep pockets. And in some cases the agenda of helping the poor as a class has perpetuated and deepened the worst aspects of a welfare state that has utterly failed poor Americans. Second, this twisting of the original purpose of the Legal Services Corporation is antidemocratic. In most cases, what passes as a class action lawsuit--whether it addresses welfare benefits, or employer- employee relations--is nothing more than a policy dispute that should be, and often has been, the subject of the legislative process. To subvert the legal system in order to overturn legislative judgments is fundamentally at odds with our system of government. How did this happen? A lack of accountability. The very structure of the Legal Services Corporation has produced this result. Although the Corporation has an 11-member board, the reality is that money flows to over 300 local nonprofit groups with attorneys accountable to no one. This is not an accident. With the best of intentions, the idea was that the Corporation should be insulated from political pressures. But this laudable goal was taken too far. Laws addressing the misappropriation of Federal funds, for example, are not even applicable to the Corporation under the terms of the act creating it. Thus, this is not a case of passing more laws and creating an increasingly complex regime to govern the operation of the Legal Services Corporation. The problem cannot be papered over. The problem flows from the present structure of how we provide legal services to the poor. The time has come to end this abuse of the legal process and return to the original purpose--providing the means to help the poorest among us to cope with their genuine and individual legal needs. I am committed to providing some mechanism that provides legal assistance to the impoverished among us. But in this, as in so many other areas, it is time to return power and responsibility back to where it belongs--the States. Supporters of the present Legal Services framework will undoubtedly claim that the poor will suffer. I believe that is wrong. The legislation before us provides a responsible response to the legitimate legal needs of the poor--a block grant program that can be run by those closest to the needs of their citizens and implemented with the appropriate safeguards that have heretofore eluded the Federal Government. Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to support repeal of the Legal Services Corporation Act.

Mr. DOLE

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

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

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