Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be granted permission to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, March 6, 1995, for purposes of conducting a full committee hearing which is scheduled to begin at 2 p.m. The purpose of the hearing is to consider S. 333, the Department of Energy Risk Management Act of 1995.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me just take a moment to indicate that we have not yet given up on this side of the Capitol on the balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. I view the one-vote loss as a temporary setback. I am very optimistic about passing the balanced budget amendment with the necessary two- thirds vote in this Congress. It means either this year or next year. We will be making every effort, not only on this side of the aisle, but along with Senator Simon on the other side of the aisle, to secure one additional vote. That is all it takes, one additional vote. We can call it up, reconsider it, no debate, and then vote on the balanced budget amendment; no debate, 67 votes, and it will then go to the States for ratification. I hope that any of my colleagues who may have voted the other way have had time to think about this seriously. It is an item supported by 80 percent of the American people. It is a discipline we need in the Congress of the United States. My view is its time has come and, in my view, it will happen this Congress. And I hope that we will have even more than the 67 votes required. All those who have been frightening and trying to scare senior citizens, I suggest that has not been effective. We have indicated from the start that we are not touching Social Security, and we will proceed on that basis in the budget discussions. I guess we will determine before many weeks who really is serious about reducing the deficit and about getting to a balanced budget. For all those who indicated in their statements that we do not need a balanced budget amendment to do that, we will have an opportunity to determine which one of those Senators meant what they said, or which others were just saying it because it might be something people like to hear in their States. But, again, I ask those who voted with us last year on the balanced budget amendment to search their conscience, dig out their old speeches and their old press releases and their old campaign spots, and take another look at the amendment that lost by one vote. It was identical, with the exception of a change of date from 2001 to 2002 and with the so-called Nunn language, which we think improved the amendment. This is something that should not be given up easily. We intend to pursue it. Again, I thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their bipartisan efforts to reach the magic number of 67. I yield the floor.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, today we begin consideration of S. 244, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This is a badly needed piece of legislation, and enjoys broad bipartisan support. Americans are drowning in paperwork and need relief now. This legislation is an important part of our package of reforms to downsize Government; to get the Government off the backs of the American people. Together with regulatory reform and unfunded mandates legislation, paperwork reduction is an important step forward toward improving the lives of ordinary Americans by injecting some common sense into the requirements of the Federal Government on our citizens. The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 strengthens the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 by setting a goal of reducing the paperwork burdens imposed by the Federal Government by 5 percent; clarifying that the act will apply to all Government-sponsored collections of information; and strengthening and improving both information technology management and information dissemination. These are reforms and improvements that are long overdue. Mr. President, I have had many people, particularly those with small businesses, tell me that they would be willing to forgo some aspects of a Federal program that might benefit them if only they could be protected from unnecessary paperwork as well. As it is, the burdens involved are nothing more than a tax: a tax on our productivity. This costs America jobs. It deters those who would otherwise open businesses from doing so; and it is often the difference between a successful and a failing business. The American people spoke clearly in last November's elections: ``rein in big government.'' They want and deserve a smaller and more responsive Government. They also want and deserve a system of Government that respects the intentions of the Founding Fathers as reflected in the 10th amendment to the Constitution: Those powers not delegated to the Federal Government are reserved to the people and to the States. The 10th amendment is not merely an abstract point of political philosophy--it reflects the voice of experience by those who understood that Government works best when it governs least and when decisions are made at the level closest to the people. Decisions about what to require in the way of forms, justifications, documentation and recordkeeping made in Washington, DC, often lack this sense of the practical limits on Government. Thus, what may seem perfectly reasonable to a bureaucrat in Washington, DC--who only deals with his or her specific program--is experienced by many Americans as an exercise in frustration, and often of harassment. When you multiply that one bureaucrat by the literally thousands of programs that seem reasonable in a vacuum, it does not take long to see that we have the recipe for disaster. Mr. President, when everyone is in charge, no one is in charge. Thus, we cannot absolve ourselves of the burdens caused by the executive branch that is, after all, attempting to carry our what it believes to the dictates of Congress. Congress has an important role--indeed, an obligation--to exercise the kind of oversight that reins in the excesses of Government. S. 244 is an important step forward, and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.

Mr. DOLE

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

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, is leader time reserved?

