Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. If I could just have 2 minutes of that time?

Mr. DOLE. So could we agree, get unanimous consent there be a motion to table at 7:15?

Mr. DOLE

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

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I rise today to introduce legislation designed to give President Clinton the same tool to control spending that 41 Governors now enjoy. I am talking about the line-item veto. Republicans have supported giving the President the line-item veto for years. During the 1980's, opponents of the line-item veto used to say that Republicans supported it only because the President happened to be a Republican at that time. By introducing this bill as Senate bill No. 4, and making adoption of a legislative line-item veto a top priority for the 104th Congress, we hope to dispel that myth once and for all. We believe that any President of the United States, as Chief Executive, should be given more power over Federal spending. This legislation would give the President the authority to rescind any combination of line items in an appropriations bill. The President's rescission proposal would take effect until a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Congress votes to overturn the President's decision. Mr. President, several of our colleagues have worked long and hard on this issue. The distinguished Senator from Indiana [Senator Coats] and the distinguished Senator from Arizona [Senator McCain] have worked tirelessly in support of this legislation for years. Each time the Senate has voted on the line-item veto, we have been able to garner a few more votes. This may well be the year that we finally get the job done. I am pleased to report that the distinguished Chairman of the Budget Committee, Senator Domenici, has agreed to schedule a committee hearing and a mark-up on line-item veto legislation later this month. My hope is that working with the members of that committee--Democrat and Republican--Chairman Domenici will be able to get legislation adopted in committee and to the Senator floor that can serve as the blueprint for line-item veto legislation that can be approved by the full Senate, adopted in both Houses of Congress, and signed into law by the President this year. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, today I am pleased to stand with Senators Helms, Thurmond, Hatch, Cohen, Warner, Hutchison, McCain, Lott, and Nickles to introduce the Peace Powers Act of 1995. Twenty-two years ago, I voted for S. 440, the War Powers Act of 1973. The act passed 72-18. Only 2 of those 18 Senators are serving in the 104th Congress: The chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Helms, and the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Thurmond. The conference report later passed, and President Nixon's veto was overridden. On each of those votes, I was in the majority while Senator Helms and Senator Thurmond were in the minority. After two decades, I now admit they were right, and I was wrong. Today, on the first day of the 104th Congress, I am introducing legislation to repeal the War Powers Resolution. War Powers was an admirable effort. It was enacted in the aftermath of a divisive war. It was an attempt to prevent more ``Vietnams.'' But the War Powers Resolution did not end division between the executive and legislative branch--it provided a focus for such division and may have actually increased disputes between the branches. In my view, the focus was unhealthy: automatic termination of American troop deployments if Congress did not act. Congress spent hours debating ``imminent hostilities'' and other definitional matters--rather than the important policy issues relating to war and peace. I have always believed that Congress has an important and central role in the decisions of war and peace. I believe any President should work to get Congress behind decisions to use force as early as possible. That's what President Bush did in 1991 before the war in the Persian Gulf. S. 5 repeals the War Powers Act. S. 5 adds back into law the War Powers provisions on consultation and reporting, provisions which have worked reasonable well. When an American President should have all the flexibility provided in the Constitution--not be subject to an automatic withdrawal ``trigger'' or a 60-day time clock. S. 5 also addresses another aspect of the U.S. involvement in the post-cold war world: U.N. peacekeeping. S. 5 imposes significant new limits on peacekeeping policies which have jeopardized American interests, squandered resources--and cost lives. S. 5 limits the placing of American troops under foreign command. S. 5 also requires U.N. assessments for peacekeeping be reduced by the mount spent by the Department of Defense in direct or indirect support of peacekeeping activities. This addresses the absurd situation where the United States spends billions on Somalia, for example, and then receives a bill from the United Nations for millions more--as an assessment for our share of peacekeeping. S. 5 addresses the out of control deficit voting which has occurred in the United Nations. S. 5 requires the administration to tell Congress how it will pay for peacekeeping operations before they vote for such operations and incur any obligation. S. 5 also makes clear that no resources can be committed in New York which have not been appropriated by Congress. The Congress is a little tired of being told we owe arrearages which the administration has made no efforts to finance. S. 5 says if you cannot pay for it, don't vote for it. Finally, S. 5 reaffirms Congress' commitment to the reduction of the U.S. assessment for U.N. peacekeeping to 25 percent--even if the United Nations tries to change U.S. interest or penalties. S. 5 will be the subject of many hearings--in Foreign Relations, in Armed Services, and perhaps in other committees. Maybe certain provisions can be improved in the course of our review. I ask that a summary of the provisions of S. 5 be printed in the Record at the conclusion of my remarks.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send a resolution to the desk.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send a resolution to the desk.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, may we have order?

