Robert Dole

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 President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.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, for far too long, Congress has imposed new rules and regulations on the private sector, while seeking to exempt itself from those same rules. Not surprisingly, many of our citizens have begun to view the Senate and the House of Representatives not as the people's body, but as the ``imperial congress,'' as an institution that considers itself above the law and without accountability. This past election day, the American people finally said ``enough is enough.'' Not only do the American people want also want Congress to clean up its own act by living under the very laws we seek to impose on everyone else. After all, what's good for the goose is certainly good for the gander. S. 2, the Congressional Accountability Act, is a key element of our effort to put the institution of Congress back in the good graces of the American people. Later today, the House will pass its own version of congressional-coverage legislation, and perhaps as early as tomorrow, S. 2 will be passed here in the Senate. In a nutshell, S. 2 forces Congress to comply with the following laws that regulate private employment and the private-sector workplace: (1) The Fair Labor Standards Act, (2) The Federal Labor Management Relations Act, (3) Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, (4) The Americans with Disabilities Act, (5) The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, (6) The Age Discrimination in Employment Act, (7) The Family and Medical Leave Act, (8) The Occupational Safety and Health Act, (9) The Employee Polygraph Protection Act, (10) The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, and (11) The Veterans Reemployment Act. All these laws now apply to the private sector, and with the passage of S. 2, they will soon apply to Congress as well. To enforce the application of the laws to Congress, S. 2 establishes an office of compliance with a 5-member board of directors. The directors on the board will be jointly appointed by the Senate majority leader, the Senate minority leader, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the House minority leader. The office will also have a general counsel, an executive director, and two deputy executive directors, one for the Senate and one for the House. Each of the deputy executive directors will be responsible for promulgating the implementing regulations for his or her respective house. In addition, S. 2 requires that any future legislation that affects the terms and conditions of private employment must be accompanied by a report describing the manner in which the legislation will apply to Congress. If any provision of the proposed law does not apply to Congress, the report must include a statement explaining why this is so. This reporting requirement will help ensure that Congress resists the temptation of exempting itself from future regulations and rules. Of course, S. 2 may herald a new era of regulatory caution, where Congress thinks twice before imposing a new government-crafted requirement on the private sector. It's one thing for Congress to create a new regulatory burden; it's something quite different when Congress has to bear the burden too. Finally, Mr. President, I want to congratulate my distinguished colleague, Senator Chuck Grassley, for spearheading the congressional- coverage effort here in the Senate. Without his hard work and commitment, S. 2 would not be the priority that it is today. I also want to take a moment to recognize my colleague from Oklahoma, Senator Don Nickles, for his important contribution as well. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of S. 2 be reprinted in the Record immediately after my remarks.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, for years, Members of Congress have tried to hide the full cost of efforts to expand the reach of the Federal Government. They do this by passing Federal laws giving, State and local governments new responsibilities, but little, if any, of the money needed to fulfill their new federally-mandated obligations. State and local officials call these new obligations unfunded mandates. State and local government costs don't show up in the Federal budget. Congressional advocates of a particular piece of legislation who are concerned that their proposal might not pass if the full costs of implementation are known, shift a large portion of the costs off- budget. The problem is that Federal cost estimates don't tell the whole story. Just because a new piece of legislation doesn't have a Federal cost does not mean that it has no cost or that it does not affect taxpayers. For the past several years, a steady stream of unfunded mandates has been flowing out of Washington, wreaking havoc on State and local budgets, and forcing Governors, Mayors, State legislators and city council members across the country to make tough choices. Because most States and localities are required to balance their budgets each year, unfunded mandates force State and local officials to choose between cutting other services and raising taxes to balance their budgets and fulfill their new federally-mandated responsibilities. The costs are staggering. Ohio Governor George Voinovich reviewed the impact of unfunded Federal mandates on the State of Ohio. His August 1993 study found--and I quote--``Unfunded Federal mandates identified in this survey will impose costs of over $1.74 billion on the State of Ohio from 1992 through 1995.'' Officials at the National Conference of State Legislatures have estimated that unfunded mandates cost States more than $10 billion a year. The actual figure may be even higher. Gov. Pete Wilson has estimated that unfunded Federal mandates cost the State of California $7.7 billion in 1994. That's a lot of money, even in Washington. Money that could have been used to bolster law enforcement or education budgets, money that could have been used to finance innovative new State or local initiatives. Mr. President, the time has come for a little legislative truth-in- advertising. Before Members of Congress vote for a piece of legislation, they need to know how it could impact the States and localities they represent. If Members of Congress want to pass a new law, they should be willing to make the tough choices needed to pay for it. The Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 enjoys broad bipartisan support. It is a change that we can adopt this month and have an immediate impact on the way that Congress evaluates new legislation. This legislation recognizes that governments are not the only ones affected by mandates. This bill recognizes that potential private sector costs should be a part of the equation whenever Congress evaluates the potential costs of new legislation. That is why the bill would require that CBO evaluate the potential costs of new mandates on businesses and individuals. Mr. President, this is not a partisan issue. It's a good government issue whose time has come, thanks, in large part, to the hard work and skilled leadership of the distinguished Senator from Idaho, Senator Kempthorne. As the former Mayor of Boise, Senator Kempthorne knows firsthand the difficult choices that unfunded mandates force upon those who have to balance their budgets every year. He has worked tirelessly over the past several months with State and local officials from across the country on both sides of the aisle, with Governmental Affairs Committee, Chairman, Roth, Budget Committee Chairman Domenici, key Democrats on both of those key committees, the administration and key Republicans in the House. The result of all this effort is a bill that is tougher than the bill we debated last year. I am confident that this new, improved version--the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995--will be the blueprint for a bill that can be approved in both Houses of Congress and signed into law by President Clinton early this year. Governors, State legislators, mayors, county executives, and other State, local, and tribal executives--Democrats, Republicans and Independents--are urging us to act quickly to provide them with the protection they seek. They want to forge a new partnership between Congress and State and local governments. Adoption of this important legislation will send them a clear signal that the 104th Congress intends to make that new partnership a reality. Chairman Roth and Chairman Domenici have announced that the Governmental Affairs and Budget Committees will hold a joint hearing on S. 1 tomorrow. The Governmental Affairs, Committee will markup the bill Friday, and the Budget Committee will mark up the bill on Monday of next week. Our hope is that by working on a bipartisan basis we can get this important piece of legislation to the floor and begin the debate next week.