Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I now send a second-degree amendment to the desk.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send a motion to refer to the desk and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DOLE. I ask for the yeas and nays on the motion to refer.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send a second-degree amendment to the desk.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, finally, let me say a word with reference to the Finance Committee hearing that was held this morning on repeal of the gas tax, the 4.3-cent gas tax, which was made permanent in 1993 in the Clinton tax bill, which raised taxes by $265 billion, the gas tax increase contributes about $4.8 billion a year. Not a single Republican voted for the big, big, big tax increase, the largest tax increase in the history of America. In fact, I think one of my colleagues said, ``No, in the history of the world.'' Whatever, it was big. It has had an impact on the economy. Only once before--in 1990--did Congress ever vote to have a gas tax to pay for deficit reduction. Gas taxes were always set aside in a trust fund to build highways, bridges, and whatever. That is a very worthy purpose, and that is why motorists and others who use fuel are prepared to pay that tax to have better roads, better highways, and better bridges. But in 1993, in the $265 billion Clinton tax increase, which included a 4.3-cent increase in gas taxes, which was an increase of about 25 to 30 percent in the Federal gas tax, instead of dedicating the funds to bridges, highways, and whatever, it is being used for deficit reduction. Gas prices are spiraling. They have gone up 30 cents in the State of California, for example--15 cents, 20 cents in most other States. Will repeal of this gas tax mean the price of gas will fall? Not necessarily. If we repeal the gas tax, we are certain they are going to be 4 cents less than they were before. We should not be raising taxes. We ought to be cutting spending. The American people want us to cut spending, not raise taxes, whether it is a gas tax or some other tax on the American people, American consumers, particularly low-income Americans. So it is my hope--in fact, on Tuesday of next week, I will introduce legislation, along with Senator Gramm, who will be the principal sponsor, along with Members of the House, to repeal the gas tax--repeal the gas tax and remind the American people that this is the beginning, this is the beginning. Remember, without a Republican vote, the Democrats in the House and Senate passed a $265-billion tax increase in 1993 that President Clinton wanted. We believe this is one small step we can take. It amounts to about $4.8 billion a year. We will find offsets, and they will not be tax increases. We will try to relieve the consumers and the motorists of at least that part of the burden on the Federal gas tax. It is going to go to the consumers. We cannot predict that prices may not rise because if there is no supply, prices will rise. But, as I have said, they will at least be 4.3 cents cheaper than they were before. I believe there will be strong bipartisan support for repeal, and we hope to have that legislation ready and on the Senate floor in the very near future. Mr. President, I yield the floor. Mr. WARNER addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from Virginia. I hope to be meeting with him tomorrow on this very important issue.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Let me indicate, as I will do in the closing statement, there will be no votes today. There will be no votes on Monday. The first vote will occur at 2:15 p.m. on Tuesday, May 7. Let me also indicate, it is necessary to go through this procedure of filling up the tree so we can take action on this bill without having nongermane amendments offered to it. I would indicate we have made a proposal to the Democratic leadership with reference to minimum wage. I have asked Senator Lott to try to resolve that with Senator Daschle and others. We hope they can reach some agreement so we can start bringing up legislation and passing it. This bill should not take 5 minutes. It may take 2 or 3 days. But I hope that is not the case. I know there was some misinformation about the Senator from Arkansas, Senator Pryor, holding up the bill. That is not accurate. He did raise some questions last night about how we might treat other people who had the same problem, where they have incurred big legal expenses through no fault of their own because they have been called to testify or because of something being investigated. I suggested, rather than try to cure that on this bill, that we ask the chairman of the Judiciary Committee if he would consider general legislation, if he would take a look at it--it might be Whitewater, it might be Iran-Contra--because I can tell you, a lot of people in this country have incurred huge legal bills when they were called before committees and their reputation was at stake and when they were really not even under investigation or targets of investigation. That has been true through the years. So, if we want to change general policy, I suggest we do it through the process of hearings in the appropriate committee. I hope that will be satisfactory and that we can pass this bill quickly on Tuesday and move on to a couple of other bills--Amtrak authorization, which we believe is very important, and the firefighters discrimination bill, S. 849--and, hopefully, then, on Wednesday, go to the constitutional amendment for a balanced budget.

