Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

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

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I will just give my colleagues an update on where we are on the items to be completed before the recess. The State-Justice-Commerce appropriations bill. I understand there is some great progress being made on that bill. The Interior appropriations conference report is coming from the House on Friday. We did have a rollcall vote on the bill. I am not certain we will need a rollcall vote on the conference report. We have had a request for a vote on one or the other. The DOD appropriations conference report is coming from the House Friday. A rollcall vote was taken on that bill, too. If somebody requests a vote, obviously we will have one. The continuing resolution arrived from the House this afternoon. We hope to pass that by unanimous consent. Then the adjournment resolution, which I do not think there will be a vote on. Then the Senate Finance Committee needs to complete action on their portion of the reconciliation package, and I could announce to members of the Finance Committee right now we have staff on each side going through a number of amendments to see if they, staff, can agree, Republican and Democratic staff, and put them in a little ``cleared'' pile and a ``rejected'' pile and then ``above our pay grade'' pile, which will be for Members' consultation. We hope to save a lot of time that way. The chairman has indicated that he will call us back to the Finance Committee meeting as soon as that has been completed. So it seems to me there is no reason for us to be anything but optimistic about next week at this point. Much will depend on the leadership of the distinguished Senator from Texas [Mr. Gramm] and the distinguished Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Hollings].

Mr. DOLE. I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate turn to the consideration of the State-Justice-Commerce appropriations bill.

Mr. DOLE. I will be happy to yield.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 9 a.m. on Thursday, I be recognized to make a motion to proceed to consideration of H.R. 2127; that a vote occur on the motion to proceed at 10 a.m. on Thursday; that the time between 9 a.m. and 10 a.m. be equally divided in the usual form.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that if the motion to proceed does not receive 60 or more votes, there then be a second vote on the motion to proceed at 11 a.m. on Thursday, with the time between votes to be equally divided in the usual form.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that if the second vote on the motion to proceed does not receive 60 votes in the affirmative, the motion automatically be withdrawn.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I think I have explained this. This, in effect, saves a couple of days going through the cloture route, intervening days and all these things. It seems to me we have so many differences on each side that this bill is in great difficulty, notwithstanding the splendid efforts made by the managers, particularly the chairman of the subcommittee. But it also seems to me if we are not going to have any movement on the bill, we at least ought to make the effort and then withdraw the motion to proceed and lay the bill aside. That would leave us one additional bill, State, Justice, Commerce appropriations to deal with yet this week, and also the continuing resolution, and also to complete in the Finance Committee and the Agriculture Committee our reconciliation obligations. I think the other committees, as far as I know, have completed them. The Finance Committee will meet this evening as soon as we recess, which will be in a few moments. So I hope this procedure will expedite something. I am not certain what. Maybe it will expedite getting out this week. Hopefully, this may not happen, but I have discussed this with the manager, Senator Specter, after we have these two votes, if we do not receive 60 votes, maybe then we can convince our colleagues on each side to let us pass this by voice vote, send it to conference, and get it down to the President. He already said he is going to veto it. There is no question about a veto. The veto cannot be overridden. Then we initiate a new bill in the House, it will come back to the Senate, and then we have our fight sometime probably late October. In the meantime, it will be wrapped in the continuing resolution.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I thank my colleagues and the managers. Mr. LAUTENBERG addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE. That does not include Finance.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I wonder if I might inquire of the managers when they believe we may be able to complete action on this bill? It is my understanding it is going to be vetoed, but there are still a lot of amendments on the other side. I am not certain how many require rollcalls. If we are going to complete action on two additional bills, Labor-HHS and State-Justice-Commerce, and this is our third day on this bill, I do not know how we can do two others in 2 days. So if anybody knows, when might we complete action on this bill? Plus we will recess the Senate so we will be able to have meetings of the Finance Committee, so we probably will not do anything after this bill the rest of the day. Mr. BOND addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I am honored to have the opportunity to welcome, on behalf of the entire Senate, a distinguished delegation from the European Parliament here for the 43d European Parliament and U.S. Congress interparliamentary meeting. Led by Mr. Alan Donnelly from the United Kingdom and Ms. Karla Peijs of the Netherlands, the 18-member delegation is here to meet with Members of Congress and other American officials to discuss matters of mutual concern. No doubt about it, the European Parliament plays a pivotal role in shaping the new Europe of the 21st century. There are many challenges ahead--assisting the new democracies as they build free-market economies and defining relations with Russia, among them. Continued contact and good relations between the European Parliament and the U.S. Congress are essential in developing better economic ties with Europe and in reinforcing our common goals. I ask my colleagues to join me in welcoming our distinguished guests from the European Parliament. [Applause.] Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a list of the delegation be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on September 27, 1995, at 2 p.m. to hold a hearing on intelligence matters.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full Committee on Environment and Public Works be granted permission to conduct a nomination hearing to receive testimony from Kathleen A. McGinty to be a member of the Council on Environmental Quality, Wednesday, September 27, at 9:30 a.m., Hearing Room (SD-406).