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, just over 1 month ago, in consecutive special sessions, both Houses of Congress passed a landmark bill implementing the new GATT Agreement. The Agreement establishes a new international body, the World Trade Organization, to oversee with unprecedented authority the growth and development of international trade into the 21st century. I heard from Americans across the country in the days and weeks leading up to the vote. They wanted to know what effect the WTO would have on U.S. sovereignty. People from all over Kansas and just about everywhere else were deeply concerned that this entirely new international organization would rob us of our freedom. I set out to identify those things in this new organization that had the greatest potential to go awry, that might end up harming instead of helping U.S. interests in global trade. I believe the legislation I am introducing today goes a long way toward ensuring that America retains full control of her destiny, that no international organization staffed by unelected bureaucrats will dictate what we do here at home. I hope my colleagues understand, and I want the American people to understand, that the World Trade Organization is an experiment. It is an experiment that Congress has endorsed. But we have not done so unconditionally. Far from it. We have not signed away American sovereignty. To the contrary, Mr. President, we intend to scrutinize this institution--the WTO--to ensure that its every act is consistent with the interests of the United States. is just starting out, just beginning the process of establishing itself. The outcome of that trial will depend on these early actions, on the strict observance by the WTO of its mandate, and in particular on the results of the dispute settlement mechanism. An effective dispute settlement mechanism was one of the major negotiating objectives for the United States. In the GATT talks, the United States sought to have binding and automatic dispute settlement. Trade disputes would be put to international panels, and the defendant would be deprived of any means of blocking the result. The United States supported this idea out of frustration largely with our European friends who maintained agricultural policies that adversely affected every other agricultural exporting nation. All other nations agreed with our proposal, obviously from a variety of motivations, not always identical with our own. They largely objected to our use of what they called our ``unilateral measures,'' actions which we have taken to defend our national commerical interests against their dumped and subsidized goods, or occasionally using our leverage of access to the world's largest, most open market to pry open the markets of others. Despite different motivations, for the first time in any international forum, there will be binding dispute settlement. This means that no nation will be able to prevent the result from being accepted by the body of nations in the WTO. The defendant will incur costs of various kinds if it ignores the findings of a dispute settlement panel--costs in terms of international condemnation, in terms of weakening international respect for the trading rules, and in terms of possible internationally sanctioned retaliation against its goods. This places a heavy burden on the new dispute settlement system, and all who manage it and participate in it. Make no mistake, the future of the World Trading System depends on this new dispute settlement process being used prudently and administered wisely. Those of us who voted for the GATT Agreement knew these risks when we accepted the overall package. There was no option for us, or for any other country, to pick and choose among the parts of the Agreement or to make any modifications. Therefore, we must do what we can with the Agreement that was negotiated, and make a good faith effort to make it work well, to further international trade and American national commercial interests. President Clinton assured me in this connection last month as we approached the vote on the GATT Agreement that he and his administration would fully support my effort to ensure that U.S. interests will be protected. Working with Ambassador Kantor, I developed a proposal, which I am introducing today, that will give the fullest possible protection against abuses by the WTO, and yet allow us to enjoy all of the benefits of the GATT Agreement. My proposal establishes the WTO Dispute Settlement Review Commission. It will be composed of five Federal appellate judges, appointed by the President in consultation with Congress. The Commission will be empowered to review every adverse decision produced by the WTO dispute settlement process. In cases where the dispute settlement panels adhered to the proper standard of review, and where they did not exceed or abuse their authority, no further action will be taken. But if a panel decision reaches an inappropriate result that amounts to abuse of its mandate, the Review Commission would transmit that determination to Congress. Any Members would then be permitted to introduce a privileged resolution requiring renegotiation of the WTO dispute settlement rules. After three determinations of inappropriate decisions by dispute settlement panels, any Member could introduce a resolution to withdraw from the WTO. I call this process ``Three strikes and we're out.'' The United States is only one country, but we are the one most capable of exercising international leadership. My proposal today is a way to exercise that needed leadership. I want to avoid the worst of all possible results--a kind of nightmare scenario in which panelists who may come from countries whose firms engage in widespread dumping, whose governments heavily subsidize industry, agriculture, and services, and whose governments fail to live up to a reasonable standard of antitrust enforcement, advised by a WTO secretariat of international bureaucrats with an agenda of their own to modify existing international trade amendments, abuse their role, and reach inappropriate results. I am not making a prediction that such a scenario will occur. I am saying that the knowledge of the existence of a highly competent, impartial Commission of judges in the United States overseeing in detail the operation of these panels will serve as a protection against that outcome. If the dispute settlement process proves tyrannical and abusive rather than fair and impartial, the United States will be well on the road to withdrawal from the WTO. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill and a letter to me from Ambassador Mickey Kantor dated today be inserted in the Record.