Trent Lott

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Are you asking that we get some sort of lineup as to how that might be?

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to consideration of S. 2159, the agriculture appropriations bill.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, responding to the Senator from Connecticut, we do plan to ask for a time for morning business. Senator Grassley is here waiting to speak in morning business, and I am sure that the Senator from Connecticut would go, and others might want to, but we have one procedure we want to go through and then go to morning business.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, if the Senator will yield in his reservation to object, and if there is not objection and we get the yeas and nays on that, it would be my intention at that point to ask consent that we now have a period for the transaction of morning business right now.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays on the pending amendment.

Mr. LOTT. I raise a point of order that the pending amendment violates section 302(f) of the Budget Act. Mr. DASCHLE addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, July 14, the Senate resume debate on the pending motion to waive the Budget Act, with the time until 10 a.m. equally divided in the usual form. I further ask unanimous consent that at the conclusion of the debate time the Senate proceed to a vote on the motion to waive.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, first of all, the Senator still had a reservation on my previous request.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Right.

Mr. LOTT. I ask unanimous consent that there now be a period for the transaction of morning business with Senators permitted to speak for up to 10 minutes each, with the exception of Senator Grassley--how much time do you desire?

Mr. LOTT. And that Senator Dodd be recognized following Senator Grassley. Anybody else on this side seeking morning business time?

Mr. LOTT. All right. We have 10 minutes first going to Senator Grassley, then Senator Dodd, and then Senator Kennedy in that order, and then other Senators who may want to speak in morning business. That is the way I would make the request.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, pursuant to the consent agreement reached last night, the Senate will now proceed to the consideration of S. Con. Res. 107 regarding Taiwan, with a rollcall vote occurring immediately after I give a brief statement on the resolution. Following that vote, the Senate will be asked to turn to any other Legislative or Executive Calendar items that have been cleared for action. However, no further rollcall votes will occur during Friday's session of the Senate. As a reminder to all Senators, a cloture motion was filed on the motion to proceed to the private property rights legislation. That cloture vote will occur on Monday, July 13, at 5:45 p.m. As a final announcement, there will also be a joint meeting of Congress on Wednesday, July 15, at 10 a.m. to receive an address by the President of Romania. I thank my colleagues for their cooperation on the schedule, including getting the higher education bill passed last night.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I am pleased the Senate is about to vote on S. Con. Res. 107, introduced by Senator Torricelli, myself and many others earlier this week. This resolution was necessary to address the uncertainty created by President Clinton's remarks in Shanghai on his recent trip to China. Our resolution reaffirms our commitments to Taiwan as spelled out in the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act. That act is the law of the land. Successive Presidents have reached bilateral agreements with the People's Republic of China, but they have never been submitted to the Senate for ratification. They are not binding on the United States. The Taiwan Relations Act is. It is unfortunate the President chose to lay out a new course on Taiwan--unfortunately it was done in Shanghai, unfortunately it was done without any consultation with Congress, and unfortunately it was done without consultation with the democratic government of Taiwan. It is also unfortunate the President did not apparently even seek to get China's leaders to renounce the use of force against Taiwan. Instead, he said exactly what Beijing wanted to hear. One likely effect of the President's statements is to strengthen the voices in Taiwan seeking full independence. While seeking to please Beijing, he has strengthened those in Taiwan who argue the United States cannot be trusted as an ally. President Clinton's statements have emboldened Beijing in its efforts to intimidate Taiwan. A Chinese official told Taiwan to ``face reality.'' The Washington Post reports today the Beijing plans ``to use the remarks as a lever to force Taiwan into political talks on reunification.'' The article also reports that the remarks ``underscore the important role the United States has played in forcing Taiwan to the bargaining table.'' Chinese officials understand what Clinton officials deny: The President's remarks were a major victory for Beijing and major blow to democratic Taiwan. Passage of this resolution sends a powerful signal that the Senate is not accepting President Clinton's new policy. It is a strong statement coming so soon after his return to the United States. But passage of this resolution will not be the end of our efforts to try to understand the administration's new policy on Taiwan. Administration spokesmen have said they have not changed policy, when the opposite is obvious. We will explore whether the administration stands by its 1994 Taiwan Policy Review. That review pledged to upgrade relations with Taiwan. That review pledged to support Taiwan's participation in certain international organizations. Is this still administration policy? We also will try to determine whether the administration still adheres to the ``Six Assurances'' made to the Senate in 1982: No date for ending arms sales to Taiwan; no prior consultations with Beijing on arms sales to Taiwan; no U.S. mediation role between Taipei and Beijing; no agreement to alter the Taiwan Relations Act; no change in the United States position regarding Taiwan's sovereignty; and no pressure on Taiwan to enter into negotiations with Beijing. We will ask the administration if they still adhere to these assurances given to the Senate after the Third Communique was reached in 1982. This resolution is an important step and a timely step. But it is not the end of repairing the damage from the President's statements in China. Mr. President, I yield the floor.

