Nancy Kassebaum

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

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

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I would like now to have a colloquy with the Senator from Pennsylvania. Senator Specter and myself and Senator Kennedy have discussed his amendment regarding healthy start and my objection had been it was authorization on this bill which I felt needed to go through the committee with some hearings, review what has always been an appropriations matter rather than an authorization, and I believe this has been agreed to by Senator Specter and we will have a hearing if possible by the end of May. Mr. SPECTER addressed the Chair.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. The Senator from Illinois is correct.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet at 5 p.m. on Thursday, April 18, 1996, to receive testimony in executive session to mark up S. 1635, the Defend America Act of 1996--National Missile Defense--and to discuss markup.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following items with regard to S. 1028 be included in the Record.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, today, we have before us significant legislation which, if it becomes law, will restructure the principal institutions used to conduct America's foreign policy. The process leading to this point may have been less bipartisan and less open than some of us would have desired. But I want to commend the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Helms, for his determination in shepherding this difficult bill through the legislative process. The heart of this bill is its reorganization of our Nation's foreign policy bureaucracy. While I still have reservations about the continued deep cuts in our foreign affairs spending--an account that already has sustained deep cuts since the late 1980s--that is not the issue here. Congress made the decision to continue cutting our foreign affairs spending when we passed the budget resolution last year. The purpose of this authorizing legislation is to try to shape those cuts in a manner that will best protect our ability to carry out the Nation's foreign policy. I believe this conference report's approach to streamlining and consolidation--an approach dramatically different from the original versions introduced a year ago in both Houses--is reasonable. In essence, this legislation would require the abolition of one of our four principal foreign policy agencies and would require a savings of $1.8 billion over 4 years. It wisely vests in the President, however, the maximum possible flexibility to determine the details of reorganization. Because the reorganization provisions are, in my judgment, reasonable, I intend to vote for this legislation. However, I very much regret that the legislation also contains many foreign policy provisions which have been less scrutinized and which, in my view, would have been better omitted. Let me outline my specific concerns with the legislation: First, the bill contains a number of provisions that may further irritate our relations with China. Most important among these is the provision asserting that the Taiwan Relations Act takes precedence over the 1982 Sino-United States joint communique. The triangular relationship between Washington, Beijing and Taipei is a delicate diplomatic balance in each of its legs, and in this legislation Congress is needlessly seeking to strengthen one leg--the leg between Washington and Taipei--without regard for the effect on the other two. Second, the bill unwisely reopens the difficult debate about our relations with Vietnam. In 1994, after weighing the arguments on both sides, Congress concluded that normalizing relations with Vietnam best serves America's national interests in that region. I do not believe we should roll back that decision today. Third, the bill creates a new category of political asylum for persons fleeing coercive population practices. I have opposed this provision from its inception because I believe it may open a floodgate of false claims for immigrants from certain countries not otherwise able to enter the United States. Fourth, the conference report restores several provisions that require withholding of U.S. contributions to the United Nations-- provisions that were struck from the Senate bill at my request. I believe that we have reached the limits of this nickel-and-dime approach to reforming the United Nations and that these narrow withholding requirements have become counterproductive. What is needed, in my view, is a broader approach to reform. Unfortunately, a provision that I added to the Senate bill to require the administration to submit to Congress an overall proposal for reforming the United Nations consistent with several specific objectives has been dropped from the conference report. Fifth, this legislation has cherry picked the foreign aid authorization bill, incorporating a small handful of its most politically popular provisions into the broader State Department Authorization bill. This approach ensures that no other foreign aid authorization will be enacted this year. I worry we are creating a situation in which no foreign aid program other than the few in this bill will be authorized and, as a result, funding for any others may be blocked. Sixth, this authorization legislation does not deal with the difficult population issue of international family planning, despite the compromise reached in the Foreign Operations Appropriations debate stipulating that the matter would be handled in this bill. Seventh, the legislation ends the United States housing guarantee program, with an exception for our program in South Africa. I tend to believe this is an important program that should not be banned by statute. Mr. President, this is a long list of objections. To weigh them against the strengths of the bill's reorganization provisions was no easy task. I concluded, however, that the bill on balance is worthwhile--largely because its reorganization provisions will bring an order to the inevitable downsizing of these agencies that otherwise might not exist. I also want to support the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. However, I understand the President has reached a different conclusion and intends to veto this legislation. If that occurs, I cannot give assurances that I would vote to override his veto.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise today in support of the final passage of the conference report on H.R. 2854, the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996. In some ways, it is only natural that this farm bill occurred like one of the other major factors affecting agriculture, the weather. With the weather, you're never sure when the rains will come, but inevitably, it will rain. This legislation brings an end to the waiting and uncertainty currently surrounding farmers and ranchers in my state, as well as around the country. I would like to thank Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Lugar and ranking member Leahy for their tireless work to bring together the many different sides and address their concerns in this farm bill. And of course, a hearty congratulations to my fellow Kansans and members of the Kansas agricultural triumvirate, House Agriculture Chairman Roberts, Senate majority Leader Dole, and USDA Secretary Glickman. As a supporter of Congressman Roberts' freedom-to-farm bill, it is rewarding to see its inclusion in the final legislation. For production agriculture, this bill represents producer flexibility, program simplicity, and stability--all important priorities that will allow U.S. agriculture to successfully compete in the world marketplace. For the taxpayer, this legislation shows the continued commitment by agriculture to lower spending and reduce the deficit. Clearly, if all government programs displayed agriculture's commitment towards reduced spending, there would be no deficit today. Many other important programs are also included in this legislation. A clear priority was given to conservation programs, including a strong Conservation Reserve Program [CRP]. The CRP has proven to be a valuable tool to promote wildlife habitat, reduce soil erosion, and improve water quality. Reauthorizing this program at its current level and allowing increased flexibility for the producer will allow current program benefits to be retained and increase the focus of this program to improve the most environmentally sensitive lands. It should be noted that this farm bill is truly comprehensive legislation that will affect all Americans. Included in this bill is important trade legislation that maintains our commitment to providing valuable food aid to those nations in need, strengthens our ability to open new markets, and encourages the development of emerging trading partners. Research, nutrition, rural development, and credit programs are all included in this bill to ensure to their future viability. Mr. President, it is true that the rains will inevitably come. However, no action by Congress can remove the uncertainty of how much, when, and where it will rain; but we in Congress can and should remove the uncertainty surrounding agricultural programs by passing this legislation. section 147