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Labor and Human Resources be authorized to meet for an executive session, during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 27, 1995, at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry be allowed to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 27, 1995, at 9 a.m., in SR-332, to mark up the committee's budget reconciliation instructions.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, September 27, 1995, to conduct a markup of S. 650, the Economic Growth and Regulatory Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until the hour of 9 a.m. on Thursday, September 28, 1995; that following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and then the majority leader be recognized as under the previous order.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I will just say for the information of all Senators, under the agreement that has just been obtained, I will make a motion to proceed to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill tomorrow morning. A rollcall vote will occur on the motion to proceed at 10 a.m., and, in accordance with the unanimous consent agreement, a second vote will occur at 11 a.m. on the motion if 60 votes are not obtained on the first vote. If 60 votes are not obtained on the motion to proceed on the second vote, it is expected I will recess the Senate until later in the afternoon on Thursday to enable the Finance Committee to meet to complete reconciliation instructions. The Senate is then expected to reconvene later to begin consideration of Commerce, State, Justice appropriations. Therefore, the Senate could be asked to be in session late into the evening on Thursday in order to complete the appropriations process prior to the end of the fiscal year. I also will indicate that I think the House will take up the continuing resolution tomorrow. I talked with Speaker Gingrich this morning. He indicated earlier, at least I was informed, he had signed off on the continuing resolution, [[Page S 14431]] and they will take that up tomorrow, as I understand it, in the House. Then it will come to the Senate. It is my hope we can dispose of that without amendment and perhaps by voice vote.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I now ask for its second reading.

Mr. DOLE. I thank my colleague from Pennsylvania. Senator Daschle would have objected and appreciates you doing that for him.

Mr. DOLE. Therefore, I ask for its first reading.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I am pleased to join today with my distinguished colleagues, Senators Hatch, Kyl, Abraham, Hutchison, Reid, Thurmond, Specter, Santorum, D'Amato, Gramm, and Bond, in introducing the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995. This legislation is a new and improved version of S. 866, which I introduced earlier this year to address the alarming explosion in the number of frivolous lawsuits filed by State and Federal prisoners. It also builds on the stop-turning-out-prisoners legislation, championed by Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison and Spencer Abraham, by making it much more difficult for Federal judges to issue orders directing the release of convicted criminals from prison custody. inmate litigation Unfortunately, the litigation explosion now plaguing our country does not stop at the prison gate. According to Enterprise Institute scholar Walter Berns, the number of ``due-process and cruel and unusual punishment'' complaints filed by prisoners 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. The list goes on and on. 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. Let me be more specific. According the Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods, a staggering 45 percent of the civil cases filed in Arizona's Federal courts last year were filed by State prisoners. That means that 20,000 prisoners in Arizona filed almost as many cases as Arizona's 3.5 million law-abiding citizens. And most of these prisoner lawsuits were filed free of charge. No court costs. No filing fees. This is outrageous and it must stop. garnishment Mr. President, I happen to believe that prisons should be just that-- prisons, not law firms. That is why the Prison Litigation Reform Act proposes several important reforms that would dramatically reduce the number of meritless prisoner lawsuits. For starters, the act would require inmates who file lawsuits to pay the full amount of their court fees and other costs. Many prisoners filing lawsuits today in Federal court claim indigent status. As indigents, prisoners are generally not required to pay the fees that normally accompany the filing of a lawsuit. In other words, there is no economic disincentive to going to court. The Prison Litigation Reform Act would change this by establishing a garnishment procedure: If a prisoner is unable to fully pay court fees and other costs at the time of filing a lawsuit, 20 percent of the funds in his trust account would be garnished for this purpose. Every month thereafter, an additional 20 percent of the income credited to the prisoner's account would be garnished, until the full amount of the court fees and costs are paid-off. When average law-abiding citizens file a lawsuit, they recognize that there could be an economic downside to going to court. Convicted criminals should not get preferential treatment: If a law-abiding citizen has to pay the costs associated with a lawsuit, so too should a convicted criminal. In addition, when prisoners know that they will have to pay these costs--perhaps not at the time of filing, but [[Page S 14414]] eventually--they will be less inclined to file a lawsuit in the first place. judicial screening Another provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act would require judicial screening, before docketing, of any civil complaint filed by a prisoner seeking relief from the Government. This provision would allow a Federal judge to immediately dismiss a complaint if either of two conditions is met: First, the complaint does not state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or second, the defendant is immune from suit. other reforms The Prison Litigation Reform Act would also allow Federal courts to revoke any good-time credits accumulated by a prisoner who files a frivolous suit. It requires State prisoners to exhaust all administrative remedies before filing a lawsuit in Federal court. And it prohibits prisoners from suing the Government for mental or emotional injury, absent a prior showing of physical injury. If enacted, all of these provisions would go a long way to take the frivolity out of frivolous inmate litigation. stop turning out prisoners The second major section of the Prison Litigation Reform Act 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 on constitutional rights in every prisoner complaint and who have used these complaints to micromanage State and local prison systems. Perhaps the most pernicious form of judicial micromanagement is the so-called prison population cap. In 1993, for example, the State of Florida put 20,000 prisoners on early release because of a prison cap order issued by a Federal judge who thought the Florida system was overcrowded and thereby inflected cruel and unusual punishment on the State's prisoners. And, then, there's the case of Philadelphia, where a court-ordered prison cap has put thousands of violent criminals back on the city's streets, often with disastrous consequences. As Pro. John Diiulio has pointed out: ``Federal Judge Norma Shapiro has single-handedly decriminalized property and drug crimes in the City of Brotherly Love * * * Judge Shapiro has done what the city's organized crime bosses never could; namely, turn the town into a major drug smuggling port.'' By establishing tough new conditions that a Federal court must meet before issuing a prison cap order, this bill will help slam-shut the revolving prison door. conclusion Finally, Mr. President, I want to express my special thanks to Arizona Attorney General Grant Woods and to the National Association of Attorneys General. Their input these past several months has been invaluable as we have attempted to draft a better, more effective piece of legislation. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of the Prison Litigation Reform, as well as a letter from the National Association of Attorneys General and a section-by-section summary, be reprinted in the Record.