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I will also introduce another bill, which will have the number S. 21, together with the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman. The bill is known as the Bosnia- Herzegovina Self-Defense Act of 1995, which would terminate the United States arms embargo on Bosnia. We are pleased to be joined by a number of bipartisan sponsors, and we have had a lot of bipartisan votes. In fact, the last time we had a vote we had 58 votes. Mr. President, I was hoping that we would not have to offer this legislation again this year. I was hoping that after more than a thousand days of Sarajevo's Siege, after more than thousand excuses from the leaders of the international community, that finally some action would be taken. Tragically, despite countless promises of tough action against brutal Serb aggression, the international community has chosen to confront this egregious violation of international law and the affront to principles of humanity, with what amounts to appeasement. Ironically, the only promise this administration, the Europeans, and the United Nations have kept is their promise to continue to deny the Bosnian people the right to defend themselves against genocidal aggression. What is so disappointing about this situation, is that the last time the Senate debated this matter, the Clinton administration made the following predictions and commitments: First, the contact group countries were serious about living up to the commitments they made in the July 30 communique, which included stricter enforcement and expansion of the exclusion zones in Bosnia; Second, the Clinton administration would seek a multilateral lifting of the arms embargo in the U.N. Security Council; and Third no further concessions would be made to the Bosnian Serbs, the contact group plan being a ``Peaceful Ultimatum.'' Nearly 6 months later, what do we see? In Bihac we saw that there is no will to fulfill current NATO and U.N. commitment to protect the safe havens in Bosnia, let alone take on greater responsibilities; A U.S.-sponsored resolution to lift the embargo lies dormant in the U.N. Security Council for more than 2 months now; and Representatives from contact group countries are rushing to Belgrade and to Pale to further sweeten the pot for the Bosnian Serbs and their mentor, Slobodan Milosevic. The have tacitly agreed to a confederation between Serb-controlled areas of Bosnia and Serbia, and are moving toward extending sanctions relief for Serbia even though Milosevic's announced embargo of the Bosnian Serbs has proven to be a sham. We still every day hope peace is around the corner. We are told, let us pass some more resolutions, let somebody in the United Nations make a statement, let us listen to the British, let us listen to the French, let us do all these things and we have been doing it and doing it and nothing happens. The United Nations has a dual key approach, which means NATO cannot do anything in Bosnia, if they want to do anything, and even that is questionable. Another ceasefire has been reached--and maybe it will hold--but by their own admission, the Bosnian Serbs have only agreed to the contact group plan as a ``basis for further negotiations.'' Can we really call that progress? And so, we are offering legislation to lift the arms embargo once more. This bill does allow for the possibility that the ceasefire may hold for 4 months; it would not lift the arms embargo until the Bosnian Government prior to that time. There are those who will say that this bill undermines the ceasefire and the peace process. I strongly disagree. Since when does leverage undermine diplomacy? So far, the only leverage is on the Bosnian Serb side--because they control 70 percent of Bosnia, they hold U.N. troops hostage with impunity, they shut down the Sarajevo airlift by threatening NATO planes, because they do these things and all they have to fear is another visit by Yasushi Akashi. On the other side are the Bosnians, who are nominally protected in their safe havens, and can only see evidence of their rights as a sovereign nation on paper--in the U.N. Charter or some U.N. resolution. The bottom line is that if this legislation is passed and no peace settlement is reached, Radovan Karadzic and his thugs will have to face greater consequences than another meeting of the contact group. That would be a great improvement on the empty threats of the last 33 months. I would like to quote from the late Secretary General of NATO, Manfred Woerner, who gave a speech in the Fall of 1993 about NATO and foreign policy in the 21st century. He said, and I quote: ``First, political solutions and diplomatic efforts will only work if backed by the necessary military power and the credible resolve to use it against an aggressor. Second, if you cannot or do not want to help the victim of aggression, enable him to help himself.'' The United States and the members of the alliance would do well to consider the wise words of Manfred Woerner--one of the strongest secretaries general in NATO's history. The contact group's diplomacy is not backed by the necessary military power or credible resolve--and that is why its diplomatic efforts have failed, causing considerable damage to the credibility of the alliance. Furthermore, since after these long months it is apparent that the international community is unwilling to confront Serbian aggression, we should help the victim of this aggression, Bosnia. Mr. President, I would also like to address some of the arguments made against ``unilaterally'' lifting the arms embargo. First, if the United States acts first, that does not mean we will not be joined by other countries. I believe that despite British and French objections, even some of our NATO allies would join us. Moreover, there are other countries, including the gulf states and moderate Islamic governments that would participate in financing and providing military assistance. As for the argument that leading the way would lead to the demise of other embargoes against aggressor states, such as Iraq, this argument assumes that our allies cannot tell the difference between a legal and illegal embargo. Second, the provision of training and arms would not require the deployment of U.S. ground troops. The Bosnians have an advantage in manpower--what they need are weapons. Indeed, it is the administration's policy of committing the United States to assist in the enforcement of the contact group settlement that would lead to the potential deployment of tens of thousands of U.S. ground troops--and for a considerable length of time because the Bosnians would still be unable to protect their territory. Third, contrary to those who point to reports of arms shipments from Iran to Bosnia, a decision to arm the Bosnians would reduce the potential influence and role of radical extremists states like Iran. The Muslins in Bosnia are secular Muslims, not fundamentalists, who have lived with Christians and Jews in peace for centuries. Ironically, our policy toward Bosnia has fueled anti-Western extremism in the Middle East. Some say it is too late, the Bosnians have lost and it would take too long for them to achieve the capability to defend themselves against the powerful Serb forces. In my view, that judgment should be left to the Bosnians--it is their country and their future. Furthermore, the fact is that Serb forces have not paid a price for their aggression and we do not know what the impact of leveling the military playing field will have on the effectiveness of Serb forces. Let us recall that some in our Government greatly overestimated the cohesiveness and morale of the Iraqi forces, and underestimated the military and political impact that stingers had on the mighty Soviet Red Army in