Robert Dole

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote by which the motion to lay on the table was agreed to.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me reinforce the statement made by the chairman of the Finance Committee, Senator Roth. I have been meeting with Republican Senators throughout the afternoon. We are, I think the Senator from New York would appreciate, acting in good faith. We believe we can resolve this. Having been chairman of the Finance Committee and having to deal with debt ceilings, I know there is always a problem. When there is a Republican in the White House, the problem is on that side of the aisle; when there is a Democrat in the White House, the problem is on this side of the aisle, the problem as far as the administration is concerned. I remember going to conference with amendments on Nicaragua. I think there were 19 amendments--foreign policy, everything you could think of was on the debt ceiling. I assure the Democratic leader on the floor and the former chairman of the Finance Committee, as I did Secretary Rubin the night of the State of the Union Message, we believe we can get this done in a timely fashion so no checks will be late, nothing will be interrupted in any way. Having said that, as one who did not favor the shutting down of the Government in the first place, I do not think we ought to risk doing it on a Friday afternoon. If this amendment should be accepted, it has to go back to the House. The House is in recess. I assume they could come back Sunday or whenever. I really believe we have an agreement here that has been approved by the White House and by the leadership in both parties, in both the House and the Senate. I hope we will not make it more difficult by--I know that is not the intent of the Senator from New York, do not misunderstand me, but I think it would make it more difficult. I know that is not the Senator's intent. I respectfully move to table the amendment, and I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, what we may propose here, at the Democratic leader's suggestion, is to vote on this matter, vote on final passage, vote on the START treaty, vote on DOD, and then anybody who may wish to discuss these matters can do that.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I further ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to ask for the yeas and nays on adoption of the conference report to accompany S. 1124, the DOD authorization bill, and that the vote occur on adoption of the conference report immediately following the vote on H.R. 2880.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I also thank my colleague, Senator Lott, in negotiating the compromise on the ballistic missile defense provisions. He did a good job in that area.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I just want to indicate this is the last day for our pages. We will have a new group of pages beginning next week. We certainly want to indicate to all of them on each side how much we appreciate their services and how meaningful their services have been. We hope that it has been a great experience for you. We look forward to seeing some of you standing where we are standing in a few years, because that is how it all starts. You get sort of interested in something. But primarily I want to say thank you, and the best wishes as you go back to school. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that their names be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, in his State of the Union Address, President Clinton announced his intention to reenlist his administration in the war against drugs. Those are welcome words to all of us who have looked to the White House for leadership in that war these past 3 years, only to be disappointed time and time again. From the gutting of the Drug Czar's Office to the appointment of a Surgeon General who spoke out in favor of legalizing drugs, the message from this administration has been one in stark contrast to the ``just say no'' message that was so successful in reducing drug use in the 1980's. The President's words of Tuesday evening, however, give hope that he has recognized that the very disturbing increase in drug use among America's youth these past 3 years is proof that his policies have not worked. And I look forward to hearing from General McCaffrey, the new Drug Czar, and hope that he will work closely with the Congressional Task Force on National Drug Policy, which Speaker Gingrich and I appointed, and which is chaired by Senators Grassley and Hatch, and Congressmen Zeliff and Hyde. If we are to truly win the war on drugs, however, then President Clinton should appoint Federal judges who punish law breakers, and not law enforcement officers. And if a case that occurred in New York City this week is a sign of the type of judges that the President has appointed, then we might as well wave the white flag. Let me briefly describe this case: While stationed in an unmarked patrol car, a New York City police officer watched four men walk single file up to a trunk of a car parked in a known hub of drug activity, and place large duffel bags inside the trunk. The men then noticed the police officer and ran off in different directions. Upon searching the trunk of the car, the officers discovered that the duffel bags contained 75 pounds of cocaine, and 4 pounds of heroin--a discovery that had a street value of $4 million. The driver of the car gave the police a full videotaped confession, detailing her 4-year history in a drug-dealing ring. On Wednesday, however, Federal District Court Judge Harold Baer, Jr., ruled that the drugs and the videotaped confession could not be used as evidence. The reasoning? The judge said that running away from the police was not suspicious behavior, because--and I quote: ``The residents of the neighborhood tended to regard police officers as corrupt, abusive, and violent.'' Unless this ruling is overturned, a confessed drug dealer will go free. Let us hope that this is the only appointee of President Clinton who apparently believes that police officers are a bigger threat to the well-being of our communities than those who peddle drugs to our kids. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that an editorial from today's Wall Street Journal discussing this very disturbing case be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, today we again consider the fiscal year 1996 Defense authorization bill. We are voting on this bill again today because the President vetoed the first bill the Congress sent to him. President Clinton vetoed the first Defense authorization bill because of his insistence that America remain vulnerable to ballistic missiles carrying weapons of mass destruction--and because of his insistence that American soldiers be permitted to serve under the blue flag of the United Nations. I believe that the White House is wrong on both accounts. Defending America should be the No. 1 defense priority. The U.N. Secretary General is no substitute for the Commander in Chief. I know that many of my colleagues, including the Republican members of the Armed Services Committee agree with me. Because the annual Defense authorization bill is critical for the operations of the Department of Defense and contains many provisions crucial to the well-being of the men and women of our Armed Forces, the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Thurmond, crafted a bill that would be signed by the President. The distinguished chairman was assisted, in particular, by the distinguished Senator from Mississippi, Senator Lott, in negotiating the compromise on ballistic missile defense provisions. With respect to those provisions that will support our men and women in uniform, the bill we sent to the President last month included a number of quality of life initiatives. The bill authorized a 2.4 percent pay raise and a 5.2 percent increase in allowance for quarters. In addition, for the Reserve components, the bill authorized an income insurance program for involuntarily mobilized reservists and established a dental insurance program. These provisions will enhance the readiness of our Reserve Component Forces--who, like their active counterparts, have deployed to Bosnia. Additionally, the bill contains a new military housing privatization initiative. This initiative will allow the Department of Defense to utilize new approaches to reduce the family housing backlog. To further enhance the quality of life of our troops, the agreement increases military construction funding by $480 million. Apparently, meeting the basic needs of the Americans who have dedicated their lives to defending our Nation, was not sufficient reason for approving the Defense authorization bill. In order to ensure the readiness of our forces, the conferees added over $1 billion to the operations and maintenance accounts. Furthermore, they increased research and development and procurement funding. This is the only way to ensure the long-term readiness of our forces. As for the ballistic missile defense provisions in the bill, the comprehensive approach to defending America from ballistic missile attack adopted in the original conference report did not survive as a whole. The provision establishing a deployment goal of 2003 for a national missile defense system was dropped in the aftermath of the President's veto. Furthermore, the provisions regarding demarcation between strategic and theater missile defense were watered down also in face of White House objections--despite the fact that these provisions reflected the very proposal originally made by the Clinton administration to the Russians. In short, the Clinton administration has made a conscious decision to make our theater missile defense [TMD] systems less capable and subject to a Russian veto. On the other hand, this bill does retain the provisions establishing a core program in the area of theater missile defense, which includes THAAD and Navy Upper Tier--two of our most capable TMD systems. These systems are also required to be deployed by specific dates--in an attempt to ensure against repeated administration attempts to delay their deployment. Critical to both theater missile defense and national missile defense is the brilliant eyes program. Under this bill, an initial operational capability [IOC] of 2003 for the brilliant eyes space sensor is also established. This will facilitate earlier deployment of national missile defense system. It is indeed regrettable that the President was unwilling to join with us in supporting all of our initiatives related to the defense of our country, our citizens, and our allies. Once again, President Clinton has demonstrated his preference for cold-war-era arms control treaties, and multilateral sensibilities. Once again, the President has revealed where our Nation's future security fits on his list of priorities. But, let the White House be warned: We have agreed to this bill in order to support forces--many of whom are deployed overseas--not to support ill-conceived and short-sighted administration policies. This bill reflects the Republican-led Congress' commitment to equipping and training our forces to guarantee their overwhelming superiority on the battlefield. We have taken steps so our military--though smaller--will maintain their ability to project power around the world--quickly and decisively. We have not given up on our goal of defending America. We will continue to press forward on a national missile defense system. I understand that the Secretary of Defense has recommended the President sign this bill and that the President intends to do so. In closing, I again want to commend Senator Thurmond for his hard work on this bill.