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of legislation to reauthorize the Older Americans Act of 1965. I am pleased that Senator Gregg has taken the lead in drafting a bill that grants States and local communities the authority and flexibility to tailor programs to best fit the needs of their aging citizens. The original Older Americans Act was passed in 1965 with the intention of using joint Federal and State funds to provide a range of services for elder Americans. Since that time, the act has evolved into a comprehensive list of programs and services--ranging from legal and counseling services to transportation and employment services to, perhaps most importantly, nutrition services. Every day thousands of seniors gather at congregate meal sites to obtain nutrition services, as well as enjoy the companionship these sites offer. Often, a nutrition site will serve as the point of entry for seniors to gain knowledge of other services available to them through their local communities or their area agency on aging. The congregate meal sites serve as a valuable socialization too, as well as often providing the only nutritious meal of the day for many seniors. Through changes in the Older Americans Act, this legislation will provide maximum authority and flexibility to States and localities in the design and operation of their services for seniors, while protecting the integrity of certain priority programs including: outreach and counseling programs, case management, the long-term-care ombudsman, preventive health efforts, and elder abuse prevention programs. Mr. President, each State has very different needs. This bill allows each State to craft programs to fit their individual communities. In addition, this proposal strives to maximize public-private partnership, recognizing that the Federal Government is not able to meet all the needs that exist among this growing population, but that Federal funds can form a basis of support for leveraging private dollars. Also important, I believe, is the retention of the authority and funding for research and demonstration projects which encourage the development of innovative approaches to the delivery of critical services for seniors. As the population continues to age and as needs change, more pressure will be placed on providers to make sure that essential needs of the elderly are met. I am hopeful that our efforts will lead to a system of senior services that are not only more consumer driven but are also better designed to offer support to seniors in their endeavors to remain healthy and independent.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I rise today as an original cosponsor of legislation to reauthorize the Older Americans Act of 1965. I am pleased that Senator Gregg has taken the lead in drafting a bill that grants States and local communities the authority and flexibility to tailor programs to best fit the needs of their aging citizens. The original Older Americans Act was passed in 1965 with the intention of using joint Federal and State funds to provide a range of services for elder Americans. Since that time, the act has evolved into a comprehensive list of programs and services--ranging from legal and counseling services to transportation and employment services to, perhaps most importantly, nutrition services. Every day thousands of seniors gather at congregate meal sites to obtain nutrition services, as well as enjoy the companionship these sites offer. Often, a nutrition site will serve as the point of entry for seniors to gain knowledge of other services available to them through their local communities or their area agency on aging. The congregate meal sites serve as a valuable socialization too, as well as often providing the only nutritious meal of the day for many seniors. Through changes in the Older Americans Act, this legislation will provide maximum authority and flexibility to States and localities in the design and operation of their services for seniors, while protecting the integrity of certain priority programs including: outreach and counseling programs, case management, the long-term-care ombudsman, preventive health efforts, and elder abuse prevention programs. Mr. President, each State has very different needs. This bill allows each State to craft programs to fit their individual communities. In addition, this proposal strives to maximize public-private partnership, recognizing that the Federal Government is not able to meet all the needs that exist among this growing population, but that Federal funds can form a basis of support for leveraging private dollars. Also important, I believe, is the retention of the authority and funding for research and demonstration projects which encourage the development of innovative approaches to the delivery of critical services for seniors. As the population continues to age and as needs change, more pressure will be placed on providers to make sure that essential needs of the elderly are met. I am hopeful that our efforts will lead to a system of senior services that are not only more consumer driven but are also better designed to offer support to seniors in their endeavors to remain healthy and independent.