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me indicate that round one of the balanced budget effort has been disposed of. But there will be other rounds. Our new Republican colleague, Senator Campbell, when he was talking to some of the reporters, was saying the thing that really made the decision for him was the balanced budget amendment and the games that are being played with the balanced budget amendment and those who one year vote one way and the next year vote another way on the balanced budget amendment. As I said in my remarks yesterday, it seems to me that this issue should not and will not go away. We will proceed on the basis that the balanced budget amendment will be passed. We will see how many are willing to make the tough votes--we hope a majority on both sides of the aisle--and we will see about Social Security and some of the other smokescreens that were talked about during the debate. But I would just assure my colleagues that this issue--and it is an issue and will continue to be an issue because 80 percent of the American people have told us that they want a balanced budget amendment. We have told them we do not care what you want, we know what is best. A minority of 34 knows what is best, even though a majority of 80 percent have a different view. So I am excited about the prospects of taking this case to the American people for the next 3 months, 4 months, 6 months, 8 months, 10 months, a year, 16 months, whatever it takes because it is that important. Again, it is not a matter of partisanship, because I congratulate the 14 Democrats who withstood the pressure from the White House and the leadership on the other side to vote consistently and to vote their convictions. This was a bipartisan effort, as it should have been. And I read the obituaries in the morning's paper about what it means for A or X or Y or Z. It is what it means to the American people that makes the difference. And what it means to the American people is that the U.S. Senate by one vote, one vote, has said wait. You have to wait. We will make these judgments for you. You do not understand. We understand all these complex issues. But I must say traveling around the country when you make speeches and you talk about unfunded mandates, people say ``Well, I do not think I have had that.'' They do not really focus on unfunded mandates. You talk about covering Congress like we cover everybody else. Most people say that is a good idea. But I find the thing that the American people understand without any further explanation is when you say ``balanced budget.'' They are doing it in their business. They are doing it in their homes. They are doing it in their offices, and they understand the balanced budget. They also understand regulatory reform, which is another issue that will be on this floor very soon. So I do not know when this reconsideration will take place, but hopefully very soon. But if not, there is time to take the case to the American people. I do not suggest that many of my colleagues were not properly motivated. But I think in some cases it was a lot of politics, and that is not without precedent on either side of the aisle either, I would say, because this is a political institution in a sense. But this issue is larger than any one Senator or larger than this institution. As I have said, we do not amend the Constitution lightly around here. We certainly had adequate debate. I conclude by saying to all of my colleagues that we are going to have to change our operating rules in the Senate because we are now starting to report out some of the legislation. So I just alert my colleagues to be prepared to be here almost every night until 10 or 11 o'clock. There will not be any recesses in the Senate this year that I can see after the Easter recess. We have tried to accommodate our colleagues who want to spend 10 days on this, 3 weeks on this, 3 or 4 weeks on this. And I do not know of any other way to finish our work. But I think every Senator will accept that because, if we want to have these extended debates and we want to have this full discussion, then certainly we understand that it is going to take more time. I do not have any objection to that except to say that we are going to try to complete our work this year. I do not see any other way unless there is some way that the Democratic leader and I could come together and figure out some way to do it. But if you look at what has happened so far this year, we have had about 2 months now on three pieces of legislation. And we have been in session almost every day. Maybe that is the way it is. On that basis, you would pass about 15 pieces of legislation. I alert my colleagues that we are going to meet with the Democratic leader next week to try to outline a program for the next couple of months. I know that after legislation comes from the House it properly goes to committees here and we have hearings and markups. The line-item veto will be on this floor by the end of next week, and we will stay on the line-item veto and we will be here nights. We are not going to spend 30 days on the line-item veto. We will find out where the votes are when the President says he supports a line-item veto. We will see if work for the line-item veto. We hope he does. So I alert my colleagues that though many of us would like to have a little more time off these next few months, I do not believe it is possible. If it is, I will try to accommodate all my colleagues. I yield the floor. The Balanced Budget Amendment

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I understand that Senate Joint Resolution 28, introduced earlier today by Senator Jeffords, is at the desk.

Mr. DOLE. I ask for its first reading.

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

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, for the information of all my colleagues, the next item the Senate is expected to consider is S. 244, the Paperwork Reduction Act. One amendment is expected to be offered. However, that amendment will not be available until Monday. Therefore, the Senate will conduct morning business only during tomorrow's session of the Senate. No rollcall votes will occur during Friday's session of the Senate.