Mr. DOLE

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

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I will make a statement. But first, I inquire from the managers if we are making any progress on this legislation.

Mr. DOLE. I think a point of order by Senator Graham. So do the managers anticipate when we might be voting on some of these amendments? I know we have a conflict this afternoon. I know from 2 to 3 there is a ceremony honoring the Reverend Billy Graham. Then I think at 4:30--unless that is going to change.

Mr. DOLE. At 3:45, a number of our Members need to go to the White House. I guess my point is whether we can have all those votes between 3 and 3:45. There will be an effort to move that White House meeting to a later time, because I assume the managers would like to finish this bill, too, so we would not have to come back at 6 o'clock after the White House meeting and have votes to 7, 8, 9 o'clock. We are just trying to be helpful to the managers. I know you have done an outstanding job, and it has taken a great deal of time to move action on the bill.

Mr. DOLE. Let me have drafted a consent agreement. I will show it to both Senator Kennedy and Senator Simpson. Perhaps if we could somehow arrange to move the White House meeting 45 minutes, we could do all the votes between 3 and 4:30 and then move on to the next item of business.

Mr. DOLE. We are prepared to accept that.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Later this afternoon, President Clinton is expected to veto the product liability reform bill--a bipartisan measure to curb abusive, predatory lawsuits. This bill passed the Congress overwhelmingly, with the support of Democrats and Republicans alike. And for good reason: In 1994, lawsuits cost the American consumer a staggering $152 billion--a price tag that exceeds the entire Federal budget deficit. Lawsuit abuse hurts consumers by raising the costs of goods and services. It limits employment opportunities for those seeking jobs. It hurts the competitiveness of U.S. businesses overseas. And, perhaps worst of all, it can prevent new, lifesaving drugs and medical devices from ever reaching the market. As Linda Ransom of Phoenix, AZ explained to us earlier this week, abusive lawsuits have forced manufacturers to stop selling the materials that are needed to make the medical device that is keeping her 9-year-old daughter, Tara, alive. This is truly a life-and-death issue. It is time to stop lawsuit abuse before lawsuit abuse stops America. So, why will President Clinton veto this important legislation? The answer can be summed up in three words: The trial lawyers. President Clinton vetoed the securities litigation reform bill because of the strong-arm tactics of the trial lawyers. And he will veto the product liability bill because he believes what is good for the trial lawyers is also good for America. America's legal system is broken and fundamental reforms are needed-- and need now. Our legal system must be reformed to encourage people to be responsible for their own actions. And it should quickly and efficiently compensate victims--not lawyers. Quite simply, legal reform is a key ingredient of any serious plan to promote job creation and economic growth. Unfortunately, with today's veto, the President will be confirming what we already suspected: It is the trial lawyers who are calling the shots at the White House.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Was leaders' time reserved, I ask the Chair?

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

Mr. DOLE. If I could have my colleagues' attention, I would like to make an announcement that I think is important to everyone. I ask unanimous consent that the agreement relative to the 3:45 p.m. suspension of votes be vitiated.

Mr. DOLE. Let me say for the information of all Senators it is my understanding that a rollcall will not be necessary on the underlying Dole-Simpson amendment. Therefore, Senators can expect two additional votes that will start within a minute, and it will be a 10-minute vote, and then we will start the other vote. The first will be on cloture on the bill. The second vote, if cloture is invoked, will be on final passage of the immigration bill. I also ask unanimous consent that the yeas and nays be vitiated on amendment No. 3743.

Mr. DOLE. I ask for the yeas and nays on those two votes and that the votes be limited to 10 minutes each.

