Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I will make it subject to that.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? I need to go, but I will say this has been around about 8 months. It should not come as any great surprise. It is not major legislation. Many pieces of major legislation start by consent. It is drafted by--almost by the administration. It has been in the Finance Committee. We have had hearings on it. We did not bring it to the floor without hearings. It is a promise made to me. Maybe they do not--maybe promises do not mean anything by the President of the United States and by the trade representative. They did not guarantee it would get through the Congress. It may not get through the House. I did not know anybody had an objection. It has been around here for 8 months and everybody knew at the time--at least most everybody last November--when I appeared with the President in the Rose Garden and said I would support GATT if they would make these changes. We thought they were necessary so we would not have a faceless, nameless bureaucrat in Geneva deciding what the future might be for American jobs. So we pursued it. Certainly the Senator has a right to object, and we will be back here in September, but I must say when the chairman of the Finance Committee, the committee of jurisdiction, tells me today, well, we have taken care of that for you, I assumed it was done. Any Member has a right to object. I could object to all the nominees, but I did not pursue that course. The Senator is within his rights. I hope that he will look at it carefully and maybe decide it is not so bad after all.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that following the statement by the Senator from West Virginia, the Senate stand in adjournment under the provisions of House Concurrent Resolution 92.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that any statements be inserted in the Congressional Record as if read; that the Senate take one vote on the resolutions of ratification to be considered as separate votes; further, that when the resolutions of ratification are voted upon, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table; that the President be notified of the Senate's action, and that following disposition of the treaties, the Senate return to legislative session.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask for consideration of the resolutions before the Senate by a division vote.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to executive session to consider Executive Calendar Nos. 4 through 10. I further ask unanimous consent that the treaties be considered as having passed through their various parliamentary stages up to and including the presentation of the resolutions of ratification; that all committee provisos, reservations, understandings, et cetera, be considered agreed to. [[Page S 12523]]

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, are we back to legislative session?

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, all too often in our political discourse, we concentrate on the differences separating the two parties, rather than emphasizing those areas on which there is agreement or at least the potential for agreement. Last week, the Democratic leadership council--through its think tank, the progressive policy institute--issued an important paper outlining its views on affirmative action. Although I do not agree with every point made in this paper, it does suggest that there is ample room for Republicans and openminded Democrats to forge a new consensus on the meaning of equal opportunity. I have three observations about the DLC paper that I would like to share now with my Senate colleagues. One. The paper calls for the ``phase-out'' of mandatory preferences in contract set-asides, public jobs, and hiring by private firms that do business with the Government on the grounds that these preferences ``put Government in the business of institutionalizing racial distinctions.'' The DLC says that these distinctions are ``hardly a good idea for a democracy held together by common civic deals that transcend group identity.'' This position is very similar, if not identical, to the principle underlying the Equal Opportunity Act of 1995, which I introduced late last month with Congressman Charles Canady of Florida and more than 80 other Congressional Republicans. The Equal Opportunity Act would prohibit the Federal Government from granting preferences to anyone on the basis of race or gender in three key areas: Federal employment, Federal contracting, and federally conducted programs. The DLC apparently supports this proposition, but wants a gradual phase-in of any ban on group preferences, not their immediate elimination. In other words, our difference is one of timing, not one of principle. It is my hope, however, that the DLC will come to understand that if discrimination is wrong, it is wrong today as well as tomorrow, and ought to be ended immediately. In fact, the DLC goes much further than the Equal Opportunity Act by calling for the outright repeal of ``Lyndon Johnson's 1965 Executive order requiring Federal contractors to adopt minority hiring goals and timetables.'' In its paper, the DLC argues that these guidelines ``encourage employers to hire women and minorities on a rigidly proportional basis,'' a statement that is directly at odds with President Clinton's own affirmative action review. In my view, it is appropriate for the Federal Government