Robert Dole

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

Mr. DOLE

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

Mr. DOLE. I thank the Chair.

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

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf of Senator Nunn.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to; that the committee amendment, as amended, be agreed to; that the bill then be deemed read the third time and passed; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the bill be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

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 proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar No. 166, S. 895.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 165, a resolution commemorating the 60th anniversary of the Social Security Act, submitted earlier today by Senators Packwood and Moynihan; that the resolution and preamble be agreed to; that the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, en bloc; further, that any statements on this measure appear in the Record at the appropriate place as though read.

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, are we back to legislative session?

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent that the Senate reconvene on Tuesday, September 5, at 10 a.m., and that following the prayer the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, no resolutions come over under the rule, the call of the calendar be dispensed with, the morning hour be deemed to have been expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate immediately resume consideration of S. 1026, the DOD authorization bill, under the previous consent agreement.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, while we are waiting, I would just say I regret the Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, without any notification to me, has chosen to block the WTO legislation, on which I have worked with the administration, which I was promised by the administration if I would support GATT. It was part of the agreement in an effort to gain my support. I kept my word and did, for the President of the United States and, more importantly, for the country. I was advised, after being told today by the chairman of the Finance Committee that the WTO legislation had been cleared, late this afternoon the Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd, as he has a right to do, would not permit it to go forward. At that point, the leader had either the choice to block all the nominees or to do what I have just done. It is unfair to the families to have another 3 or 4 weeks' wait because of an unexpected hold put on legislation, which had been cleared by the committee of jurisdiction, cleared by the minority leader, cleared by the administration, and blocked by someone who I have tried to accommodate at every turn in this Chamber, the Senator from West Virginia, Senator Byrd. That certainly is not right. I must say, this legislation was very important to me and will remain very important to me. I am disappointed that he chose not to even contact me before taking this action. Now the Senator from North Carolina is here so we can do some treaties.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, at 10 a.m. on Tuesday, the Senate will resume consideration of S. 1026, the DOD authorization bill, with 24 amendments in order. Senators who have amendments are expected to be present to offer and dispose of their amendments. Under a previous consent, a rollcall vote will occur on passage of the DOD appropriations bill on Tuesday, September 5, 1995, which will be the first rollcall vote of the day. Senators should also be on notice the Senate will remain in session on Tuesday until the DOD authorization bill will be completed. Therefore, a late session can be anticipated. Also, following the DOD authorization bill, on Wednesday, the Senate will resume consideration of the so-called welfare bill, the Work Opportunity Act of 1995. Therefore, late sessions and votes can be expected throughout the first week after the August recess. I think I can add throughout the month of September.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to; that the preamble be agreed to; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the resolution appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

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.

Mr. DOLE

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

Mr. DOLE. Let me say with reference to welfare reform, it was my hope to come back on the 5th of September and start on welfare reform. Now, because we have the DOD authorization consent agreement, we will do that on the 5th. We will start on welfare reform, then, on the following day. Again, it is my hope that we could have serious debate, good debate--we had 2 days of opening statements that I thought were excellent on both sides, even though there was not total agreement--and that we can complete action on welfare reform within 5 legislative days; that would be Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and maybe the next Monday or Tuesday, because we need to move very quickly, then, on the additional appropriations bills. We have completed 7. We have 6 remaining. I know all, probably, with the exception of 2 of those, will be very, very difficult. We need to do all that, go to conference, get the conference reports to the President prior to October 1. So we are going to have a very busy time in September. But it seems to me we are on the right track. I thank the Democratic leader for his cooperation with reference to the DOD agreement and for all the assistance we had in the appropriations process. I think we just have one or two other little items that are hanging things up here. We will see what happens. 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 180, H.R. 2108.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be deemed read the third time and passed; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the bill be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that, notwithstanding adjournment of the Senate, on Wednesday, August 30, committees have from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. to file any legislative or executive reported business.

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.