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, one of the most heated debates last Congress centered around the so-called crime bill. While our colleagues on the other side of the aisle ultimately succeeded in passing the bill, Republicans argued then--and continue to maintain--that the bill spent far too much on social programs of unproven worth, while failing to adopt some of the tough measures proposed to combat violent crime. To a large degree, S. 3 attempts to correct some of the obvious flaws and excesses of last year's crime bill. It also stakes out some critical new ground, particularly in the area of criminal procedure. More importantly, S. 3 is premised on the principle that criminals are not the victims of society, as some may claim, but rather that society itself is the victim of criminals and the violence they perpetuate. In addition, S. 3 recognizes that the States and localities, not the Federal Government, are on the front lines in the war against crime and are best equipped to devise effective anticrime strategies. When it comes to fighting crime, the role of the Federal Government should be to assist the States and localities in their own crime-fighting efforts, rather than impose unnecessary regulations and ``one-size- fits-all'' requirements that often do more harm than good. revisiting last year's crime bill For starters, S. 3 incorporates the 10 amendments that Senate Republicans unsuccessfully sought to offer during last year's crime- bill debate. These amendments include: (1) Mandatory minimum penalties for those who use a gun in the commission of a crime, sell illegal drugs to minors, or employ minors to sell drugs; (2) repeal of more than $5 billion in wasteful social spending that was included in last year's crime bill, including spending on the Local Partnership Act, the model cities intensive grants, and the so-called drug courts; and (3) a provision requiring restitution for the victims of Federal crimes. S. 3 also increases funding for billion over the funding levels contained in last year's crime bill. more police and more flexibility One of the most over-hyped proposals in the crime bill was the $8.8 billion community-policing program. Although the Clinton administration claimed that the proposal would result in 100,000 new police hires over the next 6 years, most criminal-justice experts predict that the proposal will fully fund only a portion of that figure, perhaps as few as 20,000 new cops. Recognizing that the Federal Government does not have all the crime-fighting answers, S. 3 repackages the community-policing proposal into a single block grant program. Under the block grant program, States and localities will have the option of using the funds for a variety of purposes, including the hiring of new police officers, training existing officers, paying overtime, upgrading equipment, or investing in new crime-fighting technologies. Unlike the community- policing program in last year's crime bill, S. 3 imposes no matching requirement or per-officer spending cap. This should give States and localities some much-needed flexibility in determining how best to utilize these important crime-fighting resources. At the same time, S. 3 beefs up funding for some of our Federal law enforcement agencies, including the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration. This will help ensure that these agencies will be able to carry out their important missions. procedural reforms S. 3 also enacts some long overdue reforms to the criminal justice system. First, it reforms habeas corpus procedures in a way that safeguards the legitimate rights of the accused while ensuring that lawfully-imposed capital sentences are not endlessly delayed by frivolous appeals. Most importantly, S. 3 requires Federal courts to give deference to State court decisions on Federal constitutional claims, so long as the claims were ``fully and fairly'' litigated at the State level. Application of this principle will go a long way towards streamlining the criminal appeals process, thereby making punishment swifter and more certain and enhancing the confidence of the American people in our system of criminal justice. California Attorney General Dan Lungren, as well as the National Association of State Attorneys General, played a prominent role in the drafting of the habeas corpus reform provisions of S. 3. Their input was invaluable. Second, S. 3 abolishes the exclusionary rule as it pertains to the fourth amendment and establishes a tort remedy for those whose fourth amendment rights have been violated by an unreasonable search and seizure. Under the tort remedy, the United States will be liable for damages resulting from an unlawful search and seizure conducted by a law enforcement officer who was acting within the scope of his employment. The bottom line is that probative evidence, particularly in a criminal trial, should not be excluded because a police officer made a mistake. We should discipline the police officer and his supervising authority, not punish the crime victim by excluding probative evidence. And finally, S. 3 creates an obstruction of justice offense for attorneys who knowingly file false statements in criminal proceedings. Conclusion Mr. President, when it comes to solving the crime epidemic in this country, Republicans don't have all the answers--not by a long shot. But, in our view, S. 3 provides the framework for the type of tough anticrime legislation the American people deserve. Finally, I want to thank my distinguished colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, for his leadership in crafting this important legislation. During his tenure in the Senate, Senator Hatch has always been a relentless advocate for a no-nonsense approach to solving the violent crime problem. I look forward to his service as chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill and additional materials be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me further state that the purpose of the resolution is to set the size of committees, and it is this resolution that the Senator from Iowa has chosen to amend. That will be debated later on this afternoon.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I share the view expressed by the Senator from Iowa, and I ask unanimous consent now that the resolution be laid aside until the conclusion of routine morning business later today, and then we can proceed.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I send a resolution to the desk and ask that it be read by title.

Mr. DOLE

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

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. I move to lay that motion on the table. The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

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

Mr. DOLE

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

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