Afghanistan. Serb forces are not the Red army, they are not the Iraqi army. As for the extent of military assistance required, the Bosnians do not need to duplicate the inventory of Serb forces, only acquire the means to counter them. Earlier Pentagon estimates that $5 billion in military assistance is required to assist the Bosnians amount to a scare tactic. The Bosnians need Soviet-style weapons--which are readily available and less expensive than top of the line U.S. systems--in addition to training in strategy and tactics. Finally, I would like to address the argument I heard in London, that the withdrawal of U.N. protection forces would result in the serious deterioration of the humanitarian situation in Bosnia. This would likely be true in the short term, particularly in the eastern enclaves. However, we must recognize that the circumstances have worsened in recent months despite the presence of U.N. protection forces. Should the Bosnian Serbs choose to target their forces on the eastern enclaves, as they did in Bihac, U.N. protection would probably amount to very little. The bottom line is that over the long term, the Bosnians are better off putting their future into their own hands, than in the hands of international bureaucrats--even if in the short term, the situation worsens. Mr. President, we are rapidly approaching the third anniversary of this tragic war. We have an opportunity to take real action, to take meaningful action, by terminating this illegal and unjust arms embargo on Bosnia-Herzegovina. I urge my colleagues to sign up as cosponsors and take a firm stand in support of democracy, international law and humanity. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that my entire statement be made a part of the Record, and also a statement by Senator Lieberman and Senator Feingold. And I would indicate to my colleagues the other cosponsors. Of course, our resolution is open to additional cosponsors. The cosponsors are Senators Dole and Lieberman, Helms, Thurmond, McConnell, Lott, Feingold, D'Amato, McCain, Biden, Mack, Kyl, Gorton, Hatch, Specter, Packwood and Gregg. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, time and again I have heard from the people all across America that Congress must do more to stop the infringement on private property rights. I believe we have all heard this message. Today, I along with Senators Heflin, Brown, Craig, Kassebaum, Burns, Hatch and Nickles are introducing the private property Rights Act of 1995. This legislation will serve as a small step toward ensuring that government mandates and government bureaucrats do not continue to run over individual citizens and individual rights. Now, a lot has been said on this floor regarding private property rights. I think many of us agree on the need to protect private property. The question is--How do we best proceed to get the government out of the peoples' backyards? Last year I introduced the private property rights Act of 1994. Some Members in this Chamber may recall a modified version of that legislation was later attached to the Safe Drinking Water Act. Today, I am introducing the Private Property Rights Act of 1995. This bill has incorporated some of the changes proposed during the debate of the 1994 Safe Drinking Water Act, although there are still differences. This bill takes a ``look before you leap'' approach to the regulatory process. The legislation requires Federal promulgating any agency policy, regulation, guideline or before recommending legislative proposals to Congress. This bill does not stop legitimate regulatory processes and it only applies to any action which could result in an actual taking. The assessment must consider the effect of the agency action, the cost of the action to the Federal Government, the reduction in the value to the owners property, and require the agency to consider alternatives to taking private property. It is important to note that taking can occur even though title to the property remains with the original owner and the government has only placed restrictions on its use. Fortunately, courts have recognized these partial takings are subject to just compensation. Unfortunately, the only check on the enforcement of the Constitution has been through the court system, wherein citizens can, at the expense of vast amounts of money and time, ensure the government complies with the Constitution. The rights of property owners are supposed to be protected from the Federal Government under the fifth amendment and from State governments by the fourteenth amendment. Unfortunately, those who have sworn to uphold our Constitution are not always as vigilant as they need to be. Let's face it, there are billions of dollars in claims filed against the Federal Government by landowners who believe their private property has been taken. This bill is the first step toward putting the people back in charge of their land. This is a good government bill. It brings government into the sunshine. If you support the Freedom of Information Act, if you support the National Environmental Policy Act, if you support the Administrative Procedures Act, then you should support the Private Property Rights Act of 1995. Mr. President, I ask my colleagues to ask small business owners, farmers and ranchers, and those who believe in the private property rights contained in our Constitution, what they think about this bill? When they do, I am certain they will agree we should adopt this legislation in 1995. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, 1969 was a year of firsts and lasts. It was the year that a man--American astronaut Neil Armstrong--first walked on the Moon. And, it was the last year that Congress balanced the budget. That was 35 years ago. In 1969, we spent $16.6 billion or roughly 9 percent of the Federal budget to pay interest on the national--pocket change by today's standards. According to President Clinton's most recent budget, interest payments on the national debt will surpass the $300 billion mark for the first time this year. This year, roughly 20 percent of all Federal spending will go to pay interest on the national debt. Beginning in 1974, Congress has tried to control Federal spending with a series of legislative remedies--Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, spending caps, pay-as-you-go--but, every time those remedies started to bite, the special interests began to squawk. The decisions got too tough, and Congress blinked. Mr. President the deficit situation has improved since President Clinton took office, but only slightly. Even under the rosiest of scenarios which assume 10 straight years of steady growth with low inflation, the deficit is expected to fall for another year or two and then start moving right back up again. Mr. President, on November 8, the American people sent a message to Washington. They want us to get Federal spending under control. Nine more ``messengers,'' fresh from the campaign trail, took the oath of office today. The American people and every one of the 11 new Senators who were elected last November, understand that the time has come for a fundamental change in the way we do business in Washington. It is time to give constitutional protection to the