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, we have visited and revisited this issue many times. We struggled with the House of Representatives over this issue for 3 frustrating, unproductive months, and we could not resolve it. We finally agreed to let the matter be resolved in the authorizing legislation. Why then, as some of my colleagues are asking, would Senator Hatfield choose to reopen the debate in the current legislation? I suggest, Mr. President, for two very important reasons: First of all, the authorizers punted. They did not address the issue in the authorizing language. Thus, we are left with an authorizing bill that was reported out of conference which does not address this issue. This part of the compromise, which we added to the last CR, was not fulfilled. Second, the language that Senator Hatfield has added to the current continuing resolution is sound policy. As he has just so eloquently stated, the simple, honest truth is that maintaining effective family planning programs is the best hope we have of limiting abortions. It is an elementary equation, I believe, that contraception does reduce abortions. Mr. President, arguments to the contrary are just misinformed. We cannot prevent abortions worldwide by preventing women from having access to the very information and services that enable them to prevent unplanned pregnancies. I applaud my friend from Oregon for his thoughtfulness on this issue. Senator Hatfield is not an advocate of abortion rights, and yet he authored the provision in the omnibus budget bill that Senator McConnell is trying to strike out. Why would a Senator who does not support abortion take the lead on restoring funding for international population assistance programs? It is because Senator Hatfield judiciously realizes the most effective way we can use our budget dollars is to prevent abortions and to promote effective, safe, and comprehensive pregnancy-prevention services. Senator Hatfield's provision restores funding for population- assistance programs if the President determines that cutting this funding would increase the number of abortions being performed. If you are against abortions, it seems to me, Mr. President, you must be for Senator Hatfield's language. I yield the floor. Mr. HATFIELD addressed the Chair.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I appreciate the Senator from Georgia yielding. I intend to vote in favor of this conference report despite some serious reservations about several of the provisions. The Senator from Connecticut has just spoken strongly about several of the same reservations that I hold, although I suggest, Mr. President, I think some of the examples he has given about unintended consequences might be a bit exaggerated. I would like to outline some of my concerns and the reasoning for them. First, I question whether this bill, on the whole, moves us in the right direction. The laws of nature dictate that Castro cannot remain in power forever, and I am skeptical that the best means at this point of ensuring a peaceful transition is to further tighten the noose around Cuba, despite the outrageous acts of a week ago. Second, I remain concerned about title III of the legislation, as has been addressed, which allows new lawsuits in Federal court against investors of property that was confiscated in Cuba. I opposed this provision when the legislation first came before the Senate, and I am disappointed it has been restored in the conference report. I still believe it is unwise for Congress to set up United States Federal courts as tools in the pursuit of foreign policy objectives in Cuba, although I take some comfort in the new authority provided for the President to weigh this provision. Third, I also am disappointed that the conference report goes further than the Senate bill in two important areas, which, of course, the Senator from Connecticut also discussed, neither of which has had the benefit of examination in the Senate. The conference report would deny United States visas to any person who invests in confiscated property in Cuba with only two narrow exceptions. We have allowed no flexibility to accommodate the awkward situations that inevitably will arise. The conference report also codifies in statute all existing sanctions and embargoes against Cuba, stripping this President and future presidents of the flexibility to respond step-by-step to changes in the situation in Cuba. For these many reasons, I would prefer that we enact something other than this bill. But, Mr. President, that is not an option. Nobody has done more to ensure enactment of this legislation than Fidel Castro himself. By shooting down two American civilian airplanes last week, he demanded that we respond. I strongly believe we must respond to this latest provocation and that America should speak with one voice on this matter. While this particular legislation would not be my