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 1544, a bill to authorize the conveyance of the William Langer Jewel Bearing Plant to the Job Development Authority of the city of Rolla, ND, introduced earlier today by Senators Dorgan and Conrad; that the bill be read three times, passed, and the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, with the above occurring without intervening action or debate; and that any statements relating thereto be placed at the appropriate place in the Record as if read.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, let me indicate that we hope to have a conference report on the telecom bill by Thursday. It is a very important bill. It ought to be completed. We are working on a number of issues including the spectrum issue which I feel strongly about. If you noted--in fact, I will place it in the Record-- today the spectrum sale which was estimated by the CBO to bring between $20 million and $100 million brought $682 million. So as we look at ways to reduce the deficit, let us not start a big giveaway program to some of the broadcasters in America who can afford to pay for it. I know they are not very happy. I know they are not very happy with me. But all I ask them is when they make their statements and their criticisms, they use the facts. I see a lot of things on the networks about things that happen in Congress and how we waste money and all the things that Members of Congress do, but I have not seen a single story except for CNN on the spectrum on any of the major networks, on how much it means to them, how many billions of dollars it means to them--free. So I would just hope in their objective reporting as they cover us in the Congress and as they cover other events across America they might at least devote maybe one or two minutes to what the spectrum is all about so the American people understand it is not what they say it is about; it is about real money. The late Senator Dirksen used to say, ``$1 billion here and $1 billion there soon adds up to real money.'' This is real money, and at the time we are reducing welfare programs and other programs that affect poor people, I hope that those who could afford to pay would be happy to do so--or I would say at least would do so. And we hope we can work that out.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I certainly want to compliment the distinguished Senator from South Carolina, Senator Thurmond, for his dogged determination. The bill went to the White House once. It was vetoed. It came back. As everybody knows Senator Thurmond, he did not give up, and tonight the bill passed with a wide margin, primarily because of Senator Thurmond's persistence and insistence and his willingness to make some changes that satisfied Members on the other side and the President. I think it was an outstanding job. I congratulate the Senator because I think he has the assurance it will be signed by the White House.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask that the Chair lay before the Senate a message from the House of Representatives on H.R. 2029, a bill to amend the Farm Credit Act of 1971 to provide regulatory relief. The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message from the House of Representatives: Resolved, That the House agree to the amendments of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 2029) entitled ``An Act to amend the Farm Credit Act of 1971 to provide regulatory relief, and for other purposes'', with the following amendment: In lieu of the matter inserted by the Senate amendment to the text of the bill, insert:

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. For the information of all Senators, the Senate will reconvene on Tuesday for a period of morning business. There will be no rollcall votes. We will be in about 2 hours. Each side will have about an hour for morning business. The Senate will then convene on Wednesday for another period of morning business. The Senate will then adjourn over until Thursday. And on Thursday, at 11:45 a.m., there will be a joint meeting of both Houses to hear an address by the President of France, President Chirac. Members should be in the Senate at approximately 11:25 in order to proceed to the House of Representatives. Following that address, the Senate will then debate and conduct a cloture vote on the motion to proceed to a Lugar-Dole farm bill introduced earlier this evening. Also, the Senate could turn to any items that can be cleared for action, and all Senators should be aware that rollcall votes are expected during Thursday's session.