to require Federal contractors not to discriminate in employment. That was the original purpose of Executive Order 11246. Unfortunately, bureaucratic implementation of the Executive order has converted it from a program aimed at eliminating discrimination to one that relies on it in the form of preferences. Our first priority should be to restore the original meaning and purpose of the Executive order, not to repeal it, as the DLC has suggested. Second, the DLC argues that we need to replace Government preferences for groups with new public policies that empower individuals to get ahead regardless of race, gender, or ethnicity. The DLC argues that an empowerment agenda is critical to ``striking a new bargain on racial equality and opportunity.'' I happen to agree that we need to forge a new civil rights agenda for the 1990's, one rooted in policies that are relevant to the needs and challenges of our time. I do so, however, not as part of a bargain, as if one should be defensive about opposing discrimination in the form of preferences. I support a new civil rights agenda simply because making Government policy by race is not only wrong, but a diversion from reality, an easy excuse to ignore the very serious problems that affect all Americans, whatever their race, or heritage, or gender may be. Nearly 30 percent of our children are born out of wedlock. Only one- third of our high school graduates are proficient readers. And children routinely kill other children. These are the realities of our time, and this is where our focus should be. That is why Congressman J.C. Watts and I recently took the step of offering a blueprint for a new civil rights agenda. This agenda includes: strengthening the family by reforming a corrupt welfare system that has substituted Government dependence for personal independence; investing crime-fighting resources in our inner-city communities and ensuring that those who commit violent crimes stay behind bars where they belong; giving low-income parents the opportunity to choose the school, public or private, that they consider most desirable for their children; removing regulatory barriers to opportunity; and, or course, enforcing the anti-discrimination laws that are already on the books. Finally, the DLC has joined me and other Republicans in taking issue with the Clinton administration's position in the Piscataway case. In this case, the Justice Department has turned the principle of equal opportunity on its head by arguing that a school district may legally fire a teacher, solely because of her race, in order to maintain workforce diversity. The DLC is correct to point out that the Justice Department's position, taken to its logical extreme, would ``sever the increasingly tenuous link between race-conscious remedies and specific acts of discrimination and wipe out the distinction between preferences and quotas.'' Mr. President, I welcome the DLC's contribution to this debate. We may not agree on every point and on every issue, but we both agree that the group-preference status quo is no longer tenable. Race should not be a wedge issue. If we keep our voices low and our intentions good, I am convinced that this long-overdue debate can, in fact, serve as a catalyst to unite the American people, not divide us.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, too often today, when we read and hear about the unspeakable violence that occurs on the streets of our country, we simply shrug it off as the price we pay for living in a free society. In a very real sense, we have begun to tolerate the intolerable. This past weekend, however, a crime occurred just several city blocks from this building that, I believe, would send shivers down the spine of even the most jaded observer. Three employees of a nearby McDonald's restaurant--18-year-old Marvin Peay, Jr.; 23-year-old Kevin Workman; and a 49-year-old grandmother named Lilian Jackson--were all shot dead while working the late shift. One of [[Page S 12427]] their co-workers was fortunately spared. Here is how the Washington Post described this brutal crime: Because Kenneth Joel Marshall was a trusted co-worker, the four men and women working the closing shift at the McDonald's on the eastern edge of Capitol Hill opened the door for him when he showed up shortly before 2 a.m. * * * Minutes later, police said, Marshall pulled a gun, forced the manager to open a safe, herded his co-workers into a basement freezer and pumped bullets into the heads of three of them, a woman and two men. Bent on leaving no witnesses, police said, he turned to the fourth worker, a woman. Twice, he allegedly aimed his gun at her head and squeezed the trigger. Twice, the gun clicked but did not fire. Apparently, the person who committed this unspeakably evil act fled the crime scene. He was subsequently arrested by the D.C. police department. According to newspaper accounts, the killer also had a prior criminal record, having been arrested by the D.C. police at least seven times since 1987 on both drug and weapons charges. Mr. President, it is, of course, impossible to make any sense out of such senselessness. I simply want to take this opportunity to express my own outrage at what has befallen three of our citizens--citizens of the Nation's Capital--and I know I speak for all my colleagues in the Senate when I extend our prayers and heartfelt sympathies to the families of the victims.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, have the yeas and nays been ordered?