generations of Americans whose dreams of a better future are being crushed under a mountain of debt passed on by a spendthrift Congress for the past 35 years. It is time to give constitutional protection to future generations of Americans--our children and grandchildren--who are not now eligible to vote and are inadequately represented in Congress today. The American people want a smaller, less intrusive Government. Ronald Reagan tried to cut taxes, grow the economy, and force Congress to either cut spending or run up record deficits. He wagered that given that choice, Congress would do the right thing and cut spending. But, not even record deficits could curb Congress' spending addiction. There will be some who argue that voting for the balanced budget amendment is taking the easy way out. They are wrong. Adoption of the balanced budget amendment is only the first step. Once it is approved, Congress must begin to take action now that will enable us to balance the budget by the time the proposed amendment could go into effect. The American people want the 104th Congress to make some tough choices. They understand that we cannot magically balance the budget overnight, but, they also expect to see progress, real progress. We intend to deliver. Senator Domenici and Congressman Kasich are hard at work with other House and Senate Republicans developing a budget blueprint that will put the Federal budget on a path toward balance by 2002--without touching Social Security and without raising taxes. Mr. President, I want to commend the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Hatch, the distinguished senior Senator from Illinois, Senator Simon, the distinguished senior Senator from Idaho, Senator Craig, and the distinguished President pro tempore, Senator Thurmond, for the work they have done to develop a balanced budget constitutional amendment that has strong bipartisan support. I understand from Chairman Hatch that the Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on Senate Joint Resolution 1 tomorrow, and that he intends to work with the members of the committee to try to get this amendment to the Senate floor for a full debate later this month. I look forward to that debate, and I am confident that with the help and support of the American people, the 104th Congress will be able to break the gridlock for real change. Change that demonstrates that we got the message--loud and clear, change that can help restore confidence in our democratic system of Government, change that can help revive the American dream for future generations of Americans. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the joint resolution be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOLE

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

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, on June 2, 1986, the Senate opened its doors to the American people through television cameras, a giant leap in increasing the access of Americans to their Government. However, in some areas, the Senate needs to take further steps to enter the 20th century when it comes to opening our proceedings to the public. The American people sent a lot of messages to Congress on November 8, but certainly one was that they expect us to deliver on our promises. We heard that message loud and clear, and we expect the people to hold us accountable. As our employers, the American people have every right to observe their Government in action, and we have a responsibility to ensure that public access. Today, along with my friend from South Dakota, Senator Daschle, I am introducing two resolutions to increase public access to the proceedings of Congress. The first is a Senate resolution which would permit the electronic media to cover the majority leader's and minority leader's so-called dugout briefings. These briefings, which have traditionally been open only to reporters with notepads, have been held on the Senate floor for a few minutes prior to the day's session. Senate rules currently do not permit broadcasting of the Senate floor while the Senate is not in session, but this resolution would allow it for these sessions. The second resolutions is a concurrent resolution which would permit coverage by television cameras of all open House-Senate conference committee meetings. These public meetings have been open to print reporters and journalists without television cameras. It is high time we permitted more of the American people to see with their own eyes this important part of the legislative process. I ask that these resolutions be printed and referred to the appropriate committee. News organizations have also asked that the cameras that cover the Senate floor, currently operated by Government employees, be operated by journalists. That is an idea which is in my view worthy of serious consideration. Clearly, while current coverage of the Senate has provided the public with a greater understanding of the legislative process, improvements can be made. I plan to consult with Senator Daschle on the formation of a bipartisan Senate working group to examine this issue, and all its implications. In the meantime, I will suggest to the Rules Committee that they consult with broadcast news journalists to consider appropriate changes to the procedures determining camera coverage of floor activity, with an eye towards making the coverage as complete as possible. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that a letter from Brian Lamb, chief executive officer of C-SPAN, as well as my response to him, be included in the Record. I also note that I have had similar correspondence with Bill Headline, chairman of the executive committee of correspondents of the Senate radio-television gallery.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, as Members of this Chamber know, the Senate lost a devoted employee and many of us lost a cherished friend when Shirley Felix passed away on December 13, 1994. As banquet manager for the U.S. Senate for the last 20 years, Shirley worked closely with the leadership offices, and with the offices of almost every Senator. Once you began working with Shirley, it did not take you long to realize that she was a true professional. She knew how to get the job done right, and she did it with a friendly and caring attitude. Shirley's hours were often long, and the pressures of organizing important events were often great, but Shirley somehow never seemed to lose her good humor. Just as Shirley was loved on Capitol Hill, she was also loved by her family. I know I speak for all Members of the Senate in extending our sympathies to her husband, James; her mother, Mrs. Rebecca Plummer; her 6 sons, her 12 grandchildren, and her many other family members and friends. Mr. HELMS addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I also want to congratulate the 11 new Republican Senators who were elected in November. I thank them and all my Republican colleagues for their support in electing me as Senate majority leader. But even more importantly, on behalf of all of us elected to serve, I thank the American people for their trust and their calling us to task. made more free by demanding a Government that is more limited. Reining in our Government will