preference, it clearly is the preference of the Republican leadership in both houses of Congress. It now is the preference of the President of the United States. I am one who believes the President should have some discretion to shape U.S. foreign policy. The situation reminds me of a young cowboy who worked hard each week to earn money so he could ride into town each weekend and play poker. He always lost. After months of watching him lose, a sympathetic bartender pulled him aside one evening and said, ``Son, I just want you to know, this game is rigged. The cards are marked. The deck is stacked. And the dealer keeps an ace up is sleeve.'' ``I know,'' replied the young cowboy. The bartender was flabbergasted. ``You know?'' he exclaimed. ``Then why do you keep coming back?'' ``That's simple,'' replied the cowboy. ``This is the only game in town.'' Mr. President, there is no other option before this body for those of us who believe strongly that the United States must respond to Fidel Castro's latest outrage. Despite its faults, this legislation is the only game in town. For that reason, I will support it. I yield back any time I may have, Mr. President.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, today I am submitting a concurrent resolution condemning the persecution of the Baha'i community that has been carried out systematically by the Government of Iran over the past two decades. I am joined in this effort by Senator Dodd, Senator Lieberman, Senator McCain, and 23 other cosponsors. Six times in the past, Congress has passed similar legislation, most recently in 1994. While Iran's repression of Baha'is appears less bloody today than during the 1980's, that persecution nevertheless continues. None of us has forgotten the confidential documents from 1991, drafted and signed by Iran's highest government and clerical authorities, which revealed a deliberate policy to destroy the Baha'is. We believe it is important that Congress again raise its voice in protest of the Iranian Government's persecution of Baha'is. While American Baha'is reside in every State and are deeply concerned about the fate of more than 300,000 Baha'is in Iran, our legislation is not motivated by constituent pressure. Rather, it rests on broader principles. Ours is a Nation founded in an unwavering belief in the importance of religious freedom, and all Americans--whatever their religious convictions may be--believe strongly that no government should condemn and persecute a people because of their faith. Yet, this is what the Government of Iran has done to the Baha'is for many years. Iran's constitution does not recognize Baha'is as a religious group but as unprotected infidels whose civil rights can be ignored at will. The Baha'i cannot legally marry or divorce in Iran, nor can they travel freely outside Iran. They cannot inherit property. They are not free to assemble and cannot elect community leaders or maintain their community institutions. Since 1979, 201 Baha'is have been killed and 15 others have disappeared and are presumed dead. Arbitrary arrests of Baha'is continue. From January 1990 to June 1993, 43 Baha'is were arrested and detained for varying periods of time, and as of January this year 5 Baha'is were being held in prison because of their religious beliefs. Baha'i cemeteries, holy places, historical sites, administrative centers, and other assets, most of which were seized in 1979, remain confiscated or have been destroyed. Baha'i property rights generally are disregarded, and many homes and businesses have been arbitrarily confiscated. More than 10,000 Baha'is were dismissed from positions in government and education in the early 1980's because of their religious beliefs, and many remain unemployed without benefits or pensions. Baha'i youth are systematically barred from institutions of higher learning. Perhaps we cannot, from the U.S. Congress, end the terrible oppression of the Baha'is in Iran. But by submitting this concurrent resolution, we can send a clear message to all who will listen: We have not forgotten.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I just say, in answer to the Senator from North Dakota, I feel confident that Senators on both sides of the aisle want to reach an agreement on a substantial, constructive farm bill. Nothing is more important, and it is prime legislation. I feel sure that I can speak on behalf of Senators on my side of the aisle that would say we are going to reach that agreement, and we will all work together in good faith to achieve what is very important, coming from a farm State, as I do myself.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of routine morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 5 minutes each.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Resolution 222, a resolution submitted earlier today by Senators Dole and Daschle; further, that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble agreed to, and 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.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

