2000 Republican Primary Candidate for President; NC Sr Senator
Defederalized Dulles and National Airports
Why should Uncle Sam operate a pair of airports, Washington National and Dulles International? Why subject a local, nonpolitical function like airport management to congressional oversight?
Adminstrations of both parties had attempted 8 times since
1949 to move National and Dulles Airports out of federal control, without winning in either house of Congress. What made me think I could succeed where they had failed? Three reasons: Deregulation. Decay. Deficits.
Money was needed at both airports to
implement a host of changes. But in a period of federal deficits, the needed $700 million simply wasn't available. Finding an alternative source of funding involved a three-year process.
The strongest resistance to change came in the House, whose
members thought of Dulles and National as their airports. I booked into an extensive campaign tour for House and Senate candidates, and tracked down dozens of congressmen [to lobby7 for their vote. The bill passed Congress on Oct. 15, 1986].
Elizabeth Dole abandoned her bid for the 2000 Republican presidential nomination, citing an inability to raise money. “The bottom line remains money,” she said. Later, she said soft money should be phased out. But she also said the $1,000
per donor contribution limit to presidential campaigns - set in 1974 - needs to be changed. “That doesn’t even reflect the rate of inflation. [It should be] increased, perhaps to as much as $5,000.”
Source: CNN.com
Oct 20, 1999
Private enterprise spurs prosperity; so privatize.
Dole declared that the private sector, not the government, is the key to economic growth. She observed that as Secretary of Transportation, she privatized Conrail and moved National and Dulles airports out from Federal control. “Washington is too big and
spends too much money. But if you want to see the people most responsible for our economic health, I suggest you look around this room. It is private enterprise and investment that has driven today’s prosperity.”
Judicial appoinments: No legislating from the bench
On whether she will appoint only pro-life Supreme Court justices: “Mrs. Dole appoints people who think like she does, who she likes and who will not legislate from the bench,” said a spokesman.
Source: Associated Press
Jun 14, 1999
Clinton-Gore have set records on new regulations
Under Clinton-Gore, there’s also more regulation than ever. Every year since 1996 has brought an increase in major federal rules - and in total rules. In 1998, the grand total for new regulations was nearly 5,000. You can look them up for yourself in the
1998 Federal Register, if you can get through its record 68,571 pages. Picture a stack of paper twice as tall as I am and you’ll get some idea how much that is.
Source: Remarks to the Detroit Economic Club, 29 April 1999
Apr 29, 1999
Federal workforce has grown except for Defense
Under the Clinton-Gore team, the size, cost and impact of Washington have all grown. The personnel cuts this administration has bragged about? Well. if you remove defense downsizing from the total, the federal workforce is actually bigger, not smaller
than it was in 1984. Today’s full-time, permanent, civilian workforce stands at a hefty 1.9 million. Add in. the “shadow” workforce - people who work under federal contracts or mandates - and another 12.7 million more employees are on your payroll.
Source: Remarks to the Detroit Economic Club, 29 April 1999
Apr 29, 1999
Roll back the bureaucracy: defend the 10th Amendment
The Federal Government has become too big, too complex, too bureaucratic. Decisions once made in state legislatures, in city halls and around kitchen tables are now made in Washington... What we need to do, it seems, is to remember the wisdom of our
country’s founders, and the 10th Amendment to the Constitution: those powers not specifically delegated to the federal government or prohibited to the states are reserved for the states and for “we the people” -- you and me!
Source: Speech at Iowa State University, 2/15/99
Feb 15, 1999
Voted NO on granting the District of Columbia a seat in Congress.
Cloture vote on the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act:
Considers D.C. a congressional district for purposes of representation in the House.
D.C. shall not be considered a state for representation in the Senate.
Limits D.C. to one Member under any reapportionment.
Increases membership of the House from 435 to 437.
Entitles Utah to one additional Representative until the next census, and modifies the reapportionment formula thereafter.
[Washington DC currently has a "delegate" to the US House, whose vote does not count. Utah had complained that the 2000 census did not count many Utahns on Mormon missions abroad].
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
Sen. BYRD: In 1978, I voted for H.J. Res. 554, that proposed amending the Constitution to provide for representation of D.C. [That amendment passed the Senate but was not ratified by the States]. While I recognize that others believe that the Constitution authorizes the
Congress to "exercise exclusive legislation" over D.C., the historical intent of the Founders on this point is unclear. I oppose S.1257, because I doubt that our Nation's Founding Fathers ever intended that the Congress should be able to change the text of the Constitution by passing a simple bill.