be my mandate, and I hope it will be the purpose and principal accomplishment of the 104th Congress. It was nearly 206 years ago when the First Congress met in New York City. Much of their work was devoted to writing the Bill of Rights--the first 10 amendments to our Constitution. The 10th of those amendments reads: ``The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.'' I might say I think we need to focus on the 10th amendment. So I intend to place it in the Record at least once a week with a brief statement so that anybody who reads the Record, anybody watching C- SPAN, or my colleagues, may understand the importance of the 10th amendment and how far we have strayed from it. Federalism is an idea that power should be kept close to the people. It is the idea on which our Nation was founded. But there are some in Washington--perhaps fewer this year than last--who believe that neither our States nor our people can be trusted with power. Federalism has given way to paternalism--with disastrous results. If I have one goal for the 104th Congress, it is this: That we will dust off the 10th amendment and restore it to its rightful place in the Constitution. Senate bill No. 1 will be step number 1: Legislation to end unasked for and unfunded Federal mandates on States and cities and communities across America. And I am honored the Presiding Officer at this moment is Senator Kempthorne from Idaho and former mayor of Boise, ID, who has been leading the effort since day one, since his first day on the Senate floor, working with Governors, our colleagues on both sides of the aisle, our colleagues in the House, mayors, and county commissioners all across America, because we know what Federal mandates--and he knows better than most, coming here as a mayor--have cost our cities and how they have bankrupted our cities and States. So, along with many other Senators, Senator Kempthorne has done yeoman's work in preparing this legislation. We are going to have hearings tomorrow. We are serious about this. We promised the American people if they gave us the majority we will do certain things, and we are about to do certain things that we think are right--not necessarily partisan, but right. We hope to bring these things to the floor very soon. I spoke this morning with the Senator from Idaho, and he will be prepared, I hope, early next week. We wish to demonstrate quickly, whatever the message may have been on November 8, 1994--and there were a lot of messages--I think one message was to take a look at the 10th amendment. Maybe people did not think about it when they voted. But give America back to the people, give it back to the States, give it back to the local communities. What is wrong with that? We do not have all of the answers in Washington, DC. Why should we tell Idaho, or the State of Kansas, or the State of South Dakota, or the State of Oregon, or any other State, that we are going to pass this Federal law and we are going to require that you do certain things, but we are not going to send you any money. So you raise the taxes in the local communities or in the States. You tax the people, and when they complain about it, say, well, we cannot help it because the Federal Government passed this mandate. So we are going to continue our drive to return power to our States and our people throughout the 104th Congress. We will roll back Federal programs, laws, and regulations from A to Z, from Amtrak to zoological studies, working our way through the alphabet soup of Government. What will be our guide? Our guide is going to be simply this: Is this program a basic function of a limited Government? Or is it another example of how Government has lost faith in the judgments of our people and the potential of our markets? That is the test. I believe that more often than not the answer will justify less Federal involvement, fewer Federal rules and regulations, a reduction in Federal spending, and more freedom and opportunity for our States and our citizens--again getting back to the 10th amendment. Part of what has allowed Government to become so cavalier with power has been its ability to exclude itself from the dictates we impose on the American people--we, the Congress. So what are we going to do? This is going to be bill No. 2. This will end with the passage of Senate bill No. 2, an effort led by Senator Grassley, a Republican, and Senator Lieberman, a Democrat. We have a counterpart led by Republicans and Democrats in the House, particularly Congressman Shays from Connecticut. I can think of no better protection for the private citizens and private enterprise than the constant prospect for Members of Congress that we will have to live under the rules we inflict on everyone else. So if a law is going to apply to some small businessman in Idaho, Oregon, Kansas, North Carolina, wherever, it is also going to apply to Congress. Maybe when it applies to Congress, we will understand why so many people write and complain to us about this law or that law. Do not misunderstand me, some laws we pass are certainly beneficial. The Government does a lot of good things, so do not misunderstand me. But why should we not live under the same laws you live under? That is bill No. 2. In the same spirit, we are also going to propose and pass legislation to protect the rights of private property owners, and to cut the tangle of red tape forced upon our small businessmen and women. Property rights. Again, it was initiated by the Senator from Idaho, Senator Symms, who served here with distinction for years; it was his idea. When Steve Symms left the Senate voluntarily, he passed it on to me, and I have worked with my colleagues, Senator Gramm and others, on this side of the aisle and, again, the Presiding Officer, the Senator from Idaho, and a number of others, and we believe in it. It is important in urban and rural areas all across America. Incidentally, it was said by someone who should know better last year that America's small businessmen and women were getting a free ride from American society. That statement was not made by a politician, so do not read anything into it. It was somebody that should have known better. Let me set the record straight. The engine of American society is America's small business. Small business provides the jobs, the competition, and the spark for progress that is the very essence of democratic capitalism. It is small business that carries America--not the other way around. Mr. President, Republicans also believe that our country's increasingly desperate fight against crime is an area where more freedom is needed at the State level. Today we will introduce, under Senator Hatch's leadership, Senate bill 3, a crime bill that will free States and cities to decide for themselves how to spend much of the $8 billion in law enforcement funds appropriated last year. It will eliminate the wasteful social spending programs included in last year's so-called crime bill. Perhaps most important, the crime bill we introduce today will begin our effort to restore the freedom from fear we knew in the America of our youth. In my hometown of Russell, KS, when I was growing up, we did not lock our doors at night. Nobody did. You left your keys in your car. Even in