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate go in executive session to consider Calendar No. 254, the nomination of Lawrence H. Summers, with 10 minutes of debate to be equally divided. The PRESIDING OFFICER Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. DOLE. I thank the Chair.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me indicate, the reason for the last request, and it is supported by the Democratic leader, is we want to finish this bill. We think there are too many amendments on it now. We already spent a great deal of time on this bill. It means we will have to delay discussion of welfare reform probably 1 full day. This is the best we can do. We will take up this bill at 9 o'clock on Tuesday, September 5. I urge my colleagues, if they want to take up their amendments, they better be here, because the managers will be here, or someone designated by the managers will be here, throughout the day. It is my belief most of these amendments can be accepted, but there could be as many as five rollcall votes, plus the rollcall vote on final passage, and there will be a 5 o'clock vote on the Defense appropriations bill on Tuesday, September 5. So it will not be ``the day after Labor Day,'' it will be a workday in the U.S. Senate, with a lot of votes, because we are going to complete action on this. It is going to delay us 1 day on welfare reform. We will be on welfare reform Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and there may be a day or two in the next week, and I will be speaking about that later on this afternoon. I want to thank the Democratic leader, Senator Nunn, Senator Thurmond, Senator Warner and members of their staffs who have been working to get this agreement. I hope we can now complete action on the DOD authorization bill on that date.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following be the only first-degree amendments remaining in order, except those amendments cleared by the managers, to the defense authorization bill, and that they be subject to relevant second-degree amendments. And I will read the amendments: Pentagon renovation by Senator Bingaman; another amendment by Senator Bingaman, Los Alamos community assistance; Senator Bingaman, strike section 1082; Senator Brown, Fitzsimons; Byrd, relevant; Senator Exon, nuclear testing, 90 minutes of debate for Exon, 30 minutes for Senator Thurmond; Senator Exon, START I and II; Senator Feinstein, land conveyance; Senator Harkin, relevant; Senator Johnston, relevant; Senator [[Page S 12327]] Kempthorne, relevant; Senator Lautenberg, relevant; Senator Levin, SOS chemical weapons, Start II; Senator Levin, Army leasing of commercial utility vehicles; Senator Robb, pilots rescue radio; Senator Sarbanes, Anechoic Chamber, Pax River; Senator Simon, volunteer contingency force; Senator Simon, land exchange; Senator Wellstone, relevant, 60 minutes for debate; Senator Thurmond, relevant; Senator Warner relevant; and on the top here, the bipartisan missile defense amendment, too. I will send these to the desk. Provided further, that if a Senator succeeds in amending the Defense appropriations bill with an amendment from the original list of Defense authorization amendments, then that Senator may offer his amendment to the Defense authorization bill under this agreement; further, that if the bipartisan missile defense amendment is agreed to, that it be in order for the managers to offer an amendment to make conforming modifications in the previously adopted Nunn amendment and the previously adopted Cohen amendment (amendments Nos. 2078 and 2089); further, that there be a time limitation for debate of 1 hour on the bill; there be a time limitation of 3 hours for debate on the bipartisan missile defense amendment, 2 hours for Senator Nunn and 1 hour for Senator Thurmond; that there be a time limitation on all remaining, except where noted, first and second degree amendments of 30 minutes, with all of the above time limitations equally divided in the usual form. I further ask unanimous consent that no other amendments regarding land mines or gays in the military be in order unless cleared by unanimous consent. I further ask unanimous consent that following the disposition of the above-listed amendments and the expiration of time, the Senate proceed to third reading and immediately proceed to discharge the Armed Services Committee and proceed to immediate consideration of H.R. 1530; that all after the enacting clause be stricken and the text of S. 1026, as amended, be inserted, the bill be advanced to third reading and final passage occur, all without intervening action or debate. Finally, I ask unanimous consent that no motion to recess or adjourn be in order during Tuesday's session of the Senate prior to final disposition of H.R. 1530, except one made by the majority leader.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the veto message arrived from the White House with respect to S. 21, the Bosnian Self-Defense Act. I ask unanimous consent that the veto message be temporarily laid aside, to be brought before the Senate by the majority leader, after notification of the Democratic leader, and that the veto message be spread upon the Journal.