Mr. DOLE. A number of our colleagues on both sides are headed for the White House after the second vote. There will be a bus at the bottom of the stairs to take them down there. I do not know how they will come back. Mr. SIMPSON addressed the Chair. (Disturbance in the Visitors' Gallery)

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, first, let me congratulate my colleagues, Senator Simpson and Senator Kennedy, for completing action on what I consider to be a very good bipartisan immigration bill. It took 8 days. We had it scheduled for 3. So we have lost a little time. But I think the end product is probably worth it, and we hope to make up the time in the next few weeks on other matters. Mr. President, we have before us an issue of great national importance--reform of this Nation's laws on illegal immigration. But while many Members have worked hard to move this issue forward, let's face it: The moving force has been my colleague and friend, the Senator from Wyoming--Senator Simpson. There are so many ways to describe how he has served America, but I believe that his work in this area will always be at the top of the list. Illegal immigration reform is not a partisan issue. It is not a simple issue. But make no mistake about it, this legislation is long overdue. Mr. President, we are a nation justly proud of our heritage. That heritage is inseparable from the human experience of millions upon millions of immigrants--from every country on Earth. That heritage is also bound up in a reverence for the rule of law-- for playing by the rules. The Immigration Control and Financial Responsibility Act combines both of these strands of our national character. We cannot remain a great country and fail to control our borders. We cannot evade one of the principal obligations of the Federal Government and expect the States and local communities to pick up the tab. We cannot reward those who break our laws by picking the pockets of hardworking Americans. In short, Mr. President, we are proud that our country is a nation of immigrants and a land of opportunity--but we will insist that everyone play by the rules. The legislation before us provides for increases in the numbers of enforcement personnel and creates additional detention facilities. Perhaps most important, it provides for the first time some realistic hope that our Border Patrol can cope with the overwhelming nature of illegal immigration by increasing the numbers of agents. The bill, however, also recognizes that fully half of the illegals currently in this country were once here legally under a visa, but then simply stayed. This is not a problem that can be addressed by fences along the border--this is a matter of the will to enforce our laws. Visa overstayers are here now--when we discover who they are they should be sent on their way. The bill also provides strong measures for perhaps the ultimate insult to our national sovereignty. This is the case when those who violate our immigration laws, the violate our criminal laws as well. I am particularly pleased that the Senate adopted the Dole-Coverdell amendment which closed some of the loopholes that currently exist in our deportation laws. Under the Dole-Coverdell amendment, violations of domestic violence, stalking, child abuse laws, and crimes of sexual violence have been added as deportable offenses. It is long past time to stop the vicious acts of stalking, child abuse, and sexual abuse. We cannot prevent in every case the often justified fear that too often haunts our citizens. But we can make sure that any alien that commits such an act will no longer remain within our borders. Mr. President, I salute my colleagues who have worked so hard on this legislation. They have rendered America a great service, and it is my hope that a strong, bipartisan vote in favor of this bill will send a message that America will no longer stand by passively--we will take control of our borders. And most of all, Mr. President, we will ensure that no one cuts in line in front of those who play by the rules. So I salute my colleagues who have worked hard on this legislation. They have rendered America a great service. It is my hope that we can come out of the conference with a strong bipartisan bill. I again congratulate my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their efforts. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I submit a report of the committee of conference and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the conference report be deemed adopted, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and that any statements relating to the conference report be included in the Record at the appropriate place.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, one of the most profound and sensitive issues facing our society today is whether doctors should be allowed to assist in the suicide of their patients. On this issue, I happen to share the view of the American Medical Association that doctors who are sworn to be life-givers, should not act as life-takers, and that the licensing of doctors to administer death is ``fundamentally inconsistent with the pledge physicians make to devote themselves to healing and to life.'' I recognize that there are those who do not share this point of view. But the process we use to work out such disagreements and come to a social consensus is called democracy. I will vigorously defend the right of every fellow citizen to disagree with me, but I will also defend the constitutional process by which our