Mr. DOLE. I may be able to do that in the morning.

Mr. DOLE. I think it depends on what happens on the Paperwork Reduction Act, and I will be able to make that announcement hopefully early tomorrow so people, if we do not have votes Monday, can make plans.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Resolution 84, submitted earlier by Senators Mack and Graham, which would salute the 150th anniversary of Florida's statehood, and that the resolution be considered and agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; that any statements relating to the resolution appear at the appropriate place in the Record.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. First, let me announce that, after the vote, the Armed Services Committee will meet in the President's room to report out some nominations. Mr. President, let me just be brief, because I think we have said about all we can say about the balanced budget amendment. We will vote today. There have been a couple of matters arise since Tuesday and I think a few points bear repeating. I have said many times before that the Senate cannot operate if there is any lack of trust between the majority and minority leaders. And I have had such relationships with Senator Mitchell, Senator Byrd, and with Senator Daschle. The distinguished Democratic leader did say, however, that he thought maybe not having the vote on Tuesday may have damaged that relationship. I believe that is not the case. As the Democratic leader knows, Senator Hatch and Senator Simon spent much of Tuesday in discussions, which ultimately led to the amendment by the Senator from Georgia, Senator Nunn. And we even had discussions since that time. In fact, as late as 5 o'clock last night, there was some kind of a suggestion put forward by a number of Democrats who had voted for a balanced budget amendment before and now are in opposition. So I think the point is that we did use that time and did try to come together, as the Democratic leader has just suggested. But I think now we have reached a firm decision and it is time for a vote. The time for a vote has arrived. I must say, I have been a little bit amused, I guess you would say, about all this talk on the other side about Social Security, particularly after most every Democrat in 1993 voted to increase taxes on Social Security recipients to the tune of about $25 billion, affecting millions and millions of retired people. So I must say I was a bit amused when I saw all the gnashing of the teeth. I also would put in the Record at this point this year's budget resolution, the one that many of my colleagues voted for and are now voting against. The only difference is we changed the date of 2001 that Senators voted for last year. It is now 2002. And we also added the Nunn language. I ask unanimous consent that both of these resolutions be made a part of the Record. If anybody wants the facts, the facts are there.