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, last night, President Clinton announced his intention to reenlist in the war against drugs. It is an announcement that is long overdue. For 3 years, the Clinton administration has failed to provide any leadership in this battle. And one of the results has been a dramatic increase in drug use among America's youth. One of the most eloquent and effective soldiers in the war against drugs is former First Lady Nancy Reagan. Throughout the 1980's Mrs. Reagan devoted her tremendous energy to leading the ``Just Say No'' campaign--a campaign that is credited with dramatically lowering this Nation's tolerance and use of illegal drugs. Like countless other concerned citizens, Mrs. Reagan is concerned with the recent increase in drug use. And a column she wrote in yesterday's Wall Street Journal should be required reading for all Americans. I salute Mrs. Reagan for her commitment to this most important issue, and I ask that her column be printed in the Record. The column follows: Just Say ``Whoa'' (By Nancy Reagan) Statistics released last fall from the annual Household Survey of Drug Use and, more recently, from the 21st annual Monitoring the Future Survey show that marijuana use among teenagers was up again last year. Where is the public outrage over this finding? When will this country realize that as long as we don't wake up and adopt a zero tolerance for drug use, we are heading down a path of no return? Most we lose another generation of children to the horrors of crack addiction? Must the statistics soar to all-time highs before we bother to take notice? Last March I was invited to testify before a congressional committee, at which time I said: ``I am not here to criticize or place blame, but after the great strides that we made just a few years back, I'm worried that this nation is forgetting how endangered our children are by drugs. I'm worried that for the first time in many years, tolerance for drugs and the mistaken perception that `everyone is doing it' is creeping back into our national mentality. And I am worried that the psychological momentum we had against drug use has been lost. ``[Y]et it's more than worry,'' I pleaded. ``This weakening vigilance against the drug threat can have a tragic effect on this country for many years to come. . . . How could we have forgotten so quickly? Why is it we no longer hear the drumbeat of condemnation against drugs coming from our leaders and our culture? Is it any wonder drug use has started climbing again, and dramatically so?'' Regarding the drug use survey, NBC News reported: `` `Just Say No' was an effective message in the '80s . . . in the '90s much more will be needed.'' Denver drug counselor Bob Cota emphasized, ``Kids have to be shown why they need to learn it early, in the third and fourth grades--and it has to be repeated often.'' Repeated often--like in the '80s when the national leadership was vigilant and visible. And yes, we do need even more now. In response to the 1994 Monitoring the Future Survey, Joseph Califano Jr., chairman and president of the Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University (CASA), warned: ``If historical trends continue, the jump in marijuana use among America's children (age 12- 18) from 1992 to 1994 signals that 820,000 more of these children will try cocaine in their lifetime. Of that number, about 58,000 will become regular cocaine users and addicts.'' In a 1995 survey by CASA, adolescents said that drugs were their ``number one'' problem. Our children are crying out for help. While drug use is on the rise, the perceived risk of drug use is on decline. The two go hand in hand. Only a few short years ago, the constant message to young people--in the media, in their classrooms, and in their homes--was that drugs lead to destruction. But where are those messages today? Those messages, those lessons, are what change perceptions, change attitudes, change lives. Each of us has a responsibility to bring back those messages--loud and clear. Before the drug-use increases of the past three years, we really had seen marked progress. As I told the members of the committee: ``A decade of effort was beginning to pay off. Attitudes were being changed. I don't mean to sit here and say that we had won the battle against drugs. I think it's plain we had not.'' However, between 1985 and 1992, monthly cocaine use declined 78%, or to an annual rate of 3.1% from its peak of 13.1% in 1985. It's the same story with other numbers: Annual use of any illicit drug by high school seniors dropped to 27.1% in 1992 from 54.2% in 1979. ``The battle was going forward one child at a time,'' I said in March. ``There was momentum, unity, intolerance of the exaggeration and glorification of drug use by the media--we were building peer support for saying `no,' Children were being taught resistance skills--in short, there was progress.'' Now there is silence--and not without consequence. In 1994, twice the number of eighth-graders were experimenting with marijuana as did in 1991, and daily use of marijuana by high school seniors in 1994 was up by half from 1993. The 1995 Monitoring the Future Survey shows that daily use has made another jump. We should all, as citizens of this great nation, be frightened by the latest drug statistics. We should all question what they mean to our futures and those of our children. We should all resolve not to be silent any longer. By the latest drug statistics and the renewed calls for legalization of marijuana, it is painfully obvious that our ``letting up'' is going to let down the young people of this country. It's time to just say ``Whoa!''