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

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I have in my hand a copy of that wonderful document, the Constitution of the United States of America. It begins, ``We, the people of the United States * * * '' Like Senator Byrd, who refers to it quite often and carries a copy of it in his pocket, I find that when I go back and read it and reread it I always see something different, something special, something very treasured. I refer, today, to the last phrase of Article 5, which is very clear and unambiguous. It says: * * * nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation. The Constitution is very clear. And yet all across this country, privately owned property, including a lot of farmers' private property, and the private property of businessmen and individuals, is being taken pursuant to government action without just compensation. In many instances for so-called ``good and valid reasons--for example, to preserve wetlands or to protect endangered species. Such takings may, upon examination, be legitimate, but not if private property is taken from the property owner in an inappropriate way and without just compensation. This is one of the rights I think we as Americans hold most dear, and is so deserving of protection that it is spelled out in our Constitution--the right to privately own property and to not have it taken away by government action without just compensation being paid. When I visit with people from all over the world, particularly those who have lived behind the Iron Curtain and in Eastern European countries, one of the things they want, one of the things they feel so strongly about in America, is the ability to own private property, own your own little piece of the world, and to own your own home. Yet, in America--in America--we are in danger of losing that right even though it is guaranteed in the Constitution. So I filed for cloture last night on S. 2271, and I intend to strike and substitute the content of H.R. 1534, which passed the House by an overwhelming vote--I think the margin was well over 100--and which has been amended and passed by the Senate Judiciary Committee. I commend the Judiciary Committee for the work they have done in this area under the chairmanship of Senator Hatch and with a lot of other Senators being involved, including Senator DeWine from Ohio and I think Senator Sessions from Alabama. They produced this very important legislation, which is intended to protect an individual Constitutional right, the right to own and keep private property, by guaranteeing timely access to the Federal courts. A primary function of the Congress, I think, is to safeguard rights guaranteed by our Constitution. When the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, our Founding Fathers were confident that the right of an individual to own and use private property without unreasonable restrictions of that right would be guaranteed. However, the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights could not have reasonably foreseen the tremendous changes in our Government structure that have resulted, I believe, in the real impairment of these property rights guarantees. The encroachment of Federal Government agencies into matters of private land management is an issue of escalating cost to taxpayers, businesses, and private property owners. Such encroachments often result in decreased property values, reduced or terminated business activities, and lost jobs. What value does a piece of property have in Kansas or in Connecticut or in Mississippi if you have been told, ``Oh, yes, it is your land. We won't take it. But, by the way, you can't use it in the way you intended, for the purpose perhaps that you had bought it; or you can't do something on your land that you have inherited from your forefathers?'' You might as well just take it off the face of the globe. What value does it have if you can't use it? The extreme interpretations, in my opinion, of the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act by Federal regulatory agencies are resulting in a policy of national land use control. Further, the rights of individual property owners are imperiled when faced with oppressive Government regulation without the ability to even fight for those rights on equal footing. This must not be allowed to continue unchecked. I believe a legislative remedy is now needed to reinstate what should otherwise be inalienable. At a minimum, an individual property owner should be confident in the knowledge that the Federal court system is available to resolve a dispute over the taking of an individual's property without just compensation in a fair and timely manner. That timely access to the courts will be assured by the passage of this legislation before the Senate Monday, and the vote will be at 5:45 p.m. on Monday to allow us even to proceed to consider this bill which will guarantee private property owners access and the opportunity to go to the Federal courts. This legislation affects only Federal property rights claims brought before a Federal court. Despite the contentions of opponents to this legislation, State and local prerogatives and State and local claims-- those based on State and local law--are not affected. The mere fact that a property rights constitutional claim may arise from some action taken by a State or local government does not make that claim per se a State law claim rather than a Federal claim. The Judiciary Committee has endeavored to strike the proper balance when weighing any impact on State and local governments caused by this legislation. This legislation will certainly empower property owners-- that is what it is intended to do--but I believe it will merely place them in the position they should have been in all along and will place them in a position that balances the need of the governmental entity with the rights of the private property owner. Finally, it should be clear to all that the U.S. district courts in particular (and the Federal court system in general) are the proper venue for the adjudication of Federal constitutional issues such as this Federal right stemming from the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. This legislation does no harm to our well-established principles of federalism. The Federal courts reviewing these claims will have no power to write permits or to make zoning decisions as do local governments. The courts do, however, have the responsibility to ensure that such decisions are constitutional and do not improperly infringe upon the property rights established by the Fifth Amendment. I am confident that this legislation will accomplish its desired effect, no more and no less. That effect is to ensure that a private property owner has his day in Federal court and a fair and timely hearing of his cause. This is a bedrock right, and it must be preserved. This is not the same private property rights bill that had been considered earlier by the Congress. It is much narrower. It is targeted, but it gives access to the Federal court system. By taking this step, Congress will make great strides to ensure the preservation of this important Constitutional right. I would like to hear any Member of the Senate go to his or her constituents in their respective States and say, ``Private property owner, we think your property should be taken for whatever good and just cause that might be involved without just compensation, and, oh, by the way, you don't even have the right to go to the Federal courts and have a determination made if it is constitutional or not.'' Try to defend that. We are going to have a vote. We will see who really believes in private property rights in America. I yield the floor, Mr. President. Mr. LIEBERMAN addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now turn to the consideration of Calendar No. 459, S. 2271, regarding private property rights.