Mr. DOLE. And there was nothing in the resolution last year that protected Social Security. All this talk about protecting Social Security is a cover for the taxes that were increased on Social Security benefits by the very people who are announcing, ``Oh, no; we cannot touch Social Security.'' We want the record to be clear on that issue, as people look at it in the next few months. There will be ample time to look at it in the next few months. On January 26, the Senate voted 83 to 16 to adopt a sense-of-the- Senate amendment stating we should not raise Social Security taxes or cut Social Security benefits in order to balance the budget. On February 9, the Senate adopted a motion reaffirming that commitment by a vote of 87 to 10. The House had done the same by a vote of 412 to 8. No doubt about it, there is clearly strong, bipartisan support to protect Social Security. So all these other machinations and all the games that have been played in the last few days was an effort. I do not know what the effort was all about. I guess maybe to tell people, ``Well, I voted one way last year, but this is a different year, and things have changed.'' Well, nothing has changed in the amendment. That is why I want the amendments put in the Record, so the American people know precisely that some people voted for one thing, and against the same thing the next year. That is fine. We have a right to change our mind. It seems to me that if we increase taxes on Social Security beneficiaries $24.6 billion that probably is a cause for some concern. And not a single Republican in either the House or the Senate joined in that new tax on senior citizens. Not a single Republican. Let me again state for the Record that later this year, Republicans will put forward a detailed 5-year plan to put the budget on the path of balance by the year 2002. Our plan will not raise taxes and our plan will not--will not--touch Social Security. I do not know what other assurances some people need. Maybe they do not really want assurances. Make no mistake about it, everything else--every other spending program--will be on the table. If this amendment fails, you are still going to get the tough votes. We will offer the plan that we would have offered if this amendment had passed, and then we will see where everybody falls out, see how strongly they feel about spending cuts-- not tax increases, but spending cuts. When all is said and done, it all comes down to one question: Does the Senate of the United States trust the American people? Well, 98 percent of Republicans do, and less than 30 percent of Democrats do. That is how it adds up: 14 out of 47, and 52 out of 53. So we trust the American people by almost 98 percent. We are not changing the Constitution if we pass this amendment. The Founding Fathers did not give Congress that power. Instead, they reserved that power to the States and to the people, and by passing this amendment, we are in effect authorizing a national debate on the merits of a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution. That is all we do. And, over the years, we will have the pros and cons because all 50 States chosen by people in our States are going to make that determination--Democrats and Republicans and State legislatures in 50 States. There is a word for that process. It is called democracy. It is called democracy. Nobody is going to predict with any certainty what the final outcome will be. Republicans control both Chambers in 19 States, Democrats control both Chambers in 18 States, and in 12 States each party controls one Chamber. Nebraska has a nonpartisan legislature. It will be tough to get 38 out of 50 States to approve this amendment. I will do my best if it passes to convince the Kansas Legislature to adopt the amendment. I know the President will do his best to sway the people the other way. Even though 80 percent of the American people want this, President Clinton knows best. ``This is not what you want,'' he is saying to the American people. ``You want something else: Higher taxes, higher debt.'' Thomas Jefferson himself envisioned such a process when he wrote: I know no safe depository of the ultimate power of society but people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. If there is one man who knows as much about the Constitution as Thomas Jefferson, it is probably Senator Robert Byrd. On August 4, 1982, in announcing his support for the balanced budget amendment, Senator Byrd said: Under our democratic system, to put a question of this magnitude directly to the people is a wise and proper action. Therefore I will vote for this amendment--and thus vote to put this question directly to the American people. I cannot doubt that their ultimate decision will be the right one. Nothing has changed since, except the debt has gotten bigger. We have not exercised the will of the Congress. It has gotten bigger. I think the American people are enlightened enough to make this decision. I happen to believe what some still think about this revolutionary principle--revolutionary principle--``Trust the people.'' We do not want to trust the people--98 percent of us do. I am willing to trust the American people to make the right decision. Those who oppose the amendment are not. That is what this debate is all about. Returning power to the people, returning power to the States. That is what the American people say they want. They want to make decisions. We are not going to give them that opportunity. We will take that away from them if we do not adopt this amendment. What we are saying is, in effect, if the amendment fails, ``Washington knows best. This is business as usual; we know what you want. Don't tell us you know what you want, because we know better. Eighty percent of the people don't have any idea what they are talking about.'' That is the attitude that spurred last November's revolution. Finally, I ask my colleagues to listen to the words Thomas Jefferson spoke in his first inaugural address: Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the forms of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question. Mr. President, history will remember how we respond to that question today. As for me, and as for a lot of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, the answer is ``democracy, democracy.'' The answer is, ``Trust the people; trust the people.'' We trusted them when they voted for us. But the election is over now. Promises that were made are in the ashcan. They do not mean anything now, because I have been elected, we have been elected. I just suggest we ought to pass this amendment; we ought to send it to the States. And we ought to say to the State legislatures, ``Make the decision.'' And if 38 ratify the amendment, it becomes part of the Constitution. If 38 do not, it fails. So I urge my colleagues, there is still time to repent. There is still time.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DOLE. I ask that Senators remain at their desks, and vote from their desks.

Mr. DOLE. I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by which the constitutional amendment was defeated.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business until 3:15 p.m., with Senators allowed to speak for not more than 5 minutes each.

Mr. DOLE

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

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in recess until the hour of 10 a.m. March 3, 1995; that following the prayer, the Journal of proceedings be deemed approved to date, and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day; that there then be a period for the transaction of morning business not to extend beyond the hour of 1 p.m., with Senators permitted to speak therein not to exceed 5 minutes each, with the following exceptions: Senator Craig, 1 hour; Senator Daschle, 30 minutes; Senator Lieberman, 20 minutes; Senator Graham of Florida, 15 minutes; Senator Grams, of Minnesota, 5 minutes.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, if there is no other business to come before the Senate, and no other Senator is seeking recognition, I now ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in recess under the previous order.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, at 2 o'clock, leader time having been reserved, the leaders will each have 10 minutes, followed by a vote on the balanced budget amendment.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I now move that the Senate stand in recess until 2 p.m. today.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I am going to modify the proposal to move that the Senate stand in recess until noon on Thursday, March 2.