Proponents support voting YES because:
Sen. HATCH. There are conservative and liberal advocates on both sides of this issue,and think most people know Utah was not treated fairly after the last census. For those who are so sure this is unconstitutional, [we include an] expedited provision that will get us to the Supreme Court to make an appropriate decision. It will never pass as a constitutional amendment. There are 600,000 people in D.C., never contemplated by the Founders of this country to be without the right to vote. They are the only people in this country who do not have a right to vote for their own representative in the House. This bill would remedy that situation.
Reference: District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act;
Bill S. 1257
; vote number 2007-339
on Sep 18, 2007
Voted YES on requiring photo ID to vote in federal elections.
Vote on Dole Amdt. S.2350, amending SP2350 (via the College Cost Reduction Act): To amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require individuals voting in person to present photo identification.
Proponents support voting YES because:
Sen. DOLE. I am proposing a commonsense measure to uphold the integrity of Federal elections. My amendment to require voters to show photo identification at the polls would go a long way in minimizing potential for voter fraud. When a fraudulent vote is cast and counted, the vote of a legitimate voter is cancelled. This is wrong, and my amendment would help ensure that one of the hallmarks of our democracy, our free and fair elections, is protected. Opinion polls repeatedly confirm that Americans overwhelmingly support this initiative.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
Sen. FEINSTEIN. If one would want to suppress the vote in the 2008 election, one would vote for this because this measure goes into effect January 1, 2008. It provides that everybody who votes essentially would have to have a photo ID. If you want to suppress the minority vote, the elderly vote, the poor vote, this is exactly the way to do it. Many of these people do not have driver's licenses. This amendment would cost hundreds of millions of dollars to actually carry out. It goes into effect--surprise--January 1, 2008 [to affect the presidential election]. I urge a "no" vote.
Voted YES on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress.
A motion to table (kill) an amendment to clarify the application of the gift rule to lobbyists. Voting NAY would define employees of lobbying companies as registered lobbyists and therefore subject to the gift ban. Voting YEA would apply the gift ban only to specific people who registered as lobbyists.
Proponents of the amendment say to vote NAY on the tabling motion because:
Using the term "registered lobbyist'' will create a huge loophole. The Ethics Committee treats the actual listed lobbyists as registered lobbyists, but not the organization.
So, for example, a company can give a Senator free tickets to a show or a baseball game, as long as a lobbyist doesn't actually offer or handle them. If the lobbyist's secretary makes the call, that would be permitted.
If these companies can still give gifts, we won't have a real lobbyist gift ban. We won't be able to look the American people in the eye and say, "We just banned gifts from lobbyists,'' because we didn't.
Opponents of the amendment say to vote YEA on the tabling motion because:
I can tolerate not accepting gifts from lobbyists. But this amendment goes a step further which is problematic.
For example, I am a big fan of McDonald's. What about the kids working behind the counter? Would they be considered registered lobbyists because McDonald's has lobbyists? Would I not be able to go to lunch with my longtime friend who owns 12 McDonald's?
Every company in the Fortune 1000 employs a lobbyist, either a private firm or an in-house lobbyist. Under this amendment, every person who works for Exxon, Wal-Mart, Home Depot, and countless other businesses that employ lobbyists in Washington would be considered registered lobbyists.
If we want to ban the CEO and chairman of the board of the company from paying for a meal, or the head of a labor union, do that specifically. But this is so broadly developed I think it goes way beyond that.
Voted NO on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity.
An amendment to establish the Senate Office of Public Integrity. Voting YEA would establish the new office, and voting NAY would keep ethics investigations within the existing Senate Ethics Committee.
Proponents of the bill say to vote YEA because:
We have heard from the media about the bribes and scandals, but we have heard only silence from the House Ethics Committee. One of the greatest travesties of these scandals is not what Congress did, but what it didn't do.
The American people perceive the entire ethics system--House and Senate--to be broken. We can pass all the ethics reforms we want--gift bans, travel bans, lobbying restrictions--but none of them will make a difference if there isn't a nonpartisan, independent body that will help us enforce those laws.
The Office of Public Integrity established in this amendment would provide a voice that cannot be silenced by political pressures. It would have the power to initiate independent investigations
and bring its findings to the Ethics Committees in a transparent manner.
Opponents of the bill say to vote NAY because:
The Constitution gave us not only the right but the duty to create our own rules, including the rules concerning our ethics. They are enforced internally by the Senate itself.
The decisions made under this amendment would be no different than right now. The final decision will be made by the Senate Ethics Committee. All this really does is find a way to further publicize that complaints have been made.
We have people accusing us almost daily of having done something wrong and publishing it through blogs and all that. I think we should be very careful in setting up another tool for these bloggers to create more charges against the Senate.
I cannot support an amendment that either replaces the Senate Ethics Committee or adds another layer to our already expensive and time-consuming process. I urge the Senate to defeat this provision.