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, time, it is said, is the savior and nemesis of history. The savior because it is the very passage of time that creates history. The nemesis because that same passage of time obliterates history. Today, in Nicodemus, KS, a community is waging a losing battle against time. To bolster them in that fight, I am introducing legislation that would establish Nicodemus, KS, as a national historic site. Kansas is not the first place that comes to mind when people think of the Civil War and reconstruction, but we Kansans know that Kansas is to the Civil War what Sarajevo was to World War I. Border ruffians, the sack of Lawrence, John Brown, and the Pottawatomie massacre are as familiar to Kansas schoolchildren as Fort Sumter and Gettysburg. The guerrilla war that rent bleeding Kansas was the opening skirmish in the armed conflict between abolitionist and slaveholder that ended at Appomattox. Even less well known is that out of that bitter struggle emerged a period of hope for the newly emancipated. During the 1870's, Kansas was the scene of a great migration of southern blacks seeking their fortune in what some African-American leaders described as the promised land. One of the most important settlements founded during that time was Nicodemus. From sod burrows carved out of the prairie by the original colonists, Nicodemus flourished into a leading center of black culture and society through the turn of the century. Today, a cluster of five buildings is all that remains of that once vibrant community. National historic landmark status has not halted the gradual decay of this monument to the struggle of African-Americans for freedom and equality. In fact, in its report entitled ``Nicodemus, Kansas Special Resource Study,'' the National Park Service indicated that ``[i]f Nicodemus is not protected and preserved by a public or private entity, it seems inevitable that the historic structures will continue to deteriorate and eventually be razed.'' It was that finding that prompted my legislation granting the town of Nicodemus, KS, national historic site status. It is my hope that colleagues will join me in working to save this unique piece of American history. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, time, it is said, is the savior and nemesis of history. The savior because it is the very passage of time that creates history. The nemesis because that same passage of time obliterates history. Today, in Nicodemus, KS, a community is waging a losing battle against time. To bolster them in that fight, I am introducing legislation that would establish Nicodemus, KS, as a national historic site. Kansas is not the first place that comes to mind when people think of the Civil War and reconstruction, but we Kansans know that Kansas is to the Civil War what Sarajevo was to World War I. Border ruffians, the sack of Lawrence, John Brown, and the Pottawatomie massacre are as familiar to Kansas schoolchildren as Fort Sumter and Gettysburg. The guerrilla war that rent bleeding Kansas was the opening skirmish in the armed conflict between abolitionist and slaveholder that ended at Appomattox. Even less well known is that out of that bitter struggle emerged a period of hope for the newly emancipated. During the 1870's, Kansas was the scene of a great migration of southern blacks seeking their fortune in what some African-American leaders described as the promised land. One of the most important settlements founded during that time was Nicodemus. From sod burrows carved out of the prairie by the original colonists, Nicodemus flourished into a leading center of black culture and society through the turn of the century. Today, a cluster of five buildings is all that remains of that once vibrant community. National historic landmark status has not halted the gradual decay of this monument to the struggle of African-Americans for freedom and equality. In fact, in its report entitled ``Nicodemus, Kansas Special Resource Study,'' the National Park Service indicated that ``[i]f Nicodemus is not protected and preserved by a public or private entity, it seems inevitable that the historic structures will continue to deteriorate and eventually be razed.'' It was that finding that prompted my legislation granting the town of Nicodemus, KS, national historic site status. It is my hope that colleagues will join me in working to save this unique piece of American history. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, there will be a period for the transaction of morning business until the hour of 3:30 this afternoon. Then, following morning business--it could be extended, of course--we will recess until 8:35 this evening, at which time the Members will gather in the Senate Chamber so the Senate may proceed as a body to the Hall of the House of Representatives for the State of the Union Address. It is hoped that we can reach an agreement regarding the consideration of the continuing resolution and the DOD authorization conference report for either Thursday or Friday. I am not certain when the House is going to take up the CR, and if it requires a rollcall vote, we have sort of indicated we would give Members some notice to get back here. So we would at least give them the opportunity to come back if there is going to be debate, amendments, and votes on the continuing resolution. If an agreement is reached on these two items today, the Senate will adjourn until this Friday, January 26, to complete action on those matters. Also, to inform all Members, if both of these items are completed on Friday as well as the D.C. appropriations or Interior appropriations conference reports, if available, then it may be that the Senate would not be in session until February 26. But, again, that depends on what may develop tonight in the President's State of the Union Message and what may develop during the day in our discussions with the Republican leadership on when we may want to proceed to another budget resolution to send the President another balanced budget. But we do hope to complete action on all the previously mentioned items by unanimous consent. I might say, on the other side of the aisle, if someone indicates now that they will not give us consent, then I think we could give notice as quickly as we can that Members would have to be back here on Friday.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the President of the Senate be authorized to appoint a committee on the part of the Senate and join with a like committee on the part of the House of Representatives to escort the President of the United States into the House Chamber for the joint session to be held at 9 p.m. Tuesday, January 23, 1996.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, imagine a percentage of every international airline ticket, every letter mailed overseas, every international trade transaction, and every exchange of foreign currency being collected for the use of unelected unaccountable international bureaucrats. Billions of dollars available outside the control of any government. Is this the paranoid fantasy in a science fiction thriller? No, it is the real world plans of United Nations bureaucrats, led by the current U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali to develop a network of global taxation to fund the United Nations outside the scrutiny of the United States or any other country. For years, United Nations bureaucrats and their allies in special interest groups and academia have dreamed about funding the United Nations through global taxes and other revenue-raising schemes. Taxes on air travel, military expenditures, postage, energy sources, currency transactions could raise as much as $300 billion a year--subject only to the whims of the bloated U.N. bureaucrats. Tax collecting would allow the United Nations to do as it pleases, not as its member states wanted. As Boutros Boutros-Ghali said earlier this month, such revenue power would mean ``I will not be under the daily financial control of the member states.'' While there has been tepid opposition to the taxation plans of Boutros Boutros-Ghali from the Clinton administration, it is far from certain even strong U.S. opposition could halt these U.N. schemes--the United States has only 1 of 185 votes in the U.N. General Assembly. It is not certain that any revenue raising initiative would be subject to the U.S. veto in the U.N. Security Council. It is true the United Nations is facing a serious shortfall of funds. And it is true the United States owes a large part of this debt--in excess of $1 billion. The Republican Congress has been unwilling to provide funds to clear up this debt because of the absence of often promised and never delivered reform. While Boutros Boutros-Ghali and his supporters consistently point to the multibillion shortfall, they ignore, cover up, and excuse outrageous abuses occurring regularly throughout the U.N. system. Let me give you a few examples. In 1994 and 1995, more than one-half million dollars was spent on the special committee on the situation with regard to the implementation on the granting of independence to colonial countries and territories. Long after decolonization was over, the United Nations was searching for ways to liberate such territories as American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands--both of which have voting representatives in the U.S. Congress. The World Health Organization [WHO] spends 75 percent of its $1 billion budget on staff, and much of the rest on conferences, travel and printing. Senior staff positions have increased more than 60 percent since the current director-general took office in 1988. When a U.N.