laws are made. The people, through their elected Representatives, should be the ones to decide whether to permit or to prohibit physician-assisted suicide. It is a give and take of meaningful public debate that enables our democratic society to examine complicated social issues and, hopefully, reach a consensus that enjoys broad popular support. In recent weeks, however, two influential Federal courts--the ninth circuit of appeals on the west coast and the second circuit court of appeals on the east coast--have determined that the U.S. Constitution flatly prohibits the States from outlawing physician-assisted suicide. The ninth circuit ruled that individuals have a liberty interest in controlling the time and manner of our deaths and that a Washington State law prohibiting assisted suicide was, therefore, a violation of the due process clause of the 14th amendment. In a more narrowly drawn opinion, the second circuit declared that a similar New York State law outlawing physician-assisted suicide violates the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. In fact, I think in the Washington case it was due process; also the liberty clause. These decisions, like others in recent years, have the unfortunate effect of substituting the judgment of unelected Federal judges for the democratic process. If the ninth circuit's decision purporting to find a fundamental right to physician-assisted suicide is upheld by the Supreme Court, then all meaningful public debate on this issue would effectively be cut off. All of the moral and ethical concerns on both sides would, with a single stroke, be replaced with a judicial fiat. The only citizens whose voices matter in such a decision would be the judges themselves. As columnist Charles Krauthamer writes: ``Not a single country in the world (save Holland) permits doctors to help patients kill themselves. Now judges have declared that America will be such a country, indeed that the Constitution demands that America be such a country.'' I yield to no one in my respect for the role of the judiciary in preserving our fundamental liberties. On occasion, judges may even be required to strike down a legislative act because it clearly conflicts with fundamental freedoms and guarantees of equal protection set forth in our Constitution. This is part of the genius of our system, the fundamental check on the legislative and executive branches created by the Framers of the Constitution. But what would the Framers say of these decisions or others like these? Does anyone doubt that they would be astonished to learn that the Constitution prohibits the people from prohibiting physicians from administering death? At some point, the legal arguments advanced by our judges to strike down an otherwise valid legislative act must be examined in the light of common sense. In creating a new constitutional right to kill oneself with a physician's help, the unelected members of the ninth circuit, judges appointed by both Democratic and Republican Presidents, have taken it upon themselves to deny millions of their fellow citizens the opportunity to address this sensitive and morally charged issue through the democratic process. That is the denial of a fundamental right that would have made the Framers shake with anger. They did not fight so hard to win and preserve the freedom of self-government simply to abandon that freedom to unelected judges. As one judge who dissented from the ninth circuit's decision observed: ``That a question is important does not imply that it is constitutional. The Founding Fathers did not establish the United States as a democratic republic so that elected officials could decide trivia, while all the great questions would be decided by the judiciary.'' In recent days, I have highlighted the enormously influential role that judges play in the daily lives of the American people. Today, Federal judges micromanage hospitals, schools, police and fire departments, even prisons. Federal judges have unilaterally raised property taxes, and now they have struck down popularly enacted laws on the theory that physician-assisted suicide is no less than a right guaranteed by the Constitution. The Constitution is a precious legacy. It was precious when it emerged as that ``miracle in Philadelphia.'' Americans of all generations have made it more precious by fighting an dying to defend it. These sacrifices were not made so that Federal judges with life tenure could warp the meaning of the Constitution to fit their own political agenda or personal beliefs. When that happens, judicial review becomes an expression of tyranny, no longer the guarantee of liberty intended by the Framers. On the admittedly difficult issue of physician-assisted suicide, I am prepared to trust the American people. The American people, not a small group of unelected judges seeking to dispense their own superior moral wisdom, should be the ones deciding whether assisted suicide is consistent with the values our great country does, and should represent. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that opinion pieces by Charles Krauthamer and E.J. Dionne be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate immediately proceed to executive session to consider the following nominations on today's Executive Calendar: Executive Calendar nomination Nos. 507 and 508. I further ask unanimous consent that the nominations be confirmed, en bloc, the motions to reconsider be laid upon the table, en bloc, that 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.