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

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Resolution 223, submitted earlier by Senators Hutchison and Gramm.

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

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Resolution 221, a resolution submitted earlier today by Senators Dole and Daschle; further, that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble agreed to, and 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.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider Executive Calendar No. 330, and all military nominations reported out of the Armed Services Committee today. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table en bloc, and any statements relating to the nominations appear at the appropriate place in the Record, the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action and that the Senate then return to legislative session.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I present a unanimous-consent agreement which we have been working on all day. It is my understanding that there is still one objection to this agreement, and the majority leader is hoping this will be solved by next Tuesday when we are back in session. I will read this agreement. It has, as I said, been worked on all day. I am very appreciative of the majority leader's efforts to bring this to an agreement. I ask unanimous consent that prior to Friday, May 3, the majority leader, after consultation with the Democratic leader, turn to the consideration of calendar No. 205, S. 1028, the Health Insurance Reform Act of 1995; it would further be a unanimous consent that it not be in order to offer any amendment relative to health insurance to any legislation not including matters relating to health care prior to the execution of this agreement. I am very appreciative of efforts that have gone into this today. It would certainly be my hope, given the consideration of everyone, that we can agree to this next Tuesday.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today it stand in recess until the hour of 10 a.m. on Monday, February 5, for a pro forma session only, and that the Senate immediately stand in adjournment until 12 noon on Tuesday, February 6, 1996; that following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and there then be a period for morning business until the hour of 12:30 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak for up to 5 minutes each.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. I ask unanimous consent that the pending cloture vote be postponed to occur on Tuesday, February 6, with the time to be determined by the majority leader after consultation with the Democratic leader, and that first-degree and second-degree amendments be allowed to be filed until 12:30 p.m. on Tuesday, notwithstanding rule XXII.

Mrs. KASSEBAUM. It is the hope of this Senator, and I know others, that negotiations will continue with respect to a compromise amendment to the farm bill. However, if no agreement can be reached, then the cloture vote on the Craig-Leahy substitute would occur on Tuesday. In the event an agreement can be reached, votes can be expected with respect to the farm bill on Tuesday.