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, before the vote is commenced, I want to try to alert my colleagues about what could happen after this. I understand we are going to third reading which is as far as you can go because the House has not passed the bill. I want to first commend the managers of this DOD appropriations bill. They have done an outstanding job. We may or may not file cloture. There may be a vote on cloture on the DOD authorization bill. There may be a vote on the Summers nomination. There will be a vote, if we reach an agreement on the Summers nomination. There will be very little debate on that nomination. But it depends on the agreement we get on the DOD authorization bill. When we started the negotiating, we had eight amendments, and then I got 37 yesterday from one side and 15 from one side. We are not going to accept that agreement if we cannot get a good agreement. A lot of Members who had amendments on the DOD bill and then put them on the appropriations bill, then dreamed up some more to put on the authorization bill, the same amendments. I thought we were operating in good faith. And if not, then we will have a cloture vote later today, and we are not going to release any nominees--not one, not one Ambassador, not one judge, not anybody else--until we get a satisfactory agreement. That is what this was all about. It was all about good faith. And I just ask my colleagues, I think we played the game and we hoped you would. There are a lot of these amendments that have already been offered, and Members dreamed up some other amendments to put back on DOD again. We are not going to bring up DOD authorization unless we can do it in 3 or 4 hours when we get back. Welfare reform is going to be on the floor, and it is going to stay on the floor for 4 or 5 days. We are not going to be interrupted by 2 or 3 days, the same people making the same speeches they have made on DOD appropriations on DOD authorization. Mr. FORD addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I know many Members would like to relocate. This would be the last vote. We have not reached the agreement on the DOD authorization. We are not certain whether any other nominees will be cleared. There is no need holding Members here. It will not require votes. It will either agree or not agree. This will be the last vote until September 5 at 5 p.m. [[Page S 12325]]

Mr. DOLE. It is my hope that all the nominees--I am not certain about all the Ambassadors--but we will do all the nominees. It depends on whether we get an agreement on the DOD authorization bill. We are not there yet. We are working on it. There is no reason to hold Members here for votes. This will be the last vote.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I yield back the time.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, when Congress reconvenes in September, the race to write the 1995 farm bill will hit full stride. This year marks the ninth farm bill that I have been involved in. Historically, agriculture stands at a crossroads every 5 years when Congress decides what direction it should go. This year, I believe there is agreement in this Chamber about which path to take. However, I would be remiss if I did not mention that there is significant disagreement about how best to get there. When Senators return home over the next few weeks, they will hear from their rural constituents the need for an aggressive farm policy. No doubt, the American people will provide their Senators with practical suggestions regarding the farm policy choices now before Congress. When we return in September, we will face several choices on farm policy. Three that come to mind are stay the course, reduction in support, and freedom to farm. Each choice has advantages; each choice has disadvantages. [[Page S 12428]] The stay-the-course plan is piloted by my good friend from Mississippi Senator Cochran, who approaches the farm bill with the conviction that our work in 1985 was sound and that we should continue with this course while making changes necessary to balance the budget. The reduction-in-support strategy was outlined by Chairman Lugar early in the debate, and combines a reduction in target prices with the call for planting flexibility and elimination of set-asides--two points that are a priority in Kansas and much of the Midwest. The freedom-to-farm concept is endorsed by my good friend and colleague Representative Pat Roberts. In typical Kansas fashion, he has taken the bull by the horns. In the Roberts freedom-to-farm plan, budget balancing is done with a cap on farm spending which guarantees farmers less income support but is coupled with full planting flexibility and regulatory relief. I urge all Senators to take advantage of the August recess and reconnect with the concerns of rural Americans. Like many of my colleagues, I am still evaluating each of these approaches as well as other policy options. But I realize that we must reach agreement in September. In my view, there are certain guiding principles we must adhere to as we pursue that goal. First, fiscal responsibility. We must achieve a balanced budget and do it in a manner that is fair and equitable to farmers. We have worked hard to balance the budget. The line-item veto was a first step toward that goal. A balanced budget amendment failed by just one vote. We hope we can pick up that vote in the next several months. In September, we will begin work on a plan to balance the Federal budget over the next 7 years. Farmers around the country remind me that they are taxpayers too. And as taxpayers, farmers want a balanced budget. All they ask is that spending cuts are fair and equitable. Everyone will take his or her fair share, whether it be food stamps or farm programs. And let me add that there will be equity in commodity program spending reductions and policy changes. The AG community will face its fair share of spending reductions as we move to fully implement a balanced budget. Second, unleash our productive capacity. We must allow farmers to decide what and how much to plant each year. Planting restrictions and idling acreage based on budget mandates instead of supply management must end. Through the new markets and new opportunities opened by GATT and NAFTA, we must be able to meet demand. The farm policy that drives the U.S. into the 21st century should not be based on the supply management concepts of the 1930's. A framer's business decisions should not be based on Government policy, but instead on market signals, agronomic practices and personal choice. Third, simplicity. Farm programs and environmental regulations should be simpler and more sensible. They should reflect a basic respect for private property rights and the work ethic of the family farmer. For several years now, as I traveled through Kansas and throughout the country, farmers have been telling me the same thing--keep it simple. All farm programs--and especially all