-commissioned 50th anniversary history discussed corruption in the process of naming the current WHO chief, U.N. censors deleted the references. In April, 1994, the U.N. office in Somalia lost $3.9 million kept in a cabinet with a poor lock. Despite repeated warnings, U.N. officials took no action to secure the funds. A month later, a U.N. military officer in Somalia lost $61,000 and another $76,000 was destroyed in a flood in the drought-plagued country. The International Labor Organization [ILO] will spend $30 million in 1994-95 on conference organization and printing for special events. Mr. President, these are but a handful of examples of waste, fraud and abuse at the United Nations. They waste real money every day. Seriously addressing the rampant corruption and inefficiency throughout the United Nations system is the way to resolve U.N. funding problems-- not taxing American citizens. As today's Washington Times editorial and article make clear, the U.N. tax idea is not an idle pursuit of some dreamers--it is a concept that U.N. employees spend time developing, promoting and publicizing. It is time for Congress to act. It is time to say no taxation without representation in the United Nations and it is time to shut down U.N. organizations which spend their time--and American taxpayers dollars-- scheming to get into American wallets for even more money. Today, with Senators Gregg, Helms, and Shelby, I am introducing S. 1519, ``The Prohibition of United Nations Taxation Act of 1996.'' The bill does three things. First, it lays out congressional findings on U.N. taxation and concludes the United Nations has no legal authority to tax American citizens. Second, it prohibits U.S. payments to the United Nations if it attempts to impose any of the taxation schemes. Third, the bill cuts off funds for any United Nations organization which develop or advocates taxation schemes. Companion legislation will be introduced in the House of Representatives today by Congressman Gerald Solomon and others. Congressman Solomon has a long record of involvement in United Nations reform issues, and I thank him for his leadership on this issue. I know both Chairman Helms at the Foreign Relations Committee and Chairman Gregg at the Appropriations Committee plan to hold Senate hearings on the taxation plans of the United Nations. I expect to discuss the possibility of hearings with Finance Committee Chairman Roth as well. I commend Senator Gregg and Senator Helms for their leadership on this issue as well as our other original cosponsor, Senator Shelby. The Clinton administration has begun to discuss the possibility of U.N. reform. Many of my colleagues have been involved in the effort to bring serious change to the United Nations. But as long as the United Nations spends its time on global taxation and not on its severe shortcomings, real reform will be impossible. And as long as Boutros Boutros-Ghali has visions of becoming the tax collector for the U.N. state, real reform will be impossible. The out-of-control pursuit of power by the United Nations has made the Prohibition on United Nations Taxation Act of 1996 necessary. I am confident it will be enacted this year. I ask that the editorial from today's Washington Times and the letter to GAO sent by Senator Helms, Senator Gregg, and myself be printed in the Record. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. I say to my colleagues that we certainly welcome additional cosponsors.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, imagine a percentage of every international airline ticket, every letter mailed overseas, every international trade transaction, and every exchange of foreign currency being collected for the use of unelected unaccountable international bureaucrats. Billions of dollars available outside the control of any government. Is this the paranoid fantasy in a science fiction thriller? No, it is the real world plans of United Nations bureaucrats, led by the current U.N. Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali to develop a network of global taxation to fund the United Nations outside the scrutiny of the United States or any other country. For years, United Nations bureaucrats and their allies in special interest groups and academia have dreamed about funding the United Nations through global taxes and other revenue-raising schemes. Taxes on air travel, military expenditures, postage, energy sources, currency transactions could raise as much as $300 billion a year--subject only to the whims of the bloated U.N. bureaucrats. Tax collecting would allow the United Nations to do as it pleases, not as its member states wanted. As Boutros Boutros-Ghali said earlier this month, such revenue power would mean ``I will not be under the daily financial control of the member states.'' While there has been tepid opposition to the taxation plans of Boutros Boutros-Ghali from the Clinton administration, it is far from certain even strong U.S. opposition could halt these U.N. schemes--the United States has only 1 of 185 votes in the U.N. General Assembly. It is not certain that any revenue raising initiative would be subject to the U.S. veto in the U.N. Security Council. It is true the United Nations is facing a serious shortfall of funds. And it is true the United States owes a large part of this debt--in excess of $1 billion. The Republican Congress has been unwilling to provide funds to clear up this debt because of the absence of often promised and never delivered reform. While Boutros Boutros-Ghali and his