towns the size of mine in this day and age you do not do that anymore. So somehow that has been lost to the children growing up in America today. We will, without apology, remove from society those who are tearing it apart with casual violence and a new chilling disregard for human life. Our crime bill will impose mandatory minimum sentences on those who use guns in the commission of a crime and make certain there are jails there to lock them up. And in the next session we will cut taxes. Under Senator Packwood's leadership, the Finance Committee will produce, as a top priority, a tax cut that will let families keep more of their own money to invest in their own children and in their own future, instead of siphoning it up, giving it to Washington, and sending it back in There seems to be a growing bipartisan consensus that taxes must be cut, which Republicans welcome, and which encourages me to believe the Senate can act quickly. The President's recent comments indicate he is ready to sign such a bill. But I strongly object to the President's insistence on labeling America by ``class.'' I do not think we ought to divide Americans into economic groups competing one against the other for the favors of the Government. Rather, we must lead by instilling hope and restoring freedom and opportunity for all of our people. No more of the class warfare. It does not work. By cutting people's taxes we will reduce the Government's take of their wages--worthy unto itself. But if tax cuts are to have the effect of limiting Government and providing for long-term prosperity, then they also must be matched by real cuts, real cuts in Government spending. This, Republicans are committed to do. No one in this Chamber has spoken more eloquently about the need to deal more forthrightly with our national deficit than Senator Domenici, who today assumes the chair of the Budget Committee. Let me be clear. Something like a family that examines its budget after a Christmas that was too rich, we will make hard decisions and endure sacrifices to make ends meet. With the one exception of Social Security, every bureaucracy and bureaucrat, every Government program and Federal expense is ripe for reduction and/or elimination. At the top of that list is a price tag for Congress itself. We have to set an example before we have somebody else make the sacrifice. We must be the example, not the problem. We hope to pass a resolution today calling upon the Rules Committee to reduce committee budgets by approximately $34 million. That is a lot of money. That was objected to, but we will get to it in another way. The House is also taking cost-cutting action today. We will work together throughout the next 2 years to save more money across Government. We will also work together to pass the line-item veto legislation which we introduce today as Senate bill 4, and to send a balanced budget amendment to the States for ratification. These measures which have had the overwhelming support of the American people for some time have been ignored in Washington for far too long. These measures go to the heart of the question with which we began: Should Government elites rule society? Should they be able to spend the people's money without check, cloaked by impenetrable rules and omnibus appropriations bills too massive for anybody to read? Or should we trust the people? Paternalism or Federalism? That is the choice. The 104th Congress must answer that question by bowing to the will of the people and putting its trust in them. Finally, let me make it clear that Republicans are acutely aware that the United States has only one Commander in Chief. Our Commander in Chief is President Clinton. We will support him on foreign policy whenever possible, as we did with NAFTA and GATT legislation, and in revising outdated provisions of law on South Africa, Russia, and the Middle East. During the last few years, however, there have been some important areas of disagreement between Congress and the President in the area of foreign policy. One of these has been the President's apparent willingness to place the agenda of the United Nations before the interests of the United States. Therefore, we will introduce today the Peace Powers Act of 1995, which is designated as Senate bill No. 5. This legislation repeals the War Powers Resolution of 1973 and places some restrictions on U.S. participation in U.N. peacekeeping activities. The effect of the bill would be this: We would untie the President's hands in using American forces to defend American interests, but we would restrict the use of American forces and funds in U.N. peacekeeping. We do not want American soldiers under U.N. command, and the costs to America of U.N. peacekeeping must be known before--not after, but before--it will be approved by Congress. In a manner consistent with our constitutional role to appropriate funds and to advise and consent on matters of foreign policy, the Senate will also take a close look at a number of other foreign policy issues in this session; including the costs of the Haiti operation, and the legality and wisdom of aiding North Korea. Mr. President, it has been said that we have become a nation of competing factions, held together less by our hopes than by our wants. The implication is that we are no longer a great people, but merely a continent of categories, and special interests. Well, I do not believe this. I have been here for some time, but I do not believe this. It has been said that Government is uncontrollable because of the uncontrollable appetites of our people. Last November was proof that this is not true. If the recent election proved anything--and some would question, some have doubts, and some have different views--it proved these ideas to be the self-justification of a Government grown too cynical, too fat, and too far removed from the people it is supposed to serve. Mr. President, Americans have been voting in congressional elections for more than 200 years. Some of these elections--most of these elections--made very little difference. But others have been turning points in history. The last one was a turning point. The elections in November provided clear instruction from the American people. The ideas on which we will conduct the business of Government were laid out in unprecedented detail during the last election campaign. This was derided as a strategy by political pundits and attacked as heresy by the established powers. But the ideas prevailed. And therefore, I believe the ideas will prevail in this body and in the House and across the sprawling expanse of Government. Mr. President, Republicans welcome the support of like-thinking Democrats as we work to put a leash on our Government by restoring the 10th amendment, cutting taxes, balancing the budget, enacting term limits, and taking whatever other measures are necessary to make the Government accountable to the voters. Together, we hope to establish once again America's trust in her people and faith in the unmatched power of freedom to build a world of hope and opportunity for all. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Senate bills 1 through 5 be printed in the Record, along with written statements which further detail these bills.

