[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 48 (Tuesday, April 16, 1996)]
[Senate]
[Page S3350]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                   UNANIMOUS-CONSENT REQUEST--S. 1664

  Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, what I am going to propound when Senator 
Daschle arrives is consent that consideration of the immigration bill 
be limited to relevant amendments only. Either we will finish this bill 
or we will move to something else. It is my hope we can complete action 
on the immigration bill by tomorrow evening and then go to the 
Kassebaum-Kennedy health care bill.
  In the interim, we need to take care of the conference report on 
terrorism. The original bill passed the Senate last May. We are 
prepared, if we cannot do business on the immigration bill, to move to 
the conference report on terrorism. We would like to finish that so 
that the House might complete action on it by Thursday.
  I now ask unanimous consent that during the consideration of the 
pending immigration bill, the bill be limited to relevant amendments 
only.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I wonder 
how many times Senator Dole has been in the opposite position, when 
Senator Mitchell and my distinguished predecessor, Senator Byrd, made 
similar requests on the Senate floor.
  We all know the circumstances on the Senate floor. We all know that 
there are many occasions when Senators have no other opportunity to 
raise an issue except in the form of amendments to pending legislation. 
Our Republican colleagues have done it time and time again, both in 
this Congress as well as in previous Congresses.
  Given that, I propose a modification to the unanimous-consent request 
that I think is reasonable. We would be prepared to offer just two 
nonrelevant amendments, the minimum wage amendment as well as the 
Dorgan amendment relating to the balanced budget proposal, and would 
even be prepared to allow the Republicans a similar number of 
nonrelevant amendments, with time constraints and no second-degree 
amendments, in an effort to accommodate the schedule.
  That is not, it seems to me, too much to ask. We could accommodate 
that within the next hour or two. We could even agree to a limited 
number of amendments on the bill itself that are relevant. I make that 
modification and ask the distinguished majority leader whether he would 
be inclined to support it. If so, I think we could find a way in which 
to schedule this legislation and reach final passage.
  Mr. DOLE. Maybe regulatory reform. We have over a majority. We have 
58 votes; we need 60. My colleagues on the other side will not let us 
bring that to a vote. That costs the average family about $6,000 per 
year because of excessive regulations. We think it is a reasonable 
nonpartisan bipartisan approach to regulatory reform. Maybe that is an 
amendment we could look at.
  What I will tell the Democratic leader, I am happy to consider that, 
but I assume if he objects to this request, we will go on to the 
terrorism conference report, after a statement by the distinguished 
Senator from Wyoming, Senator Simpson. Maybe while we are resolving 
that bill, we could see if we can resolve this one.
  I said we passed this bill last May. It was June 7 that the terrorism 
bill passed by a vote of 91 to 8. We have pretty much the same bill. I 
hope we would not spend a great deal of time on the conference report. 
Then we can go back to the immigration bill if we can work out an 
agreement. If not----
  Mr. DASCHLE. If I can respond to the distinguished majority leader, I 
hope we could use whatever time we have available to us to see if we 
can find some mutually agreeable schedule here. Our desire is to come 
to final passage on an illegal immigration bill.
  We want to see that happen as badly as anybody else here in the 
Senate. We also recognize, however, that circumstances in the past have 
precluded us from offering amendments relating to minimum wage. We will 
not have, if we bring up the constitutional amendment to balance the 
budget under the reconsideration rules here in the Senate, an 
opportunity to offer amendments. So we really have no vehicle with 
which to offer alternatives.
  But I understand and certainly respect the majority leader's 
position, and I want to work with him to see if we cannot accommodate 
his desire and ours to complete work on the illegal immigration bill, 
as well as to have opportunities to vote on issues that we hold to be 
very important.
  I object under the circumstances now presented.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Mr. DOLE. As I understand it, the Senator had a modification to mine?
  Mr. DASCHLE. Yes, I proposed a modification.
  Mr. DOLE. I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  Several Senators addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader has the floor.

                          ____________________