supporters consistently point to the multibillion shortfall, they ignore, cover up, and excuse outrageous abuses occurring regularly throughout the U.N. system. Let me give you a few examples. In 1994 and 1995, more than one-half million dollars was spent on the special committee on the situation with regard to the implementation on the granting of independence to colonial countries and territories. Long after decolonization was over, the United Nations was searching for ways to liberate such territories as American Samoa and the U.S. Virgin Islands--both of which have voting representatives in the U.S. Congress. The World Health Organization [WHO] spends 75 percent of its $1 billion budget on staff, and much of the rest on conferences, travel and printing. Senior staff positions have increased more than 60 percent since the current director-general took office in 1988. When a U.N.-commissioned 50th anniversary history discussed corruption in the process of naming the current WHO chief, U.N. censors deleted the references. In April, 1994, the U.N. office in Somalia lost $3.9 million kept in a cabinet with a poor lock. Despite repeated warnings, U.N. officials took no action to secure the funds. A month later, a U.N. military officer in Somalia lost $61,000 and another $76,000 was destroyed in a flood in the drought-plagued country. The International Labor Organization [ILO] will spend $30 million in 1994-95 on conference organization and printing for special events. Mr. President, these are but a handful of examples of waste, fraud and abuse at the United Nations. They waste real money every day. Seriously addressing the rampant corruption and inefficiency throughout the United Nations system is the way to resolve U.N. funding problems-- not taxing American citizens. As today's Washington Times editorial and article make clear, the U.N. tax idea is not an idle pursuit of some dreamers--it is a concept that U.N. employees spend time developing, promoting and publicizing. It is time for Congress to act. It is time to say no taxation without representation in the United Nations and it is time to shut down U.N. organizations which spend their time--and American taxpayers dollars-- scheming to get into American wallets for even more money. Today, with Senators Gregg, Helms, and Shelby, I am introducing S. 1519, ``The Prohibition of United Nations Taxation Act of 1996.'' The bill does three things. First, it lays out congressional findings on U.N. taxation and concludes the United Nations has no legal authority to tax American citizens. Second, it prohibits U.S. payments to the United Nations if it attempts to impose any of the taxation schemes. Third, the bill cuts off funds for any United Nations organization which develop or advocates taxation schemes. Companion legislation will be introduced in the House of Representatives today by Congressman Gerald Solomon and others. Congressman Solomon has a long record of involvement in United Nations reform issues, and I thank him for his leadership on this issue. I know both Chairman Helms at the Foreign Relations Committee and Chairman Gregg at the Appropriations Committee plan to hold Senate hearings on the taxation plans of the United Nations. I expect to discuss the possibility of hearings with Finance Committee Chairman Roth as well. I commend Senator Gregg and Senator Helms for their leadership on this issue as well as our other original cosponsor, Senator Shelby. The Clinton administration has begun to discuss the possibility of U.N. reform. Many of my colleagues have been involved in the effort to bring serious change to the United Nations. But as long as the United Nations spends its time on global taxation and not on its severe shortcomings, real reform will be impossible. And as long as Boutros Boutros-Ghali has visions of becoming the tax collector for the U.N. state, real reform will be impossible. The out-of-control pursuit of power by the United Nations has made the Prohibition on United Nations Taxation Act of 1996 necessary. I am confident it will be enacted this year. I ask that the editorial from today's Washington Times and the letter to GAO sent by Senator Helms, Senator Gregg, and myself be printed in the Record. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record. I say to my colleagues that we certainly welcome additional cosponsors.

Mr. DOLE

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the Rules Committee be discharged from further consideration of House Concurrent Resolution 123 and, further, that the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration.

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of Senate Resolution 209 submitted earlier today by the Senator from Kansas.

Mr. DOLE. I ask unanimous consent that the concurrent resolution be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table, and any statements related to the concurrent resolution be placed at the appropriate place in the Record.

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

Mr. DOLE

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