Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. DOLE. My understanding is he will not change his mind, but I will be happy to yield.

Mr. DOLE. Let me first yield to the Senator from South Carolina, seeking recognition. I know it is for an accommodation.

Mr. DOLE. I will be happy to yield to the Senator from Iowa.

Mr. DOLE. Is the Senator talking about the Labor-HHS bill?

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. I will yield to the Senator from New Hampshire.

Mr. DOLE. I appreciate the comments of the Senator from New Hampshire. I understand the Senator from Georgia, Senator Nunn, indicated a willingness to sit down with the Senator from New Hampshire to try to work out some language that could be supported. I do not have any idea what he has in mind. Maybe it is precisely what the Senator from New Hampshire already has. Does Senator Nunn have a copy of your resolution?

Mr. DOLE. I certainly have no problem with that. Let me indicate, I am not going to ask consent now on the continuing resolution. There will be an objection or an amendment. I hope we can resolve it. There is not an amendment on the CR. A sense of the Senate would not require concurrence by the [[Page S 14620]] House. But I hope we can pass a clean CR. We promised our colleagues in the House we would try to do that if they do that, because they had people who wanted to offer amendments, too, and they were not permitted on the House side, and they have different rules. I will not make that request at this time. I hope in the meantime those Senators who have an interest in the Bosnia resolution can come together and work out some language. It cannot be that difficult. We passed it before, and the President has indicated to us today at the White House he intends to consult with Congress. So I think it is a fairly moot point, but if we want to vote on a moot point, we have done that from time to time here, too. So I yield the floor. Mr. KERREY addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE. I will be happy to yield.

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. We will take it up before we recess because it is important and should be done. I will be happy to yield to the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, who would like us to complete action on these two bills.

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 ask unanimous consent to print in the Record a letter the President sent to me on October 20, 1993. Let me read one paragraph: I also have made clear that it would be helpful to have a strong expression of support of the United States Congress prior to the participation of U.S. forces in implementation of a Bosnian peace accord. For that reason, I would welcome and encourage congressional authorization of any military involvement in Bosnia.

Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I will use 2 minutes of my leader's time to comment on the pending matter. We had a good meeting with the President this afternoon. Many of us were there, Republicans and Democrats. I think he understands the administration needs to present their case to Congress. I asked three questions, very short questions: How many? How long? And how much? How many American troops, men and women are going to go to Bosnia? How long are they going to be there? And how much will it cost? That is the first thing the American people want to know. I believe we are making progress in that part of the world because of the bipartisan efforts of Members of Congress who have stood firm in support of a small nation, an independent nation, a member of the United Nations, Bosnia and Herzegovina. That plus the Croatian military action a couple of months ago, in my view, moved us along, plus the negotiating efforts by the administration. So I think everybody can take some credit. But the case has not been made to this point. It may be made, perhaps it will be made. The view I had from the President, without quoting anything he said, is that he certainly understood that they would have to come up and make their case. They are going to ask for money, and I think they will go before the Foreign Relations Committee, maybe the Armed Services Committee and maybe make an excellent case. I know how bitter some of the debate was during the gulf crisis, and I know many in this body said we ought to have sanctions, that sanctions would work. We still have sanctions, and Saddam Hussein is still there. It has been years and years, so that was not the right way to go. In any event, I hope that we will do what we should do. We are talking about American lives, American young men and women, and we do need to make a very careful judgment, and I think this sends a strong signal that we will make that careful judgment. I thank my colleague.

Mr. DOLE

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.

Mr. DOLE. Madam President, there will be 4 minutes evenly divided between the votes, and I ask unanimous consent that the second vote be 10 minutes in length.

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

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Madam President, before moving to the vote, I would like to take up the CR, which has now been cleared on each side. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to the consideration of House Joint Resolution 108.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table.

Mr. DOLE

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. 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. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now resume legislative session.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent that the President be immediately notified that the Senate has given its consent to this nomination.