Mr. DOLE. I thank the Chair. (The remarks of Mr. Dole, Mr. Lieberman, and Mr. Feingold, pertaining to the introduction of S. 21 are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions.'') Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I also wish to congratulate Senator Daschle, the Democratic leader. I have said many times if we are going to make this place work, as the American people expect us to make this place work, knowing that sometimes there will be differences, sometimes politics will creep in--politics is highly competitive and should be-- but it should be based on ideas and what may be best for the country. But for the Senate to operate, leaders have to work together. I look forward to working with Senator Daschle. We have known each other for a long time. We are from the same part of the country, I from Kansas and he from South Dakota. And we have many things in common. Our relationship has to be based on trust. There cannot be any surprises. The majority leader has the advantage because he has priority of recognition. I will not permit any surprises, and Senator Daschle has indicated the same. I had such relationships with Senator Mitchell and Senator Byrd. In fact, I talked to Senator Mitchell this morning about 11:10 a.m. I said: ``George, you have 50 minutes left. Is there anything you want me to do?'' We were good friends and we worked well together, as I did with Senator Byrd. I learned a lot from Senator Byrd. I decided a long time ago never to argue about the rules with Senator Byrd, because you will lose. He wrote most of them, and he defined others; he has modified others. In fact, I asked him a question this morning. I said, ``Robert, it is not necessary when you send an amendment to the desk to ask for its immediate consideration, is it?'' He said, ``No, you just send an amendment to the desk.'' I thought I knew that. But I wanted to make certain that I understood it. Again, Senator Byrd provided that information. I am certain Senator Daschle will continue that tradition.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me say first of all that having served in the House for 8 years, in the other body for 8 years, a long time ago, I have just come from the House floor where I have had the privilege of seeing something that I did not think might ever happen, where we have a Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives. I say to my Democratic friends as well that I think after 40 years, everybody would be fairly happy. We waited a long, long time. So I wish to congratulate Speaker Gingrich and Minority Leader Gephardt and the others on the House side who have tremendous responsibilities as we begin the 104th Congress. But I must say that as I sat there and thought about the days I was there in the sixties, in 1961 through 1968, and thought about all that has happened since and all that happened during those 8 years, even the fact that, in the Senate, it probably does not create the excitement-- even within this Senator--that we feel for the House after all of those years. So I salute my colleagues in the House and I wish them every success.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Will the Senator withhold?

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. There is no objection.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, prior to the Chair asking that the Senators- elect present themselves to take their oath of office, I would like to address the Senate briefly on a petition submitted on behalf of Michael Huffington, who was a candidate for U.S. Senator from California. The petition contests the election of the Senator-elect from California [Mrs. Feinstein], asserting that there were irregularities and fraud in that election. The petition asks that if Senator Feinstein is seated, as will occur, the seating be without prejudice to the ultimate determination of the election contest. Election petitions are submitted to the Senate pursuant to the Senate's power, under article I, section 5, clause 1 of the Constitution, to ``be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own members.'' Under rule 25 of the Standing Rules of the Senate, petitions concerning contested elections shall be referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration, and that shall be done with Mr. Huffington's petition. It shall be the responsibility of the Rules Committee to determine what procedures should be followed in considering the merits of Mr. Huffington's election contest, and whether a recommendation should be made to the Senate about its disposition. With respect to the swearing in that will follow, the petition asks that we consider at this time the narrower question whether the oath should be administered to Senator Feinstein without prejudice to the election petition. At the convening of the 103d Congress, Senator Mitchell and I addressed the Senate on how that question has been viewed in previous election contests. In the course of our remarks, we particularly relied on the analysis of a predecessor of ours as majority leader, Senator Robert Taft of Ohio. Our full remarks, and a reprinting of remarks delivered by Senator Taft in 1953, are set forth in the Record for January 5, 1993. I shall not repeat all that has been said previously, but the essential point is as follows. The oath that will be administered to Senator Feinstein, just as the oath that will be administered to all other Senators-elect, will be without prejudice to the Senate's constitutional power to be the judge of the election of its members. In the words of Senator Taft in 1953, If a Senator takes the oath, I do not believe that the fact changes the basis of the vote, or the percentage of the vote required, which is determined by the character of the case, rather than by anything done at the time the oath is administered. As I stated to the Senate 2 years ago, ``In effect we are all sworn in `without prejudice.''' Just as the Senate retains its full power to judge the election in California and all other Senate elections, the pendency of an election contest does not diminish the effect of the oath that will now be administered. As I also expressed to the Senate at the opening of the last Congress, ``All Senators sworn in today are Senators in every sense of the word.'' Nevertheless, as Senator Mitchell told the Senate 2 years ago, the making of this statement prior to the swearing in of a challenge Senator-elect serves the purpose of acknowledging formally that the Senate has received an election petition and that it will review the petition in accordance with its customary procedures.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, the Framers of the Constitution in 1787 set down only a handful of rules to govern the procedures of Congress. Among them was a provision stating that the Senate could choose its own officers, including a President pro tempore, who would preside in the absence of the Vice President. And as we begin a new session of Congress, we also begin another chapter in the remarkable life of the colleague who returns today to the position of President pro tempore of the U.S. Senate, Senator Strom Thurmond. Senator Thurmond's public service career is well known. While some have suggested that he actually attended the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Senator Thurmond's political career actually began 62 short years ago, when he was elected to the South Carolina State senate. Six years in the State senate, 4 years as a judge, 4 years in the military, where he piloted a glider behind enemy lines on D-day, 4 years as Governor of South Carolina, and 40 years in the U.S. Senate, add up to nearly 60 years of service. The hallmark of Senator Thurmond's career is much more than just longevity. It is also effectiveness. As the Almanac of American Politics'' states, Senator Thurmond decides where he wants to go, figures out how to get there, and then does it. As chairman or ranking member of the Judiciary Committee for a dozen years, Senator Thurmond saw the need for a war against crime and drugs long before other politicians jumped on board. And as the new chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Senator Thurmond will continue his lifelong commitment to keeping America strong. On behalf of all Republican Senators, I want to express to Senator Thurmond our admiration and respect, and tell him how delighted we are to have him once again serving as President pro tempore.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Leaders' time was reserved, is that correct?

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I object.