regulations--must be simpler and less intrusive. Our efforts to provide regulatory relief for rural America have been blocked by those on the other side of the aisle. I hope that when my colleagues return to their States in August, they will listen to their constituents' pleas to rein in the Federal Government. American agriculture does not operate in a vacuum. Rural Americans share the Republican conviction that Congress must balance the budget, and that we must provide tax relief, regulatory relief and health care reform. Rural Americans realize that there are important policies outside the farm bill that greatly affect their bottom lines. Mr. President, we are actively working to provide the needed relief that rural America is asking for. And we will not stop. The reconciliation debate in September will focus national attention on issues vital to rural America. This is our opportunity to make real progress. When it comes to policy for rural America, I can not help but be reminded of the peanuts cartoon, where Lucy pulls the football away from Charlie Brown at the last minute. Unfortunately, just like Charlie Brown, the American farmer keeps running at the ball and Congress keeps pulling it away. A workable policy for rural America is not achieved by taunting the American farmer. It is achieved by everyone--agriculture, Congress and USDA-- playing together on the same team.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, next week America will commemorate the 50th anniversary of the end of the Second World War in the Pacific. As we mark this anniversary, we should pay tribute and remember the over 3 million American airmen, soldiers, sailors, and Marines who served in the Pacific and Asian theaters from 1941 to 1945. General Douglas MacArthur described those who fought in the Pacific with these words: He plods and groans, sweats and toils. He growls and curses. And at the end, he dies, unknown, uncomplaining, with faith in his heart, and . . . a prayer for victory on his lips. The story of the Pacific and Asian theaters is a story of courage. It is a story of places like Iwo Jima, Okinawa, Guadalcanal, where American soldiers fought in some of the most brutal battles of the war. Their heroism and their sacrifice will live forever in the annals of history. Mr. President, this anniversary has also stirred some debate over the wisdom of President Truman's decision to use the atomic bomb to bring the war to a conclusion. Some revisionist historians have suggested that Japan was so weak in 1945 an allied victory could have been achieved through a military invasion. The best response to that assertion comes from our colleague, Senator Mark Hatfield. Senator Hatfield was one of the first Americans to visit Hiroshima in the days following Japan's surrender, and he saw the weapons that would have been used to repel American soldiers invading Japan. Senator Hatfield was scheduled to participate in such an invasion, and he has said that as he looked at the weapons, he had no doubt that he, like countless thousands of other Americans, would have been killed, wounded, or somehow injured. Mr. President, the veterans of the war in the Pacific and all Americans can take pride in the fact that Japan is now one of America's most important allies. America did not enter the war seeking territory. We entered to defend democracy. And when the war was finished, we set about the work of rebuilding a free and Democratic Japan. In short, Mr. President, at war's end, we looked to the future with hope, instead of the past with recrimination. And that, perhaps, is the great lesson of World War II and the great lesson of this century, that as long as America is engaged and as long as America provides the leadership, then the future for nearly everyone in the world will be filled with hope. Mr. President, at this time I send a resolution to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DOLE. I send it up on behalf of myself and the Democratic leader.

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

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Calendar No. 150, Senate Resolution 103.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent as in executive session that the Senate immediately proceed to the following Executive Calendar nominations: Cal. No. 184. James Hoecker; Cal. No. 232. Vincent Ryan, Jr.; Cal. No. 238. Victor Jackovich; Cal. No. 244. John Hirsch; Cal. No. 252. Vera Alexander; Cal. No. 253. John Callahan; Cal. No. 255. Howard Schloss; Cal. No. 256. Lynne Waihee; Cal. No. 257. Mary Furlong; Cal. No. 268. Andre Davis; Cal. No. 269. Catherine Blake; Cal. No. 270. B. Lynn Winmill; Cal. No. 271. Edward Blair; Cal. No. 272. John Garamendi; Cal. No. 273. Charles Curtis; Cal. No. 274. Jeanne Ferst; Cal. No. 275. Terence Evans; Cal. No. 276. Michael Murphy; Cal. No. 277. Joseph McKinley; Cal. No. 278. James Moody; Cal. No. 279. William Sessions; Cal. No. 280. Ortrie Smith; Cal. No. 281. Evan Wallach; Cal. No. 282. Donald Pogue; Cal. No. 283. Lt. Gen. John Otjen; Cal. No. 284. Lt. Gen. James Clapper; Cal. No. 285. Maria Haley; Cal. No. 286. Herbert Collins; Cal. No. 287. Roberta Gross; Cal. No. 288. Jill Long; Cal. No. 289. Jill Long; Cal. No. 290. William Courtney; Cal. No. 291. Stanley Escudero; Cal. No. 292. Joseph Presel; Cal. No. 293. Mark Gearan; Cal. No. 294. Lee Jackson; Cal. No. 295. David Burke; Cal. No. 296. Edward kaufman; Cal. No. 297. Tom Korologos; Cal. No. 298. Bette Lord; Cal. No. 299. Alberto Mora; Cal. No. 300. Cheryl Halpern; Cal. No. 301. Marc Nathanson; Cal. No. 302. Carl Spielvogel; Cal. No. 303. Jerome Stricker; Cal. No. 304. Sheryl Marshall; Cal. No. 305. William Leblanc; Cal. No. 306. Jacob Lew; Cal. No. 307. Beth Slavet; Cal. No. 308. Stephen Potts; Cal. No. 309. Jay Ehle; Cal. No. 10. Robert Francis; Cal. No. 311. John Goglia. I further ask unanimous consent the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action; that any statements relating to any of the nominations appear at the appropriate place in the Record, and the Senate then immediately return to legislative session.