Mr. LOTT. I now withdraw the motion to proceed. I yield the floor, Mr. President.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, this cloture vote will occur on Monday, July 13, at 5:45 p.m. I propound the request that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be waived.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, in light of the objection, I now move to proceed to S. 2271 and send a cloture motion to the desk.

Mr. LOTT

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I appreciate the fact that the Senate took up this very important issue of agricultural sanctions and has acted on it. Now, of course, we return to the Higher Education Act. The managers of the legislation have been making progress. We have at least a couple of amendments that will still take some more time. I encourage Senators to speak briefly and just go ahead and get a vote on the issues that are involved. The plan is to stay on the Higher Education Act until we complete it tonight, so we will need cooperation of all Senators. I understand some Senators may have other events they would like to go to, but you can't say, ``I want to offer amendments, but, by the way, I have an event I have to go to.'' Please work with the Senator from Vermont and the Senator from Massachusetts. This is important legislation that expired July 1. We need to get it completed so we can get it in conference and get it done before we go out at the end of the year. I believe with a little cooperation, we can complete this very important Higher Education Act tonight. It is my intent for us to stay in until we get it done tonight. I yield the floor.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I commend the managers of this legislation. This is very important legislation. We needed to get it done so that they would have time to go to conference and get it completed without any doubt before this session ends. Students all across America depend on it. As a former employee in a placement and financial aid office at a university, I know how important these loan and grant programs and work study programs are. I thank Senator Jeffords, the chairman, and Senator Kennedy for staying with it today to get this bill completed. Mr. JEFFORDS addressed the Chair.

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, first, I ask all the Senators to stay in the Chamber so we can get through the next two votes quickly. The managers have done a good job getting us to the point where we have two more amendments left. There is one other issue that is being worked on, and then we would be ready to go to final passage. If the Senators will stay close, we can get through the two remaining amendment votes in 20 minutes and hopefully be ready to go to final passage after perhaps a brief colloquy right before final passage. I ask unanimous consent that the next votes in the series be limited to 10 minutes in length.

Mr. LOTT. I don't believe that has come up today. We have worked on higher education. There is a vision on the horizon of how this could be done. I am sure we will find a way to do that in the next week.